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 ."
The "D," as in developers, got outsourced. Now we're all "technologists."
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
What about the Linux penguin myth? You know, the one where the Penguin turns out to really just be the Bonzi Buddy in disguise?
--
Are you a Chipotle Fan?
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.
I have a solitary Windows machine at home for gaming. Lots of nice hardware to play great games. Until I can get Thief (1, 2, Deadly Shadows), Half Life, System Shock (1, 2), etc on Linux I'll be keeping my Windows machine for that purpose.
Before the fanboys start yelping about Quake/Doom3 being out for Linux: I don't care. I want the lowest common denominator for my gaming and that's Windows.
Trolling is a art,
make
curse
vi Makefile
make
curse...
continue until "make" works out
make install
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.)
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.
Just a minor point, but the last time I ordered a new amd64 shuttle box, I requested it dual-boot XP and the 64 bit version of fedora core 2. XP was no problem, but fedora didn't support the SATA chipset contained within the box, so I either had to go with an older IDE based hard drive or just go with XP until the driver was updated by the manufacturer of the chipset. I chose to keep my snazzy new SATA drive and wait for linux to catch up. That was four months ago.
Sometimes the problem isn't that "most" people will have a problem with linux distros, but that the cutting edge technology folks aren't able to get linux support for simple things like chipsets. Once I get SATA support, I'll be the first to install a 64 bit version of linux. Until then, it's XP for me...
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.
There is no denying that it's harder to use than Windows. Yes, getting widget X to work is just a matter of looking in the man page and finding the correct command and args - and hell, that may not even be hard for you or anyone else here. But it's still not something the average person will ever do.
.
Besides that, it's ignorant to EXPECT an average computer user to just accept the fact that they need to start learning nifty commands XYZ - why should they? Why WOULD they? Most of the slashdot crowd probably learned it because they wanted to. Linux was something they wanted to use, and they wanted to learn to use it well.
All the average user wants is to be able to send an email, or browse the web for porno, or whatever. LET THEM
Different tools for different jobs. Use Linux if you want to be an uber-1337 power user. Use Windows if you just want to check your mail and surf porn.
Just like if you want to measure the height of a wall, all you need is a yardstick (Windows) - you don't need a damn laser-guided-super-gadget (Linux).
Sure, the super-gadget is arguably "better", but 99% of the people on earth don't need one, don't want one, and will never be inclined to learn to use one.
Why is that such a bad thing?
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
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.
InfoWorld is running a special report on desktop Linux this week. The gist of the author's opinion is that Linux is ready for the desktop -- for a limited set of applications. What makes it less attractive to companies is the lack of good centralized managament tools and the perennial question: Yeah, but why would you switch?
I see a few people here already using Mozilla as an example of why Linux is superior to Windows, but I can install Mozilla on my existing Windows desktops way more easily than I can wipe them and install Linux. Ditto OpenOffice. We all know that the vast majority of PC hardware shipped to enterprises came with Windows pre-installed. Companies are going to need a really compelling reason to replace that with Linux, and "I can run Mozilla" isn't it.
That InfoWorld special report also includes a review of four desktop Linux distros, BTW. Red Hat scores favorably, but Sun Java Desktop comes in second.
Breakfast served all day!
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.
It's the lack of drivers and ease of installing drivers that kills linux.
I spent 5 hours getting the latest ATI driver working after suffering with with slow speed with the mesa drivers while running celestia. After I finally got it going, glgears and fglxgears ran great. Celestia no longer worked, nor did a couple of other 3d apps I tried to run.
I spent hours trying to get alsa to work and gave up, having to settle on OSS with no volume control support.
I just installed real player 10 last night. Doesn't work with firefox, and when I got it to run ran very poorly compaired to real player 8.
Etc.. Etc.
I like learning about the system, but when you follow instuctions to the leter and it still doesn't work like it should, it gets damned frustrating.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
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/$appname, with care taken to provide its own libraries, and giving me an easy link so I can remove the application folder, the installed support libraries, and any config files separately.
Linux has made great strides in getting the system installed, and the various distributions have creative solutions for getting the more crufty parts like X11 (which freedesktop.org is, thankfully, revamping to be much more accepting and dynamic of modern hardware), and in terms of user-application glue (remember how OS/2 Warp would remember which applications were open and all their states when you rebooted?) in ways that surpass Windows, the actual application management is still a horrible hack, largely based on designs from the mid to late 90s which don't really work in practice.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Your so incredibly right. Linux is in desperet need of something as simple as the windows install sheild so you dont have to read a manual to install anything. Other then that, I think linux is leaps and bounds head of what joe average gives it credit for.
IM is becoming more than just instant transfering of text.
File transfers (GAIM sort of has this), webcams, plugins and games are becoming big reasons for IMs.
Sorry but saying "close enough" isn't good enough when the rest of the world can do it.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I remember numerous times that there have been posts about some independent research saying that Windows is better than Linux for one reason or another. Inevitably this ellicits a bevy of posts claiming some connection between the firm and M$, 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
I use Photoshop, 3ds max, and Premiere every day I go to work. I've done that for 8+ years now. There is no collection of software on Linux that will allow me to get my job done to an equal level of quality and to file formats that I can share with my coworkers and get integrated into our final products (games).
Linux is not ready for my corporate desktop. The GIMP and Blender are interesting tools, I'll freely admit that. They are not replacements for industry standard tools like 3DS Max and Photoshop, though.
The author's marginalizing of apps he doesn't need doesn't at all imply that the apps aren't needed. The article is quite biased towards the author's views and needs. It does't present full picture of the problem.
You mean just like you don't have to on Linux, either? Thanks for re-affirming the fact that difficult application installation on Linux is a myth.
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...
But it's still not possible for Joe User to simply download an app and install it via an installation wizard like everyone is used to on Windows. You either run setup.exe there or some *.msi files and click "Next" a few times and you're finished.
Not so under Linux. I am a Linux developer myself, even earning my money as a Linux developer, and I know it's a tough problem to tackle in the Right Way(tm). But we should eventually try. The old installer from Loki games is a good example of how it should work (although I don't think it's the correct solution as there is no RPM or deb support in it). The really tough things here are first to get most projects to have support for such an installer and second for such an installer to support as many distributions as possible.
Of course Debian users will argue "well, just do an apt-get install foo", and Gentoo people will tell you to use emerge, but the point for Joe User is not to have to use the command line.
If we manage to deal with this problem I'll say Linux is really ready for desktop of everyone. I've set up the desktop that a few hundred people of the Bavarian Blood Donation Service use via their thinclients, so I know Linux is ready for desktop use if all the necessary applications are installed.
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 recently installed mandrake 10 on my pc. I was tired of windows and wanted to finally make the jump to linux.
Big mistake.
By far, the easiest part was actually getting it to install. Mandrake has a fantastic install, and i commend them on that.
But I instantly lost functionality.
Things were annoyingly difficult to install. (command lines?! I havnt used those in almost a DECADE! Dont be an elistist here.)
It was slower then windows 2000. On all fronts. Opening programs, moving windows, even typing.
The applications did not play well with each other, at all.
Drag and drop never worked.
Configuring default settings was a pain.
Networking. Dear god. I spent 3 hours trying to get my network up, only to finally call my local network guru... who spent FOUR HOURS setting up my LAN. Which then stopped working when the computer rebooted due to a power outage.
Good luck trying to get a codec installed. Yeesh.
So I decided to go back to windows 2000, but only run open source apps on it.
Im here. Im totally willing to go open source only, but linux just BOMBED on me. It didnt work, and it was a struggle just to navigate.
You will not find a more willing computer user then me. Im serious. I WANT TO USE LINUX. But it just _sucks_ usability-wise compared to windows 2000.
(i would also like to thank the entire community for their help. you guys were awesome)
no
Funny you mention that. InstallShield is available for vendors to use if they want to create an installer for Linux.
Why the heck vendors are sticking with their own crappy command-line-only installs is really beyond me. Only one I know of that uses IS for Linux is if you download the Java NetBeans Cobundle.
Actually, UnrealTournament 2004 may also use ISX. I remember some nifty Java installer....
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
I'm sorry, but Windows does not have huge ease of use. It has huge long term familiarity and many people around the place who kind of know how to do things. OS X does not have ease of use for a typical user upgrading from OS 9; considerable retraining is required. In fact, I can well remember when I had to migrate from Unix + Mac Os to Windows: it was a steep uphill learning curve, especially making networking work.
I keep making this point, I will doubtless do it again. Twenty years ago, Diesel cars were a rarity in Europe. Gas ruled. "Everybody" understood gas engines which were "simple". Diesel was slow, smelly, hard to figure out. Where's the carb? The spark plugs? Only Diesel used about 30% less fuel than gas engines, and had a few other hidden advantages.
Twenty years on, and in Europe Diesel technology is heading for 50% of the market in some countries. The reason? Cost, and it turned out that it was actually harder to develop better gas engines than Diesel engines. Development has taken care of the problems, and Diesel has developed much faster than gas engines over the same period. Now, even Jaguar has to have a Diesel. If, in the US, SUVs and large cars ran on Diesel, Iraq wouldn't be a US problem.Middle East oil? Who needs it?
So look at the broader picture. Which platforms really look to have the easiest development route and the real lowest long term cost?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
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'm a little late commenting on this, so this probably won't get read (let alone modded), but still. Yes, Linux is harder. Yes, Windows is probably "better" for the Average Joe (TM), but that's not the point. We don't want people to use Linux because we think they'd be better off. It's because we all would be better off. Those who already use Linux need others to use it so manufacturers and developers sit up and notice us.
Don't tell someone they should use Linux because it's easier (you know it isn't) or that it's better (they'll give plenty of reasons why it isn't). Get them to use it because we'll all be better off. Would they prefer it if the only car you could buy was a Ford? Some will say yes, but then ask them what would stop Ford from charging twice, triple, quadruple even, more than they do now? Nothing. But there are many car makers, so prices stay at an (arguably) reasonable levels. Why can you buy a Gamecube for $199(CAN)? Because they're 3 major players out there all vying for the same market and they're willing to sell at a loss to get more customers who will then buy games. That's a Good Think (TM).
Why is Windows very expensive and all pervasive? Because there's no decent competition. That, my friends, is a Bad Thing.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
For most distros, it's easier than that.
:)
For slackware, you can download just about anything from here, and just type "installpkg [filename]"
Gentoo, you'd emerge it, without downloading it first "emerge [package]"
RedHat, you'd get the package, and use RPM to install it.
Debian, you'd apt-get it "apt-get [package]"
Updates are even easy in Slackware. We have one server on our network which updates it's packages nightly, and then 100+ other servers collect their updates from a cron running "slackupdate.sh -nc -l 2". For us, it's much more polite to have our own repository, than to have 100+ machines beat up the publically available ones.
You can do something similiar with Gentoo or Debian. I'm not sure how RedHat handles these.
But, for the stuff that doesn't come in packages, ya, three commands are pretty easy. All things considered, it's faster to type those, than to unzip, and click the annoying click-throughs to get a Windows program to install.
People are afraid of the kernel, but hell, all you have to do is download the kernel, and use the pretty menu driven configuration to pick what drivers you need, and just a couple commands later, you have a kernel optimized for your machine. With Windows, good luck getting out all the drivers that you don't need.
Most Windows users that I've talked to simply won't get away from Windows because they're too lazy to learn something new. Hell, they won't stop using MSIE, even after getting the spyware or virus of the day because of it. One guy I know got a virus from a site because of an MSIE exploit, and continues to use MSIE. He was fighting with it for two days to get rid of the virus. He simply won't consider Mozilla/FireFox or Opera. Why? Because he's been using MSIE for years.
It's very similiar to the people who held out on advancing from Windows 3.1 for so long. Why change, when it does things they like? It won't be until the "killer app" shows up for Linux that doesn't work anywhere else. Unfortunately for this process, most people are porting their applications over to Windows, to let everyone enjoy, so the "killer app" probably won't ever be a Linux-only application.
Several large banks still run OS/2. Why? Because it works for them. You'll still find lots of people running Win98. Likewise, you'll find people running very old versions of RedHat, because they're afraid of upgrading.
We've only recently started a campaign to upgrade our old Slack 7.0 to Slack 8.1 servers to Slack 10.0. I made a bootable CD to make this easy. It takes 1/2 dozen commands (including mounting the cd and destination partitions), and takes 5 to 10 minutes. Users rarely notice the downtime, and appreciate than things are faster now. How much pain would I be in upgrading from say WinNT to WinXP?
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I think the issue here is you're more likely to have to use make to install FREE software on linux. Just as you would use it to install FREE software on the Mac. If you're BUYING software for linux, you can bet you'll get an installer or an rpm or something. That's one of the things I don't see mentioned a lot is that we're comparing the ease of install of a corporation's proprietary software to the ease of install of in-progress open source stuff. Most things that you would pay for otherwise, such as office suites, web browsers, etc. do have installers (Open Office, Mozilla, etc). The things that you use make to install you probably don't even have access to on an M$ system. It's like complaining that Dell sent you a free graphics card but you ahve to install it yourself when you could have paid Best Buy $200 to install it. It's not quite fair to compare the M$ office installer to a network sniffer program you found for free on some h4x0r d00d's site. It seems this happens a lot.
My experience with Windows is that, so long as nothing goes wrong, there isn't much maintenance. But, when problems arise, even finding documentation on how to fix things is a problem, despite its popularity.
Recently, I needed to change the subnet on the public side of a group of computers, including a Win2K server and some Linux boxes. The Linux boxes took 5 minutes each, and all the daemons adjusted to the changes with a simple 'service XXX restart'. Never even had to reset the hardware.
It also took 5 minutes to change the IP on the Win2K box... but it required a restart... and several very important things didn't come back afterwards (Exchange and RAS in particular). It took two days to track down WHY, because everything looked correct.
Turned out that the settings were correct, but neither Exchange nor RAS are tolerant of changes to the binding order of interfaces, and any significant change (like an IP) to an interface changes its binding order... making it invisible to both applications. This isn't documented in anyplace convenient; I only found it by tracking down specific error message text via GOOGLE, piecing together information off of several of the results, finally finding a very nice MSKB article on the subject... which hadn't appeared in the GOOGLE search results!
I'm now fighting a problem where this same machine has decided that its second and third net cards are deaf... They exist, they detect the network, Win2K says they're working, but the rest of the network can't talk to them. And the customer gets frustrated, while I try to find SOMETHING on the net that would explain the behaviour. I could have fixed this problem within an hour under Linux...
As Dogbert said, "We have the very best kind of evidence. Anecdotal!
"Even this isn't true. The OEM doesn't have to reject certain hardware as "not working with windows" because it all does."
Riiiigggghhhhtttttt.....
So, let's see you install XP on an iMac. How about a G4?
Your definition for "all" hardware is "that which works with the version of Windows that I'm installing".
I have accelerated video cards that haven't had Windows drivers since NT 4.0. They came out of an old Alpha box.
"Now I'm not blaming anyone here - it's often the fault of the manufacturers, and sure, I could write the drivers myself (well actually, I probably couldn't) but the fact is still that Linux causes me more problems than windows."
Welcome to "marketshare". And this situation will not change until Linux has 50%+ of the desktop market.
But you are confusing "marketshare" with "ready for the desktop".
There aren't many DeLoreans out there. And you have to pay particular attention when purchasing parts for them (and sometimes special order).
But that does not mean they aren't ready to be driven.
Actually, UnrealTournament 2004 may also use ISX.
UT2004 actually uses the excellent Loki setup tools that are now maintained at icculus.
Wherever you go, there you are!
A large variety of useful applications are simply not available on things like the red hat network (so there goes up2date).
Up2date is great for upgrading packages that I already have installed during the first little while after I buy the operating system (at the moment, I think I have 3 years, but only because I bought "Enterprise Linux" which costs more than MS Windows, so there goes the cheaper concept.
Up2date will get me new software if I happen to know what the package name that I want is. For instance I wanted to install GVIM. The redhat network package for Enterprise Linux was compiled without support for the GUI, alas. This is what I had to do to get GVIM.
I suppose I could have gone to the VIM website, and download their version of the vim RPMs, and ran rpm --install on that. It probably even would have worked, but I don't know for sure that vim.org has the same RPM version, if it installs everything in the same place, and what up2date would think about that package. I have only been using Linux for approximately 2 years at this point, so it is perhaps understandable that a complete newbie like myself would find the various methods of software installation extremely complex.
Next topic: configuration
My biggest complaint against linux on the desktop is the extreme absurdity of some types of configuration. My linux workstation is my work machine, and so it has to do things like run apache and our application server (Interchange if you are curious -- http://www.icdevgroup.org).
Well... Installing apache was easy. Installing Interchange was hard. It requires nonthreaded perl, but a gazillion things require the existing threaded perl 5.8.3 that came with the OS. So, I build my own perl from source, and then copied into /usr/local instead of /usr, and then hacked at the Interchange source so that it looked in this new location...
Why not just uninstall the old perl? Because I can't. When I issued the
command, I encountered dozens of errors. And I couldn't upgrade -- they were the same version, just with different compiler switches set.
Oh, then I got an error that my system was set to the incorrect language encoding. I'm not 100% sure I understand what that means even having fixed it -- but here's what I had to do
Ok... so... exactly what does i18n stand for? Having a normal computer user find the i18n configuration file and hack at it isn't reasonable. Especially if you don't tell them that the error is in i18n. Now a normal user might not be trying to install Interchange, but hell, even our sysadmin wasted 4 hours figuring out what config file to change.
My point? Linux on the desktop is a freaking toy until a user can do everything they need to without opening a terminal or becoming root ever.
This includes installing software, configuring the machine, and running applications.
Incidentally, Windows crashes since I installed XP (2 years): at least 10, at most 15.
Linux crashes since I installed Red Hat Linux (first v. 7.2, now EL 3 WS, approx 18 months): at least 10, at most 15.
My definition of a crash is anything that goes wrong to which the only easy solution is either pressing the power button or typing "init 6".
Ahhh...
Yet another user who blames Linux because he had a bad experience with some distro.
I remember when I first started off. It was Red Hat 8.X if I am not mistaken. I mucked the intallation so bad, I reinstalled it a few times. Then I got fed-up and installed ALL packages, yes, it did reach to a 3GB installation, but everything worked.
But to me, it was a learning phase. I have never used Red Hat ever again. I've moved from Mandrake to SuSE to Mandrake to at long last Gentoo now.
One distro does not reflect how Linux is. There are plenty of options out there. Be bold and explore! Find one that suites you. Rather than complaining about Red Hat, I moved on to a different distro.
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
I've been using linux for almost 8 years now. I was introduced to it the usual way: a friend came over with a slackware CD saying that if I was really tired of Windows and wanted something I could do with as I pleased, I should try this.
We're 8 years later now, and a lot of things have changed for linux. It's stepped out of geekdom and entered the corporate world, taking small steps at a time and the occasional leap. From a relatively small group of technologically very adept people, it has grown to become the new pet-OS of wannabe-geeks and even for a while Linux threatened to become a buzz-word for certain companies to shamelessly promote themselves on an IT market that had suffered a damaging blow.
Three years ago I was at a school that gave introduction courses in linux as a member of a jury for (pardon my bad English) practical final. I was judging several projects that were made during the course of 9 weeks of internships in companies, and over half of them were made using linux. Of the 10 groups that presented a linux project, only two of them were capable of presenting a flawless project.
What really got me at that moment was, that even though linux had come so far in those 5 years, many last year students hadn't even the faintest idea how their OS really worked. The argument most used for the use of linux was that it was free (as in beer), and someone even managed to blurt out that linux was actually a product from Sun. After three days of judging, I came to a startling conclusion. Many of the linux projects I had seen were dodgy at best, the students had very little grasp on the tools they used, and many webprojects failed to provide even the simplest security to their database as I happely added SQL on their URL and displayed lists of unencrypted passwords.
The Windows projects I saw however were a lot more solid. SQL Insertion failed on nearly every project, and most students were up to speed on the technologies they had used. Most of the Windows projects were finished, or nearly finished, while the linux projects seemed to have a lot of rough edges (in fact a girl actually told me : "Don't do that, that corrupts our database and we don't know why").
What does this have to do with Linux on the desktop, you might ask. Well, if 4 years of training in programming and networking hasn't even thaught you the simplest of hacks (SQL Insertion), and you're practically lost without a GUI to configure your networkcard (but manage to boast about your networking project), there is either a fundamental problem with your education or your unwillingness to use google. The truth behind it is "ease of use". MS Visual Studio comes with a bunch of tools in one package, a graphical XML schema editor, a graphical database management system, click-n-paint GUI creation, and to top it off each of those students gets 4 years of excessive training in all of those tools.
Linux on the other hand, has most (if not all) of these things, but students don't know them. Those that do have knowledge of these tools are often complaining that they ran into problems (again because of lack of training, or googling). Many have spent two days finding out how to install a certain program, and most just give up asking their supervisors for aid (which they often can't provide).
This is the problem with linux, and this is why the linux desktop will never be as succesfull as we hope it will be: our diversity in tools and lack of proper bundling. Distributions do a good job at providing us with defaults, but provide too much goodness. Most linux machines have at least 7 compilers and interpreters installed by default, 6 MP3 players, 10 office suites, and horror of horrors 2 desktop environments.
Teaching students all these things is an impossible task, and that's why they aren't prepared for the choices they have to make when they are going to actively use linux. And educating users on using office package A, while there exists at least one package for every letter of the alphabet each wi
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
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.