Slashdot Mirror
4 Linux Distros Compared To Win XP, Mac OS X
Morf writes "The Australian Consumers? Association has evaluated Xandros, Linspire, Mandrake Discovery and SUSE personal and compared them to Mac OS X and Windows XP in its latest Computer CHOICE magazine. The article is very much focused on "mums and dads", and concludes Linux is just about ready for consumers, although installing new software could pose some problems for those who aren't really computer savvy. The report is available free for a short time."
Brought to you by the Puzzled Slashdot? Readers Group.
The report is available ... for a short time
Okay, which one of you hosers told them we were coming?
man is not nice enough.
while the information is correct, man-pages suffer from severe information overload - something the average user certainly won't appreciate.
If Linux distros could enhance their drivers, use a standard package installer (like apt), make it easy for gandma yet her geek grandson could use it as a PHPBB server for a weekend, and advertise it on TV so people will know that it exists, we'd have more converts from the Darkness of Microsoft.
From the article's conclusion: 'Linux fell short on common tasks such as installing new software.' This is the most important point. Joe Average wants a usable system, which includes being able to work in an intuitive way. the 'friendlyness' of most GUIs that I have seen (KDE, Gnome, OpenOffice, etcetera) still leaves a lot to be desired, which hampers accomplishing common tasks. These 'Linux is ready for the desktop' stories have been piling up for quite a few years now, but will it really happen?
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Think of Joe and Jane Blow... do they know how to use the command line? No? Didn't think so. They know that they download an application, and it runs and installs. Unfortunately, this level of transparency is dangerous for security purposes, but it is almost needed for usability. So which is more important? Is there a good graphical interface for these for installing packages? They shouldn't even be told what dependancies are being fetched unless they ask. (Make a giant More Info button.) That information confuses. Anyway, I don't know the solutions, but I know that man and portage aren't among them. They're great tools... for developers, sysadmins and other power users. Nor for Joe and Jane Blow.
#define DRM chmod 000
This artical is reviewing if Linux is ready for 'Moms and Dads' can you honestly expect John D. Computeruser to know that when he wants to install his new tax software he needs to sure ./configure? or even that man exists? NO. Frankly this is knowledge that is gained through use of Linux, and anyone first trying to get started withit would not have the first clue where to look. This is verymuch like OS X or WinXP where its the simple doubleclick the install file or even autorun from cd.
No smoking sigs indoors.
Jokes aside, I bought (ie assembled at home) a PC which I picked off the hardware HOWTO. Ended up being a charm to get Linux working on it. I would like to call that Voting with your Money.
These days you should check TuxMobil or some other Linux site rather than just the hardware vendor's site for the compatibility from the wild.Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Apple Mac OS X (10.3) $229
Microsoft Windows XP Home $324
Xandros Desktop OS 2.5 Deluxe $135
Apple Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows XP were easier to use than any of the Linux distributions tested - but not by much.
Mac OS X lost marks for poor help files but was easier to use for most common tasks. Windows XP had excellent help files but scored lower for installation, which was complicated and time-consuming. You may also need to spend extra money on additional software for common tasks.
Xandros Desktop OS was the top performing Linux distribution. It was easy to install with very good help files but was more complicated to use for tasks such as burning a DVD and viewing digital photos. It didn't include DVD burning software and you need to find the correct folder for photo and movie files. However, at $135, it's a considerably cheaper option than Windows XP or Mac OS X.
None of the operating systems are ideal, however.
* The Linux distributions fell short on some common tasks including installing new software, setting up an internet connection and the availability of help files and instructions.
* Mac OS X could have more comprehensive help files and we'd like to see the inbuilt firewall switched on by default.
* Although Windows XP usually comes pre-installed on computers, the installation process could be easier, as could some of the common tasks such as playing a DVD.
We'd also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems -- the tested operating systems don't currently include a virus checker.
In brief
* Microsoft Windows is the dominant operating system.
* The Linux-based operating systems we tested aren't quite as easy to use as Windows XP and Mac OS X, but they're not far behind.
* Linux fell short on common tasks such as installing new software.
Overall, however, Linux has improved in leaps and bounds over the years. It's probably not suitable for beginners yet but if you're a confident computer user, any of the tested distributions should suit you.
Does Linux even have pf yet? Until it does, Linux will continue to be a niche OS.
Pico-farad? No way man. Linux is way tighter than that. Linux uses femtofarads!
Be relentless!
Christ you are dense. Instead of accepting valid and constructive criticism and using it to identify weak areas and improve them, you and many others seem to think that instead it's perfectly valid to flame the reviewer.
Don't shoot the messenger you idiot.
And he loves it. I first tryed it on my own computer and was really surprised at how polished and stable it was. It detected everything out of the box and I had very little to do to make it work like I wanted. :).
So I decided to make my Dad switch from WinXP to Ubuntu, installed Abiword and gnumeric (oo.org was to slow on his P4 with 96MB RAM), setted them as default editors, copied all his Documents over from the Win partition and made a shortcut on the desktop to his Documents folder.
He really likes Ubuntu. At first he was a bit bored because he had to learn some new things (for example the "Applications" menu is on the top left, and not on the bottom), but he got the changes quickly and adapted to the new OS in a few days.
I asked him yesterday if he likes more Windows or Linux now that he tryed both, and he told me that it makes no difference for him, as long as he can use spreadsheets, write letters, read his emals and organize his pictures like he did before (btw. he loves gPhoto and Gimp is his new favorite program
So to him it makes no difference, but now I don't have to clean his computer from spyware and viruses every few weeks.
So for me (and for my dad) Linux IS READY for the desktop. At least Ubuntu is.
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
We have tested the following pieces of food:
1. a snickers
2. a jam of pure honey
3. an apple
4. a carrot
We found out that snickers is the best food because:
1. it comes in a nice wrapping
2. has many calories and can give you an energetic boost
3. its taste is supreme to others
Some people say you need vitamines, you should not spoil your teeth etc. But for an end-user what matters is the ease of use! And the snickers is the ultimate winner here.
Although an apple and a carrot keep quite close they have a long way to go.
best regards
michal
I tried SuSE 9.1 when they made the personal ISO available for free. Since then, I have recommended it to anyone who would listen. YaST makes it easy enough to install software for almost anyone. It only takes a few times before people learn how to search YaST for whatever they might need, it resolves dependencies automatically, etc.
I know apt-get, emegre, etc do the same thing, but IMHO, those utilities aren't as n00b-friendly as YaST. For one, in my experience, "mums and dads" are terrified of the command line, and will avoid it like the plague.
bash: rtfm: command not found
Told him to google it and figure it out on his own. I mean - all the info is there in the HOWTO's. I think he's just lazy.
He told me to come back over and re-install Windows XP Home or he was writing me out of the will.
Availability of help files?
Did this guy even use the OS? It's called "man" buddy, and its definitely more than enough information.
Um, don't (at least) KDE and Gnome both provide help icons right there on the panel by default? I don't know if xfce and other do or not, but damn man, did this dude even try clicking on things? What kind of geek goes blindly into something without clicking on whatever he or she can find, consequences be damned? Isn't that how we all learned how electronics, electricity, plumbing, etc works?
I hate to sound cliche here, but the point remains. You have no right to bitch if you didn't at least spend *some* time trying to figure it out.
bash: rtfm: command not found
'man' is absolutely not the solution.
The pages are outdated, archaic and written in a way that takes too much time to find out anything useful and of course teh few existign exampels vaailable in Unix and Linux documentation are totally irrelevant.
I do not want to read a cool example of how to use a potato as a galvanic element in order to create a serial connection to a tomato - I want to find out how to use my serial modem to connect to Internet.
Most people don't want to read gibberish, or manuals at all. If Linux can't be made as easy to use as Linux, at least the instructions should be made usable.
When I build together a IKEA furniture I rarely look at the instructions, and when I do it is for a quick reference. I do not wish to read a 10 page book describing the philosophy behind the use of screwdrivers and cool things you can do with a screwdriver, like using it as a throwing knife on the cardboards that the furniture came wrapped in.
The elitistic attitudes and documentation does nothing but harm Linux and delays its introduction to the mass market. And it doesn't make you that cool either to point out the 'man' command.
man how do I connect to to Internet?
No such page.
Linux is still not ready for Joe User. What I really think needs to happen is that there needs to be a "no-brainer" distro bundled with specific, compatible, low-end hardware. Optionally, you could purchase all the common, user-expected peripherals like a dvd-player, camera, etc. And make sure that they are assured to work on your hardware - no configuring required. Linux could be easier than Windoze, some installs are easier already! Make it cute and fuzzy and absolutely unintimidating for Joe. If you could walk into a Best Buy, or Frys, and get assurance that things would just work with this "Penguin Box" with a point and a click, the Penguin could really take off. Have it all displayed together in the same general area with an info kiosk or something. But, it's gotta be easy! Hell, I'd buy one just to not have to fsck around with configuration hassles. I'm learning how to program and really don't want to waste time on some configuration/imcompatibility issue when I could be coding. I mean, I still use Linux primarily, but "it just works!" is a heady thing, even for the technically savvy.
The Australian Consumers? Association has evaluated Xandros,
Is the "?" some kind of joke about the way Australians turn everything they say into a question by going up in tone at the end of every sentence? Or just an unescaped html character?
Because it gets really annoying? Trying to talk to people? When you're not sure whether they're asking a question or telling you something?
Here Here.
I installed Ubuntu on my gf's grandmother's laptop, a Toshiba Tecra A2. Setup was a breeze. It detected everything right down to the wireless eth card.
I also stuck a "My Documents" shortcut on the Desktop so the other Windows people woulnd't get lost and in addition made it boot straight into her profile with no password.
That was a few weeks ago, and I saw her the other day quite happily looking at photos of the grandkids and playing a mpeg clip with mplayer. Keep in mind she's 80 odd and has never used a computer before. She wanted to play some games also, so I stuck shortcuts on the desktop to Solitaire and minesweeper.
After using Ubuntu, my gf's dad now wants it on his computer because he says "Windows XP is too hard to use" and he "really likes it how everything makes sense on Ubuntu". Hmmm a logical desktop OS where everything Just Works(tm) is the exact reason I use Ubuntu on my desktop.
Is Ubuntu ready for the desktop? You bet your ass it is.
PS If anyone's interested you can read the blog entry here
"And then I visited Wikipedia
I don't see Linux as being ready for "mum and pup". But I also don't see this as a big deal.
As you get dumber users, you inevitably get a dumber system to hold their fidgety, trembling hands in every little thing.
You don't like the installer? Well, sorry you're not smart enough to grasp "./configure make". (Gee that was tough!)
You don't like the Help system? Oh, did you forget to read the MANUAL that CAME WITH YOUR PACKAGED CD?
Linux is not here to hold our hands. That's what Linux distributors are here for. If you are too cheap to buy the product and receive all the glorious documentation that these companies (Redhat, SuSE, TurboLinux, ad infinitum) provide, and instead you decide to save a few bucks by downloading the product, then how much do you really expect to get out of a system?
I wouldn't expect "mum and pup" to sit down with a Microsoft Windows CD either and be able to figure it out. But of course, Windows comes with a MANUAL. So if you can read (kinda a perquisite to using a computer, don'cha think?) you should be able to get through the basics of installing the system, installing apps, and getting help (hint: it's in the fine manual).
The same goes for any Linux distribution that you can buy packaged up at the store. They all come with manuals, they all come with help, and most come with a phone number to call when you have problems.
I don't feel sorry for "mum and pup" for not being able to work Linux, I feel sorry for them because they obviously can't RTFM.
Oh lord, is someone bringing up "man" again? Let's ignore the total lack of features that any other help system have, and concentrate on the dense text. From a past post of mine:
--
Just as an illustration, try "man find". It took me years to figure out that "find . -name {file_name}" would find all files matching {file_name} below the current directory - which I imagine is the usage of 99% of users.
Check out the description of the tool:
"find searches the directory tree rooted at each given file name by evaluating the given expression from left to right, according to the rules of precedence (see section OPERATORS), until the outcome is known (the left hand side is false for and operations, true for or), at which point find moves on to the next file name."
Do you imagine that most users would know what on earth that meant? Why not at least prepend it with "This tool enables you to find files"? Then give one or two examples of common usage? _Then_ by all means bombard them with the myriad of possible parameters.
Nothing that 20 million people do is a big deal to US readers but Choice magazine has been around for a long time. A heap of (particularly older) people pay for a subscription and it carries a very good reputation.
They may not be as enthusastic as your average slashdotter but the fact that they even did this comparison means Linux is getting consideration by people who are very quality sensitive. Also retirees who like to fiddle with PC's and photo's but don't have heaps of cash will read it next year in the doctors waiting room.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
True. Documentation for Linux is still pretty sparse in distributions.
Many average joe's expect there to be a help icon somewhere in the distro. I know Linspire has one, and Windoes always has it's "Help" tab and chm files.
Frankly who the heck is going to bother with the man pages and the command line? I know I will cause I'm a sysadmin, but my mother would have a heart attack upon seeing the command line! Anyone who intends to use the command line will have to learn about it from a GUI first, and quite frankly, I can't see the documentation for that in Gnome at the moment.
Maybe it's time the distributions (or Gnome or KDE or whoever) provided us with some decent pdfs from tldp and stuck them in their packages. Maybe it's time that all the linux zealots stopped posting on slashdot so much and helped out....
The Gnome "help" function is really sparse and doesn't go into enough detail. I'm using the latest version, and the "find" function is hidden in the menu bar. To add injury to insult, a search on "mp3" yields nothing.
Now imagine you are a cluser who wants to know where the mp3 app is....
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
The author doesn't bother explaining that Linux is free, that updates to Linux are free, or that Windows is a thousand times more likely to suffer from trojans and viruses. That article continues by marking down OSX for not having a 'live cd' despite there being no conceivable reason for a Mac owner to need one, marks OSX down further for lack of help files without commenting that it needs them less, marks Windows down for lack of built in Excel support (jesus, how monolithic do you want your OS?), then adds marks to a Linux distro for having a windows emulator without saying how well it works, or that Windows doesn't need one! Most of the marks are dependent on the bundled software, not one word is given to the possibility of adding more software, and practically no marks are given for stability or security, which leads me to wonder if the author even knows what an OS is - certainly any non tech-savvy readers won't know after reading the article.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I don't know, I never tested Xandros myself, but please tell me they do not use a Wine'd Internet Explorer as the main browser, instead of say Konqueror, Firefox, Mozilla or galeon. Or might the table on page 8 of the report be slightly flawed, like the rest of the article? Talking about the ease of use of installing software on linux here, the call for antivirus software onlinux as a necessity for everyon with linux viruses being as rare as you-name-it (yet), the statement that none of the linux distros keep the installed software up to date (the last Suse I installed sure did), etc...
Well researched article, I'd say.
They noted "No Live CD" as a negative point of Xandros, but this isn't listed as a negative point for windows or osx, since these don't include a livecd either...
(MacOS9 used to include a livecd, infact the installer involved booting to a full macos desktop from which you ran the installer)
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Linux needs to come a long way before installing software is as easy on Windows. On Windows I just need to plug in the network cable to get Netsky, Klez and a bunch of other software installed automagically. I don't need to click on anything.
Compare this to Linux, where installing software requires complex things such as clicking or even double-clicking an icon, which in turn requires learning to use a "mouse", a very counter-intuitive device, that you need to move while looking at something completely different, and when you reach the edge of the mouse mat, you need to carefully lift it and move it back to the center, such that the little arrow doesn't move, and then continue moving it where you already moved it once.
I noticed they commented on how some of the Linux distros couldn't resize the Windows partition down to do a dual boot. I've yet to see a version of Windows that allows me to size down my Linux partition and add a boot menu so I can easily choose which OS I want to run on startup.
Microsoft's website seems only to be able to tell me how to remove Linux (1, 2) and not have a Windows bootloader installed to allow me to run both. All the other Linux-related KB articles are to do with Virtual PC and SMB problems.
installing.
SSdtIGFzIGJvcmVkIGFzIHlvdSBhcmUK
-- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!
Worth noting that prices seem to be in Australian dollars, so the price gaps are somewhat less in American $.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
There's an option to version modules in 2.6, so potentially they can be used with a different kernel than the one they were compiled against.
But a lot more work needs doing in that area.
I know there are going to be posts saying that everything is fine on my system etc., etc., but the fact is everything should work on almost any common system. In case of XP all you have to do is run an exe files and you can watch videos etc.,. Yes it is insecure, virus are a problem blah blah, but the mindset of the avg user is that "Its okay if there is a virus, it is expected behavior" but its not okay if my xyz media file does not work, or my xyz camera phone does not connect. Moving people to firefox from IE is a very very trivial thing. Moving an entire OS is something totally different.
What does linux need? Well independence from scripting. The user should not have to edit any config file, and helpful support forums. Scaring away and abusing a newbie asking stupid questions isnt going to win any users. Remeber you were a newbie once. As far as the eye candy and user desktop environment is concerned, it is okay.My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Sure provided you are on broadband. But if you are on a modem you are going to get pissed off very quickly when you have to download tens of megabytes every time you want to install some software. It's not like they can get someone to download the setup.exe and send it to them.
./configure and make are laughable. You can almost guarantee they won't have all the required libraries installed or other software they must have installed to run the application. They wouldn't even know where to start.
Even then you will be in trouble if the software you need isn't in a repository. They won't be too impressed either when their system becomes screwed because they have been downloading RPM's from here there and everywhere and their package manager is screaming at them about failed dependancies (typical non linux type response "WTF is a dependancy")
Linux really, really needs someone to come up with a package format that includes everything they might need in one package. Proper simpleton documentation (that is actually finished) would help too.
Philip
Signatures are broken
... for 'Average Joe' to use. Seriously.. you type 'man' instead of 'help'? Ok mom.. now type ./configure
What?
DOT SLASH CONFIGURE.. no.. THE OTHER SLASH! GEEEZE!!!!
And my document It didn't save?
BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T MOUNT the DRIVE AS READ WRITE NTFS CAPTIVE! FOR FSCK'S SAKE GIVE ME THE KEYBOARD!
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOve!
Sure it might be written for the technically inept. It might be light on content and what might be considered as quality research. It may even be wrong at points, but no matter what is wrong with it, it does represent more publicity aimed at the masses for alternative operating systems besides Microsoft Windows.
You don't need to convince geeks to use Linux or OSX, its the mums and dads, everyday people, that need to see that there are other viable options out there, and a comparison like this is a good way to build such awareness.
Surely this sort of publicity is worth a mention on slashdot.
...what they are talking about:
"We'd also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems -- the tested operating systems don't currently include a virus checker."
I might as well read an article on the relative merits of the Eurofighter written by a polish tractor mechanic.
I recently dived back into the *nix world (altho I always had shells), by installing fedora core 3 on my laptop.
I had spent a couple years using mainly windows as my OS, but when my laptop needed a reinstall, I decided to try linux again.
Let me say that I have hated redhat for years, and to me, mandrake was no better. I was a FreeBSD guy, and if it was linux I was using, it had to be slackware.
The reason I tried fedora core 3 is because i'd heard good things about it.
I wanted to see how far linux had progressed on the laptop side of things... I had slackware running on my old pentium 200 mmx machine with xfce back in the day, but alot of the configuring I had to do by hand.
So I tried this on my Pentium 4 2.4GHz, 448MB, 40 gig HDD widescreen laptop.
I must say I was amazed at how nicely it all came together once i had installed... the only things I had to do was add "1280x800" to my xorg.conf file (for widescreen), and ad another IP to eth0 to access the LAN. Everything else "just worked" for the hardware... and was up on the net in no time.
The documentation to get the few things I needed running was excellent, and didn't spend hours googling for ways to play dvds and mp3s (which I wish fedora had by default.. stupid patents)
Now I'll make a long story short, and tell you that I would have NO PROBLEM recommending this to a friend or family member who was not adept in computers, and just wanted email, music, web, video...etc from their comp.
The problem with installing programs is still a negative, yet if it were say MY DAD.. I'd probably have set it up for him anyways, and wouldn't mind installing the VERY odd program he'd want installed via ssh or vnc.
There are only two things which I think FC3 messed up with (besides the dvd/mp3 issue): First is their choice of xcdroast for a cd recording application. It didn't work from the start on my laptop, due to not having SCSI emulation compiled into the kernel. I fixed this easily by using k3b, which I prefer anyways.
Second thing is their remote desktop application, which was ok for vnc (altho I switched to TSClient), but did not work for my Windows XP Pro SP2 box... complained about the rdesktop version I had. I used rdesktop at the command line and it worked no probs.
Even with these things, linux is a great desktop replacement for windows as long as the person involved is not a gamer.
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
Is ubuntu ready? No - the point is that *you* installed it... *you* set it up... a geek was needed to get this beast working smoothly, and that shouldn't be the case. It may work wonderfully now, because you've set it up and got everything where they expect them to be, but what would have happened if you'd handed them the install CDs and said get on with it? (ok, other than your gran telling you she wasn't going to bother because it's too confusing to put a CD in the drive ;) )
Knock knock who's there ? It's Tux
Whoa hold on you aint installing THAT shit on MY box
A crate of junk you put together yourself,
Wasting your life compilin' da ELFs
Now every distro is just a big mess
'Drake, Suse, Red hat ? ain't no progress
5 text editiors, 6 media players,
7 terminal apps later an' they call me a hater?
They say the Penguin has 1000s of apps,
And installing em all is where it's at !
Sluggish ass desktops, layers of bloat,
To draw a motherf*ckin' window on your screen that floats
KDE and Gnome are so motherf*cking slow,
Double click an' 5 seconds later still no go
So now you wanna run a lightweight gui
But don't be thinkin' y'all gonna be loopy
'cause ice, blackbox and twm
Are more like something from way back when
Computers were the size of living rooms
And Unix was the king of the dust and gloom
One problem is X Windows
from a prehistoric age, man it really blows!
It has no place on the desktop
Sooner it's is gone, sooner Linux stops being a flop
Then we haven't even talked stability
No sound, no floppy just kernel panic city
And then there's the Linux classic to mention
The Spontaneous Self Rebooting invention!
Buy yo that's if you even manage to install,
Beyond messed up X11 drivers 'an all
******(Chorus here don't know what yet...)******
Well I tried to open GIMP but nothing's working,
Please Linux stick to web serving!
KDE ? looks like Windows 98
Oh and KWrite, Konqueror, and Kate
KSpread, Ksim, Konsole and Kedit
Kaint Kno Kuse Kcause they all Ksuck there I Ksaid it!
And lets not talk about that other one
With da worlds slowest ass file browser listen son
Shall we make something even worse than KDE ?
Sure I know lets call it G-N-O-M-E !
Y'see thats why A double P - L - E's GUI
Which runs on F-R double E motherf*ckin' B - S - D
Kicks the L - I - N -U - X D - E catastrophe
Straight into a G - U - I inferiority!
So baby take your vi, I'll take my pico
You take your emacs, I'll take my BBEdit so,
You take your X11, While I be in my Aqua heaven
You will still be rpm an' sudo make install again!
In fact take your KDM, rterm and XClock,
I'll take my Finder with drag and drop
Heck you know what ? I'll even take the Dock!
I'll even take Sherlock!! (over that Linux flop)
Sure it don't cost no money, But shit that Linux aint funny
It's so old, crusty, dark and dusty, That only geeks wanna run it
And it's hell with it's 5 minute booting,
Compared to OS X's 10 seconds then login
It's nothin' but a motherf*cking joke
Still 20 years away from System 8.0
And compared to magic Mac OS X
Linux may as well just start again
And you see that's why Mac users,
Say Linux what's that, something for losers?
This is not entirely fair, is it?
Try to hand a WinXP install CD to a non-geek and watch him suffer.
While I'd agree that windows being bad is no excuse for linux in general being bad also I'd simply dispute the fact that installing linux is that hard for non-geeks. Ubuntu is in fact a good example for this. Granted, it doesn't come with a nice looking graphical installer, but the install is pretty straight forward and all you have to do is click yes a few times and you'll end up with a working system.
'Mums and dads" want to go to Target, pick up Hallmark Card Studio, and Blues Clues for the kids, pop in the CD when they get home and have it all install and work automatically. They can get that with Windows.
There's too much choice in the Linux world for "mums and dads" to deal with: which distro, which user interface? People don't like choice, unless is about a topic they're really interested in. And "mums and dads" aren't interested in their computer's OS; they just want things to work. You pick out a name-brand PC (depends on which store you go to and what the salesman tells you) with Windows XP Home on it; you know that you can pick up any game or program and it'll just work, no major decision-making required.
Back when the choice included IBM PC, Macintosh, Apple ][, Commodore 64, Atari, I knew a LOT of people who complained that there were too many kinds to choose from. Why, oh why couldn't there be just ONE type of computer that'll run any program I buy? Now they've got what they wanted and they're happy, even with the virus/spyware problems. Linux, however, is all about choice.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
"Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom FROM choice is what you want."
There is such a thing as having too many options and I think you've hit this on the head. People have too much to think about than configure computers. Most of us here have difficulty understanding that since this is the very thing we enjoy doing!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Couldn't agree more. Most application user interfaces written for Linux suffer from unbearable information overload for common dialogues, while error messages are usually unspecific or way too hard to understand. While some major applications do get things right - Mozilla seems fairly simple, for example - other essential components are way too hard to configure. Look at KDE (and yes, I've tried recent versions). A multitude of strange options, "Themes" vs. "Window Manager" configurations, options in weird places because they are grouped according to technical layer (some screen options go into X-Server config, some into Window Manager config, some are part of a 'Theme') and not according to the user's perception. For geeks, standardized interfaces in computer labs at universities, for very well-defined workplaced without a lot of flexibility, yes, I would recommend a modern Linux distro such as SUSE. For Jane Doe and also for people who don't want to waste their time figuring out how to set up A, install B and solve problems C,D,E, I recommend Mac OS X for the best combination of usability, reliability, security, compatibility and choice of applications.
When I said setup was a breeze I really meant setup was a breeze.
Apart from being very clearly laid out, the Ubuntu installer is easy to follow and takes you through the installation process fairly painlessly.
Now of course someone who's never used a computer before is not going to install an operating system. That is just plain silly.
The point is that even someone moderately knowledgable (I'm not talking guru here) should be able to set up Ubuntu. Anyone who can answer yes no questions can set it up. Most of the time the defaults are correct anyway.
On a related note would you give your mother a Windows XP disc and expect her to install it. I certainly wouldn't. The difference is with Windows is most of the time it's pre-installed by the manufacturer.
Not to nit-pick... but it was actually my girlfriend's grandmother. Something tells me that you read "I installed Ubuntu", "grandmother" and "Is Ubuntu ready for the desktop? You bet your ass it is." and ignored everything else.
"And then I visited Wikipedia
I really don't think that users being able to administer their systems should be considered a serious problem when considering linux on the desktop.
In recent months I've come to believe that Linux, and many other unix-like systems for that matter, are not only ready for the desktop and have been for some time, they're near perfect for it. The major catch (apart from that whole software compatability thing, perhaps) is that they're only perfect when someone who knows what they're doing is adminstrating the system.
I administer my own home linux system, and I like it that way absolutely, but I wouldn't reccommend it to any of my friends. Sure, I could get them set up and rurning, but every so often they'd want to change something and would need help.
At my university, we run a department network of NetBSD machines, and they're administered brilliantly to the point where new students who are used to Windows can get started in using them for many things without a lot of problems. The security's locked down to a reasonable extent so it's hard for any badly written software the seriously break any of the workstations, but if we want something changed then there's a responsive team of administrators who'll look at providing what's needed. Most importantly, the workstations are reliable and they're looked after by experts who know everything that's on them inside out. Just like my home machine, unixes very rarely break or collapse if they're administrated well.
My point is that Linux is very ready for the desktop, but people shouldn't be expected to administer their own systems. Luckily, though, Linux has several other very handy things going for it:
What surprises me is that nobody yet seems to have seriously jumped into a potentially great business opportunity of offering remote linux administrations for home users. Essentially it'd be linux by subscription, ironically enough.
I really do know lots of people who use Windows because they're afraid of everything else, and they only even try to administer it and understand the issues because they have no other option. Really they'd rather concentrate on actually doing things with their PC, and would often be happy to pay someone else to administer it if the price were reasonable.
The business would be in providing a remote service which, once a customer's home PC had been set up in an appropriately standard configuration, would offer the service of administering the PC remotely. For instance, if the customer wants new software, they phone up and ask for it. An admin logs in, installs the package, and sets up any appropriate configuration. Perhaps every so often, administrators come along and upgrade whatever software is installed, probably (usually) keeping the configurations within bounds that are known to work on a large scale. Perhaps they even provide conversion services for things like Word files, in cases when something like OpenOffice simply won't handle it properly.
On occasion
I can't believe they consider windows to be easier to install than OSX, OSX must be one of the easiest installs, easily easier than windows or any of the linux distributions.. asidefrom that, windows doesn't even support serial ata out of the box, so installing it on modern hardware os a HUGE pain in the ass, especially if you dont have a floppy drive to load the driver from, and even if you do.. its far from intuitive
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Worse still, XP will not work with some older hardware. For instance, I have an Adaptec SCSI card that will blue-screen XP, but runs flawlessly in Linux, I can even install Linux from a disk controlled by this card. Under XP I can't even install the OS, the mere presence of the card in the computer makes the XP install CD reboot endlessly.
I'd like to see a comparison between the OS'es regarding time to get hacked with default installations when in use by an "average" user.
My friend just got a Windows machine for X-Mas as is now asking me why his computer is getting slower and what's this bargains.exe process he can't seem to get rid of.
How can they keep saying that Windows is ready for the desktop when this stuff happens after 1 month of use. Windows is not ready for the Aunt Tilley's.
I've stopped reading half-way through. This article is full of crap.
Who's use iMovie as a media player? Dont dont have a clue. iMovie is a movie creation tool. Not a media player.
Mac OS X comes with QuickTime. THAT is a media player.
As part of the cons, they list it's firewall not being on by default. What good would turning on a firewall be if NONE of the ports are on by defaults anyhow? Good luck, chap, breaking into it.
Forget the help files. People want an OS that doesn't NEED help files. I'll agree that the review had some glossed over areas that suggested their testing wasn't very rigorous. I've been exclusively using Xandros for my small business for over two years (it's very good), and noticed the following issues with the review of Xandros: Apparently, the other OS candidates must have been as poorly reviewed, because Xandros still beat all the Linux distros overall and was a very close second to XP and OS X. It received the highest marks for the ease of installation.
My own personal recommendation? If you're sick of Windows BS and want a secure OS that's still easy to use, try Xandros. It's great, and it's getting a lot better. It's THE Linux OS for Windows refugees.
You'll love being able to go to Xandros Networks and install a lot of different software with a couple of mouse clicks. None of the hassles, EULAs and rebooting of Windows. And the package manager automatically tracks all library dependancies. When you uninstall an application, it won't ask you if another program is using a DLL. There's no registry to corrupt either, so there's no Registry Rot. Your Xandros system will remain fast and stable.
In a world where hardware and software is created to work with Windows, Microsoft has a huge advantage. They are the de facto standard. Xandros manages to be easier to use on this unfair playing field, which indicates exactly how much these guys have the Right Stuff. Do yourself and the world a favor and buy a copy of Xandros and let's get away from Windows spam spewing zombies and spyware.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Yay ubuntu indeed -- especially with the "installation of programs is still hard" comment - my 8 year old sister uses synaptic to browse & install the games category, and generally likes ubuntu more than windows "because everything's much simpler"
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Why, oh why couldn't there be just ONE type of computer that'll run any program I buy? Now they've got what they wanted and they're happy, even with the virus/spyware problems. Linux, however, is all about choice.
The problem is they don't have what they wanted and especially not at the cost they want. Typing "M$" is old and busted but it came about for a reason.
Use your own analogy to really hear what any user really wants: Why oh why couldn't there just be ONE type of DVD player that'll play any DVD I buy?
It sounds absurd doesn't it? It sounds just as absurd as Joe Six Pack buying ANY computer off the shelf and being able to load Mircosoft Office and the iLife Suite on that same off the shelf computer with no compatibility issues whatsover.
Think about that for a second and if you aren't still LYAO, read the rest.
It doesn't matter that those may not be the best choices for the consumer or that Star Office is a perfect foil for Microsoft Office. It's about giving consumers what they want.
That's why you don't see people running to Linux in droves. Because it does no better at bridging the gap for what people REALLY want to do on their PC's.
Give people what they want and they will buy from you in droves. What the average person sees, and they're not far wrong either, is a glorified geek pissing contest between Microsoft, Apple, Linux and any other OS out there if they're even aware that there are others.
What they don't see is anyone really giving a damn about what they want and how they want to work. It may not be true, but perception is everything.
Until that changes, no one wins.
You installed it on your grand-father's grand-mother's laptop? DUDE!
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
As some one else pointed out, the winXP setup is not any more freindly than the Ubuntu Setup (which by the way, is MUCH better than the winXP setup, when you get right down to it--faster too).
I would be 100% confident in handing the Ubuntu disk to anyone and saying here, install this, and know that they could do it, provided they know two things: how to put the disk in, and how to reboot the computer. A few MIGHT have trouble getting their computer to boot from cd, but they would be the minority. Everyone else would end up with a fully functioning Ubuntu linux installation. Of course, they would also be sans windows, but that's not so bad, now is it.
I do have some other gripes with Ubuntu (it doesn't recognize my epson cx5200, which mandrake does), but they are minor. Personally, I think that their installer needs work, for ANYTHING other than the basic installation.
I promise that if you handed a winxp disc to most people, they would end up with a functioning system only after much confusion. I mean, NTFS or FAT32? What in the name of $person is that? Ubuntu gives even less control than windows, but it's not any worse.
Oh, and another thing, Ubuntu, like Linspire, installs in a flash (sub 15 minutes for a working system on a reasonably modern computer). Compare this to the 30+ minute install for ANY version of windows (well, maybe not 3.11, but I've never installed that).
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
We installed each of the Linux distributions side-by-side with Windows XP
We installed Windows XP and Mac OS X without partitioning the hard drive. Both operating systems include partitioning software that deletes your existing operating system and data.
So basically they installed MacOS and WinXP on a entire hard drive and then did a dual boot setup with Linux. They mention how certain versions of Linux will partition the hard drive and certain versions won't. They however don't give the same break to Linux. Try installing Linux on it's own hard drive. Windows and Mac software are more than capable to delete the exisiting software, well hell I can do that also with Linux.
Xandros was the only Linux distribution that didn't come with a LiveCD. Windows XP and Mac OS X aren't available on LiveCDs
Yet this is the only place they mention that live cd issue. Why is it not in the bad column under the bullet points for WinXP and Mac.
Easy-to-access software updates and security patches and fixes can save you time and hassle. Mac OS X and Windows XP automatically check for new updates and patches at specific times as long as you're connected to the internet. You can change the default settings if you wish. None of the Linux distributions offer automatic updates, but you can either download patches and updates from each manufacturers' website, or by using Linspire Click-N-Run or Xandros Networks. SuSE Linux and Mandrakelinux offer to look for updates during installation.
That is so you don't just throw a patch in there and have it create more problems. I still remember WinNT sp6 and the Lotus Notes issue and several others.
Unlike Windows XP, the Linux distributions and Mac OS X also let you restrict a program, such as ICQ, to a single user account. Additionally, in Linux and Mac OS X, the administrator is the only account with access to universal settings and files.
This is a good thing remember that.
Windows XP was the only operating system that couldn't recognise and open an imported Excel file -- the included office software is very basic so you need to install Microsoft Office or another more advanced program.
Even Linux distro's require Open Office or other software to be installed to read an Excel file the difference is that you can usually install them right after you install the OS. It may be included in the box set on one of the CDs or you can download it. Either way you don't have to go out and spend more than you paid for the operating system.
The difficulties with installing new software using a linux-based operating system arise when you want to install software from elsewhere.
I won't disagree here, extracting tarballs, unpacking an RPM, trying to have apt-get install a program can be a bit of a bear. Making sure you have all your dependincies. The difference is that if something goes wrong you can at least look into it. If the .exe doesn't install properly you are pretty much screwed. Now with FreeBSD you can install your programs from the ports tree with "make install distclean" or a package from the cd or ftp sites with "pkg_add -r foo". The dependincies will get installed automatically.
I understand the joe average user need. The thing is if joe average has worked with windows before coming to linux they will find things they don't understand and are very likely to get frustrated. The same applies in reverse take a *nix user who hasn't been with windows ever or since windows 95 and throw them into that enviroment. Watch them pull out their hair. While Linux (distros), OSX, and WinXP are operating systems they are very different and trying to find similarites isn't always going to be fair. If you have only ever driven an automatic car, driving a car with a manual tr
Gnome does seem to have a simpler GUI than XP, although I haven't used it extensively for some time. For me, I tend to focus on the GUI's associated with the applications I use more than the os specific functions. If I spend all day using Firefox, that experience is going to be fairly similar on almost all major operating systems. One thing that I have noticed about Linux is that many applications differ greatly from the appearances/layout of things in the GUI. Especially ones that are written for a different window manager but get run using something different. For instance, applications written for X11 usually feel much different than native Gnome apps. This problem also affects Windows even though all applications are written for the same window manager. I think the only operating system that I have used that keeps a fair amount of similarity to the UI between applications is Mac OS X. At least, as an example, for that system, I know that the prefernces should be located in the same menus for each application. This isn't always true, but I think most developers try to follow Apple's guidelines.
SIGFAULT
In direct opposition to TFA, but nevertheless completely correct.
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
...can an article about Linux vs. WinXP vs. OSX degenerate into a thread about the particulars of Unicode and apostrophes that, as of right now, took me 7 page-downs to get through.
ALL HAIL PETTY BICKERING!
Response: ALL HAIL
I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
Well... I had to stop reading the Linux/OSX propaganda document when I read things like:
You can't restrict applications to only one user account.
and basically the complaint that Excel isn't bundled with Windows but the other distributions of Linux/OSX have OpenOffice or something bundled with it that can read an Excel document. Microsoft always gets blasted for *bundling* apps (ooo...ooo... the beeg eval monopoly!) -and at the same time- blasted for not bundling apps (ooo...ooo... basic functionality left out!).
That "report" is nothing more than propaganda to further someone's agenda. It's garbage.
Well, I guess there could be 2 catagories here, "tech savvy" grandmas (I might fall into that catagory, as I am old enough to be a grandma, female, over 40 and 20+ years in the comp industry), and "user" grandmas (they use the "intarweb" and exchange recipes with other grandma's via email). I'm assuming we are talking about the latter type, of which "my" mom would fall into (over 60 and 0 years in the comp industry).
Most Linux systems that would be used by "Grandma" would likely be set up in a way that is very simple to use, by someone that *does* know how to read a man page. All they need is a button to access the WWW, a button to access email, and a button to access solitaire (lol), with everything else locked down and out of sight. This is easy to do. For the most part (in my experience), older people that are inexperienced with computers are quite scared to mess with anything they don't understand, because it might "blow up" their "cpu". They do not admin systems, they USE them, and usually in very limited amounts (yes, there are exceptions). I still don't why some people say how hard it is to use Linux. How is it harder than using windows? You click on a "button" and the program runs. Wow, really takes a genius to do that hehe. Now setting up and admining a system is different. I would no more hand the task of installing and configuring Linux to my mom than I would have her try to install and configure windows. She could do neither. People that aren't tech savvy simply buy pre-configged machines. Linux or windows, really doesn't matter, *using* either one should be a trivial matter for anyone that wishes to do so.
Personally I have no problem whatsoever that Linux may be harder to install than windows, as it tends to scare off those that would not be able to properly config the machine for security (haven't we all seen instances of someone being an ignoramus running root?). This is a two sided blade though, as those same people don't think twice about installing windows ("Oh look, a '98 cd." click-click-next wizard users), although in general they *still* don't know how to properly secure their machine, hence millons of owned zombie machines freely roaming the net.
Disclaimer: This is not a bash at windows users, it's an observation of *clueless* windows users.
Switching to liveCD PCLinuxOS, based on Mandrake, my laptop worked right off the CD. Mandrake lost me. A lot of geek tweaking with Mandrake never made the wireless work. I got tired of trying.
Standard Debian does not find wireless cards very well either, but Knoppix and its derivatives like Kanotix and xfld find everything nicely. Some knoppix-derived distros, such as the morpix-based CDs, don't seem find everything all the time, but they exceed the standard Debian install, which requires multiple disks.
Knoppix is the innovator here with its cloop autoconfiguring complete-linux-distro-on-one-cd technology, but it gives you everything with loosely-organized menu that overwhelms the first-time user. And I switched to xfld because it dumps KDE for a less resource-intense xfce desktop with a simpler menu structure that has fonts I can read. I'd like to see the knoppix technology incorporated into debian.
RPM is an inadequate updating mechanism when compared to apt-get. With RPM you are always looking for another dependency to download, but apt-get finds the dependencies and installs everything needed to make the program you wanted work.
The Synaptic Package Manager is a pretty good GUI interface to apt-get, but I still find the command line easier and faster to use.
Maybe they could rename synaptic to update...
FTFA: "Windows XP was the only operating system that couldn't recognise and open an imported Excel file -- the included office software is very basic so you need to install Microsoft Office or another more advanced program." I'm not sure what opens an Excel file from the get-go on an Apple system, but it's still a fun quotation.
I've got a friend in France who does exactly this. He started his own small business to setup and administer computers for home users and small businesses. He will do Windows, Linux and Mac depending on the needs of the users and I'm sure he's had more than one person switched to Linux that way. He's got quite a lot of business because he is local and can respond to queries very quickly. In fact, he just hired his first employee.