Fighting FUD with Humor

Technophiliac writes to tell us MadPenguin in running a review of "Fighting FUD With Humor" Marcel Gagné's 2nd edition of "Moving to Linux". From the article: "The biggest obstacle is fear. Modern Linux distributions are easy to install and easy to use. Unfortunately, we are constantly presented with messages telling us that it's too hard and that the average person couldn't possibly grasp the complexity. That's rubbish. People aren't stupid and people who use computers learn new things all the time."

Comments

It's not that it's hard

[ankarbass]

People don't want to switch because they think they need office. Simple as that.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[OzPhIsH]

My mother works for the local school district, and in order to check her e-mail from home, she is told "you must use outlook." I won't even mention how stupid it is for them to be using outlook considering all the security problems. Err, wait. I guess I just did.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[mctk]

Screw office, I need games.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[shirishag75]

It's one of the ways in which we can tackle. More importantly what is ignored is not FUD but support. Atleast the part of the world where I come from many people are looking for people who can support this for no. of yrs. going ahead. Unless we've people who say we'll support there will be FUD.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[agraupe]

Try Cedega ($5/month, minimum $15 dollar purchase) if there is just that one game you can't live without. Also, WINE has increasingly good support for DX9, so you might want to try that as well. I do admit, though, I do keep a seperate windows box just for gaming (but my main system is linux).

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Life is too hard. Just end it all now. Yeah. Give up. Don't even try. That's the spirit. If you ever get a kernel panic, DON'T go through the code and try to see why it happened. Just accept it.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Mancat]

People don't want to switch because they think they need office. Simple as that.

And guess what? Some of them DO. Believe me, I'd love to move some of my small office clients to OpenOffice or StarOffice, but they require the calendar and scheduling functions of Outlook. Still, if Microsoft Office were less expensive, I wouldn't even be paying attention to the free alternatives.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[JustADude]

People don't want to switch because they think they need office. Simple as that.

You're not kidding, I used to work for one of the big-box style electronics places, and just about every average computer shopper was convinced they needed MS Office. Supposedly, I should have pushed them towards buying said fantastically overpriced suite. Generally, I asked them what they'd use it for... 9 out of 10 just wanted to be able to type a letter.

Oy.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[jacksonj04]

Depends. If the school district uses Exchange, it may be using shared calendars and contact lists. Whilst I'm aware of all the "OMGS PROPRIETARY SUX", the simple fact is that open source does not offer any solution as integrated as Exchange and Outlook.

OTOH, if it's only a POP3 or IMAP mailbox, tell them to shut the hell up.

And Outlook security problems - you seen Outlook 2003? It's no less inherently secure than Thunderbird, the only problem is the end user clicking all the links.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Zimbra - google it ;-)

Re:It's not that it's hard

[seriesrover]

no, people don't switch because they don't perceive the need. To most people Windows does all they need to do and so why go to Linux? Why would they go through "all the agony of having to save\transfer data"? What would they gain? These are the questions Linux has to answer.

Now compound that with the notion that Linux is something geeks use, and thats why people aren't switching in great numbers.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Herr Proktor]

I got RedHat 6. Partitioned and formatted my hardrive. Installed it.

I couldn't get XWindows to run no matter what I tried. Nothing off the web helped; nothing in any Linux beginner's guide helped.

I've been equally frustrated with Windows before, but not at such an early stage of the game. I mean, a command line is only so much fun.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Mancat]

There's xbill. If you get bored with that, try the heart-pounding action of xgalaga. If you get bored with that, I'm sorry. We've got nothing.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[zootm]

XP Home is something like $60 (you'll need to excuse me, I'm not American so I'm guessing from a quick online search), and that'd be 12 months of Cedega if it's tied to the subscription like that. I'm still a bit hesitant for things like that, personally.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[agraupe]

You don't have to continue the subscription, but you will not be able to download new versions. There is also an experimental version released for free.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[croddy]

everyone who values their data must make backups, whether they are planning an OS migration or not. the only "agony of saving/transferring data" is that they must restore their backup once.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[zootm]

Thanks for the clarification. Still, though, it's annoying.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Well try another distro. Windows comes only in one form wheras GNU/Linux doesn't.
Start with Knoppix or Ubuntu for instance - Configures it all for you automatically.

Heck, I started with Mandrake and it had a lot of bugs, but big deal - I tried out Debian, fell in love with it and stuck with it ever since.

Most people give up too quickly.

And I just have this extreme urge to rant this out: Why do so many people think that just because one GNU/Linux distro is crap that ALL distros are crap!?

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Auckerman]

I disagree, to put it simply. I see the following problems with Linux.

1. It has a need for package management. To me, this is a fundamental flaw with the design of the operating system. There are other techniques and ideas to handle how software is installed.

2. It requires user input for installing a simple desktop system. It should as simple as boot from CD, click install, walk away cause it will reboot and ask you to create an account when done. This operation should, by default both install and overwrite a previous install without losing/breaking a single application install. This install should also automagically install applications a user would normally expect his/her computer to come with.

3. The formal seperation of System and applications is not very good, see OS X for an example of how to do this properly.

4. It emulates Windows UI design and does it poorly. Configuration requires more knowledge than a traditional user has.

5. For "simple things, like Windows, it treats the User like a moron and does a poor job at it. It shouldn't be "easy" if and only if you find the proper wizard to do it and click the buttons in the right order, it should just work.

6. Any and all error codes should be written colloquial english. They should only notify the user if the User has a good reson to know the error happened.

7. Developing tools for Linux need more work and should encourage developers not use package management as a way to install applications.

8. Linux developers should focus on creating tools, not emulating tools already created. The cooperation of professional graphics artists and UI designers would be extremely helpful. Make whitepapers of the UI before designing the application. You'd be surprised how much it will improve the outcome.

8. Most people don't use Office at home, stop using that as an excuse. On top of this, the ability to read and write office documents, especially ones that newer version of Office can't even read has already been solved.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[niteice]

I really hope you got RH6 when it was *new*, not like last week or whatever...

Re:It's not that it's hard

[mattjb0010]

I do need Office, sadly. It's not the best, I much prefer writing LaTeX in anything (including vi :) but I do need Word and Powerpoint for compatibility with the rest of the world (if you think OpenOffice will cut it, don't bother responding). I use OS X and get the best of many worlds, shiny toys and MS Office plus all the Unix goodies. I use Linux on one of my workstations and FreeBSD on a couple of servers I maintain. It all boils down to using the best tool for the best job, it's as simple as that.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[ThogScully]

I use Kontact, KOrganizer and KMail and all that. It connects to my company's Exchange 2003 server for calendar and address book and email and does it all better than Outlook.

What was your point?
-Neil

Re:It's not that it's hard

[jacksonj04]

My point is that Microsoft offers a tightly integrated solution (Exchange, SharePoint, Outlook, Office, Active Directory) which is ideal for a corporate environment. Not to mention the fact that perhaps they want to have a chance in hell of supporting it. Imagine the conversations...

"My email doesn't work."
"Okay, open Outlook for me."
"I don't use Outlook."
"Okay, what do you use?"
"KMail."
"Umm... Okay. Open that, then go Tools, then Email Accounts."
"It's not there."
"How the fuck am I supposed to support 500 different pieces of software?"
*Click*

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Tux007]

Doom3 (Legacy Doom for 1 and 2), Quake4 (3 and 2), RTC Wolfenstein, Wolfenstein ET, Unreal Tournament 2004 (and 2003), all have native Linux-clients, just to name some well-known games.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Startx

Re:It's not that it's hard

[1u3hr]

I got RedHat 6. Partitioned and formatted my hardrive. Installed it. I couldn't get XWindows to run

RH6 came out in 1999.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[CastrTroy]

Are there any games that aren't FPSs? As far as i'm concerned, those are pretty much a bunch of different titles for the same game.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[orkysoft]

Neverwinter Nights more your cup of tea?

Re:It's not that it's hard

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, I had the same problem. That was a long time ago. It's 2005. Try Mandriva (formerly Mandrake). Its one of the easier ones to install and get working, and targets desktops pretty well. Linux has matured a lot in the past 6 years.

Another thing, I was reading an article, saying that OpenOffice had take 5 years to get where it is today, like it was a long time. Microsoft Office has been around since 1989. At that rate, OpenOffice will bet 10 times as good as MS Office in 3 years.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[purple pixel]

1. Package Management bad? You mean clicking on a file and having an entire app installed for you with no further interaction is bad? Yet you want the OS installed with no interaction. Would you prefer the user makes a mess of their OS by installing apps to wherever they like as windows currently does?
I believe we're talking primarily about switching to Linux from Windows here. Switching from OSX is a different story altogether since in my opinion the only reason to do that is to save money and have more control over the OS.

2. Its easier than installing windows. Never installed an OS that doesn't require user interaction - and I dont believe its possible to do that anyway. Imagine installing SuSE Linux only to get to the GUI and find that they assumed you speak German...etc. etc.

3. Separation of System and Apps? Works for me. Cant comment on OSX since haven't had enough experience with it. If you like it - keep using it - but understand that not everyone likes it.

4. Emulates poorly? Hmmmm, doesn't this mean its not emulating it? If you make it very different to windows, it will be perceived as hard to use. Keeping the look and feel similar and only improving on whats needed is just plain common sense.

5. not sure what you mean. Things are easy. Dont know too many people who "need" wizards that complain about windows even being too hard. People that dont need wizards may complain that it treats you like a moron - but in Linux you dont need to use wizards. Simple.

6. Pretty much how it is already in Linux - or would you prefer windows errors like "an error occurred".?

7. Development tools on linux are among the finest around. Syntax Highlighting works better, autocomplete works great, everything is integrated. When I use VS now I feel like its very lacking in features. Each to their own though. Package Management is the main way to install apps in most linux distros - it makes sense to use them. They work very well if used properly.

8. Copying the functionality of a similar app means it will be easy to adapt to and if another app is successful on another OS, why not base your app on the same model? As long as there is no copyright or similar infringement, it only makes sense from a usability perspective to follow the same guidelines.
Most Linux apps are written to fill a need, and they often do.

9. (9 comes after 8) Most people DO use office at home. I'd bet its the #1 reason people buy a computer - to type and print documents. The fact is, openoffice 2 is a great alternative. Still, there are reasons for sticking with one or the other.

Sorry to be so harsh in replying to your points, but there is a wider world out there. Personally I'm not into forcing people to switch, but I do often point out to people that there are alternatives to windows.

Windows often DOESN'T do everything people need - they are just unaware of an alternative or dont really know enough about the alternatives to want to switch. All just my opinion of course.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[mboverload]

Linux IS something only geeks use.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[CastrTroy]

1. Windows tries to manage programs that you install, but does a really terrible job at it, expecting the program to know how to uninstall itself, instead of keeping track of what the program installed so it can actually get rid of it when you want to, and tell you about anything else that depends on this program to work.

2. Installing windows XP asks you some questions too. Stuff like timezone is very important to set right, otherwise the time server will set your computer to the wrong time. Most people don't know what time zone they are in. Also, once installed, windows does very little, doesn't even have drivers for most of my hardware, and can't connect to the internet to download them, because my NIC doesn't have drivers either.

3. I'd much better go with the windows model, of lump everything together and let programs put stuff where ever they wish. Also, let the users put their files whereever they want to. Also, ensure that all the settings for both the operating system and the programs are in one big, easily corruptable file, so that if some program wants to wipe out the registry, then it can.

4. Nobody knows how to configure a windows computer either. The fact that you have to use a GUI for it means that all the useful settings are hidden in the registry, and the stuff that's in the GUI is just the minimal that it thinks people can understand, 80% of which they can't.

5. I don't ever recall my linux box treating me like a moron. It always asks lots of questions to make sure its doing what its supposed to be doing. Presenting the user with no options, and just doing a bunch of stuff you assume they want to do is a bad thing.

6. The user should always know when something goes wrong. To a certain point at least. Assuming the user has no idea what the error means, and therefore not tell them about it is just a bad idea. Sometimes computer errors require the use of computer terms to explain what went wrong. Also, I thought #5 just said linux treats people like morons. Now we are saying it is too complicated, and doesn't use plain english that everyone can understand?

7. Package management tools are the best way to install applications that require dependancies on other applications. If you want to code your own application, and include all the libraries that the application needs with the application, then you can go ahead and do that. Firefox, OpenOffice and Netbeans all use this method for installing, and they work pretty well. But it shouldn't be the only option available to all application developers, nor should it be pushed on them.

8. Pretty much all tools 99% of people need have been created. When it looks exactly like the windows counterpart we get bashed for not being innovative enough. When we do something like GIMP, we get bashed because it is too different. GIMP is a great interface. If you start out using it, all the other graphics packages seem weird and confusing to you.

8. I'm not sure what comes after 8 either. Anyway, reading and writing office documents is still a big problem, even with Openoffice. They are usually legible, but tables usually stick outside the margins, and many other formatting problems exist as well. Everyone I know has office at home, simply because that's what people expect you to use. Most of them don't pay for it, and frankly, I don't think Microsoft cares.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Dwonis]

Yeah, it's kinda weird, but not so much so. Here are the options:

• Renewing Subscription. Minimum subscription of 3 months. $5 US per month. So the lowest-cost one-shot is $15.
• Non-renewing subscription. This is $55 for 13 months (12 months + "1 month free").

However, you definitely want to check out the games database first, because while some games may work flawlessly, others won't work at all. No point in paying $15 to be able to play games you're not interested in playing.

Also, if you want to run productivity applications, check out CodeWeavers' CrossOver Office Professional. It runs MS Office, and also has a browser plugin that adds Windows Media Player and QuickTime support to any browser that supports Netscape plugins (on Linux/x86, e.g. Firefox). CodeWeavers is also fairly FOSS-friendly (much more so than TransGaming, IIRC), and is actively involved in the development of Wine.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[zxsqkty]

And PhotoShop.

Everyone I know that has recently acquired a digital camera suddenly needs PhotoShop.

Free, of course. Just a quick copy of my cd would do nicely, please.

Marketing at it's finest - create a demand without there being an actual need. And the people chant "PhotoShop, PhotoShop..."

Re:It's not that it's hard

[drinkypoo]

Most people DO use office at home, or some sorry excuse for same (e.g. Works.) Of course, all they use it for is Word. Nonetheless, OpenOffice.org has serious usability issues compared to Word and they don't seem to be interested in fixing them before adding new features. This is a serious problem. From a usability standpoint, Office beats the pants off OO.o, kind of like the situation with every other software tool in linux. Well, not every. There are some things that you just can't make that simple.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[labratuk]

It has a need for package management. To me, this is a fundamental flaw with the design of the operating system. There are other techniques and ideas to handle how software is installed.

What? will the files just magically fly onto a person's hard drive in the right place?

You're saying your "packages" shouldn't be "managed"?

There are not any other techniques for software installation. What you're used to is just a really broken form of package management where any "package" is allowed to overwrite any library with its own (possibly vendor mangled or outdated version of a) library and do whatever it takes to get itself working. Screw any other things on the system. And no package is aware of any other package. And there's no liability for what package broke the system.

I didn't even read the rest of your points. This one was so laughable I just had to respond.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Auckerman]

What? will the files just magically fly onto a person's hard drive in the right place?

You're saying your "packages" shouldn't be "managed"?

I'm saying packages shouldn't exist. Period.

There are not any other techniques for software installation.

Tell that to the millions of Mac OS X users. They will laugh at you as they merely drag Applications to the Applications folder.

What you're used to is just a really broken form of package management where any "package" is allowed to overwrite any library with its own (possibly vendor mangled or outdated version of a) library and do whatever it takes to get itself working. Screw any other things on the system. And no package is aware of any other package. And there's no liability for what package broke the system.

THere's this concept called "Bundles" where all shared libraries, language packs, and binaries for multiple architectures are stored in a single folder that appears to be a single application. Let me give you an example of what this allows. THe one time I installed Real Media player on OS X, Safari was running, I dragged it to /Applications and without restarting Safari and without Running Real Media, Safari was immediately aware of the Real plugin, loaded it, and used it. Welcome to no package managment.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean using it for their own use only, thanks to the LGPLing of wine you get the issue that all codeweavers in house development only shows up in the main distro as LGPL, but is still closed-source in their own branch and parts of the stuff in there is never published at all), while other companies are forced to opensource everything now. This has quite effectivly killed of any use of wine as a porting tool....

Re:It's not that it's hard

[seriesrover]

yes, but theres a difference between SHOULD and do. "Most people" use their computers to read email (often via a web interface) and to shop \ browse online. Do you think they know how to save their Browser Bookmarks \ Outlook.pst files etc.? let alone know what they are. Yes, most people probably know they should backup (pictures etc) but most don't and switching to Linux makes them HAVE to do it.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Auckerman]

1. Packages are bad, and hence package management. Look up OS X style bundles how it should work. Packages are no longer necissary.

2. Not easier or even as remotely easy as OS X. By the way, your example with German is irrelevent if you use OS X style bundles, since the application will work in German, English, or whatever language the Developer decided to create the App in automagically for the user based of their Language prefs.

3. OS X does it correctly. No application can install without logging in as root (which is disabled by default) anything within the OS folder. Linux should do this.

4. The GUI model for Linux is heavily dependant on the programmers experience with using Windows. THere are other ways to manage the user experience. This is more of a critique of how much effort goes into Linux GUI programming. It's clear that very little in the way of origional thought goes into it.

5. It's really goes into the nature of the configuration. THis is typically noticed on a laptop that moves from location to location and one has to switch profiles.

6. Linux is better than Windows in this regard (for the most part, it can be a pain sometimes), but Windows is really a poor example of how to deal with errors. Really poor.

7. Dev tools work, that's not the complaint. It's that dev tools don't discourage putting anything in /../lib, which they should discourage. Also, adapting some ideas from MS and/or Apple on drag and drop GUI creation would be nice. I've heard good things about Visual Basic in this regard, though I've never used it and probabally never will.

8. I think you're missing the nature of the complaint. THough you got part of it correct. It's a question of innovation, linux lacks some in very need areas. If Linux programmers want to sock it to the man, they need to beat the man at his own game. Not just copy, but create. Do something that isn't being done, do it well, make people notice. It really goes into the nature of why copying isn't good, not because it always makes bad products, because it doesn't, but because it puts one in a methodolgy and mindset whereby moving to a creation based model is nearly impossible because they lack the skills to do so.

9. Most people use Works at least once a month or so, if I remember the study correctly. They use solitare much more than that. They use a web browser much more than that. My thing, for a CLEAR majority of uses outside of an office, open source word processors will do. I personally think even something as simple as ABIWord is good enough, all you have to do is save "Word" files as rich text and give the file .doc extension and noone will ever notice. I've been doing that for years when I send people who use Word files. THe filters for receiving DOC files are created, yes Open Office isn't so good, but how it works is a matter of public record, anyone can use that info to add DOC filters to pretty much anything. The lack of MS office really is an excuse.

Here's how I see things. Open Source programmers are capable of revolutionizing the industry. Perl, Python, Apache are very good examples of tools that were created in the public via open source software that do a task in a new and better way, without overtly relying on previous innovation. In other words, the developers aren't copying, but creating. In terms of technical features Linux isn't that far behind (and in some very important respects is ahead of) OS X or Windows, but users don't care about that. They want their computer to do something useful, with little thought, little experience, and little research. Linux is far better than it was even three years ago. Far better. But if Linux wants to actually be a part of the big boys in user space, the programmers need to get off their collective assess and look at innovative ideas for the user that aren't just feature bloat, but make using the computer a more positive experience. Quit copying and start creating. A change of ideas and mentality is need for Linux before it really gets up to bat.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Herr Proktor]

When did Windows 98 come out? Cos that's what's on the other side of the partition.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Herr Proktor]

That would be great. All I use essentially is Word at home and Excel at work, and I'd trade them for open source alts happily. (If I could get Linux running, I'd probably use Emacs and Latex.)

Thanks for the Mandriva suggestion. I chose RH because I'd used it before (7.2, and loved it).

Re:It's not that it's hard

[joeljkp]

My mother does spreadsheet manipulation of survey data. She got a new laptop for the project, but it didn't come with any office suite. So, I told her she could get OpenOffice for free, downloaded it and walked her through the setup, and told her a bit about how to use it. The next time I came home (a month or two later), she told me she got fed up with it after having to re-learn how to do some of the stuff she took for granted with MS Office. So she just dropped the $100 for the academic ed. and went with the tried and true.

In short, YMMV.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Crouty]

1. It has a need for package management. To me, this is a fundamental flaw with the design of the operating system. There are other techniques and ideas to handle how software is installed.

Like distributing every piece of Software with one of many installer programs? These installers require administrator priviledges and I am supposed to trust them not to screw with dependancies and the registry. This is by far the worst system I could think of.

2. It requires user input for installing a simple desktop system. It should as simple as boot from CD, click install, walk away cause it will reboot and ask you to create an account when done.

Knoppix comes very close to this scenario. (Windows XP does not.)

3. The formal seperation of System and applications is not very good, see OS X for an example of how to do this properly.

I don't know OS X but to me the separation of system and applications makes perfect sense. Think multiuser. It allows unpriviledged users to install and use applications without compromising system stability.

4. It emulates Windows UI design and does it poorly. Configuration requires more knowledge than a traditional user has.

Wrong. KDE is a descendant of CDE which does not have much in common with Windows. And what configuration are you talking about? Scanners (default flamebait)?

5. For "simple things, like Windows, it treats the User like a moron and does a poor job at it. It shouldn't be "easy" if and only if you find the proper wizard to do it and click the buttons in the right order, it should just work.

Some things just aren't simple. Like setting database permissions or configuring a http proxy or a SMTP server. I don't think wizards would do any good here. Still, you need to configure them somehow.

6. Any and all error codes should be written colloquial english. They should only notify the user if the User has a good reson to know the error happened.

I disagree strongly. I want my error codes colloquial German and I absolutely want at least the possibility to enable as many error codes as I can get. I don't want my applications to silently behave differently from what I expect (as opposed to differently to what the application guesses what I expect).

7. Developing tools for Linux need more work and should encourage developers not use package management as a way to install applications.

See above. Package management is the best way to do installations. It is far superior to Setup.exe for a variety of simple reasons.

8. Linux developers should focus on creating tools, not emulating tools already created. The cooperation of professional graphics artists and UI designers would be extremely helpful. Make whitepapers of the UI before designing the application. You'd be surprised how much it will improve the outcome.

OSS development teams do what they like to do and that's a good thing. There is no use trying to tell them they should proffessionalize.

8. Most people don't use Office at home, stop using that as an excuse.

Where did you get this surprising information from? I can only speak for myself and a few friends but all of them use a word processor on a regular basis at home and all of them chose OpenOffice.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[rtb61]

You don't have to any more, just support the most popular open source ones, firefox, thunderbird, open office and Linux. They won't change every time profit dips (take your pick of forced win upgrades), there won't be a interface change because insufficient people are buying the resource kits and real manuals and a solution your found on the manufacturers web site gets hidden for the same reason (answers cost monery), there is a major change to support a different product by the same manufacturer (macros and visual basic), they produce a really bad version to kill off a product line (98 then ME) and best of all you will save hours and hours and days and weeks of pointless support because of the basic failings and poor coding of the product.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they go through "all the agony

Funny you mention agony, I know alot of people are more open to consider an alternate OS after going through the agony (or expense) of dealing with spyware. I work at a PC repair shop (reason I"m posting anon) and I can't stand it to see the people who only use their PC's to read e-mail and surf the internet paying upwards of $80-$150 to get them cleared of spyware (only to see them bring em back in a matter of months despite our best efforts to leave them fully protected and educated).

so why go to Linux? I'd say folks fed up with spyware and who just need to check e-mail, surf the web, and play online poker are great audience.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[1u3hr]

When did Windows 98 come out? Cos that's what's on the other side of the partition.

Fairly obviously it's a video driver problem. Good luck with that, but my point was that more recent distros are very likely to detect and set up the video painlessly.

Personally, I also bought RH6 and installed it on my Pentium 233, with Win95B, and on a couple of 486s without any issues, except it didn't like one floppy drive (which was needed for the install in those far-gone times) so I swapped it from an older PC and it was fine.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[ozmanjusri]

I used to work for one of the big-box style electronics places, and just about every average computer shopper was convinced they needed MS Office.

Yep, and that's how the big change will eventually happen. It won't be because Linux is better than Windows - it's not enough better to motivate change. What'll happen is that someone will come up with a new form factor or new concept that'll make the Windows Way uncool.
Then every one of those customers will be plonking their cash down for the LinuxStation Minipod, they'll realise it was always the music, videos, words that mattered, not the tool that played them.
That will be the beginning of the end for the monoculture era of computing.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[dascandy]

*agree completely with parent*. I have my computer in dual-boot between Linux and Windows. Linux takes 8GB for all my work and internet surfing and crosscompilers and such, and Windows runs on 30GB just for games.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[gothfox]

I'm saying packages shouldn't exist. Period.

I like the fact that all software on my systems are completely managed, e.g. I can easily tell which file belongs to each package and vice versa. I like the fact that my systems are upgradeable by issuing one command over the internet. I don't like dll hell of Windows or base system/ports .so hell of BSDs, sorry. The reality is that Linux software world is comprised of miriads of libraries and small applications, not just dozen big names from posh vendors like Microsoft or Adobe. This situation requires advanced package handling tools. No, whining about it won't help, just man up and deal with it.

Tell that to the millions of Mac OS X users. They will laugh at you as they merely drag Applications to the Applications folder.

Tell these millions of users that I can upgrade my server park with one shell command and I see this kind of functionality as basic and required even for my desktop machines. Pray tell, how am I worse than Grandma Tillie, why my needs should be sacrificed for some very questionable usability ideas?

THere's this concept called "Bundles" where all shared libraries, language packs, and binaries for multiple architectures are stored in a single folder that appears to be a single application.

I don't know about you, but I don't want twenty versions of slightly different GTKs each in its own bundle all loaded at different addresses hogging memory and diskspace for the sake of some Grandma Tillie's usability. Sorry, just because Holy Apple does something doesn't mean it is best idea ever for any possible use case. And just because some self proclaimed usability experts (which always seem to come out of the woodwork in any Linux-related discussions, oh dear) can't spend 15 minutes to figure out the packages on their own doesn't mean that people who require functionality they provide should just switch off the lights and go home. Which, surprisingly, always seems to be the case, because those experts always know better for everyone of us.

By the way, even Microsoft recently began to reinvent package management, albeit poorly like they usually do at first. Even they begin to understand that dozen different incompatible installers is not the way, and bundles are actually no better either.

(Sorry, this came out somewhat rantish, I've got nothing personal against you, just needed to get this off my chest).

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Fred_A]

If you have a little bandwidth, all that the testing will cost you is a little time :)

I definitively second the Mandriva suggestion, it's a fine desktop distribution for x86. You can also look at SuSE which can be downloaded easily nowdays. You'll have to wait a couple weeks for ISOs of the current Mandriva to become available I think (it just got released commercially).

Re:It's not that it's hard

[heffrey]

Dual boot, that most convenient of solutions.....

Why cur off your nose to spite your face? Do what I do and run lots of OSS on Windows. The beauty of OSS is that you can compile it for any target. Have games, Office and OSS all on the same platform.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[dascandy]

Do you have any idea how SLOW cygwin is? I can only use the cygwin compiler and it's slow as ****. Compiling my own OS costs me around 1.5 minute on linux and around half an hour on windows, if only because of constantly waiting for the cygwin-process-delay.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[cHiphead]

Warcraft 3, Steam (Natural Selection, CS:Source, TS, etc.), and Battlefield 2 are keeping my best box on windows xp. oh and the activex interface required by company for groupware/job invoice.

Cheers.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Windows software gets away without package management by staticly linking every single library into each application, or at least providing DLLs that live in the application's directory, which is effectively as sane. When one part breaks (*cough* jpeg reading *cough*) no one has any idea how many programs are affected, how to fix them, and whether they have truly been fixed or if they actually use a staticly linked version of the library instead of the DLL in their folder. What do you think MSIs are if not package management? I know of no other operating system that didn't use package management that was also easy to use and upgrade. DOS did not have package management, but it only had staticly linked executables.

2. Every Windows install has required user input. The finished install is a neutered version of an operating system lacking system patches and drivers, and has very few applications. DOS was in the same boat. Apple makes its own hardware, so at least it can package drivers with the OS.

3. OS and Applications are separated in a very well defined way. What don't you understand about /bin versus /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin?

4. It mixes Apple and Windows and Amiga and Unix, and probably some others. Taking the best of each is a good way to go, even if it hasn't been achieved yet. You don't *have* to run KDE or Gnome, you can try blackbox or enlightenment or any other number of window managers. Or write your own.

5. The set of all things one might want to do with a computer is infinite. Explain how you would categorize all possible activites into a nice heirarchy for instance, without just dumping the user into a Turing Machine emulator.

6. Kind of like cars have the idiot lights telling the operator to take the car to a shop every few months? Most programs allow the verbosity of error/debug messages to be set to whatever level the user wants.

7. It's obviously not enough to use the most common compiler in existance, the most common language in existance (Well, maybe Cobol is more popular than C or C++, but I doubt it), and still leave the developer with more options in terms of IDEs and environments than you can shake a stick at, right? On the other hand, Windows gives you Visual Studio, Borland has something, and on Apple you can buy metroworks or, gasp, use gcc.

8. UI seamlessness and integration will only occur after the best ways of doing things are standardized. At this point, there are many choices and the popular ones are being joined with each other. I agree that this is an issue, but it's being actively worked on.

9. Most people use *something* that is Windows only, since they have a Windows computer already, from which they would be switching to Linux. Any argument for or against Linux has to recognize the software compatibility issues and the availability of workalikes.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[poofyhairguy82]

Linux IS something only geeks use.

Tell that to my 15 year old sister than loves her TiVo (linux) and her cell phone (linux).

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Albinoman]

I think there a few important issues that you see from a linux perspective.

#1 is something everyone hates about Windows. You can uninstall something, but it always leaves junk behind.

#2 was kinda lame. If you are too stupid to know your time zone, then you are definently too stupid to set up a computer. Its probably the same group that couldnt figure out the VCR. Both OSs should be able to set up networking on their own so I quit getting to annoying phone calls about what to do with that screen. CLICK "NEXT" DAMMIT!! Unless you use a dial-up connection, then chances are you need TCP/IP and your DHCP server will tell you the rest, so why is this even a question when you dont have an old modem plugged in? That may not be politically incorrect, but its true.

#3 really bothered me. My uncle is a great example. If he wants something installed on his computer I always ask him where to put it and he always says, "I dont care. Just put it wherever it wants to go." Most people see computers as an appliance, which you basically point out in #4. I will go on the record to say that I have never experienced or seen or heard of anyone I know having the registry wiped out, so that argument is nearly irrelevant. If some malicious program is intended to wipe out the registry, which should make you computer take a big crap on you (like I said I dont really know never since I have never seen this happen... ever), then one could easily design a program to have the same effect in Linux.

#5 was right, but it was too right. Linux seems to assume Im a genius. Ive been using Windows since 3.11 and know most any configuration that can be done and where to do it. Also, I dont want to drop to a command prompt to try to figure out whats wrong with my system. You ever try to install a driver in Windows? Next->Next->Next->Reboot. I dont want to compile and configure every little thing. This is especially important for video card drivers. When you screw those up and are new to Linux, about the only thing you can do is reload your computer, and itll probably be XP this time around. Admittedly its been about a year since the last time I tried to make the switch, but I highly doubt much has changed. I think the user needs to know if theres an error, but it needs to be simple with the option to see more if you actually could do something about it if you wanted to. The more garbage you put on the screen, the worse people think the error it.

#7 is wrong from my point of view for the same reason as #5. Noone wants to go find their install CDs and start swapping them around whenever I want to install an MP3 player or some simple thing like that. It should be possible to do the "Next->Next->Next->Finish" like most Windows applications.

#8-2 is not such a big deal. Most people I know have Office but have no real use for it. The regular guy doesnt need to type documents near as often as theyd like to fire up a game, especially since most of us dont work in a cubicle or office.

I am by no means an MS guy. If I could easily run my favorite games in Linux then Id switch in a heartbeat, and would probably go around switching everyone in my family too. I know all about the different programs to make them compatible and have got them to work many times. But, it is a serious pain in the ass and not worth the effort when chunks of the game wont work anyway. Part of this is Microsoft stuffing everything under DirectX, and part of it is the slow response time of the OpenGL group to new products.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[zootm]

Yeah, cheers. I'm aware of the various systems, it's just a pity that there's such a need for them at all. Better than nothing, however.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Jesus_666]

2. This one requires that either all NICs can be used with a common driver or that all operating systems come with drivers for each and every NIC available. The former might actually be a good idea.

5. Installing a common device driver under Windows: Find and download the driver, uninstall the previous version, start the driver's installation, click through the wizard, reboot.
Installing a common device driver under Gentoo Linux: emerge driver. SUSE: Start YaST, select the driver, click a button. Similar for other distros. If it has to be compiled into the kernel the distro's default kernel will most likely already have it.

For some reason I see installing software under Windows as needlessly complicated since I have switched, especially since Gentoo.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[usv]

Lets say you play games which are accessed via Valve's Steam platform; games like Half-Life 2 or Counter-Strike:Source. Then Valve makes yet another stupid update through Steam and breaks your Cedega version operability with those games. This has happened in the past and will happen many times in the future. Personally, my HL2 and CS:S games have been in unplayable state since Steam update on 10th of August. New Cedega versions haven't cured the problem for me. But I don't complain, as I had a great summer playing those games. Maybe the upcoming Cedega 5 fixes this for some time. Valve could also cater more for Linux users, and port the games natively to Linux. Would it be too hard?

Re:It's not that it's hard

[cow-orker]

1. Installshield supposedly is something else than package management?

2. Debian doesn't. Almost. You need to set the basics (language, keyboard layout, desktop/server/custom installation, installation target), everything else is automatic. Even less configuration work, and you'd bitch about how it steamrollered your Windows install you wanted to keep for some reason.

3. Pointless. Were "System" and "Applications" more seperate (whatever the distinction, *I* find a good seperation between /bin and /sbin), you'd bemoan the insufficient integration.

4&5. Linux doesn't. KDE does. Don't use it if you don't like it. Instead, use something completely different, like wmi.

6. All errors *are* reported in plain English (or any of a large number of other natural languages)! Dunno what you're using, I never see "error codes".

7. Have a look at Vim and/or Emacs. You'll like one of them and never want to go back to an Windows-style IDE.

8. They do. OpenOffice is not the only software that runs on Linux (GIMP has already been mentioned).

9(sic!). No, most people use MS Word at home, often a "borrowed" copy. Those emails with .doc attachments aren't written on notepad, you know?

And seriously, your obsession with package management is... disturbing. You can install without package management (configure/make/make install), only deinstallation becomes harder. As soon as new software has to integrate with something (startup script, logfile rotation, class registry, linking documentation) you need to do more than just drop a file into place on installation. Package managers just organize what is needed anyway, and they work well. Dependency tracking is also a great win. It doesn't completely prevent "DLL Hell", but *if* things break, they don't break silently. Have a closer look at dpkg/apt before writing it off as a design error.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[ajs318]

You think that's bad? I visited an electronics superstore to return a faulty DVD+RW recorder. They were using a mainframe system for stock management -- with Windows PCs running a payware ANSI [VT320-class] terminal emulator.

{For the uninitiated,the Linux console natively supports ANSI escape sequences; and there exist more Open Source terminal emulators, ANSI and otherwise, than you can shake an actual real VT100 keyboard at.}

Re:It's not that it's hard

[mumblestheclown]

Your ignorance is underwhelming.

1. Windows tries to manage programs that you install, but does a really terrible job at it, expecting the program to know how to uninstall itself, instead of keeping track of what the program installed so it can actually get rid of it when you want to, and tell you about anything else that depends on this program to work.

Wrong. Uninstallation is a complex process and applications have specific requirements with regards to uninstallation. It makes the most sense for each app to know about its own un-installation, since this way the programmer of the app can write the appropriate custom uninstall. In the simplest example, an uninstall of a word processor will know not to delete the files users have created with it, but a game might prompt people for whether to delete the associated save-games or not. To the OS, the files otherwise look the same.

2. Installing windows XP asks you some questions too. Stuff like timezone is very important to set right, otherwise the time server will set your computer to the wrong time. Most people don't know what time zone they are in. Also, once installed, windows does very little, doesn't even have drivers for most of my hardware, and can't connect to the internet to download them, because my NIC doesn't have drivers either.

Absolute bullshiat. I dont know what place you live in ("Strawman city" perhaps?) where people dont know what time zone it is, but it ain't anywhere I've ever been. Also: the claim that windows doesnt have drivers for most of the hardware is ambiguous and meaningless. Windows is the EASIEST environment out there to set up a variety of hardware on. Mac supports less and linux is still a nightmare for certain relatively easy devices. You'd be hard pressed, for example, to find a network card or modem that isnt auto-detected by windows these days. Your comment was barely true around 1995.

3. I'd much better go with the windows model, of lump everything together and let programs put stuff where ever they wish. Also, let the users put their files whereever they want to. Also, ensure that all the settings for both the operating system and the programs are in one big, easily corruptable file, so that if some program wants to wipe out the registry, then it can.

Corruptible? There are multiple copies of the registry and no app is required to use it. In practice, the registry is highly secure. Your statement is just myth. About the beginning part of your rant: windows has a place where it SUGGESTS that users place personal files (My Documents), but, because as we all know it would be evil for an operating system to produce policy, it gives users options. At any rate, you can hardly defend the "consistent" linux world in this, with every distribution having some variation on a theme.

4. Nobody knows how to configure a windows computer either. The fact that you have to use a GUI for it means that all the useful settings are hidden in the registry, and the stuff that's in the GUI is just the minimal that it thinks people can understand, 80% of which they can't.

Apparently you live in a country of morons. Check the drinking water. The rest of the world is not like that.

5. I don't ever recall my linux box treating me like a moron. It always asks lots of questions to make sure its doing what its supposed to be doing. Presenting the user with no options, and just doing a bunch of stuff you assume they want to do is a bad thing.

Linux asks lots of questions? rm -rf *. Run that from root and see how many questions you are asked.

6. The user should always know when something goes wrong. To a certain point at least. Assuming the user has no idea what the error means, and therefore not tell them about it is just a bad idea. Sometimes computer errors require the use of computer terms to explain what went wrong. Also, I thought #5 just said linux treats people like morons. Now we are saying it is too complicated, and

Re:It's not that it's hard

[EsbenMoseHansen]

There is "A tale in the desert".... online, MMORPG thing, but very different. Free trial, so check it out --- it is very different from other MMORPG, so you might like it even though you didn't like Everquest/WoW etc.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Tux007]

Neverwinternights, Simcity 3000, Myth II, Robin Hood.

Ofcourse tons of free puzzle board, card and arcade-like games, which I don't care for too much.

This one is nice : http://www.uplink.co.uk/ You get too play a hacker.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[zootm]

Valve could also cater more for Linux users, and port the games natively to Linux. Would it be too hard?

Probably considerably harder than would warrant the return they'd make on that investment, yes. This is the stalemate that companies find themselves in. Although some engines use various methods to achieve cross-platform capabilities, for some companies the return just doesn't justify it.

Games on Linux are suffering because nobody plays games on Linux, and nobody plays games on Linux because they're suffering. It's a horrible Catch-22 situation, but it's just one of those loops (like more vendor support) that's hopefully going to be broken at some point, when it becomes profitable for people to offer Linux desktop systems on a wide scale. The shift appears to be happening now, though, to some degree.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[JohnFluxx]

How can you possibly say support is ignored, when there's companies like Novel, Redhat, IBM and so on providing support??

Re:It's not that it's hard

[heffrey]

I didn't say cygwin. You can get gcc as a native WIN32 PE executable that targets WIN32 PE (mingw). Or you can use another C compiler (e.g. MSVC, BCC etc.) Isn't that the point of writing in a portable language like C?

Re:It's not that it's hard

[JohnFluxx]

So would you expect a .net program to contain a complete implementation of .net? A java program to have all the java environment, and so on? How do you manage dependancies without packages? Seriously, how does apple do it then? If you drag a python program and python isn't installed? What does it do?

Re:It's not that it's hard

[cabazorro]

I once was trying to uninstall a program in a computer running OSX.
I grabbed the folder containing the program and put it in the thrash.
The program was gone.
Honest!
I don't believe in package manager software, Windows "Wizards" or RH RPMs.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry but the tendancy to not expect people to know what the hell they have and how to use it causes this.

Every day when we get a request ofr a new hire to get a login and laptop 3 out of 5 know NOTHING about a computer and it's basic use. Nevermind that the job position required knowlege of computer useage and a BS degree.

I see how many times my guys lose their mind when the user asks "what is a login?" "what is a C drive? whats a folder? how do I print?"

it's to the point that I'm almost ready to let them verbally berate these sales people for being insanely stupid.

I can hear you now, no it's not old people. many times it's a fresh grad from the local college who should have benn using a PC for years now.

when you tell someone to check their Email server settings they should know what you are talking about. Otherwise they have no business owning a computer.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[rbochan]

so why go to Linux? I'd say folks fed up with spyware and who just need to check e-mail, surf the web, and play online poker are great audience.

Thre was a deal a while back, and I don't recall exactly who put the slogan type thing out, but it's along the lines of:

Wouldn't it be great if your computer...

• ...Stopped freezing up?
• ...Didn't get viruses or spyware?
• ...Did it's own maintenence?
• ...Came with free upgrades?
• ...Came with online support?

Now it can.
Get what you want.
Get Linux.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[dascandy]

Where can I get a GCC that runs natively in win32 that generates platform-independant ELFs? I'm developing an OS, so any Windows-dependency (or anything else, for that matter) is not usable. In Linux I use the platform gcc to generate a crosscompiling gcc, so that it does what I want it to do. If I do that with the GCC I get with Cygwin I create another Cygwin-based GCC, which is slow. Where do I get that GCC?

Also, who ported GCC itself to Windows without Cygwin? The point of C was that it was portable as long as you complied to POSIX which Windows doesn't (at least, not in any usable fashion).

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

well, if they are going to be doing graphics,then that means they need a mac, cuz you can't do graphics on a windows box, you MUST have a mac...

And openoffice does not do word/excel/powerpoint (et. al.) properly? What are you using? the initial version of OOo? I personally switched my office 2 years ago, and have not looked back since. The single button pdf creater (that does not require the starting of the Adobe Acrobat Program doing a Stuart "Look what I can do!!!")

I take care of offices that use MS Office, and they need me to "fix" files all the time. I have actually fixed a word file (unable to be opened by ms word) by opening the file in OOo and re-saving it.

No matter what program or OS you are using there are upgrades. Hell once a year I go back and try different OSs that I have abandoned because they have new versions.

As for the guy trying to install RH6 on a modern machine, it won't work, this is equal to him trying to install win 3.1 or Win95 on the same machine, good luck.

For the most part, I have seen very few offices/schools/homes that use more functionality than that offered in WordPad (or write). My son was using Abiword until he came home and told me he needed PowerPoint on his machine... I installed the latest version of OOo and showed him how to save as as PPT and he went merrily on his way. The bonus is that his game machine (which is the main purpose of his computer) is not befouled by MS Office which I have seen more often than I care to elaborate.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[TeknoHog]

THere's this concept called "Bundles" where all shared libraries, language packs, and binaries for multiple architectures are stored in a single folder that appears to be a single application. Let me give you an example of what this allows. THe one time I installed Real Media player on OS X, Safari was running, I dragged it to /Applications and without restarting Safari and without Running Real Media, Safari was immediately aware of the Real plugin, loaded it, and used it. Welcome to no package managment.

IMHO, that is also a kind of package management. A package is a collection of files and configuration settings that make up a program, no matter what form it takes.

I admit the usual Unix filesystem layout is not the best possible, but I don't agree that each application should only reside in its own directory. Reason being, for example, shared libraries. I think using shared libraries makes a lot of sense, but with them comes the need for dependency management, which is what any sensible package management does.

Then again, I haven't worried about package management since I started to use Gentoo :)

Re:It's not that it's hard

[jacksonj04]

When you tell somebody to clean their carburettor they should know what you're talking about. Otherwise they have no business owning a car.

Point made?

Re:It's not that it's hard

[00lmz]

Uninstallation is a complex process and applications have specific requirements with regards to uninstallation. It makes the most sense for each app to know about its own un-installation, since this way the programmer of the app can write the appropriate custom uninstall. In the simplest example, an uninstall of a word processor will know not to delete the files users have created with it, but a game might prompt people for whether to delete the associated save-games or not. To the OS, the files otherwise look the same.

Try this...

Uninstallation is a complex process and applications have specific requirements with regards to uninstallation. It makes the most sense for each package to know about its own un-installation, since this way the packager, with help from the programmer can write the appropriate custom uninstall. In the simplest example, an uninstall of a word processor will know not to delete the files users have created with it, but a game might prompt people for whether to delete the associated save-games or not. To the OS, the files otherwise look the same.

Modern packaging systems for Linux have scripts that can run before and after installing or uninstalling. In these scripts, the packager can put any intelligent actions that he/she wants. On my Debian system, the postgresql package actually asks you on install if you want to keep the data when it is uninstalled, or remove the data with the package (actually, that's not a good example, it is a stupid question). The packaging system also knows about configuration files and will not normally remove them when the package is removed. (But it can be forced to remove conf files too (purge)).

Re:It's not that it's hard

[gid]

I've installed open office for a few people and they've loved it. Especially after learning how much ms office would be to buy.

Don't underestimate the power of a cheapskate and what people will be willing to put up with for free. Obviously everyone won't feel this way, since as you said, YMMV. :)

Of course these are the same people that I installed firefox for, and they loved that as well--after discovering how most of their spyware problems have gone away. (I got tired of cleaning machines for people.) It might just go to say something about their personality, and they don't really mind learning something new every now and then if it's for the better. With that being said, I definitely know people "who want their ms office", and there's no talking them out of it.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anivair]

Agreed. I have a windows partition. it is used for games (and once in a while checking email while I'm flying from TB to Ogrimar). That's it. Windows is an overbloated gaming console.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Phisbut]

no, people don't switch because they don't perceive the need. To most people Windows does all they need to do and so why go to Linux?

They don't perceive the need, yet they complain that "the computer" is getting slower and slower (as it is more and more invaded by spyware). They unfortunatly don't understand that the computer isn't really getting slower, that it's Windows that is getting slower. People don't switch because they don't understand that "Windows" is not "the computer" (that, and all the flashy MSN stuff... I know I could never switch my mother-in-law just because she "needs" all the whiz-bang that MSN offers...)

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Phisbut]

I've been equally frustrated with Windows before, but not at such an early stage of the game. I mean, a command line is only so much fun.

No matter the stage of the game, if you can't get XWindows to run on Linux, at least you still have a command line and can actually diagnose the problem, fix it, and get some work done. When Windows doesn't boot or doesn't present you with its opening screen or freezes on the splash screen, you're pretty much fucked and there's nothing you can do.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Phisbut]

#8-2 is not such a big deal. Most people I know have Office but have no real use for it.

Yet, they have it, and they feel like they couldn't live without it. When I talked to my wife about switching her to Linux, the first question she asked was whether she would still be able to open her Word files. When I talked to my sister about switching her to Linux, the very same question was asked. People "think" they need MS-Office. We know it isn't true, but they don't.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[ookaze]

You are one kind of big trolls with guts, especially when I compare your posts #13885797 and then #13886913.
They just prove what a troll you are, with stupid and false arguments to boot.

1. You say Linux has a need for package management (which it already has), that it's a big flaw for Linux, then you say that packages are bad, and hence package management. It should be sufficient to dispel all of your troll, but I find it interesting to see how off base anti-Linux trolls are.

2. You don't even understand what people explain to you. You say the user should install without user interaction. Your vision is so narrowed to limited shrink wrapped OS it's amazing ! With a Linux distro, you have ALL languages, you can truely change on the fly, The system is not able to select the language it should speak to you before you tell him, so you need user interaction before install, same for time zone and all other l10n issues, but we already told you that. You don't want to install every language on your system, that's bloat if you don't use them, and that's what you are asking for. And people still have BIG problems guessing what others think or want, and you would want a Linux distro to do it ? Did you want to appear funny or stupid ? Your answer is amazing, quoting OS X apps and user prefs, yuo don't even get that the user pref you talk about has to be entered by the user.

3. The formal separation of System and applications sure work best than in other desktop environments. I'm able to boot in a base system without apps since always in Linux. Then I can mount all the other app and users volumes from anywhere I want. I don't know if it is possible in OS X, but it sure is in Linux. No unprivileged user can install app in Linux either by default. You can allow it if you want. Don't talk about customization please, you're making a fool of yourself, that's one of the big strength and innovation of Linux.

4. Try not to contradict yourself in the same sentence, please. And try to not make your opinion appear like assertions. This point is so trollish and false I won't feed it anymore than that, especially since that's actually Windows that copied everything in its GUI from others (then other people will start to answer that everyone copies everyone, sigh).

5. I can't think of a simple thing, or even anything, with which a Linux distro treats you like a moron. Distros are actually trying to be dumber to accomodate a perceived need for supposedly dumb user, a perception actually encouraged by trolls like you. FYI, moving with a laptop from AP to AP is not a simple thing, and not a thing a dumb user could do. Setting up the WiFi is hard enough (next to impossible) for such users (that's why some offer paid support to install WiFi for them). If you have to find a wizard, it is already too late : a wizard should not have to be found, especially when it's more useful, the first time you need it. Fortunately that's not the case in Linux, though it is in Windows. You should not talk about Windows here, because all of your point are solved or in the process of being solved in Linux, but are big flaws in Windows. To the point where I wonder if you were not being ironic.

6. We agree on this statement, which Linux desktops follow already.

7. You obviously don't understand development. Dev tool is a dev tool. It should allow you to make kernel modules or end user apps, or libraries. So it should allow you to put files anywhere you want. Anyway, that's the build tool that decides where your files will stay, and they on Linux, they do not encourage the use of package management, I don't know where you saw such thing. The build tools allow you to interact easily with a package manager, but that's all.
Drag and drop GUI creation already exist for both Gnome and KDE too.

Linux developers should focus on creating tools, not emulating tools already created

Why ? You don't understand their needs, you don't understand dev, you sure are the last person I would ask for advice as to wh

Re:It's not that it's hard

[bannerman]

Cedega doesn't work for many of the games that have a 4/5 functionality rating in the transgaming compatiblility websites. Every year I read the hype, load a newer distro, fight my way through installing video drivers, install the latest Cedega/Point2Play and spend 20 hours banging my head against the brick wall before going back to Windoze.

It's not a good solution for gamers yet.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Phisbut]

You'd be hard pressed, for example, to find a network card or modem that isnt auto-detected by windows these days.

When I had to format and reinstall (something that happens with Windows), I installed WinXP SP2 (so it was a fairly recent disc... already had SP2 on it), and it couldn't detect my "Intel® 82562 Fast Ethernet controller". I had to use another computer to download the driver, which, at 4MB in size, doesn't fit on a floppy disk, so I had to burn it on a CD. Every Linux distro I have tried so far (Fedora, Debian and Suse) all could use the network from the start (they even configured it with DHCP *during* the install process).

Linux asks lots of questions? rm -rf *. Run that from root and see how many questions you are asked.

$ man rm
[...snip...]
OPTIONS
-f, --force
Ignore nonexistent files, never prompt

So first, you use an option to explicitely tell the system to not ask you any questions, then you complain because it didn't ask you a question? WTF???

Re:It's not that it's hard

[heffrey]

Well, for what you are doing which you must admit is pretty involved then I would imagine that Linux is the right place to be. Good luck with writing the OS though.....

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the consumer are letter writers who "want" word. The business customers "need" outlook.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[bluGill]

Windows is the EASIEST environment out there to set up a variety of hardware on. Mac supports less and linux is still a nightmare for certain relatively easy devices. You'd be hard pressed, for example, to find a network card or modem that isn't auto-detected by windows these days. Your comment was barely true around 1995.

Where have you been since 1995? Back in 1995 this was true, but in the meantime things have moved on. I have never install Windows 2000 or XP on a system and had all the hardware recognized. I always have to find a different machine with a network connection so I can download drivers. Almost always the drivers I need are the network adapter, and the graphics card (despite this lack of video drivers, Microsoft appears not to test in VGA mode because some screen cannot be operaterated at 640x480)

These are Windows 2000 and XP machines, installing on various hardware in our lab (we have a MSDN subscription)

By contrast when I have problems with hardware on linux I got a message that said "The vendor of this device will not supply us with information on writing a driver, we did our best, but if you can we recommend you return it for a better model". (For some wireless network card, which I promptly returned).

Re:It's not that it's hard

[toddestan]

That really doesn't surprise me that much, as I've found OpenOffice's Calc to need quite a bit of work and polishing up when compared to Microsoft's Excel.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[nickrooster]

The need for all the different systems is simple: Game companies are too stupid and backwards to see the need to port anything to Linux / Mac. I am not a game developer, however, I know a couple. They say that there is absolutely no reason to write anything in DirectX at all! OpenGL for graphics (open & extensible) and SDL for things like simple input, openAL for audio (3d or non) and bam! You have a cross-platform video game. Cedega, dxwine, wine, Crossover, all of these scratch a particular itch - running code that was designed for Windows in a Linux / UNIX environment. Cedega's claim to fame is that it is the most compatible, and they have deals with the copy protection companies to allow for copy-protected-game x to work under Linux. That is why it is not completely free (speech or beer, probably). dxwine is patches to the free winehq version that allow you to run DirectX applications on Linux, without any of the non-free-as-in-freedom worries. wine is the official winehq version of wine that can run some stuff but not nearly as much as say, Cedega. Crossover is aimed at the business set, running Quickbooks and Office through a pay-for version of winehq's set. But to answer your main question: because it is hard to do well. Emulation alone is difficult enough - figuring out the instruction set of a processor that might not be around anymore is hard, now imagine if you had to re-implement all the crap in the Windows\System32 directory to understand where all the Linux shared libraries were and what they did. A *lot* harder. -Nick

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

In my (not so humble) experiance, linux still freezes; gets rootkits installed; breaks itself fortnightly; the upgrades aren't actually upgrading just breaking dependancies; and is supported by people that think hand-editing a config file makes them leet.

Yea, I'll get right on top of installing Linux on my dad's computer. I'm sure he'll kick my ass for taking OS X off.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[shirishag75]

they 're mostly in the SME or large corporations business, for individuals it's mostly the LUG's which give some sort of support. But then again that is all voluntary.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[Excelsior]

I use Kontact, KOrganizer and KMail and all that. It connects to my company's Exchange 2003 server for calendar and address book and email and does it all better than Outlook.

Don't you mean it konnects to your kompany's Exchange 2003 server for kalendar...

Re:It's not that it's hard

[dascandy]

You said you knew a place where you could download a gcc that made win32 binaries? If so, it could make a fast cross-compiler too. That'd be quite nice. Do you have a link for the compiler?

Re:It's not that it's hard

[heffrey]

http://www.mingw.org/

Re:It's not that it's hard

[dascandy]

......

*off to fetch some more coffee*

Re:It's not that it's hard

[JohnFluxx]

For linux individuals there's LUG, webpages and the biggest of all - irc.

As opposed to windows where Microsoft give help to the end users??

Re:It's not that it's hard

[shirishag75]

Sorry not tuned into slashdot so much hence took time, for noObs don't think they catch upto IRC quickly. Atleast in my small corner I've been trying for a long-time to get free/opensource developers to use IRC without any success :(

Re:It's not that it's hard

[agraupe]

Have you heard of the line break?

Your post is interesting, but it's a right bitch to read. The points raised are valid, and it echoes my own sentiment in that I don't think Linux will truly enter its "golden age" until people realize the need to create native ports.

Re:It's not that it's hard

[nickrooster]

Sorry about that, posting at work and forgot to change the post type to Plain old text. My fault.

To continue the discussion: It must be that Microsoft is putting a lot of money into developer's hands to use their really hard-to-use tools... I have heard horror stories from my programmer friends and discussed with them how they enjoyed the switch from the unified toolset to the open alternative, and they all say they find it extremely easy to program in these free alternatives.

id software seems to be the only company that is willing to do this.

Even Bioware, who hyped up the simulataneous cross-platform release of Neverwinter Nights, ended up using SDL and openAL, but wrote the graphics engine in DirectX! So then it took them like 6 months to release a completely re-developed graphics engine for the port in OpenGL. It just seems like they could have saved a lot of time and money just going with OpenGL, but maybe they were getting a fat check from MS.

Below is my post in all it's line-breakin' glory:

The need for all the different systems is simple: Game companies are too stupid and backwards to see the need to port anything to Linux / Mac.

I am not a game developer, however, I know a couple. They say that there is absolutely no reason to write anything in DirectX at all! OpenGL for graphics (open & extensible) and SDL for things like simple input, openAL for audio (3d or non) and bam! You have a cross-platform video game.

Cedega, dxwine, wine, Crossover, all of these scratch a particular itch - running code that was designed for Windows in a Linux / UNIX environment.

Cedega's claim to fame is that it is the most compatible, and they have deals with the copy protection companies to allow for copy-protected-game x to work under Linux. That is why it is not completely free (speech or beer, probably).

dxwine is patches to the free winehq version that allow you to run DirectX applications on Linux, without any of the non-free-as-in-freedom worries.

wine is the official winehq version of wine that can run some stuff but not nearly as much as say, Cedega.

Crossover is aimed at the business set, running Quickbooks and Office through a pay-for version of winehq's set.

But to answer your main question: because it is hard to do well. Emulation alone is difficult enough - figuring out the instruction set of a processor that might not be around anymore is hard, now imagine if you had to re-implement all the crap in the Windows\System32 directory to understand where all the Linux shared libraries were and what they did. A *lot* harder.
-Nick

HAHA

[buttwidget]

People are smart... Someone doesn't deal with the public...

Re:HAHA

[Jim Hall]

People are smart... Someone doesn't deal with the public...

"A person is smart, but people are dumb, stupid and panicky." ~Agent K, 'MIB'

"'To start, press any key.' Where's the any key?" ~Homer Simpson, 'The Simpsons'

Re:HAHA

[Agarax]

http://web14.compaq.com/falco/detail.asp?FAQnum=FA Q2859

Re:HAHA

[maotx]

I kid you not I received this e-mail tonight carbon copied for tech support.

"Yes, I noticed the misspelling in the word document. But... for some reason Word will not let me redo the spell check after one review. It just said spell check complete and that's what you have to live with or rewrite it. I wasn't going to rewrite it! Can this be fixed?" -- A major marketing guy responsible for sealing million dollar deals

Just goes to show how far we still have to come educating the public with computers period. Much like how to switch from one operating system to another. Some users out there can't even install Windows!

Re:HAHA

[KanSer]

I work at an employment center in a small-ish (10-15,000) logging and fishing community and I can state, as an absolute fact, that people are indeed stupid.

However, just last week a man who's on disabilities for a brain injury (He has little to no short term memory) came in and asked me if I could get him a free operating system. (He wanted Windows XP. He had bought a refurb p3-500 that came with XP, the hard drive bought the farm, and when the guy who sold it to him fixed it he wiped the OS. He said it was only a "trial version until you got your own system". Full of shit, I know.)

Anyways, on a whim I did a quick google for linux distros, caught a wikipedia page that seemed to make Ubuntu out to be what I was looking for.

Now, I've never touched linux, except for playing counter-strike and quake on linux servers. I downloaded an install image, installed it, and voila.

It was beyond easy and it came with everything I needed. I sent the man with the brain injury home with a disk and he came back the next day with a huge smile on his face.

It worked. First time, totally out of the box. Recognized all his hardware, and came with everything he could possibly want. He was acting rather cheeky about the presentation he put together with OpenOffice and was pleased as punch.

So yeah, if the unemployed and brain injured can install and configure and use with great ease a linux distro, I'd say they've finally made that first big step towards main-stream acceptance.

(And now my other Ubuntu box has become my baby. Too bad it won't run half-life 2. Oh well, worry about an install base first, the developers will follow.)

Re:HAHA

[Distortions]

Wow. Just, wow.

This guy has no idea how dumb people are, and how LITTLE they care what OS or computer they have.
%90 of them just want to check their yahoo mail and maybe browse a tiny bit.

Even that is hard for them, and seems time consuming and over complicated.
You are *way* off my friend.

Linux isn't anywhere near ready for the desktop. Hell, OS X and windows barely pass as it is.
Quit kidding yourself! I'm a pro and linux problems often baffle me.

Re:HAHA

[NotQuiteReal]

Actually, there is a compelling argument against Agent K's observation...

The Wisdom of Crowds Not a bad read, but I am only half way thru...

Anyhow, the parent post is still correct. There are LOTS of people, with whom you are safe to ask "Is it plugged in?" as your first "tech support" question, and neither one you you will be embarrased, especially after you have to explain what you mean by "plugged in".

Re:HAHA

[H0p313ss]

I've got Half-Life 2 running under Cedega (aka WineX) on Ubuntu. I get about 10 fps less than under XP, but it's playable.

It's not free however... but then, neither is Half-Life! So to play commercial games under Linux, it costs me an extra $5 a month.

Worth it? Haven't decided yet, but it's damn cool.

Re:HAHA

[CastrTroy]

Linux is no less ready for the desktop than windows is. People who have no idea how to operate their windows computer will have no idea how to operate a linux computer. At this point, comparing windows and linux is like comparing a Ford to a GM car, and saying that a GM car is harder to drive.

Re:HAHA

[drinkypoo]

I find that really amusing because the first pressed run of Ubuntu CDs, whatever release they are, wouldn't work on any of my machines. Not on the Dell dual P3. Not on my P3 IBM stinkpad A21p. Not on my Athlon XP 2500+ box with a gigabyte mobo with an nforce chipset. Now, I am quite sure that it's come a long way since, since people seem to be able to use it, but criminy. We're talking about some really standard hardware here, all of it.

Incidentally I've found that nothing is finer than gentoo if you have broadband and lots of CPU, ram, and disk. Otherwise it's a bitch. Still, the UI that you end up with is a lot more pleasant (and faster!) than Ubuntu IMO. (I finally got it working on someone else's machine. Hell, I couldn't even get it going in a vmware vm!)

Re:HAHA

[drinkypoo]

This is a bunch of horseshit. You don't have to recompile your kernel to get driver support on Windows. Granted, you don't have the option either, but more people will need to build a kernel to support hardware on linux than will not be able to get a windows driver.

also, a GM car is harder to drive than a ford car. The way their accelerator pedals tend to be set up (not sure if this is a mechanical issue or a software one) it's a lot harder to take off smoothly. I actually got points taken off doing my driver's test for the first time in a big GMC truck (just a half ton, though) for "throttle control". Amusingly enough, I had learned to drive on a ford thunderbird, which definitely did not have this problem, and not just because it was gutless. It actually had plenty of low-end torque and would have had the same problem if the UI were as poor as it is on the GM product. Note that IMO ford is inferior in every other way though :)

Re:HAHA

[CastrTroy]

You don't have to recompile your kernel to install any driver. The drivers are compile as modules and you load the modules. I have never in my life ever had a need to recompile the kernel.

Re:HAHA

[drinkypoo]

You haven't been using Linux very long then, have you? I know, I know, I sound like an elitist wank. And, I am one. Still, there are drivers which do not function correctly as modules. There are also binary-only drivers which depend on a certain kernel version to function. I, too, would prefer that all drivers were open, but since they are not, the lack of an interface that would allow them to operate seriously hurts linux usability - in many cases, there is simply no driver.

Re:HAHA

[poofyhairguy82]

You haven't been using Linux very long then, have you?

Over a year. Never recompiled a kernel. Its a myth. I did throw out an ATI card for an Nvidia one though.

Re:HAHA

[Krommenaas]

When everything just works off the CD, then it's easy, yes. The problem is that most of the time, Linux does not work off the CD. Try fixing a problem like a device not being recognised, and try upgrading some programs to their latest versions, and THEN come back and tell us that even the brain-injured can use Linux.

Re:HAHA

[pedestrian crossing]

A reasonably recent version of Knoppix should do the trick for the "I just want to surf the internet, do email, and write letters". You say that most of the time it doesn't work. My experience is that far more often than not, it -does- work. And it doesn't even need to be installed, so no loss on the rare occasion that part of it doesn't work.

Re:HAHA

[ajs318]

But a GM car is harder to drive than a Ford car! I'll prove it. Reverse on a Vauxhall or a Daewoo is left and away from you. Reverse on a Ford is right and towards you, opposite fifth, which is obviously the proper place where Reverse gear belongs. GM's way of doing it means four away and two towards, which is just horribly unbalanced!

Re:HAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

What the heck are you talking about? Every GM I've ever seen has Park, Reverse, Neutral and Drive, in that sequence.

Never heard of Vauxhall or Daewoo.

;-)

Re:HAHA

[schon]

there are drivers which do not function correctly as modules

List them.

Re:HAHA

[nine-times]

Criminy, are we doing an Ubuntu/Gentoo flame war now? Aw crap. Ok. Here goes:

ninetimes [in a dull, disinterested tone] : gentoo is teh suxxors...

(In reality, I really like gentoo, but you do need a bit of time and expertise to do the initial setup. I tend to use Ubuntu, though, but the only reason is that I can then get a system up and running, fully updated, within an hour.)

Re:HAHA

[ajs318]

On most cars, first is left and away from you, second left and towards you, third is in the middle and away, fourth in the middle and towards, fifth is right and away from you, and Neutral is in the middle where it moves freely left and right.  The difference is in where they put Reverse.

Ford:
1 3 5
|-|-|
2 4 R

Vauxhall:
1 3 5 R
`-|-|-'
  2 4

Re:HAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was just a joke, I was describing the layout of an automatic transmission, just playing dumb. Many people on this side of the Atlantic (North America, I mean) have never driven a manual transmission car.

My Honda Civic has the exact same layout as the ford you describe, btw.

Re:HAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that most of the time, Linux does not work off the CD.

I've done about a dozen Linux installs. Once Mandrake install didn't correctly identify the nic driver: booting under Knoppix showed that I needed tulip (a very standard driver) so I copied the driver into the modules directory and away I went. My MythTV install is an ongoing project: currently it doesn't recognize my remote other than that it seems to work fine. Every other install has gone perfectly.

I wouldn't hesitate to say that installing Linux is much easier than installing Windows. I have installed Windows and Linux in parallel and had a complete, up-to-date Linux desktop before the basic Windows install had completed (before installing all the mfrs disks, mandatory software such as Office and Nero and the many reboots for Windows Update). Now I just refuse to install Windows at all: my time is too valuable.

FUD???

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative but vague or inaccurate information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer software industry and has since been used more broadly.

Had to look that one up. Wouldn't it be nice if the editors or perhaps even the article itself defined these strange acronyms?

Re:FUD???

[spyder913]

FUD is the 4th most common word used on slashdot. Please refer to any Linux, BSD, Apple, or Microsoft article.

Re:FUD???

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, better yet, if they were used correctly?

Re:FUD???

[Anonymous Coward]

The editor obviously believes that Slashdot readers are familiar with FUD since it is so common in articles and comments here.

Results 1 - 10 of about 220,000 for slashdot FUD. (0.20 seconds)

Re:FUD???

[ZachPruckowski]

So is it:

1) RTFA - Read The F***ing Article
2) Dupe!! - This article has been done before on /.
3)torrent - short for bittorrent

I think we could use a /. glossary. Wikipedia has one for general internet talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_internet_slan g

Re:FUD???

[MaskedSlacker]

They assume a certain level of knowledge in their readers. And in this case, its a damn reasonable one. Is this your first time on slashdot or something?

Re:FUD???

[Anonymous Coward]

The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer software industry and has since been used more broadly.

Actually it started with IBM, in hardware, specifically their mainframes.

Re:FUD???

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this perhaps?

Re:FUD???

[owlstead]

News for *NERDS* stuff that matters.

Well, at least you looked it up yourself.

Re:FUD???

[CastrTroy]

I always thought it was "Read The Friendly Article" :)

Clearly...

[fatcatman]

People aren't stupid and people who use computers learn new things all the time."

Clearly, this person has never performed basic tech support. I mean, come on. If you have that much faith in humanity, you've never done time as "The I.T. Guy" in a typical office. Turn in your geek card, sir, and report to AOL for further processing.

Re:Clearly...

[Nimrangul]

Right on fatcatman, most people aren't even smart enough to know how to use their car right, let alone understand how to navigate a windows-based graphical interface. How do you think they will react to one that depends more on the command line? You'll end up with people who refuse to use their systems if you try to get them on a Linux distribution, because a text command is scarey.

Unix-like systems are not for all operating system users and operating systems are not for all people. Hell, do you realise how many people cannot manage to set a clock on a VCR or microwave?

Re:Clearly...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's YOU who should turn in the geek card. Real geeks are only asked once by the unsuspecting lamer-victim. *harhar*

Re:Clearly...

[Belial6]

Hate to break it to you, but setting the time on a VCR microwave is generally harder than using Linux.

Re:Clearly...

[Anonymous Coward]

"People aren't stupid"

Your faith in mankind is moving...

Re:Clearly...

[jpardey]

He has also never taken a first year compsci class. Not that the people in it were dumb, but to most people, computers ARE foreign. No one had really used Unix, while I had installed various Linux distros on home machines (I am no expert, I must add). It was a lot of fun to help out my fellow students, most of whom were going on to compsci degrees, while I was doing math and physics. Now I get the most awesome class ever, 251 at my college, systems and networks! Install Linux, secure it, etc etc... lots of fun.

Re:Clearly...

[CastrTroy]

Consoles are actually easier to use than windows based machines. People just relate to it better. I never saw anybody who had a c64 stuggle with Load *,8,1 and all that jazz. People have trouble with computers now because they do so much more than they used to, and do it all at the same time. It's giving someone a tool that does everything and telling them to use it. They don't even know where to start. Guess that's why MS invented the start button, so people would know where to go first when they turned on the computer.

Re:Clearly...

[TouchOfRed]

Its rediculous the amount of stupid support calls I get(web design company). One person calls saying their email doesnt work, solution? Try connecting to the internet first. Another person wonders why when they type their website address into a browser, they see their site instead of all their files in an ftp sort of view. UGH.

Re:Clearly...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't even know where to start. Guess that's why MS invented the start button, so people would know where to go first when they turned on the computer.

Wow, there's not much gets past you eh?

Re:Clearly...

[Anonymous Coward]

VCR microwave

Does it let you watch a full-length movie in 15 minutes?

Bzzzzt!

[rackhamh]

People aren't stupid

No, but they're easily confused.

and people who use computers learn new things all the time.

Hard to believe, given that most non-technical people (and some of the technical ones) in my building haven't even learned not to double-click URLs. When things don't work, it's attributed to gremlins, and when it does work, it's attributed to a higher diety.

I'm sorry, but the REAL obstacles (hint: fear isn't one of them) to adopting an entirely new operating system don't go away just by putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "NAH NAH NAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

Re:Bzzzzt!

[Jack9]

People refuse to think outside their training. This is much the same as being stupid, to most geeks. While technically different, the fact we make a distinction is what makes us different! What happens when encountering something strange and new? MOST people IGNORE it. Linux is still too difficult for the average person to install and use. Yes, a LARGE portion of humanity (including these new-fangled-savvy-kids) still double clicks URLs. If you aren't going to accept that kind of mental lock, there can be no more rational discussion on the matter. This is a "self-flaggellating" article. next!

Re:Bzzzzt!

[antiMStroll]

This

"... people (and some of the technical ones) in my building haven't even learned not to double-click URLs."

contradicts this

"...the REAL obstacles (hint: fear isn't one of them) to adopting an entirely new operating system..."

If they don't understand double-click how will the OS make any difference? They aren't configuring hardware or apps anyway.

I'm the last person to ascribe extraordinary technical prowess to the general public and yet sucessfully converted a staff of 50 to what in effect is PC-based multimedia editing from tape without a hitch. One staff member just celebrated his 50th year in the industry and has never required our help. Step one: make them part of the application selection process. Step two: an orderly rollout with scheduled training. Step three: encouraging self support and establishing staff 'experts' outside of the normal support channels. It's not that hard.

On the other hand, we're also a distinct division outside of the normal 'MSCE' pool. If there's any group with finger in ears here it's the latter, imposing solutions on users as mandates and forcing them to work around bugs and unresolved system idiosyncracies from memory. 'Lusers' can do a hell of a lot more than most IT support gives them credit.

Re:Bzzzzt!

[rackhamh]

If they don't understand double-click how will the OS make any difference?

My point is, if users have trouble using their mouse correctly, how can we expect them to *easily* learn a completely new operating environment and application suite? I do think that most people can make the leap *given time*, but that's why I said fear isn't the real obstacle.

They aren't configuring hardware or apps anyway.

Most people won't have the benefit of someone like you to hold their hand through the process. If we're talking about converting the masses to Linux, we have to consider the average user with poor (if any) technical resources to fall back on.

Ultimately, users want to spend their time using applications, not figuring out the OS. As other posters have pointed out, Linux still lags in terms of configuration hassles relative to Windows. If we geeks find it time-consuming, the masses will find it utterly inaccessible. Until Linux can address this hurdle and get the average user into application mode quickly, it will remain a niche product.

Re:Bzzzzt!

[LinuxRulz]

I'm sorry, but the REAL obstacles (hint: fear isn't one of them) to adopting an entirely new operating system ...

Well, that part is funny. So you think it is hard for a lot of people to change of OS and learn how to work. But people have adopted XP in the past, even if it was a LOT different from win9x. "where is the X icon/menu?" we heared. It was a big gui change at the time. And I can already see how it will happen when we will change to Vista! The thing is: since it is hard for people to adapt to a new system, and since soon we will be forced to change to vista (want it or not MS will push hard to force its adoption) which will be a big change for the users, why not take a try at some free alternatives?

Re:Bzzzzt!

[empvirus]

No kidding. The last small office I went into, the users were petting their computers and saying "C'mon, baby" and stuff like that. Have we really crawled out the age where superstition was mainstream?

Re:Bzzzzt!

[10Ghz]

If they don't understand double-click how will the OS make any difference?

it has to do what the OS "teaches" the user to do. Windows is pretty bad at this. You double-click on object on the desktop and in the filemanager. But you single-click quick-launch buttons on the taskbar and on the Start-menu. The difference in behavior seems arbitary, and I routinely see people double-click quick-launch buttons. OS X is similar. Double-click in finder and desktop, single-click in Dock.

Of course weblinks are always single-click. And the behavior should be the same everywhere in the system. One of the good things in KDE is that it's single-click by default. That means that the behavior is uniform across the system. You single-click in filemanager, taskbar, Kmenu, dekstop... And you single-click the links in your browser.

Re:Bzzzzt!

[cow-orker]

haven't even learned not to double-click URLs.

And what's there to learn? If anything, this could be memoized. Your coworkers have learned that to open something, you double-click it. You single-click to select. This is completely accurate -- and then URLs are different all of a sudden. You single-click to open and you cannot select or drag anymore. The inconsistency makes understanding the machine's behaviour needlessly hard, so it's no wonder people give give up early and resort to rote memoization.

Compare this with the Unix command line, an editor like Vim and text processing tools like *roff. What you learned once, stays valid and carries over to most other tools. This isn't "harder to understand", rather it can be understood *at*all*.

Office?

[TubeSteak]

Are you kidding me!

I don't know what i'd do without wordpad or notepad.

Re:Office?

[Phisbut]

Are you kidding me! I don't know what i'd do without wordpad or notepad.

You'd use KWrite or KEdit :-P

Let's be HONEST here

[Work Account]

I'm smart, most of us here are smart, but I'll admit that sometimes I run into the occasional road block where I can't do something in Linux that I can do in Windows.

I did spend at least an hour getting Quake III to work in Linux properly. It still doesn't quite work as well as in Windows.

I also took some time to get my mouse wheel working in Linux. Granted, I use text-only installs of Slackware or Gentoo where I build my own optimized kernels, but still, I had some difficulty.

Linux isn't easy and it's not a pretty shiny desktop OS. Let's just admit that. I mean heck, would we want it any other way? I enjoy the challenge and I enjoy the OPEN ness of it.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[CyricZ]

Those are the types of issues you should expect when using distributions like Gentoo and Slackware. If you want stuff to just work right away, consider using Debian or a Debian-derived distro, or perhaps even SuSE. But stay away from Fedora. It's been nothing but problems for me, and the alternatives are far superior.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[LordKazan]

I've never had a problem with Fedora

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[CyricZ]

Did you actually try to install it, let alone use it? Just downloading the ISO images doesn't count as using it, you know.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[i_should_be_working]

I spent 15 minutes yesterday trying to disable autoplay (for all drives, not just the cdrom) in Windows. In the end I had search on the internet to find the solution, download a program and do some very non-intuitive stuff.

In GNOME I just go to System->Preferences->Removable Drives and Media.

Everybody has stories of how they have had a hard time with an OS. It's all just anecdotes which don't prove anything. For me, Linux is easy and pretty because it's what I'm used to. When I have to use Windows it's unfamiliar and illogical. And it sure as hell isn't pretty.

BTW, the reason I had to disable autoplay is because it was going crazy grinding the system to a halt whenever I connected a usb drive. Never happens in Linux. But again, that's just another anecdote. Doesn't prove anything. I just wish folks from the other side could admit the same thing whey they're talking about the problems they've had with Linux.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Anonymous Coward]

You're smart? Aren't you the guy who a couple of days ago was making comments about the "average salary" of someone working on Google's Summer of Code without knowing the average number of hours worked?

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm smart, most of us here are smart, but I'll admit that sometimes I run into the occasional road block where I can't do something in Linux that I can do in Windows.

Linux isn't easy and it's not a pretty shiny desktop OS. Let's just admit that.

By that definition, nothing is easy. Whenever I boot into Windows, I find a load of things frustrating. Same goes for when I'm using my iBook. Where are the multiple desktops? Where is the proper maximise? Where's the decent shell?

Yes, if you learnt Windows or spend most of your time in it, you are going to find Linux more difficult to use. That's true with any combination of different operating systems. You're using that as a stick to beat Linux with, but it's true of any operating system.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[clackerd]

i agree. i can get around with no problems in osx and windows, but i get stuck when performing mundane tasks like trying to download and install an application in linux. in windows/osx its a matter of download, uncompress, double click the binary. voila. if something like this trips up a quasi-advanced computer user like me, imagine what grandma and grandpa would do in that scenario?

linux is almost there. the installation is easy, and the apps that come with distros like ubuntu nearly cover the gamut. but it still needs the UI polish that MS and Apple put into their systems. once that gets the attention it needs, the *nixes will be more viable alternatives.

i use a mac because it just works. if i could get that out of a free *NIX distro, i'd jump ship in a hurry.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you!

I'll add to this: I would be an avid Linux user, but about *half* of my peripherals don't work on a default Gentoo/Ubuntu/SUSE install (any of the three, that is). Keep in mind that I have 2 computers I've tried all of the below on, so it's not "just my box".
Internal sound card (SB Audigy 2)? Works on first try in Ubuntu, requires hoops and runarounds for Gentoo and SUSE (beyond just "emerge emu10k2")
External sound card (SB Extigy)? I have to disable my onboard sound in my bios to get it to work. That's the *official tech response* I've recieved from prominent support members of the Gentoo and Ubuntu teams.
My Realtek 8169 GB ethernet? It's detected automatically on the first boot of Ubuntu, but then never again. I had to take out my 8139 to even get Gentoo to admit that the card existed.
Mouse wheels? Forward/backwords buttons? Yeah, right.
Even getting the Windows key to bring up the gnome/kde panel requires way too much effort to configure, in a world where (if they're trying to attract a Windows crowd, as opposed to the already-*nix-savy, or the Sun crowd) it should default to on.

And both Gentoo and Ubuntu have not, in any of my 4 years of tri-booting Windows and the 2 distro's on both of my computers, consistantly been able to use their respective package managers as reliably as Windows update. If I ever try to emerge more than 10 packages (Yes, my use settings are fine), one is garunteed to be broken, "file not found", compile error, etc... APT-GET is no better.

The average home user should not, ever, never consider switching to Linux (in it's current state).
Enough peripherals use nasty little hacks and tricks just to get themselves working in Windows, and there simply is no equivelant for many of these.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Jambon]

I enjoy the challenge and I enjoy the OPEN ness of it.

Sometimes, it feels more like desktop linux is more an OPEN mess than anything. Granted, I like the challenge sometimes, but most of the time it's more of a pain in the ass.

Linux isn't easy and it's not a pretty shiny desktop OS. Let's just admit that. I mean heck, would we want it any other way?

Um, YES? I mean, do you really hate linux that much that you'd say "It's ok, I'd prefer it if you stay ugly and difficult."? I really want to see linux succeed on the desktop. I want to see it be as easy as OSX and Windows. So to be HONEST, yes, I want linux to be a pretty shiny desktop OS with the program support of Windows. The other distros can be challenging if they want to be, but I want AT LEAST ONE that could replace Windows or OSX.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Coryoth]

I'm smart, most of us here are smart, but I'll admit that sometimes I run into the occasional road block where I can't do something in Linux that I can do in Windows.

I did spend at least an hour getting Quake III to work in Linux properly. It still doesn't quite work as well as in Windows.

It's been a while since I used Windows (probably around 2000 or 2001), but I used to run into roadblocks there too. You say you had trouble getting Quake III working on Linux? It took me quite some time to get a decent working TeX installation on Windows. Perl, I seem to recall, was also a little annoying: you could install ActivePerl but every now and then you'd run into hiccups with paths or environment variables. Nothing hard of course, but then there's nothing too hard about setting up Quake III on Linux, it just takes a little time to find all the hoops to jump through.

Of course I understand getting TeX, Perl, Python, a decent shell and terminal emulator (which believe me took quite some effort on Windows) is now a lot easier because Cygwin has matured (it was still a little young and quirky at the time I was using it, and TeX certainly wasn't in the package list initially), but then installing Doom3 on Linux was a hell of a lot easier. Everything has it's quirks and its difficulties - it's all about what you want to do, and as long as your expectations are defined by Windows then clearly Linux will look harder. In my experience, depending on what exactly it is you need to do, Linux and Windows turn about to be about as hard to manage as each other.

Jedidiah.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Z34107]

I spent 15 minutes yesterday trying to disable autoplay (for all drives, not just the cdrom) in Windows. In the end I had search on the internet to find the solution, download a program and do some very non-intuitive stuff.

Uh... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't autoplay *only* supported on CD-ROMs anyway? And why the heck would you download a program to disable it? Or, if it bothers you that much and you can't figure out one of the simplest GUIs ever devised, you can hold down SHIFT to bypass autoplay.

Jesus kills a puppy every day someone can't figure out how to use Windows...

When I have to use Windows it's unfamiliar and illogical

And... how have you lived and not used Windows? Whether you like it or not, it's everywhere, and somehow you're complaining that you've managed to remain ignorant for so long...

Sure, it's slashdot, but yeesh, if you don't like Windows, don't use it. If you have to use Windows, learn how. Yeesh, my dad doesn't have problems with it. (He can even use a DOS prompt!) My grandparents know how to use Windows, and my grandmother writes and publishes novels from her desktop. Yeesh, some octogenarians deserve a nerd badge more than you...

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Sycraft-fu]

But the problem is in Linux you often run in to problems trying to do things normal people would want to do, and often the solution is way above their grasp. For example:

I was playing with Linux on my desktop at work. Install was painless, as one would expect. System is up and working well. However Firefox was out of date, and there were known security problems in the one there. So step one: upgrade Firefox. I get it, run the installer, no dice, says a library is missing. Right here, you just recahed most people's competence limit. They are not going to go digging around on the net for some library. I grabbed it, and repeated the process a couple times until it was satisfied and installed. However the link in Gnome still went to the old version. Figured that out.

So then I tried something 3D and discovered it was all kinds of slow and poor quality. Checking revealed it was the MESA renderer. Ok so task two: Accelerated graphics. Went to ATi's site, downloaded the drivers. Tried to install, no dice, no meaningful explination. At this point I was out of my league. Got one of our LInux guys who said you need kernel headers for the install and for that, rebuilding the kernel is the easiest way. Now at this point you'd have a normal user scared shitless.

Came to find out there's no sorce, so got the source, did the build and install, running on the new kernel. Ok great, try the install, no dice again. Poke around for the error and it's because the drivers don't work with this minor revision. They are 2.6.9 or earlier, not 2.6.10, but try this patch some guy hacked up. No dice again, broke X actually. Rather than fix it, I reinstalled doesn't take long anyhow. Tried the older kernel, again no dice... And so on.

I got it working in the end, but man, complecated process. In Windows it's more along the lines of "Run installer, click yes, reboot." Users can handle that, they cannot handle downloading source, compiling the kernel and troubleshooting install errors.

Now before you run off and start yelling to get an nVidia or how this isn't Linux's fault, recall that we are talking about user experience here. If you want to reach out to clueless users, the experience has to be easy for things they are going to try. That means installing apps and games, upgrading a driver if necessary, etc. In Windows that's all quite easy, in Linux is CAN be, but when it's not, it's really a pain.

Now that's not a problem in a managed environment, where there's an experienced sysadmin to handle it, but it isn't acceptable for home users. They won't put up with it.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[khellendros1984]

I don't know....it took me a decade to get where I am in my understanding of windows, and two years in Linux. Plus, I ended up with a far deeper understanding of the workings of Linux...a standard troubleshooting method for serious windows problems is "reinstall the bugger!"

Of course...Mac is a bit better. But as far as I'm concerned, *n*x is quite intuitive, and the parts that aren't are simple and easy to look up.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[i_should_be_working]

Uh... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't autoplay *only* supported on CD-ROMs anyway?
No, dumm ass, obviously not, since I'm complaining about it. Autoplay was starting when I connected a usb drive. It then proceeded to freeze the whole system. And no, holding down shift didn't work. Learn to read posts. And you have to download the Microsoft program that I did to disable it. That's why I downloaded it.

So despite your bad comprehension of my post, I can use Windows just fine, this was just an example of a non-intuitive hassle that I came across in Windows which is actually easier to deal with in Linux.

To reiterate the points:
1. Windows is not always easier.
2. Familiarity makes things easier.

And yeesh, how did I, the one saying Linux is easy to use, become the computer illiterate one in your mangled post? Yeesh

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Z34107]

Haha, my first flame war! Hooray for me! :-D

Here I was, thinking you were talking about the little text file on a CD-ROM, and not Windows' mangled USB device support. If it bothers you that much, click "do nothing" and check "always do this action."

But, I believe the bigger problem is why it bothers you...

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[i_should_be_working]

Your whole post is another example of how people do better in the environments they are used to. I've had to upgrade Firefox because of a security issue. I've had to install drivers for my ATI card. And if I had just come from the Windows world I probably would have done the exact same things you did, with the same problems.

Knowing better, I just fired up Synaptic package manager (the GUI many Linux users use to get new software) double-clicked on firefox (which tells it to upgrade) and clicked apply. For the ATI driver, the same thing: double click on the ATI drivers in Synaptic. No going to websites and downloading stuff. No compiling. Done in two minutes at the most.

Does that sound like something the average person would have a problem with?

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[i_should_be_working]

Haha, my first flame war! Hooray for me! :-D

I'm glad we're having fun here:)

Checking the box for always take this action (where the action was do nothing) did nothing. It always tried to autoplay. As for the reason why it bothered me: it kept crashing my computer. No one likes that.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[EvilSporkMan]

I'm not sure what the polite way to do this is, but Linux distro websites should make it explicit that the correct way to install software does not involve a web browser. It seems that lots of Linux newbies just need that Zen slap to "get it", and if you don't know this, your system will quickly turn into dependency hell.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Hosiah]

it's not a pretty shiny desktop OS

Jesus Christ! As compared to WHAT?!?!? Link me the screen-shot of this mythical, glorious, ravagingly breath-taking OS that blows away the best Gnome, KDE, Fluxbox, Window-Maker, Enlightenment, etc has to offer. WTF IS the standard that I keep hearing Linux falls short of? What, is the "x" close-window button shaped like Marylin Monroe's titty? What's the goods? Show me!

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Nivoset]

ive noticed that. if you click "always do this" it tend to "always use auto play for whatever windows program wants to use this.. not even the default one"

only way to set them all to that is right click on the drive. properties, and the autorun tab. i wish they had a global shut off that they used to have in 98.

and also. my usb HDD that i dont keep running all the time. auto play all the time. i just got it to work. but sometimes it turns on in windows with the setup compleetly removed. and i have to do it again.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[cos(0)]

Thank you for your insightful comment.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah sweet Christ. I can't recall how many hours I wasted finding out how to get the right timing settings so my monitor would display at 1152x864@100Hz in Linux. All I recall now is a bunch of people in Linux forums flaming me saying I needed a new monitor and shouldn't blame the OS. I finally found a solution, but it was such a quest for it.

Linux is NOT easy, unless you are one of the surf web, check email, type a document people. If that's all you do, Linux is simple, even easier than Windows. However, if you are like me and are an avid gamer, movie encoder, sound editor, DVD burning person, Linux is just a mountain to mine deep into in order to get the knowledge you're looking for.

Here's what I consider the acid test for Linux that both Windows and MacOS pass:

Install the OS, all the drivers you need, configure your computer to connect to the internet, make basic changes to the interface to suit you, and install a bunch of 3rd party software WITHOUT USING A COMMANDLINE. On Windows you can do all those things without having to open up a fucking DOS prompt. Granted it's not pretty, it's a lot of I Agree/Next/Next/Next/Finish/Reboot, or else hunting around in a menu to find the option you want, but it's easy. Only geeks enjoy using the commandline. The rest of us want simple intuitive interfaces that don't require us to know commands ahead of time and type them in precisely. Christ considering how advanced computers are it's absurd we don't even have better input devices than the mouse and keyboard, but that's another issue.

Also, I disagree about the interface. Windows is ass, MacOS is candy-ass. Linux is far cleaner in that regard, I like its look in general on some of the common themes.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[ajs318]

You are attempting to apply Windows concepts to Linux, which is why you are going to be disappointed. Linux is not Windows.

I'm sick of car analogies, so I'll try a dog analogy. When you are training a dog, you can't apply two-legged concepts to it. The dog won't get them and you will end up pissing yourself off. You have to think in terms a dog will understand. A dog doesn't get the concept of punishment except right after the event {in which case it is just another case of cause and effect, this time an undesirable effect of a cause which it will endeavour not to repeat}. A dog doesn't see you getting a tin of dog food out of the cupboard and opening it; it sees you catching something and skinning it. A dog doesn't think it's a person: it thinks it's a wolf and you {despite the leg count} are the alpha wolf in its pack. {If you give it the wrong signals, it thinks it's in charge. And it probably won't know what to do, living in a two-legged environment, so it will mess up really badly.} And so on.

Every Linux distro has its own preferred method of installing packages. With Debian and Ubuntu, it's apt-get; with Gentoo, it's emerge; with Mandriva, it's configure my computer->install software; with SUSE, it's YAST. You didn't state what distribution you were using. If you were using GNOME, I'd guess probably Fedora or Ubuntu. But that's by the by. Your distribution has its own preferred way of installing software. {There are many ways to accomplish this task. The people who set up your distro picked a way they liked, and expect everyone else to do it that way. They were there first and they had to make some rules for the sake of their own sanity.}

With Windows the standard method of installing software is to download a self-extracting executable archive, which contains pre-compiled binaries and automatically installs them somewhere. This is possible because (1) Windows only runs on Pentium / Athlon-type processors, (2) every Windows installation has the same kernel call points, and (3) Windows is actually a little more flexible than Linux with respect to the locations of libraries -- by default, it will first look for a library in the same directory as the program that asked for it. On the downside, (2) means that the Windows XP kernel is cluttered up with remnants from Windows 2000, Me, NT, 98, 95 and 3.11; and (3) means that the hard drives of Windows machines are cluttered up with copies of the same libraries, installed in different locations by different programs.

With Linux, things are a lot more flexible in general -- in fact, Linux is known to run on at least a dozen incompatible architectures. So the canonical method of installing software is to download an archive which contains source code -- which will compile for whatever processor is in the target system, extract it, compile the source, linking it against the installed kernel and libraries, and install the freshly-created binaries. Usually a script is included which will check that the build environment is complete, to avoid disappointment: if you know how to interpret the error messages you get from an abortive attempt at compilation, then you can fix things and it will work next time you try.

However, if you can make certain assumptions about the target system, you can actually install pre-compiled binaries on a Linux system. If you are a distro maintainer, you have pretty much stipulated what versions of libraries and other important base tier software are going to be installed. You can compile binaries against this setup and they will install and run correctly on another machine with the same setup. Slackware .tgz packages contain just the files which need to be installed: if the file is unpacked in the root directory, then everything will be deposited in the right place. Debian's .deb files, and others' .rpm files, go a step better by incorporating some metadata wh

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[mike2R]

Any chance of a link to the solution you found for the autoplay thing? It's been irritating me for a while too..

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[The_Dixie_Flatline]

Yes.

Rule # 233 of Slashdot:
One man's experiences with one linux distro will *always* be the same for the millions (thousands?) of other users.

-Satisfied Fedora Core user.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you can just disable/stop the Shell Hardware Detection service to stop Autoplay.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[i_should_be_working]

Here's the link.

I would have written sooner but after my first flaimbait mod I felt I needed to slow down around here and didn't log back in till now.

Re:Let's be HONEST here

[mike2R]

Thanks for the link - I've got a FireWire drive that gets turned off fairly regularly, and that damned autoplay thing comes up every time it's turned on.

Not easy to configure

[mymaxx]

Not for someone from the Windows world, anyway. If you need to configure anything that isn't out of the box, like latest graphics card support or wireless, you're left out in the cold. You'll have to spend hours Googling for people that have gotten it to work or clues as to how it might work. Then more hours editing configuration files, compiling, rebooting...sometimes all spent in vain.

If there is ONE thing Windows is good at, it is getting stuff configured. It may not be as powerful or flexible, but at least it is easy. Sometimes, you just need to get things done.

Re:Not easy to configure

[Feyr]

yes, it is easy, until it fails.

i had a problem installing windows recently, where it installed the "wrong" IDE controller driver (wtf? why is there even different drivers for that?) and the box would simply crash, before even getting to a gui. mind you it did this without asking, without telling me and without confirmation of anything. worst of all, there is no way to fix it short of a complete reinstall (thankfully, this was already a clean disk, so no lost data)

Re:Not easy to configure

[mymaxx]

I've had similar things happen to Linux. Wrong driver and then the kernel decided to panic on every start. Couldn't get it fixed short of a reinstall. Often though, on Windows you can go into Safe Mode and it will load a generic driver. From there you can select the correct driver in Device Manager.

Re:Not easy to configure

[Tiger4]

"Sometimes, you just need to get things done

Not just sometimes. For most people in the tech services area, they like a challenge, more or less. Configuring things and solving problems is what got them into the field in the first place. But the vast majority of computer users just want to get the job done. They don't care how it works, or why, or what options are behind the command line switches. This thing is a tool. An appliance. More complicated than a screwdriver.

But basically it is a toaster.

Turn it on, it does something useful, turn it off. Anything that requires understanding what is under the interface is hard. Anything that requires thinking about how the interface works is effectively impossible. Windows lets users get away with that. Macs are great at it. Linux (so far) makes the users learn how it works. Or at least ask for a lot of help.

Re:Not easy to configure

[ColaMan]

Wrong driver and then the kernel decided to panic on every start. Couldn't get it fixed short of a reinstall.

That's what single user mode is for ("single" at the end of your kernel parameters)
or failing that, putting "init=/bin/bash" as a kernel parameter,
or failing *that*, a generic failsafe kernel that you can select at boot - that could be setup similar to windows "F8 to safe mode" thing.

But of course finding all this info out is difficult if the only PC you have access to will not boot :-)

Re:Not easy to configure

[wannasleep]

Altough you have a very good point, I think you slightly missing the mark: windows excels because it comes preinstalled on all the PCs that "regular people" buy. When windows doesn't have a driver for something, life can become much trickier.

Windows has also much more support from manufacturers, so when you buy something new it is not hard to configure it.

In shorts: the real difference is made by pre-installed stuff, recovery disks, and driver support. Then Windows is prettier, has more stuff, has excel/word/whatever.

PS: I still can't get my wireless to work and I have to use an old card!

Re:Not easy to configure

[Eric Damron]

" Windows lets users get away with that. Macs are great at it. Linux (so far) makes the users learn how it works."

That is total bullshit. Are you an astroturfer? You sure sound like it.

Installing Suse 10.0

1. Place DVD into DVD drive.
2. Boot
3. Accept all defaults

Usage:

1. Point
2. Click

It is no harder to install than Windows and is certainly no harder to use.

Re:Not easy to configure

[CastrTroy]

Except that is isn't a toaster, it also does julienne fries. Computers are tools, except, like no other tool, they can do "Everything". It's like having an entire hardware store at your disposal to do whatever you want to. Most people wouldn't even know where to begin. Really all they do is take input, shuffle it around and give you output. But the sheer number of ways they can mix up that data is just extraordinary. If you just want to type letters, you'd probably be better off just getting an electric word processor, or even a type writer. A calculator would work well for doing math. They really should make a $50 tool that only does email, and maybe internet chat. Browsing the web is out. Because on the internet, there is "Everything" and people can't handle "Everything".

Re:Not easy to configure

[Monsieur_F]

Installing Windows is simpler:

0. Buy PC. Windows is already installed.

Re:Not easy to configure

[Eric Damron]

1. Buy PC. Windows is already installed.
2. Buy Anti virus software
3. Install anti virus software
4. install security patch
5. install another security patch
6. install yet another securtiy patch
7. etc
8. etc
9. etc

Linux is easier in the long run.

Too Much WoW...

[Chucow]

But wait," you say, "WFTL? WTF is that?"

I must be playing too much World of Warcraft, because I immediately thought Windows For The Loss.

Re:Too Much WoW...

[kihjin]

LFTW

The BEST way to fight FUD

[Fermatprime]

I must not FUD. FUD is the mind-killer. FUD is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face Microsoft's FUD. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye upon its path. Where the FUD has gone there will be nothing. Only Linux will remain.

Re:The BEST way to fight FUD

[Inaffect]

And it will still take you 3 hours to get a game to work properly. Sounds like you are really facing SDAA, not FUD. Shock, Denial, Anger, Acceptance

Re:The BEST way to fight FUD

[NoGuffCheck]

Bill Gates: "Linux is too hard to install and has no support"..

Me: "Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He doesn't seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy takes out his phone and calls the emergency services.

He gasps: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator says: "Calm down, I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a gunshot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says: "OK, now what?"

Is that what you mean?

It's true

[Prof. Pi]

I knew someone who hand-coded HTML to make web pages around 1997, before HTML-authoring tools were common. And these were pages with graphics and menus. But she was absolutely convinced that she should use Microsoft products because you'd have to be "a computer genius" to use anything else. I couldn't convince her that writing a file in LaTeX was structurally very similar to hand-editing HTML. She had a complete psychological block, and would even get mad at me for daring to use anything else.

Re:It's true

[Inaffect]

She should have downloaded a hot dog. That was the premier Windows HTML-authoring tool for quite some time. http://www.sausage.com/

Re:It's true

[Krach42]

The point of the story was not to say "look she was stupid for hand-crafting HTML", but rather that she handcrafted HTML, but refused to use anything but Office, because anything else would be "very hard."

WTF? She already understood the significant part of how to get LaTeX stuff working, but refused to do so, just because she was hung on Office.

Re:It's true

[finkployd]

(1) That was the most erotic thing I have ever seen on slashdot.

(2) There should NEVER be a situation where the above sentence is called for.

Finkployd

Re:It's true

[GreyWolf3000]

Check this comment out: HE REFERENCES A GRANDSON

That does it. CyricZ has to be a troll...

Re:It's true

[empvirus]

That is what we call a hate/fear of change. More or less, she wanted to stay in her "comfort spot", if you will.

Re:It's true

[Hymer]

...and some simple calculations tells me that you are older than I am...

Bwuah?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have to be false to sow Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt.

There's another name for it when it's false. It's called Marketing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlying.:)

not easy enough to install, not easy enough to use

[bcrowell]

Modern Linux distributions are easy to install and easy to use.
I'm a computer geek. There was a period where Linux was too hard for me to install -- I tried and failed a few times. Finally, about four years ago, the installs got easier (and I learned more) so I got a working install. But it's simply not true that Linux is now easy enough for most computer users to install and use. Most computer users are not computer geeks, and in fact, no OS is easy enough for them to install. They'd have trouble installing Windows from scratch too, but they never had to do it because Windows came preinstalled.

Just last week I installed the latest Ubuntu. There were two problems that it took me some time and hassles to work out: (1) The sound software I was trying to use didn't work in GNOME, because GNOME uses ESD. I had to do a "killall esd" before it would work. This took some detective work, because none of the software gave me an error message that told me this was what the problem was. (2) I couldn't install some libraries (such as libc6-dev) because they were in a munged state at the point where I did my apt-get update.

These were time-consuming, frustrating annoyances for me, but for someone who's not a computer geek, they'd be total showstoppers. The average person simply is not going to go looking for help on usenet or IRC (and my experience with posting on the Ubuntu forums has been that I don't get any useful replies, either). The average person will give up.

And BTW, Gagne might want to update the subtitle of his book, "Kiss the blue screen of death goodbye." I have to use Windows a lot at work. I haven't seen a BSOD in years.

Suuuure People are smart....

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's Marcel Gagne, not Marvel....

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do we fight the FUD of the FUD fighters?

Can we be honest with ourselves for just one second?

Claiming that Linux is "easy" to configure is a prima facia falsehood.

Install is still only about 80-85% not the 99.9% that it needs to be.

Maintenence of a 6+ month old distro, any distro, is a nightmare as about that time updating no longer works because dependancies on updated dependancies reach an unmanageable threshold. And no, ignoring maintenence is not an option.

It doesn't anyone any good to spout platitudes about how "easy" Linux is when there are still huge gaping holes in it's ease of use.

The only way to fight FUD is with truth, not more FUD!

Re:But...

[CyricZ]

The problems you mention are often caused by using a distro that's based around RPM files. While revolutionary a decade or so ago, they're quite terrible today. Like you mentioned, the dependencies are a real killer. That's why it's best to use a distribution like Debian or Ubuntu, or even FreeBSD, to get around those problems. Systems like that have real packaging systems that take care of dependencies. Avoid Fedora, perhaps even Slackware, and instead stick with Debian.

Re:But...

[Mancat]

He may be anonymous, but he speaks the truth. Why the mod down?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, you are still living in the Linux world of a decade ago. RPM management is just fine now with yum or apt-get/synaptic. If you are too stupid to use the right tools, then you deserve what you get.

Re:But...

[GreyWolf3000]

Try comparing rpm to dpkg instead. rpm is a fine file format. It has all the information required to do dependency checking. However, like dpkg, it's not rpm's job to do that dependency checking. One could, for example, write an application on top of rpm which handles remote software retrieval and dependency checking.

I believe some exist. Let's see; yum, urpmi, and, oh yes, APT!

Re:But...

[CyricZ]

Have you ever actually used APT with RPM packages? It's awful. Why is that? Because APT tries to convert the RPM to a dpkg package. And do you know what? It rarely works, even with packages that are without any major dependencies. Once you start working those in, well, you're truly screwed. That's why it's best just to avoid RPM files completely.

Yum and urpmi, amongst others, do not compare in any way to APT. They try to solve the same problem, but unfortunately they fail quite miserably. That said, the only other packaging systems comparable to APT is the FreeBSD packages/ports system, as well as pkgsrc.

Re:But...

[CyricZ]

It's pointless to use APT with RPM files, because dpkg files work far better. APT tries to convert RPM files into dpkg files before installing them. And it quickly becomes a mess. It's perhaps even worse than the situation a decade or so ago.

Re:But...

[GreyWolf3000]

Yum and urpmi, amongst others, do not compare in any way to APT.

Having used rpm, dpkg, and others to actually build packages, I'll say that none of this has anything to do with RPM.

I'm claiming you're language draws no distinction between the package manager and package management tool. Which is important, because you're dissing rpm when there's nothing wrong with it. There are no major features it lacks.

urpmi, yum, and apt-rpm might suck, and apt+dpkg might rule, but that has nothing to do with rpm.

Re:But...

[CyricZ]

RPM, be it the various RPM package managers and the RPM package format itself, are redundant. They are both trumped by dpkg and APT, especially when it comes to being used by people who are not overly technical. RPM leads to trouble. dpkg/APT just works.

Re:But...

[suitepotato]

Simply choose to upgrade to the newest kernel iteration on your distro. Reboot. Try using Tux Racer. Slooooow. Try using the webcam you had working. Hmmm... not working. Try issuing:

yum install kernel-module-nvidia-$(uname -r)

and lo and behold, it ain't availible yet.

Neither patches nor service packs on Windows require me to reinstall ANY drivers EVER.

It's a lie of monumental proportions that Linux is easy to install and use. Use to an end user means, works with their peripherals, doesn't require arcane command line or Vi knowledge, and doesn't force them to reinstall technical minutae every time there is an update.

I use it every day but I'm a long time techie. This is not for amatures and that's why Windows XP rocks the common end-user desktop and AOL rocks the amature plug in a phone line and go Internet users. This is why YEnc is a mystery to people all over the Usenet binary groups. This is why web mail is better known than POP3/SMTP for the average surfer. Easy, simple, somewhat intuitive, doesn't seem designed to fark with your sanity: Windows. Hard, complicated, totally counterintuitive, seems designed to inflict emotional distress: Unix.

Re:But...

[GreyWolf3000]

Your ignorance on the matter is very clear. Don't get me wrong, most users shouldn't have to know what the difference between software like dpkg and software like apt.

Ignorance is only bad thing when you criticize a piece of software like rpm. You have yet to explain exactly what features dpkg has over rpm. In fact, you have not actually brought up any problems with rpm itself. You claim that rpms are "quite terrible today," but the only reasons you give aren't related to any problems with rpm.

You are either trolling, or completely unwilling to admit that you're wrong.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit. This far down a thread, and you wonder why people don't/won't use Linux? "So, if I buy this program, I may have to spend weeks twiddling with it?"

Or ... "Insert CD, click Install, and Play".

yeah, I can see why Linux is making so many inroads.

Re:But...

[CyricZ]

What it comes down to is pretty simple: APT/dpkg works, and RPM is a hassle.

Trying to use RPMs with APT is possible, but like I stated before, messy as all hell. And more often than not it fails quite badly.

One big issue with RPM is that it's slow. This is mainly due to its use of Berkeley DB. It's not that Berkeley DB is slow (it of course isn't, as most know), but rather because of the journalling/transaction layer they build on top of it. Of course, APT uses sensible text files that do not need to be reconstructed every now and then.

And that's just one of the main issues. There are many others. APT isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better in many respects. There's no need for RPM-based systems when APT works far better, and is just as free.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

emerge -ud world

Oh look, updated the system and the dependancies. Even my grandmother can click an icon for a bash script of this.

I know, /. and gentoo don't mix, you can mod me to non-existance now.

Re:But...

[GreyWolf3000]

One big issue with RPM is that it's slow. This is mainly due to its use of Berkeley DB. It's not that Berkeley DB is slow (it of course isn't, as most know), but rather because of the journalling/transaction layer they build on top of it. Of course, APT uses sensible text files that do not need to be reconstructed every now and then.

Well, I've used both apt-get with dpkg and raw rpm, and to me, I can't say that I've perceived a difference in speed, even with thousands of packages installed. This is even on slower machines. I mean simply the portion where the package reads the database and interacts with it (dep checking and the end of installation)

However, my hats go off to you, as you have finally produced an actual reason you don't like rpm (and not the fact that many distributions CHOOSE not to place decent toolets on top of it to aid software installation and retrieval).

Re:But...

[chthon]

The only problem with APT for RPM is that the website now states that this tool is obsolete and you should only use yum.

This is a pity, because yum is way slower and I haven't found something like aptitude or synaptic for yum.

Re:But...

[CyricZ]

Start actually using the machine. Install packages, remove packages. Do upgrades and perform updates. Even after just six months or so, you'll notice the difference between similar RPM- and APT-based systems. It'll be a snap to install dpkg packages, but it'll take ages to install RPMs.

Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that any distro that is based around RPM should most likely be avoided. The only truly usable RPM-based distro has proven to be SuSE, but even then that's only because they've invested heavily in YaST2. Fedora, Mandrake/Mandriva, and many other RPM-based distros will pale to Debian when it comes to package management.

Re:But...

[GreyWolf3000]

I use Crux Linux, which uses simple tar.gz packages. Kind of like slackware, but even more simple. You can literally just tar -C / them.

So both dpkg and rpm seem slow to me :)

Re:But...

[CyricZ]

How does it handle dependencies?

Indeed, with APT you get the benefits of Slackware-like packages with minimal and functioning dependency support. RPM, on the other hand, is just a waste of time and resources.

The minor speed tradeoff between APT and just untarring tarballs is well worth it, when you consider the dependency handling. On the other hand, RPM offers no benefits over APT, and is far slower.

In the end, distros that do not use RPM often trump those that do.

Re:But...

[GreyWolf3000]

How does it handle dependencies?

On its own, a Crux package has no dependency information. However, Crux ships with a ports implementation, and if you use the tool 'prt-get', you can get automatic dependency resolution. I, however, only use it when I'm trying to install something that I know will have a bunch of deps. I've been using Linux long enough that I simply know what packages depend on what.

In my opinion there is much more to a distribution than just the package manager. For example, Crux has a policy of not including any info pages or internationalization (nls, gettext) in packages. It also strips binaries by default. It has a simple bsd-style init system.

The result is that it is very trim, which is what I like. I hate distributions that include everything including the kitchen sink by default. Why I need to run sendmail in fedora, I will never know.

Re:But...

[woobieman29]

..."Insert CD, click Install, and Play".

You forgot a few steps..

Windows:

1: Go to the store, or order off the net and wait. Pay for the software.
2: Insert CD.
3: Click install.
4: Navigate the 150 page EULA. Have a lawyer handy, or be one yourself.
5: Type in license key
6: Optionally: do the "Windows Activation" and registration dance.
7: If you want to install on another computer, pay again and get a new CD, then repeat.

Linux (Kubuntu for this example).

1: Run Adept, Synaptic, or your package manager of choice.
2: Select the tools you want to install.
3: Enjoy. Keep your money.

Ok, so not all distros make it this easy, and yes there are tools that you may want to buy through traditional channels for Linux, but in most cases this is how it works. I use a combo of Linux servers workstations (mostly personal use) and Windows machines (my employer's machines, mostly) and this difference is one of the major inconveniences that I dislike about the Windows platform. Yes, the Windows installer itself works pretty well, but.... I can seriously do without all of the other cruft wrapped around it.

Ho-ho

[DaveCar]

I'll bet Marcel chuckled when he realised the poster had spelled his name wrong. What's the chances of that happening!

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[AuMatar]

Remember- the average IQ is 100. And half the people are dumber than that. Its a truely horrific though. (Yeah, yeah, I know difference between median and mean. On a bell curve like IQ its a good approximation to say they're equal).

Individuals may not be stupid...

[SuperAbe]

People aren't stupid and people who use computers learn new things all the time.

Obligatory Men in Black reference:

Agent J: Why the big secret? People are smart, they can handle it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

No problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who believe that Linux is too difficult should stick with Windows.

That would be a win/win situation.

08/15 users can keep downloading emails with Outlook.

Passionate users can stop introducing crap to linux and spend time on projects again (and eventually port them to Windows).

Uh, yeah. I disagree.

[slackingme]

People are stupid. Case in point: USA's 2004 elections.
People are disgustingly stupid, not because they're born that way, but because we breed them like that. People want ROBOTS to DRESS THEM, FEED THEM, and do their JOBS for them.

And you want them to install/use one of the many Linux distributions out there? Hell, people don't even install Windows! It comes on their "cum-pu-tors" and all they do is click the Internet Explorer icon.

You can't ask people to think when it comes to elections, and day to day life, you certainly can't ask them to "think" and "learn" and all that other business when it comes to their COMPUTERS--devices kept around so they can keep up with the latest episodes of "LOST" and google for "porn."

Mod me down, I'm already in the hole. Someone just had to say it..

"There's no such thing as bad publicity...

[Dr. Mu]

...as long as they spell your name right." -- Mark Twain

The author's name is Marcel Gagné. He writes an excellent column in Linux Journal, as well.

Marvel Gagne?

[Otter]

Presumably this is actually Marcel Gagne, best known for his excruciating French chef-themed columns? Consulting him on humor is like consulting the Slashdot editors on spelling.

Incidentally, writing introductory books like "Kiss the Blue Screen of Death Goodbye!" seems to me to be a dead end. Seething haters of Microsoft (and even they haven't seen a BSOD in five years) don't make up a significant share of Windows users, and pandering to that mentality seems counterproductive.

Re:Marvel Gagne?

[DaveCar]

Non, non, mes amis!

The column is tres formidable. Francois! bring a bottle of the Gevrey Chambertin '98 so that we can sit and talk about how marvelous the cheesey writing formula is! ;)

Re:Marvel Gagne?

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, writing books like Algorithms for Programmers is a dead end too, because they don't make up a significant share of computer users, either. Oh and, BSODs still happen all the time. Even with WHQL certified drivers, and on hardware that's rock-solid with Linux. If a year goes by without me actually seeing a BSOD, I might stop longing to run Linux on my desktop (which has an unsupported PATA HW RAID controller.)

That's not the point

[Piroca]

Modern Linux distributions are easy to install and easy to use. Unfortunately, we are constantly presented with messages telling us that it's too hard and that the average person couldn't possibly grasp the complexity. That's rubbish. People aren't stupid and people who use computers learn new things all the time

It's not that Linux it's too hard, the problem is that it doesn't work for the average user. GUIs are not consistent, there are problems with basic things such as drag-and-drop, copy-and-paste, there is a huge lack of specialized applications, and so on. Even with the niceties of modern distributions, things like installing a software that is not directly supported in your distribution or installing 3rd-party drivers is not for the faint of heart. It's sad to say that Linux is years behind things like MacOS or Windows, it really puts a tear in my eyes, but it's true folks, better to admit it and start working into a real foundation before it's too late.

Re:That's not the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.

Easy Install and Use is not the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is there is no compelling reason for people to switch. They have already invested in their Windows box and know how to use it. You want them to give that up on a whim and install linux for the mere hell of it? FAT CHANCE of that happening. What is the motive to use linux over Windows if all the applications work the same? You need something different, something that will bring them to linux.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you live in a very warm country - oh wait, you mean Fahrenheit :)

Linux is not easy to use..... yet.

[linuxishard]

We all know Linux distros come with a really nice suite of software and they are easy to install. But when it comes time to seek out and install a new piece of software, or find an equivalent product that is only offered on Windows, Linux FAILS. A Linux newbie will only spend so much time tinkering with dependancies and editing text files before they give up, or nuke their install. In Windows, they just double clicked an EXE and the thing worked! BIG DIFFERENCE GUYS!

I love to play with Linux as a toy, but it simply fails as a mainstream operating system for the masses in the current form, even if that includes nice looking GUIs.

You lose! Good day sir!

Re:Linux is not easy to use..... yet.

[lunchboxj]

I totally agree. While I spend most of my day in a research lab on Fedora machines, it is not very nice to come home to a suite of incompatibilites on a linux box. I mean, it might work well after a month or so of tweaking, but, if my buddy comes over with his new digital camera, I have to recompile my kernel to even have a PRAYER of seeing his photos. And don't get me started on scanners... there still is no support for like 90% of them.

It seems to me that Apple so far is the only one that's gotten this message. They made a beautiful operating system based on BSD, and managed to do so while still making a famously user-friendly interface. This gives all the power and flexibility that the most advanced techie could need, but also keeps things easy when they need to be so. I love opening up my powerbook wherever I am, knowing that I don't need to jump through hoops to connect to wifi, and then busting into the root filesystem when things get screwy. All my favorite unix apps work just as well as they do on a linux system (thanks to Fink), and absolutely any device can be connected to it without the faintest headache. Whenever I need to install something new, I just double-click on the .app inside any .dmg, and byu.

All I'm saying is that the linux community needs to keep more of these compatibility issues in mind when updating the features of the newest release. Stability is certainly an issue worth dealing with, but the os will NEVER be successful until it has the ease of use of os x.

C'mon... if I tried to put linux on my mom's computer, I would never sleep because of all the midnight trouble calls. I love the OS as much as anybody else, but it is simply not practical for the average person..... yet.

Re:Linux is not easy to use..... yet.

[DaveCar]

In Windows, they just double clicked an EXE and the thing worked! BIG DIFFERENCE GUYS!

Yeah, then they realise they just installed a fricking virus/trojan/spyware (or rather, they probably don't).

Personally I have never suffered a virus infection or lost any time to expunging spyware or whatnot from any system I have administered. Well, expect deleting virus laden crap from my mailbox sent by clueless people who think that someone loves them and has chosen to display it by sending a blatantly titled email.

Yeah, maybe there's some inconvenience by having to spend an hour trying to figure out that I have to follow a series of steps to get something to work, but it's more than made up for by not having to spend a couple of hours de-lousing each and every machine I have to look after.

Re:Linux is not easy to use..... yet.

[rubycodez]

OS x only needs to worry about a MINUTE handful of different machines and relatively small number of device drivers, while there's a multitude of different x86 machines and thousands of devices, not to mention non-x86 ones. Apple also pays for proprietary info to make some of it's stuff work, while Linux developers don't always get support from manufacturers. Speaking of stability, OS X doesn't have it.

Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[oahazmatt]

If Gagne's so sure the average user is more than willing to learn new things, then he can be the one to walk my mother through downloading ISOs for the latest Mandrake build, helping her pick which items to install, explaining why she needs a "gui" (and what it is) and then helping her pick between KDE, Gnome...

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[CyricZ]

Get her to use Ubuntu, rather than Mandrake. They'll most likely ship her CDs free of charge.

I've even seen my grandson install it, and he's 9. Yes, it really is that easy.

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[KylePflug]

Yeah, it's that easy. To install. Can he get wifi to work? Can he get email from an exhange server? Can he get it to work with most recent games easily and with decent performance?

I doubt it. I'm a computer geek, but I gave up on Linux after spending countless hours with three different distributions trying to get either HPNA or wifi to work reliably (or, hell, at all).

So I just went back to windows. The one where wifi worked on the first boot and installing things involves double-clicking something rather than excruciating package dependencies, config edits, etc., that are never well documented (or at least, not easily and clearly) and vary by distribution.

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[CyricZ]

His PCMCIA wireless networking card worked just fine, without any manual configuration. I remember recalling that that may be a problem point, but it wasn't. I don't think he's much into games. He was playing TuxRacer, but wasn't too amused. He's working on learning Python, and got tired with it not working too well under Windows. I suggested he try Linux, and frankly I was surprised by how easily Ubuntu installed for him.

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[KanSer]

Don't be a dick, just give your mom a Ubuntu install disk.

You guys love making things way harder than they have to be. It's the geeks way, but as much as people have to get over their own mental blocks about trying new things, we have to get over our mental block that everyone _should_ think like us. (I know they _should_ but they're never going to. Humans hate changing their way of doing things to fit someone else's agenda.)

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[KylePflug]

Well then I'm surprised, because I've had no luck with Wi-Fi in Red Hat 9, Ubuntu, or SuSe (or various LiveCDs) using PCI, PCMCIA, or USB, having tried a total of four different wifi equipment vendors.

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[cbiltcliffe]

Can he get wifi to work?

Can the average user get WiFi to work on Windows? Securely? Judging by the number of wide open wireless networks around my house, I'd say no. I've had a bitch of a time getting WiFi to work at all on Windows, even without encryption. If you install a Linksys wireless NIC before you install the software for it, it won't work. This isn't the only thing I've seen like this in Windows; some drivers are just really finicky. Sometimes you have to install the hardware first, sometimes you have to install the software first, and sometimes it doesn't matter. With Linux, it never matters, as hardware configuration information isn't stored in the registry, hoping to keep it the same on the next boot. It's detected from scratch every time the machine boots, and still manages to keep all it's devices straight.

Can he get email from an exhange server?

Does the average Windows user even know what an Exchange server is? Really, I think this was a rather unfair question. If Exchange is set up to use POP, it will be no different to get email on Linux or Windows. If Exchange is only using proprietary Outlook-speek, then I hardly think anybody but a geek would be able to get Windows to work properly with it, either.

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[CyricZ]

That's curious. I could see such equipment not working out-of-the-box with Red Hat 9, but that's not surprising considering its age and lack of quality. However, it is suspect that it is not working with SuSE and Ubuntu, plus the others.

What brands/models/etc. did you try?

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[KylePflug]

I've tried Microsoft, in USB, PCI, and PCMCIA flavors. I've tried a Linksys or two, I think one was PCI and one was USB, I've tried Hawking (USB), and I've tried my laptop's built in wifi (Toshiba). There was one more PCI that I tried, with no luck, but I don't remember the manufacturer.

I don't have any of them anymore, so I don't remember model numbers. But yes, it did seem more than a little strange.

(For the record, I tried both Linksys and Microsoft routers, too.)

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[Hymer]

"Can he get wifi to work?" Sorry, you blew your cover. You are not a real geek, just a poor wannabe...
"Can he get email from an exhange server?" Who cares, he is 9 and do not have any use for an Exchange server... in fact nobody has any use of an Exchange server !

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[KylePflug]

What do you mean, I blew my cover? If you've spent any time with Linux at all you'll know that it's at best at pain and at worst impossible to get Wi-Fi to work, especially with poorly supported hardware (which is most of it), on most freely available distributions.

And plenty of people have use for an exchange server. It's not for everyone, but Outlook+Exchange is a very powerful combo for many corporate and college campus uses. More importantly, lots of people just need to be able to access exchange, and if Linux can't work with the infrastructure, bye bye Linux.

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[Hymer]

I know it's a pain in the ass... so is it on Windows (at least if you want WPA)... you are supposed to do exactly the same thing in Linux as in Windows: check what works BEFORE you buy it. I've looked for a few days and bought a 3Com 3CRPAG175, it works fine under SuSE 9.3... You don't have fancy GUI for WPA but I really don't care as long as it works.
It is not Linux fault that you can't use an Exchange server, it is Micrsofts fault. Exchange is (imho) a poor replacement for a mail server for people who are unfortunate and MUST use M$ products... but I still can't imagine why a 9 year old geek would need a connection to an Exchange server.
...and what I ment by "blow your cover", well, I haven't yet met a geek (in my 40 years of life on this planet) who gives up on a unsolvable problem... that's what make us geeky... but you may of course have a "real life" with cute wife, sweet children and good work so you don't have the time... and that is an excuse I even may accept.. :-)

Re:Glad to hear they're anxious to learn...

[KylePflug]

I never said I gave up on the problem. The problem was that my wi-fi was not working, or not working reliably (got it to work, just barely, on my brother's laptop). The most effective, most efficient, easiest, and cheapest (yes, cheapest, though access to the microsoft store makes me not exactly a representative sampe) was simple to delete my Linux partition and go back to Windows. Could I have gotten it to work on Linux? Probably. Would it have taken hours and hours, plus continual tweaking every time I want to install a simple program? Probably.

People falsely assume that those who use Windows do so just because they're forced to, or just because they are too dumb for Linux. Quite the contrary; simplicity doesn't mean it's only for simpletons. It means it saves time and effort in the long run.

As for WPA... well, I'll get flamed to hell and back for saying it, but who cares? For the average consumer, WPA (and encrypted IM, and half the other things that geeks rant and rave about) is just paranoid.

I'm not a Windows fanboy. I'm not a Linux hater. I just find that for my needs (general purpose computer such as word processing, browsing, and email, as well as current-gen gaming, IM, media library, etc.) Windows is in my experience faster, more stable, more efficient, and easier to use. And a hell of a lot prettier.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[canesfan]

Well actually depending on who you choose to believe, the media or the conspiracy theorists we didn't re-elect George W. Some rigged electronic voting machines provided the edge he needed to come out the better man. Or did they? Hmmm... let's think about that.

Well ...

[LaughingCoder]

I guess I'm pretty dumb. I tried to install the latest Ubuntu distribution on my (admittedly somewhat dated) PIII-600 Compaq laptop. It hung halfway through while installing the packages. I restarted it and it hung in the same place. Undaunted I switched to Redhat (FC4). It threw an error about a quarter of the way through and then quit (offering to send a bug report - shades of Microsoft). Frustrated I stuck in my Windows 2000 CD and 45 minutes later I was up and running.

On the flipside, I put Ubuntu into a newer desktop (Athlon 2000Xp on an ASUS motherboard) and the install went smoothly. And I was very impressed when I was able to immediately access my file server (running Windows 2000) and load up a Word document from that network share. Of course then I tried to play an mp3 from that same network share, but learned that mp3 support is not in the distribution. Some web searching revealed the solution, which was not trivial (involved enabling repositories and such). When I finally got the mp3 codec installed (I would estimate this task was beyond the vast majority of casual users) I again tried to play an mp3 from my Windows share - but again, no joy. I ended up having to drag the song to the Ubuntu desktop to be able to play it. I never did diagnose what that was all about - some Samba switches no doubt.

So, I don't think it's *ALL* FUD - there are legitimate issues that still need to be worked out.

Re:Well ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A Compaq is not a computer. A Compaq is a pile of feces enclosed in a computer case. Apparently Windows 2000 can be installed on shit. Pretty amazing, Microsoft...

Re:Well ...

[DaveCar]

I, too, curse when the new distro I just installed won't play an mp3.

But, then I remember this is not a technical problem, but an IP problem.

If you're not paying anyone for the software then expecting them to take the heat for patent violations rather than yourself would be a bit rich. Not a dig at you I must stress, but thems the breaks with FOSS.

I just remeber to take my statically linked mplayer binary with me from system to system so I can play mp3s, aacs and most videos at the drop of a hat. Then I just add the big zip of binary codecs for most everything else :)

Re:Well ...

[MooUK]

Very simple reason why Ubuntu doesn't have MP3 support built in: They legally CAN'T. That's it. Nothing to do with Linux; everything to do with the codec creators.

Well, sure!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, people love to learn new things. They just hate having to relearn how to do things they used to know how to do.

Suse is pretty easy BUT

[vandit2k6]

Yeah so SUSE 10 is wicked easy. Veryy user friendly. I am really happy. GUI is great let me tell you. It almost comes near Windows but not quite yet. It still doesn't like my wireless card and thats very important for me. Back to Windows :) and on my XP (constantly windows updated, virus updated and spyware updated hasn't crashed once :-) ).

You're more in danger of coming across as a whiner

[Prof. Pi]

GWB was re-elected! Any country with an average IQ higher than that of the outside temperature (and I'm talking 'fall' here) would have kicked this guy to the curb.

Right now it's 290 degrees K outside.

Actually, Kerry won the high-school dropout vote, as well as the Ph.D. vote. Bush won the high-school graduate to 4-year degree sectors.

amen to that

[conJunk]

The average person simply is not going to go looking for help on usenet or IRC (and my experience with posting on the Ubuntu forums has been that I don't get any useful replies, either).

And how many times on IRC did you get responses along the lines of "sort it out for yourself, n00b, the rest of us googled our way through..."

My biggest complaint about linux is the community. I've got a happy fedora install at home that does everything i need it to, but when it comes to the nitty gritty of the trackpad or the sound card, it's not only *really* hard to get good information, but you have to fight your way through attitude to find it.

I have a suspicion that a lot of the people giving first-timers a hard go of it on IRC are the same people screaming about how their grandmothers could install Linux so what the hell is wrong with everybody else.

Re:amen to that

[merreborn]

how many times on IRC did you get responses along the lines of "sort it out for yourself, n00b, the rest of us googled our way through..."

Personally, I offer a lot of tech support on message boards. When someone comes to the board once in a blue moon with a really difficult tech issue, I'm more than happy to help. But there's a certain class of user who will continually post questions that can be answered with 30 seconds of googling. Questions like "Can I use this 1MB SIMM in my P4 box?".

It's rather akin to someone walking in to the emergency room with a paper cut... 4 times a day. The "experts'" time is better spent on those who have more severe problems. Learn to apply your own bandages, dammit!

There's a difference between needing help with a truly obscure problem after conducting your own exhaustive research, and being completely unwilling to learn at all. Believe it or not, if you're willing to take the time to research, and learn on your own, you can do just about anything. If you decide that you don't understand computers, never will, and shouldn't even bother trying... Well, that's a self fulfilling prophesy, and a waste of my time.

Re:amen to that

[conJunk]

no, you are absolutely correct... it's true... but, the one really unhelpful person is the one you remember... there are a lot of *really* helpful people kicking it on IRC waiting for questions from people doing their first install, but they don't stick in one's memory quite the same way

Re:amen to that

[bcrowell]

Personally, I offer a lot of tech support on message boards. When someone comes to the board once in a blue moon with a really difficult tech issue, I'm more than happy to help.
It's very nice of you to help people out like that on message boards, and of course if you don't feel like answering a certain question, you can just not answer it.

But there's a certain class of user who will continually post questions that can be answered with 30 seconds of googling. Questions like "Can I use this 1MB SIMM in my P4 box?".
There's where you're wrong. The average person wouldn't even know what to Google for. They wouldn't have the framework of background knowledge to know what search terms were relevant. I teach physics to community college students, and I think in terms of intelligence and education their bell curve is probably pretty similar to the bell curve of computer users in general. Most of them have an extremely hard time figuring out technical information by reading. Most of them, although they're in college, have a reading level somewhere around 9th or 10th grade. Many are immigrants, and English is difficult for them. Many of them just don't have the background to understand lots of technical stuff that would be obvious to a geek, e.g., they don't have any feel for whether the Earth's atmosphere is 10 miles thick or 1000 miles thick. They don't know the metric system, so "1MB" doesn't immediately imply a million bytes to them. They're not stupid, but they're not ubergeeks either, and that's the way most of the population is, too.

Re:amen to that

[laughingcoyote]

I've had -very- little trouble with getting support a few times that I've had a genuinely difficult problem. On the other hand, I made sure of two things. I had made SURE to go look for the answer myself, and try any relevant solutions found by googling or searching the forum. In most cases, this -does- solve the problem, no further effort required. On the other hand, when such things didn't work, I did go ask for help. Each time, I made sure to mention "I found solutions x, y, and z on google/forum x, but when I tried it it (did nothing/caused a different problem/etc.) This not only saves the experts' time and yours (they're not suggesting things you already tried), but showing that you were willing to do your own homework before taking up someone else's time is always going to make someone more favorably inclined to help you.

On the other hand, I've seen as many people sent to the best self-help website on the net for asking about obvious Windows problems as well as obvious Linux ones. It's frustrating to answer an obvious question 500 times, when the answer is the first search result on google. That's true whether you're supporting Windows, Linux, or anything else. Especially when doing it for free.

As for the people who "don't want to learn anything about computers, dammit!" Fine. Don't. And don't use them. Or at least don't hook your soon-to-be zombie up to the public Internet. We don't let people who "don't want to learn a thing about operating a car!" drive one. This doesn't mean you do have to know how to rebuild the engine, but it DOES mean you ought to know how to change a flat and stay on the correct side of the road.

Re:amen to that

[nine-times]

I once saw about the most frustrating post I could possibly imagine along these lines. I had been working on setting up a web server (and I'll admit, I'm no huge expert, but I can set up Apache), and I wanted to find a way that I could let people log in remotely for file transfers, with encrypted passwords, but not have access to the whole file system. FTP would have been fine, but I didn't want plain-text passwords. SFTP would be fine, but I didn't want them browsing my /etc.

After searching the internet for a while, I came across a post that was posted on some OpenBSD focussed site, and I was in luck. Someone had posted almost the exact question I was looking for. The exchange went something like this:

Guy1: How can you jail someone in ssh?

Guy2 (who was apparently a recognized OpenBSD developer): You can't.

Guy1: What do you mean? Can't I chroot someone?

Guy2: No.

Guy1: Well, I just want a way to keep people from browsing my file system. Is there a way to do that?

Guy2: No. You should be using FTP.

Guy1: Ok, but I don't want plain-text passwords. What do you recommend? SSL?

Guy2: No. That's too hard to set up. Don't bother trying.

Guy1: Well, what do you recommend then?

Guy2: Look, you obviously don't understand security.

And it pretty much ended there. Now, maybe there is some security theory that I'm ignorant of here, but the whole thing just seemed... absurd. The site seemed to be set up for the sake of discussions on OpenBSD and such, the guy asking the questions was polite, and the guy answering was supposed to be an expert. I'm not an uber-geek, but I'm not exactly computer-illiterate either, and it seemed like, even if it's a dumb question, it's not so dumb that it doesn't warrant addressing.

Ok, so I guess I'm not adding anything to the discussion, except to say that I know what you mean. There are lots of good, helpful folk out there. Gentoo forums come to mind as a place where I've looked for problems, even on a non-Gentoo machine, and just thought, "god, this is a lifesaver". But sometimes, it's just hard to find answers, even when you know the answers are out there. I've secure shelled into servers that've jailed me before, and yet I've never gotten an answer to this question that actually made sense and worked.

Re:amen to that

[Anonymous Coward]

Many are immigrants ..... They don't know the metric system

WTF?! If they are immigrants to the USA then they will certainly know the metric system!

Re:amen to that

[robw810]

Come to #slackman on freenode irc and talk to Sandman1 and/or Straterra - both have done exactly that for ssh.
RW

Re:amen to that

[Anonymous Coward]

do a search for ftpchroot

Easy as Pie!

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely linux is not problem for such a masterful geek as I who can fix two keyboards in one day by instructing user XYZ to "Turn on numlocks by pressing 'Num Lock'" (yes two keyboards, one user, same problem. It seems (s)he roams), repaired a CD-RW on a Latitude C640 by pushing it into the laptop until it 'clicked' into place (as opposed to sticking out the front a quarter inch), and magically fixed a "black screen of death" that occured after 10 minutes of PC innactivity (Yeah... That was a new one for me too) by changing the default screen saver from blank screen to 3D pipes.

But for the average user... impossible!
(OK, maayyy-bee my users set a bad example)

Marcel? I thaught this was some new Marvel comic

[Anonymous Coward]

I thaught that would be like superhero comic strips and stuff.
But its just some french guy.

Why don't you explain it to her?

[CyricZ]

Why don't you explain to her that she may not have to use Outlook, even if they say that she does? Don't get technical. Maybe even set up Seamonkey or Thunderbird for her, just to show her that it can be done and how much better off it will make her.

Re:Why don't you explain it to her?

[OzPhIsH]

Oh, of course I have Thunderbird set up for her. But the thing is, I'm not the IT guy for everyone else in the school district. I'm not going to go around door to door installing another e-mail client on everyone's computer. My point is that I shouldn't have to go correct this moron's incorrect assertion. It's simply wrong for people in the positions of a degree of trust regarding computers, like your IT guy at work, and especially one in our educational system, to be feeding this kind of misinformation to people. It's the behavior of people like this IT guy, telling everyone you must use Outlook at home to get your e-mail, that further propagates the myth that you can't get away from Microsoft. I'll bet if our public institutions started using free software, like OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, while it may not spark a migration away from MS, at least it would start to get people comfortable with using other products.

Re:Why don't you explain it to her?

[corvair2k1]

Maybe even set up Seamonkey or Thunderbird for her, just to show her that it can be done and how much better off it will make her.

The truth of the matter is, there is no real compelling reason for a lot of people to switch. Even if some features of Thunderbird or SeaMonkey were significantly better, it usually takes a long time (and lots and lots of emails) to discover just how good a feature is. I doubt that I use email myself enough to gain a benefit from any given client... I go months at a time using Pine, and my capabilities never suffer due to reduced usability, because I only receive 20-30 messages a day.

We're not in the old days where MS software crashes all the time... It has grown to be pretty stable. It would be hard to make an argument for whether any particular alternative will make any casual user "much better off".

Re:Why don't you explain it to her?

[timeOday]

My Windows machine at work is almost unusable because it's so loaded up with virus and spyware protection, and disk inventory software, that it basically just sits there and monitors itself all day. Whatever I need to accomplish as a user is apparently a distant second in importance.

Re:Why don't you explain it to her?

[Decker-Mage]

Then your head IT guy has selected the wrong products, probably without testing them, for your company. My system (Windows Server 2003 Enterprise as my development desktop, 2.8 GHz P4, 1 GB RAM, 256 MB nVidia FX5700,...) is wired up like a pinball machine here with everything from virus checking, spyware protection, even packet monitoring and logging and CPU load runs 1-3%, period. Heck, SQL Server doing absolutely nothing at the moment usually grabs more CPU than the rest of the system combined. What's interesting is that for individual use every product I use is free and pretty durn cheap for a business license.

The problem here, as I see it, is far too many IT types don't bother to test everything, especially vendor claims, against realistic setups before committing to the dotted line. Furthermore they don't make the case to management about the total costs, including all factors, to upper management. Lastly, upper management doesn't trust the average IT department to speak the truth, let alone deliver on their promises. I see all of this over and over in the field, when I'm called in to consult, and in the industry journals day in and day out. Actually it's sad that I have to be called in to (sometimes) give the exact same information and recommendations as an IT department simply due to the fact that I refuse to lie and I have always admitted immediately when I don't know something (but I'll go find out). I guess that makes me weird but engineering doesn't usually let you get away with BS. As I keep saying, nuclear meltdowns are sooo messy.

Re:Why don't you explain it to her?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the load like when you get mail?

Re:Why don't you explain it to her?

[Decker-Mage]

It runs 5-8% using Outlook XP accessing 14 accounts across my four servers including one account each for GMail, Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail, and CompuServe (Classic). Actually, the real CPU (whore) hog is Firefox which peaks at 58%. Even the latest and greatest (beta) version of VMWare doesn't pull that much typically unless I'm doing something rather radical at the time. You have to be careful with these numbers though as the whole system is a totally custom design with the Windows OS itself highly modified for performance as well as the hardware itself. I even went so far as to reprogram some of the values in the Northbridge and Southbridge. Even Intel wouldn't recognize what this motherboard is doing although if you study the engineering manuals the potential was always there. Then again, I have been reading engineering manuals as light reading material since I was a teenager. I'm not bragging, it's just what I consider good fun.

It's amazing the gains you can make with slight adjustments such as synchronizing the FSB to some even multiple of the the CPU clock speed. Then again, for anyone really familiar with electronic engineering, it shouldn't be. That doesn't even address some of the id10t default settings inside Windows although the amount of experimentation, man-months to say the least when you include repeated benchmarks and real-world application testing, required to find the optimal values isn't something that anyone but a prime-level geek would commit. And once you do find them you get to toss it all out with the next version but that applies to hardware as well. I'm currently in the throws of designing my next machine and finding the information to make the best design decisions ain't fun at all. Then again, I design for years (at least a decade actually) of useful life while the whole industry is geared to obsolescence as soon as it reaches the end of the production line. They can keep their upgrade treadmill, thank you. I do create and build a new machine every two years but that doesn't mean that my older machines are exactly languishing here or elsewhere. The advent of *nix in a more widespread form is very useful in that regard although optimization is a bit more difficult in many cases.

Re:Why don't you explain it to her?

[timeOday]

Actually, the real CPU (whore) hog is Firefox which peaks at 58%.

I think the problem here is animated banner ads. I like to keep a lot of tabs open, and I sorely wish there were an option to *not* spend any CPU time on tabbed pages that are not visible.

Re:Why don't you explain it to her?

[Decker-Mage]

That peak 58% is a hard number for pure HTML as I have everything else blocked normally with only a few exceptions. The default for any site blocks everything: advertisements, backgrounds, blinking text, pop-up windows, system information (UserAgent), last page (Referrer), cookies, javascript, and sounds. And that's before Firefox even receives the page. I'm absolutely ruthless about security here ;-). As for FF, I have all the usual stuff, images only for the originating site and ditto for cookies, most of javascript disabled even if I do allow it for a site via my proxy settings, flashblock, etc. ad nauseum. Nope, it's just a resource hog. It really doesn't matter much as I'm not usually doing anything else resource intensive at the same time, just an interesting observation and btw not unique to FF as most F/OSS exhibits the same behavior here. I can get nice spikes in memory and cpu utilization in a lot of the F/OSS stuff I use as this system is well blended between both camps. I use whatever tool is best for what I'm doing at the time and the hell with purity. It'd be interesting to grab one of the P4 optimized versions to see what their behavior is like. Probably better would be my guess but with FF in a bit of flux right now, I don't see wasting my time while they shake out the kinks. I have enough beta stuff on my plate right now to keep me busy well into next year.

yup

[Anonymous Coward]

dun dun dun

They just want it to work

[ferreth]

This attitude prevents the general public from using Linux. The general user doesn't want to think about swap files, network configs and boot preferences. Ideally, they want to click "Install" and at the end come up with a system that has their applications ready to go. Command line?! Come on, anyone not interested in computers in general does not want to learn any commands - they want to double-click their application of choice and get on with their day.

I'm smarter than the average bear and I sometimes just want to do something - I'll just install an application with the default settings, learn the minimum nessesary to get the job done and move on. This is the norm for the average user, and computer geeks forget this all the time.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[CyricZ]

Don't confuse stupidity with vote rigging.

The biggest obstacle is not working right

[Elwood P Dowd]

Swear to God, there are actually problems with Linux. Not newbie fear. Problems.

There are merits too. But a common reason people don't use Linux is that it isn't the best option for them.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[KylePflug]

What do you mean it's a horrific thought? It's normalized. Of course half the people are dumber than that. That's the whole point.

45 mins...

[Anonymous Coward]

i spent 45 minutes with my sister telling her how to install a program by double clicking on an exe and then copying a file into the install directory in windows. i cant imagine her using linux for anything other than a screensaver, if she could configure the timer correctly. dont get me wrong i love linux, but.. userfriendlieness is not one of its forte's.

Marvel Gagne?

[sampowers]

There is a typo in the original submission. The author of Moving To Linux's name is Marcel, and not Marvel, Gagne. Speaking of Marcel Gagne, who else thinks his Linux Journal articles are BEYOND annoying? (I know, if I don't like it, don't read it. Believe me, I don't.)

It's not stupidity

[max born]

People aren't stupid ....

No but they sure can be lazy. I've migrated a lot of systems from Windows to Linux and the main problem I've had is that Windows admins often can't be bothered to read the docs. Many of them have learnt most of what they know by hunting and pecking through a myriad of menus and sub menus to find the right icon to click on. When presented with a man page they throw up their arms in dispair and complain about how complicated Linux is.

Re:It's not stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because Man( a CLI app) is soooo intuitive to use... wtf those bastards MUST be lazy coming from a background of dialog window driven help and easy to spot search capabilities...

What retards.. a two year old could figure out MAN!

(yeah yeah don't bore me with what KDE or GNOME have to offer as far as GUI help, he was referencing MAN.. this is typical zealot crap, maybe next time he will show them one of the other more helpful ways to learn Linux instead of keeping the WTF nOOb mentality..)

not a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

jim: you're strategy is going to destroy all hope, causing widespread suffering, and death.

craig: bwah hah a hh a hahah, lol, rotflmao......phew. sniff sniff. ohhh jim, now _i'm_ the antichrist, i'm demon spawn right? (raises elbow), oh look! my wings and horns (touches head). Next thing you know I'll be turning you to ash.

jim: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...

Dumb can be fixed....

[thundergeek]

But stupid is forever!

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[AuMatar]

Ever met someone with an IQ of 100. I may well be an intellectual elitist, but they seem pretty damn dumb. And half of the people are even dumber. Get the idea now?

Re:You're more in danger of coming across as a whi

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor vote for the democrats because the democrats support social welfare policies that attempt to help those less fortunate. The very learned and intelligent (PhD etc.) vote for the democrats because they are intelligent enough to see that compassion for their fellow man is something that deserves to be promoted.

The religious vote for Republicans because they are ignorant, selfish and fearful of others and themselves.
The high school graduates and some university graduates vote for the Republicans because their innate selfishness and greed overcome their ability to realise that a socially responsible and supportive community is best for all - they epitomise the American "I've got mine" syndrome.

America as a whole is more selfish, ignorant, self-centred and greedy than other Western countries. Hopefully, they will eventually achieve enlightenment.

No, not really so easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

I love Linux. I love my home MythTV/mt-daapd/file server (built twice: Sarge, then Ubuntu), and my office file/email server (Sarge), but no way can I say it's as easy for the enduser as Windows for many of the things you have to do.

Here's a key example: MythTV (great, love it, yes too fscking hard) rides on top of the ivtv drivers for my TV card. The MythTV project and the ivtv project don't really talk to each other, never mind that probably most users of ivtv are running MythTV. There's nobody in charge of the multiple elements that make up a single end-user application. That's not the problem per-se; the real problem is that the Linux community seems to LIKE IT THAT WAY.

I certainly don't think that Windows "Just Plain Works" in the mold of Mac OS X, but frankly it "Just Plain Works More Often" than most of the Linux stuff I've tried. Linux is still the private preserve of geeks, at least until developer communities get some Project Managers working to coordinate the end-user apps.

DC

Free is bad

[denidoom]

I think a big reason people do not switch is because it's free. They are suspicious of anything where there is not a fee attached. "How can it be any good if there isn't some big corporate machine behind it?" They might think. It's like people who goto Red Lobster, even when there is a better, cheaper fresh seafood mom and pop restaurant down the street. I've seen people eat the worst dish with a high price tag and grimace, mumbling, "It's good." Another example is in the self-publishing world, you should never give anything away for free because there is no perceived value.

But who does value something free? People who don't have a lot of money? I sometimes wonder why inner city schools aren't using Linux machines rather than getting expensive grants for Apples. How come no one ever evangelizes to the poor? My first experience with Linux (I think it was a little lite thing called Dragon Linux) was because I couldn't afford Windows to put on a whiped Thinkpad I had bought used.

maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

but you haven't met my mother!

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[shark72]

"And BTW, Gagne might want to update the subtitle of his book, "Kiss the blue screen of death goodbye." I have to use Windows a lot at work. I haven't seen a BSOD in years."

Me neither. That's the author's way of trying to spread a little FUD himself. Maybe it's an attempt at irony.

bullcrap

[tehgimp]

I know I'm not an idiot. I went to top university and got almost perfect SATs (if that means anything). I graduated with a great gpa in computer science and work as a software engineer... and I think linux is annoying to work with. Yes, I have worked and developed on Linux. I can get by. But I just don't want to have to remember a bunch of obscure command lines nor deal with searching for oddly named utilities. It is such a pain in the ass to install applications and what not... If you think the "average" person can work with Linux, you're out of touch w/ reality... OS X on the other hand is a much friendlier OS...

Re:bullcrap

[ylikone]

Well well, have you tried Mandriva, SuSe or Ubuntu? Obscure command line codes? Command line? You obviously haven't used any modern distros.

Duff?

[ElNerdoJorge]

Homer: Got any Duff?
Bartender: We only sell Fudd in these parts.

Wow!

[kuzb]

People aren't stupid and people who use computers learn new things all the time.

You've obviously never worked in tech support anywhere, have you?

Re:You're more in danger of coming across as a whi

[wbtittle]

The pHD vote for democrats because they have lost touch with reality. Having compassion for their fellow man is a crock. If they truly had compassion they would do less for the common man.

If you never let a child do anything, will he ever do anything?

Compassion is great, but you have to do it so that the person receiving it doesn't actually know it is happening.

Outlook and VBA are the real killers`

[Bradac_55]

Yup until Novell throws real development time behind porting Evolution to Windows (fat chance)
80% of the SMB's (Small-to-Medium Businesses) will have to stay with Outlook for Calendering.
And a smaller portion will always be stuck with Excel due to heavy VBA development.

That's what's killing OOo adoption, that and the huge FUD campaign MS has been waging in the
Windows only IT groups for the last decade.

Re:Outlook and VBA are the real killers`

[eosp]

Then there's the ironically named FirstClass.

Re:Outlook and VBA are the real killers`

[Phisbut]

Yup until Novell throws real development time behind porting Evolution to Windows (fat chance) 80% of the SMB's (Small-to-Medium Businesses) will have to stay with Outlook for Calendering.

Over here (20 employees SMB), some people are on Windows, some are on OSX, and some are on Linux (ok well, just me). We use Apple's iCal for calendering, and Sunbird (Mozilla Calendar) supports that. Multiplatform calendering for not-a-whole-lot-of-money (I guess you have to count the price of the OSX licences, but it ain't as much as a Windows licence anyway).

Protocol?

[tepples]

Why don't you explain to her that she may not have to use Outlook, even if they say that she does?

Because IMAP and POP3 access have likely been turned off, leaving Microsoft's proprietary protocol. Or does Mozilla Thunderbird or T-bird Community Edition already speak that?

Yes there is FUD, but some of this FUD is true...

[TheNetAvenger]

Yes there is FUD, but some of this FUD is true...

There are severe exaggerations in Linux usability for example; but we can't be morons and miss the 'truth' in this.

On the computers at my Grandmother's house - True story(200mhz P, to a new 3.4ghz system now.) - My Grandparents have been able to drop an XP install CD in all their computers, type in the code and their computer works faster and better than when they first purchased it. No install problems, driver problems.

And that is a solid arument, sure most of US are smart enough to wrestle any distribution to install and run well on any piece of hardware, but for the people that surf the web, write email, write letters and video conference with their grandkids - Linux and FreeBSD is NOT YET THAT MATURE on the desktop.

We can argue it is, and it truly isn't. We know this inside somewhere, but hate to admit it.

There is NO distribution yet that has the driver support, or hardward support, or 99% success rate of install that WindowsXP does...

That is where we are failing, and until we admit things like this to ourselves, this will NEVER get better.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[teutonic_leech]

... hehe, in that particular context I could actually have meant Centigrate :-)

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[KylePflug]

Ignoring the fact that IQ is far from a necessarily accurate indicator of intelligence, what's your point? Half the people are smarter, too.

People can talk about the "chaos that reigns the world" and attribute it to stupidity all day. Stick those people in a sociology class for a week and hopefully they'll realize that the world is not a damned simple as they think. To attribute a presidential reelection to something like national stupidity is just plain ignorant. Mostly because matters of politics don't correlate well to intelligence at all (and if someone quotes one of thoe hoax IQ maps of the US I'll punch him in the face. Through my monitor).

Yeah, the average person may or may not be dumber than you. Yeah, there are people even dumber than him. There are also people you'd like like a damn fool next to. I'll say it again: What the hell is your point?

Nobody expects the FUD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Our chief weapon is Fear!!

and Uncertainty...

Fear and Uncertainty! Our two weapons are Fear and Uncertainty!!

and Doubt...

Our three weapons are Fear, Uncertainty, and ... hold on, I'll come in again.

Calendar extension

[tepples]

I'd love to move some of my small office clients to OpenOffice or StarOffice, but they require the calendar and scheduling functions of Outlook.

Soon, you'll be able to use Thunder and Lightning against Outlook. If you can't wait, there's already the Calendar extension, an implementation of the iCal standard for T-bird.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[teutonic_leech]

Sorry, but this is not an argument - a guy like GWB shouldn't even have come close enough to making election rigging a feasibility. If you get less than 10% of the votes (which would have happened in a 'real' country populated by minimally educated people) then the necessary volume of fraudulent votes would have not been permissible. I rest my case...

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Blakey Rat]

The Blue Screen of Death in Windows XP or 2000 is either a hardware error, or a faulty driver. Since the user got warned about installing unapproved drivers when they installed it, I think we have to chalk up Blue Screen as a solved problem.

Anyway, I agree with you completely. Trying to set up my Hauppauge PVR 250 video capture card in Ubuntu has been torture. After spending 10 hours following *WRONG* tutorials and how-tos, I finally went to the Ubuntu chat room (which was friendly) which directed me to the mythtv chat room (where one person was friendly, but everyone else was a jackass. From-memory transcription:

Him (after I've already solved the problem anyway): "This is for MythTV problems, not setting up hardware!"
Me: "I've been here an hour already working through this problem, and you never complained before."
Him: "That's because I wasn't here!"
Me: "Well, the IRC client didn't show you logging in just now, so you must have been here."
Him: "You have to leave. This is the wrong chat room."
Me: "Fine. Where do I go?"
Him: "I don't know, but not here. Try #ubuntu"
Me: "I did. They told me to come here. And they were right, because now my issue's solved."
Him: "Well, they're wrong and idiots."
Me: "You just told me to ask them for help, and now you're telling me they're wrong and idiots?"

I logged off. But you get the point. The guy was an asshole. The 'official' site of the Hauppauge open source drivers (at least the one Hauppauge linked me to) had blatantly wrong (and internally inconsistant) documentation on how to install it. And, after all that, I can't get any of the TV viewer apps in Ubuntu to actually work!

All I'm trying to do is get a VHS tape and put it in a mpeg2 file so I can burn it to DVD. VHS -> mpeg2. You'd think it was the hardest thing in the world.

(Psst, anybody willing to help, pop me off an email: blakeyrat at gmail)

Re:You're more in danger of coming across as a whi

[teutonic_leech]

Wow, I actually never heard anyone spell this out in such an articulate manner - thank you for your comment, felt good to know there's another thinking mind out there...

Still no compelling reason to switch

[DaveCBio]

Windows has all my audio/video apps that are mature, stable and provide me with tons of options. It has all the entertainment software I want as well as productivity apps. I don't have to mess around with text file configurations or use software with behind the curve UIs. Other than the usual argument of price I still have no reason to switch. I'd rather spend my time actually working or playing than trying to get my system so that I can work or play.

Re:Still no compelling reason to switch

[zxsqkty]

So stay with Windows. Nobody is asking you to switch. Personally, I couldn't care less what OS you use.

But if you do ever want to learn what your system is actually doing when you click that button, chop that audio file, render that video; or if you're at all interested in customising your system so it works the way you work, I'd respectfully suggest you try out a system that enables this. Of course, a learning curve is implied. You remember how to learn, right?

By the way, you only need to set it up once.

Linux and *BSD aren't everyman systems. They were never designed to be. Much like some peoples idea of car maintenance ends with filling up with gas and emptying the ashtrays, Windows is a point and click world. These same people will happily pay a mechanic $200 for a $25 oil change.

On second thoughts; no, stay with Windows. I could use the extra income.

Re:Still no compelling reason to switch

[DaveCBio]

What a crappy argument. You know there are levels between black and white? I can understand how CODECs work, how my editing software works and I understand enough of how Windows works to fix it when something goes wrong. To use your well worn car anaology, I don't have to be an automotive engineer to do enough custom work to my car to make myself happy. And guess what, because I don't have to spend my time trying to custom code an audio or video app I actually spend more time making money. So, give it a rest and enjoy your niche.

Yeah, no one's ever used a command line before

[thirdrock]

because a text command is scarey.

Phew! Because for a minute there I thought that Microsoft sold 6 million copies of DOS.

Re:Yeah, no one's ever used a command line before

[drinkypoo]

Eskimos don't eat whale blubber because it tastes good. It's the only thing on the menu at the arctic buffet.

Re:Yeah, no one's ever used a command line before

[jtev]

Well, never having been an eskimo, and never having eaten whale blubber I can't realy difinitvely argue with that. But most people don't eat things that they think taste bad. Even if they don't like the taste at first they aquire a taste for whatever it is that they eat. Also whale blubber is hardly the only thing on the artic buffet. There's seal blubber, seal oil, whale meat, seal meat, fish, caribou, polar bear, lemming, dog, wolf, other meats, and even during some parts of the year fresh fruits and vegtables.

Re:Yeah, no one's ever used a command line before

[nahdude812]

Not to detract from your point, but many Inuit (eskimos) eat whale blubber because it tastes good:
http://www.visi.com/~wick/axe/muktuk.html

Re:Yeah, no one's ever used a command line before

[drinkypoo]

The existence of lutefisk is proof positive that humans can get used to anything.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[teutonic_leech]

... of course I meant 'Celcius' - looks like I belong into the 'lower percentile' after all - LOL!!

Messages...

[Spy der Mann]

From TFA:

"Unfortunately, we are constantly presented with messages telling us that it's too hard and that the average person couldn't possibly grasp the complexity."

Oh, you mean the Unexpected ERROR messages!

*Ducks pile of flying cans*

Its not FUD.... At least not for me..

[StylezHouse]

I prefer using Linux, but I'm a big gamer. Now I'm not going to say I can't play my games on Linux. I'll just say I don't know how. If anyone would care to enlighten me, that'd be great.

I've tried dual booting, but it was just to much of a headache to completely reboot to play a game. I've heard of Wine, but I didn't know how well it could play games.

Also, (For those that know hardware) I've got a A8N-SLI motherboard from Asus, so didn't know what kind of headaches I'd get from running pci-express hardware.

Not to just throw my ignorance out there like that, but that's my reasoning for not switching to Linux.

Re:Its not FUD.... At least not for me..

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the same motherboard running a AMD3200+ and it works fine under Linux, NVidia even release NForce drivers.

My 6600GT PCI-express card works fine using nvidia's prebuilt video drivers too..

Basically, all the nvidia ide/ethernet/pci-express support is built right onto the 2.6.* kernels so as long as you pick a relatively modern distro you'll be fine.

I've run Suse, Mandrake, slackware, gentoo and Debian just fine.

As to games.... there are linux binaries for games such as Serious Sam, Quake(s), Doom3, Enemy Territory, RTCW, Unreal, Unreal Tournament 2003,2005 etc , NwN etc.. plus a company called transgaming release a product called cedega (formerly) winex which seems to do pretty well on my system. It's an easy install and costs you $5/month if you subscribe otherwise *cough* p2p *cough*

I run CC Generals and ZeroHour
Painkiller and BooH
AvP2
Half-life 1 and 2 (plus all expansions/mods CS, CSSource , DoD, Dod Source etc)
Black and White
The Thing

etc on it and it runs fine they tell me WoW and neverwinter nights (plus expansions) also works fine with it too... there is a game database at transgaming.com you can look at to see what games run, how they run, think it's got a few hundred games on it now . There are still games that just won't work but hey, I can play pretty much everything I want to play with no real difficulties at all...

Hope that helps...

Re:Its not FUD.... At least not for me..

[StylezHouse]

That's great! I checked out cedegra, looks like exactly what I want. Well, with that, and mono, that pretty much sums up my two reasons for staying with windows, think I'll make the switch this weekend.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a kid in primary school I broke in a cold sweat when I contemplated the possiblity that my class would be representative of the rest of mankind, albeit not grown up yet. His point is that smart people ought to be afraid of the dumb mass.

He probably has his reasons.

[CyricZ]

Have you considered why he might recommend they use Outlook? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that it's already installed on many desktop PCs. So that saves him time from having to install it on basically every teacher's home system. Then there's the fact that he can give everyone one set of instructions on how to configure it. That also probably saves him time.

You paint him as some awful villain, as if he is trying to intentionally destroy all those teachers' systems by using Outlook Express. Perhaps he's being the opposite of a "moron," and rather just doing what makes his job easiest. That's not stupid. That's a smart thing to do, from his perspective.

If you truly want people to get away from using Microsoft products, then you'll have to make some sacrifice. Yes, you may have to help those particular teachers install and configure Thunderbird. It'd be even better if you could create and print up a single page that'll tell them exactly how it can be done. Give them pictorial instructions about what exact server address, etc., to enter, and where to enter them.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[OzPhIsH]

He's not making a recommendation that people use outlook at home. He's saying "you must use outlook." And I know that's not true, as I have my mother set up with Thunderbird and it works fine. What he could say is "I recommend and can only give support to outlook." That would be another story all together. That would make his job just as easy. In this case, he either he doesn't know you can use another e-mail client (he is an mcse moron), or he blatently lied when he said you had to use outlook (He's a liar). But whatever, I guess that makes him perfectly qualified for a rank job in the public school system.

My whole point however, which we've drifted from, is that this reliance, or just perceived reliance on Microsoft products is institutionalized. People hear this kind of stuff every single day, much of it false, from people who are supposed to know what they are talking about. This everyday experience drives the notion that Microsoft is a necessity.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[CyricZ]

Like I said, he's probably just telling them that they "must" use Outlook to make his job easier. Perhaps you could go talk to this administrator, in a friendly manner, and ask him to consider offering support for products such as Thunderbird and Seamonkey.

Instead of labelling him a "liar" or a "moron", why don't you go find out why he takes that stance? Even if he doesn't know about the alternatives, you could always enlighten him. Perhaps it'd be easier for him to recommend Thunderbird if you can point out to him how it'll be beneficial to the teachers, as well as himself.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[needacoolnickname]

Chances are what he said is: "We only support Outlook." For all the people who want it through their AOL mail and bother the Tech Support with why they can't get it at home that way and want Tech Support to fix their home computers after they tell them how to get their work mail through the AOL client.

We used to give away old computers. This was until people wanted us to support the old giveaways at home like they were still on the premises and like they were still being used for work. That is not our job. That is our job for our families, like it is yours to get your mom's email on Thunderbird at home.

Now, if all the district used was Thunderbird (etc.) would you help someone who wanted to use Outlook at home for it or would you tell them it was not supported?

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its the lazy villians who not the schemeing ones who are the most evil and do the most harm.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[thesnarky1]

"Give them pictorial instructions about what exact server address, etc., to enter, and where to enter them." I did just this in high school. Ok, not "just" this, it wasn't outlook to thunderbird, but it was documenting to teachers stp by step how to do X (I say X, because I did a few different ones, basically what ever they needed). It is *much* better recieved than "Uh, yea, outlook sucks, go get thunderbird." I totally agree about making sacrifices to get rid of Microsoft. just the other night I did a cat and two goats, but the crazy voices in my head keep telling me to upgrade...

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[CyricZ]

just the other night I did a cat and two goats, but the crazy voices in my head keep telling me to upgrade...

After raping these animals, did the voices go away? Or did they prompt you to sexually molest other things, like your video card?

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

God dammit, you're not dead yet?

Bring back Trip Master Monkey, at least he was an honest whore.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[CyricZ]

I may be old, but I will always be here for you, friend.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say it was not supported, he said it was forbidden - you "must" use outlook. big difference. I let users use zsh if they want, but only bash and tcsh are supported on the systems I admin. Never had a complaint about this policy. If, OTOH, I said zsh was forbidden, there'd be a lot of very pissed off users.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[Guignol]

Or perhaps he plans to do simple things like scheduling meetings, sending contacts and doesn't want to hear things like "I don't understand your attachment file" or "your proposed schedule is unreadable".

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[jtev]

Um, you can't schedule meetings using POP or IMAP. Since the previous poster stated being able to set up thunderbird, and also because only an idiot uses NT domain logins over the interweb I'm pretty sure that nobody is scheduling anything from home.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[Phisbut]

Have you considered why he might recommend they use Outlook? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that it's already installed on many desktop PCs.

Basically, by saying "you must use Outlook" (or even just "We strongly recommend you use Outlook"), he is also saying "We consider you should pay $109 for a software that will let you read emails", when there is a free alternative. Seeing how teachers keep complaining about their salaries, I suppose that being forced to pay $109 for no good reason is a big deal.

Perhaps he's being the opposite of a "moron," and rather just doing what makes his job easiest. That's not stupid. That's a smart thing to do, from his perspective.

If I were him, I would offer two alternative. Either buy Outlook at $109, or install Thunderbird. If you don't know how to install Thunderbird, I offer my services and will install Thunderbird on your home machine for $50. It's not like sending and receiving emails is a hard thing to support ("Yes ma'am, when you're done typing, you click on that little 'send' button"), and the TBird install either come for free for the ones who can do it themselves, and at half the price of Outlook for the ones that don't want to bother.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[atlep]

Then there's the fact that he can give everyone one set of instructions on how to configure it. That also probably saves him time.

Yes, in the short term. But it teaches his users nothing, so when there are changes or upgrades all the users need to be told again the new steps they need to do to make it work again. And when something goes wrong, the user will be totally lost and have no clue whatsoever what to do to help himself.

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[Guignol]

I see what you mean, but, from Outlook, send a contact or a schedule email. (you can do that easily from your it by right clicking the relevant thing).
It will send an email that anyone can fetch with pop3 or imap, but that isn't too nice to look at if you read it with thunderbird.
That's why I was suggesting comments like "your schedule is unreadable"

Re:He probably has his reasons.

[sumdumass]

I guess there is a thin line between being an intelectual morron and lazy.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[Anonymous Coward]

That IS horrific, my IQ is much higher than that (hint: Mensa send me an invitation letter and I refused because I thought I'm too smart to pay fees to be part of a snobish organization) and I still find myself pretty stupid most of the times.

Believe me, IQ 100 = stupid, and many people are bellow the 100 mark.

Microsoft has done well...

[T_ConX]

...in maintaining the myth that you have to a computer master to use Linux. For the most part, this myth, like all myths, is based on a fact, and blown out of proportion. Understand that:

Windows basic babysits you. They make you play with that nice shinny GUI so much, that the though of having to use a CLI like a Linux Shell scares one shit-less. To M$, that's just one more loyal consumer. On my first family computer, it booted to DOS (I can't remember which version), and I managed to get around the Shell just fine... at age 9.

What about games? As long as game boxes have Windows in the system requirments, you can bet gamers will steer away from Linux (at least until they find out about Wine).

Hell, some folks I know think that when you use Linux, you have to write YOUR OWN SOFTWARE... I kid you not.

I don't know where they get that, but I'd like to believe Microsoft had something to do with it...

Its good to know

[char1iecha1k]

Its good to know I am not the only stupid one here!

It is difficult to break away from M$. I have known winslows all my computing life. About 5 years ago when I picked up my first distro I have tried my hardest to ditch winblows and move to Linux, but I cant, there is always one niggling little thing that turns me away. If it isn't the mouse wheel that I cant get to work its something else, and its frustrating.

Everyone is supposed to be nice in the open source community and on IRC etc, but when you present a problem the replies are far from helpful. What some people don't seem to realise is that someone with less knowledge may find it difficult (especially when they are normally able to do almost anything on a windows pc). And Yes I have RTFM.

Its only a matter of time before these things get ironed out (and I get more competent) and then I will be able to make my switch, but until them I am stuck with this

Re:Its good to know

[Anonymous Coward]

MORE LIKE WINBLOW$ AM I RITE?

I'll second that...

[caitsith01]

First class honours in computer science and an award for topping my graduating class, experience working as a software engineer, have worked extensively with distributed and parallel Unix system, generally not an idiot... and yet Linux remains IMMENSELY frustrating and hard to use and configure (installing it has never been a problem for me).

Many people seem to assume that Windows is only 'easy' to use and configure due to familiarity, but I disagree. Windows is easy to use and configure because it is logical and intuitive. Things are where you expect them to be for most common configuration tasks. Don't want that program running at startup? Navigate (*visually*) to the 'startup' folder and remove it, or alternatively uncheck the 'run at startup' box in the programs (*visual*) configuration menu.

Some other things that make Linux a pain are the fact that installed programs are not centrally registered and associated with file types. In Windows, I can just right click on something and choose 'open with' and I'm presented with all of the possible programs that can open that file. In Linux...??? The other big, big problem is the lack of standardised menus and behaviour for ALL PROGRAMS AND OS COMPONENTS. Without the evil empire to tell open source geeks what to do, everyone does their own thing, and rather than every program having either file->options or edit->preferences (or similar, but all much the same) it can be an absolute god-damned mystery how to configure most Linux applications. This is expressed in other behaviours - e.g., what does a right mouse click do in Windows? It always, always brings up a context menu of available actions. In Linux.. something, nothing, who knows.

I know I'm not alone in this - there are many intelligent people who find Linux very difficult and unintuitive. Until this is no longer the case, until someone with general IT/computer competence can sit down never having seen Linux or Unix and figure out how to configure and use the system, it is doomed to be runner up.

Re:I'll second that...

[i_should_be_working]

1st paragraph: Maybe that's just you

2nd paragraph: I have a hard time in Windows. Explain that if it's so intuitive. And GNOME has a graphical way of doing your startup program example as well.

3rd paragraph: Wow, that just.. everything you said was wrong.

In Windows, I can just right click on something and choose 'open with' and I'm presented with all of the possible programs that can open that file. In Linux...???
Yes I can do that in GNOME

The other big, big problem is the lack of standardised menus and behaviour for ALL PROGRAMS AND OS COMPONENTS.
Actually, there is a standard. The vast majority of programs follow them especially if you use one desktop envirionment like KDE OR GNOME. And to say that all Windows programs behave the same is garbage. Most programs have their own look and feel and do things their way. Or did you think Winamp and itunes have similar interfaces?

what does a right mouse click do in Windows? It always, always brings up a context menu of available actions. In Linux.. something, nothing, who knows.
Actually it... brings up a context menu of available actions.

Fourth paragraph: My girlfriend uses my computer without my help with no problem. She had never heard of Linux before she met me.

Maybe you and parent post aren't as smart as you think.

Re:I'll second that...

[caitsith01]

Your post absolutely typifies why Microsoft is smarter - yes, smarter - than the Linux movement when it comes to attracting users. You have two people who, regardless of your precise opinion of their intelligence, are clearly informed enough to know what this discussion is about and to sit down and write about it on ./, both telling you that they find Linux distros unintuitive, confusing and hard to use.

Your response is to tell them they are wrong.

Microsoft would have someone looking at why users are having this experience and how it can be improved. Agreed, their response is frequently less than perfect, but as a successful business they would make the critical leap that it is not an issue of users who are having trouble being 'wrong', it is an issue of the OS not adequately catering to the needs of those users.

Re:I'll second that...

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Oh come. Parent had perfectly valid points:

• Caitsith01 had obviously not used a good desktop-oriented distro in recent years -- there are too many false points there.
• I don't use Windows very often, and when I have to do some maintenance tasks in it, it definitely does not feel intuitive or logical... Naturally I understand that some of this is because of my experience with *nix, but it doesn't change the fact that I (an experienced computer user) see Windows as a cryptical, illogical black box I have very little control over, does it? .
  
• Microsoft may have looked at why I (or someone in their test group) had these problems, but I haven't seen the improvements you talk about... I admit this might be because I'm not a Windows expert. Caitsith01 did not admit this (or the last point), and the parent post pointed that out -- "maybe it's just you" -- this is not the same as saying he's wrong.

By the way, have you heard e.g. Canonical saying "our users are wrong"? If you had, I would have accepted your criticism... Comparing the Linux movement to Microsoft is stupid. Just like comparing a specific model of Windows to "Linux" (and not a distro).

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[agraupe]

I have an IQ of about 155, and I'm currently in a gifted education program. I deal with many people with IQs higher than 100 (higher than 125 to be in the program, actually). A lot of them seem pretty damn dumb as well. I use a rule wherein I assume approximately 95% of the population to be stupid, where 90% is too stupid to even want to interact with. There are some stupid people I don't mind, but they are in the minority. At least this way, I'm never surprised by the stupidity of the general public.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[at_slashdot]

His point is that 50% or more of the people are idiots. Imagine 3 billion of idiots on this planet -- comforting thought?

And the the way the rest 50% are only better than the rest if you have IQ over 100 it doesn't matter you are a genius. 100 = pretty dumb.

easy to use

[rebot777]

I'd like to preface by saying please don't kill me. I really don't think Linux desktops are easy to use for average users. As long as you don't want to do anything that didn't already come preloaded and configured properly its fine but outside of that you're in a world of hurt. Not only that a good number of peripherals don't work out of the box with Linux and almost all lose features because the applications for them come for windows. That's just my two cents.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[jtolds]

So your claim is Ubuntu worked just fine, other than your specific modifications you wanted to make. I noticed a -dev in a package name, for example.

While in principle I agree that most users can't even install Windows, complaining that Linux is too hard to install because it didn't support unique package x (I realize libc6 is quite common, but dev packages aren't really targeted at the users in question) is a flawed argument.

Yes, they would be total showstoppers if you weren't a computer geek that wanted those things. Now tell me, if you weren't a computer geek, would you even know about those things enough to want them?

Re:FUD??? Coined by Gene Amdahl

[cyber_rigger]

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/FUD.html

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to you, but you're going to die lonely and bitter.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[seriesrover]

You were doing well until that GWB comment. But thats not elitist, its snobbish. Its funny, for years we were all told that "Neo Cons" were intolerant of others. Here we have the first real test to see the leftys show us how tolerance should be and Hey Presto! we have hate spewing out of every pore. But thats another topic for another day.

Non-geeks aren't any more or less stupid than geeks. People aren't stupid because they don't use Linux - they are obvious reasons why they don't. Your confusing stupidity with familiarity. People don't have an interest in computers, least of all the time to spend learning how it works. I've no interest in biology, mortgages or publishing. I rely on others that do. It doesn't make me stupid, just uninformed. If we geeks see non-geeks as stupid, then yes, we are elitist, Linux will be the elitist operating system, and Windows will continue to be the operating system of the masses.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[PromANJ]

People that are stupid (in the sense that they make the wrong choices) might just be uninformed, misinformed or have developed an unhealthy bias/psychosis through indoctrination. Their IQ may be less relevant, unless it drops below the retard limit (70?).

I'd like to see some "Help me, I'm a mom!" buttons in software, particulary in dialogs for options/settings. Clicking one would pop up a text written for moms.

It IS hard

[Anonymous Coward]

I have my Master's in Computer Science from Harvard. I tried Linux on my desktop, and stuck with it for over 6 months just to master it. In that time, I submitted over 30 bugfixes to various projects, and found hundreds more that I just didn't have the patience for. It still takes several orders of magnitude longer compared to Windows for installing most software (OH, your distro soviet didn't want you to install this? Have fun HACKING AT C SOURCE JUST TO GET IT TO COMPILE). Linux needs package-once run-everywhere or it will continue to stagnate, and it needs professional Q.A.

It escapes me...

[lmlloyd]

No one in this conversation seems stupid, so it escapes me how standards can be so inconsistently applied. I'm sorry, but just about every major problem Windows has (security or otherwise) comes down to a really bad default configuration, or poor out-of-the-box support. If you are willing to go into the registry and change settings, and download a couple third party utilities, you can pretty quickly get an XP system that is quite reliable. It is certainly true that most users never touch their registry, and probably haven't installed much more than Office, or some games, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible to improve the default Windows setup.

I mention this, because every time I see a discussion about Linux as a desktop OS, I see criticism leveled against Windows assuming that the average Windows user is incapable of touching the register, and unwilling to install utilities. That is all well and good, until you get into a discussion about how "easy" any particular Linux distro is to install. Suddenly, it is considered trivial for a user to edit config files, download libraries, and practice version control on OS components. The simple fact is that if you were to put half as much work into configuring XP, as it takes to play an audio file in Linux, then you would probably never see a single computer crash in Windows. The problem is that people take the rhetorically disingenuous position of assuming the worst of users when making their case for Windows, then assume the best of users when making their case for Linux.

Sure, editing a config file, or searching the web to find out the right version of a library is no big task, but then neither is tweaking a couple of settings in your registry, or installing a third party firewall. The truth is that if you are not willing to lift a finger to tweak your system, then with Windows you will get a buggy, insecure system, that hangs and crashes often, but with Linux you won't even get that far. If you are willing to put the time into a little research and tweaking, then they can both be decent OSs.

Funny but not as we know it, Jim

[FishandChips]

I guess you could show someone some pictures of Richard Stallman, Alan Cox, Mark Shuttleworth, Eric Raymond and a goggle-eyed Tux and see whether they fancy a spin with Linux. Nuff said, most likely.

Linux still manages to be a bit snobby, which doesn't help. The ubiquitous term "newbie" is both patronising and hints at initiation into some sect. I guess most folks don't take up an OS in order to be thrust back into a school playground. They are exhausted from the day job and they just want something that works. Perhaps they should be tougher, and if called a newbie retort that they will make it their business to seek out and shoot a penguin every time they are called one. On the Debian mailing lists, make that a penguin and a wildebeest.

Where I live, computer stores neither stock nor offer Linux. Microsoft has them under its thumb. If you can't obtain it, no one can use it. Simple. In addition, modern Linux distros require a lot of power and a lot of ram. There are huge numbers of folks out there who can't afford more than fairly old computers from the p2 or early p3 eras with +/- say 64 megs of ram. Windows - say, Win98 - and an older version of Office will run fine on these whereas gnome 2.12 and all the rest either won't or will struggle. So, for many folks, "modern" Linux has priced itself out of the market.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll do you one better: I'm an embedded systems engineer. I work with Linux all the time. I write Linux drivers, as well as applications (for embedded products). I work in a Linux environment every day.

A couple of years ago, I talked myself into using Linux as my one and only desktop at home. I was sick of Windows, I still am. After 2 years, I am utterly disgusted by it and am planning to switch to Windows at the next convenient time or maybe a Mac. Why? Because things don't just work.

I have a kernel with all the drivers compiled into an initrd. I have hotplug and coldplug loading drivers to all the hardware. That's half way. The userland doesn't match. Let's use sound as an example. If I play something with mpg123, Arts (KDE sound) can't play audio and buffers it until /dev/dsp is released. My soundcard has a hardware mixer with two separate sound sources (in fact, there's a /dev/sound/adsp that I can use another OSS app with at the same time). And yet I can't hear an mp3 and the ding from my WM at the same time. Is it the driver's fault that ALSA and OSS can't operate at the same time? I don't know. I don't care. It's broken. Half of you reading probably just thought to advise me to set up some sort of other mixer daemon, something about adjusting realtime priorities, something about device files. No, bad user. This is not the right answer. The right answer is that it's 2005, and that Microsoft has had sound figured out for 10 years and Apple for 15 and it does not involve the user mapping device files to driver interfaces. Don't even get me started on timidity and MIDI, that whole process is obscene.

The same argument can be made for dozens of others. XFree/XOrg (although it is getting a little better). Desktop managers: why are KDE and Gnome slower on my 2.4GHz P4 than Win2k on a 300MHz Celeron? Don't say "bloated, try XFCE", that's the wrong answer. I could run FVWM and it would be fast as hell, but I would not have all of the features I need. Why is dynamic linking on Linux so damn slow? Firefox takes maybe two seconds to launch on my slower Windows box at work (when not loaded in memory). It can take upwards of 30 on my faster Linux machine with no load. Those who complain about Windows DLL hell, take a look in your /lib directory one day, won't you?

Linux is not user friendly. Linux is not ready for the desktop. If anyone tells you otherwise, you have my permission to stab him (or her, but let's not kid ourselves) in the neck.

posted anonymously to stay out of my Google permanent record.

Creating FUD with Humor

[courtarro]

People aren't stupid and people who use computers learn new things all the time.

Learning Linux isn't one of those things "people" regularly do, when compared to the other things they learn. I'm reminded of a comic that clarifies the type of roadblocks you'll run into getting Linux into the homes of normal people. My grandparents are smart. They know how to do lots of specific things on the PC (in Windows). They use Firefox and Thunderbird because I set them up to look like IE and OE, and my grandfather appreciates the junkmail filter in Tbird. However, I would never think of moving them to Linux. There are huge numbers of people out there who still need help deciding "left or right button?" when you instruct them to "click", and Windows and MacOSX are miles ahead of Linux when supporting this crowd. As long as Linux caters to the geek, it can't cater to the grandparent.

Re:Creating FUD with Humor

[louden obscure]

"As long as Linux caters to the geek, it can't cater to the grandparent."

i dunno if compiling my own kernel makes me a geek, but i am definitely a grandfather...

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

sound problems and bloated desktop managers - exactly the same problems i fight with since i have switched to linux.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[i_should_be_working]

I saw a BSOD today.

At this very moment I am typing with my monitor on it's side. Why? Because my mp3 player crashed windows hard. Never does that in Linux. When trying to perform the 3-key salute to do a hard reset I accidentally pressed some combination that put the whole screen on it's side. Upon reboot (which included a lengthy disk check) the screen is still sideways. So now, my mp3 player doesn't work (with Windows) and my screen is sideways. Great. I sure am glad Windows is easy to use.

One more thing: I had to search for and download the drivers for my sound and video card for the Windows installation. Not for Ubuntu.

Whatever!

[shumacher]

Linux could be easy. My mother, who had expressed pride in never having used a computer, recently discovered, quite by accident, just how much stuff was available on eBay. I had a surplus IBM 300GL sitting about, so I loaded it up with Mandriva 2005. There were the little problems: hiding toolbars accidently, moving the mouse while clicking (accidental drags), not recognizing interface modality. The vanilla hardware on the P3 based desktop installed easily for me, and after setting auto-login for her, setting up her email accounts and bookmarks, Gnome was easy for her. She found a few challenges, so I tried giving her a Macintosh. We went back to the Linux machine quickly.

That having been said, I've used linux before, I've used Windows. If you want to install something not included in the distro, you're in for some work. I tried installing FreeNX on Mandriva over a SSH terminal. I never did get it working. Apropos hadn't been set up by default, and install was failing on a file whose package I couldn't find.

So, here's what I want in Linux:

Be better than Windows. Where windows wants to tell you every five minutes that your wireless connection is down even though you're working on a wired connection and your laptop's wifi switch is off, be smarter. Tell the user once, if you must, then leave them alone.

Install all the docs by default. Never assume that your user doesn't need man pages.

Label each program with a name that describes what it does. Look at Windows accessories. Most of the program names are much less abstract. Backup, Address Book, Notepad, Command Prompt, Backup, Security Center, Disk Defragmenter, Disk Cleanup. So, what's easier, drakxconf or Control Panel? Let's also map some commands to likely alternatives. man is good, but what if help worked too? Maybe if help pointed to an overview of man, apropos, lynx and some docs?

Usabilty testing by non programmers. I like vi about as much as the average person. That is, not very. compared to the MS-DOS edit.exe, vi is pretty weak. Or rather, it's very strong, but it makes what should be a 100% intuitive task for anyone familiar with a computer into a series of random button-pushing and man-reading sessions.

Build a roadmap.So, this distro wants the config file here, and that distro wants it there. Super! Fine! But if you want to put this sort of thing all over, how about building a map? I'd love to be able to download a single installer, run it (in the gui!) let it figure out where everything is, what needs to be downloaded, what dependencies need satisfying. Fix it all, and exit. I hate installing software that didn't come with the distro currently. Windows does this well, Mac does this well, why is this so hard for Linux?

Welcome your users. Sure, you may never click through the overly-animated Welcome to Windows intro. Some people will. Just a quick tour of the nifty little features of your OS, some quick pointers to the help, the configuration, the browser, the email, and most people will be fine. Add a world-class tutorial. Back in the days of the classic Mac OS, there were tutorials that included clicking, double clicking, dragging, hovering, typing, text entry fields, dialog boxes (modal and non-modal) menus, powering off. The basics that most of us nerds don't remember learning have to be taught to some people! Linux should teach them, by default.

Re:Whatever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh...as a high school computer teacher who uses ONLY linux exclusively in all of my classes, it would appear that many here are not even aware of such things as urpmi. I've set up pointers to thousands of packages at a university ftp site, using the software media manager in mandriva, where I can choose from thousands of packages...it's all very point and click...no dependency problems, etc., etc. The machines run all day long like clockwork, for each and every class, for YEARS! I actually have a life, eat a casual lunch, play the occasional game of chess, etc., while the windows people are reformatting, reimaging, defragging, etc., etc., all day long. I really do not understand why people use windows!

Re:Whatever!

[shumacher]

urpmi?

No, I've never heard of urpmi.

Needs a better name. Seems you'd have to know the name to find it, but it sounds very good.

Re:Whatever!

[se7en11]

Very well said.

I'm new to Linux. Been using Windows all my life, but wanted to get into Linux for server purposes. I installed Mandrake 10.1 and my mouse would not work. I finally figured out how to go in and change it, but this is a perfect example of what an average user would not put up with in an OS.

Going to try Wine .9 tonight so maybe some of my MS apps will port nicely.

Re:Whatever!

[Hosiah]

Be better than Windows.

If you mean things like rounding up every programmer who has ever coded their beast to demand "are yuh sy-u-u-ure?" at every user keypress, and chopping off their finger one at a time with no anesthesia, I'm with you there.

Label each program with a name that describes what it does.

You do have some sound ideas, here. I wrote out a didly shell script once I called "411" and you typed "411 foo" to find out any docs on your system about foo at all. The important feature was, it listed the docs and you selected one with a single key and it popped that doc open for reading - regardless of what format it was in! If it was an HTML doc, it loaded it in Lynx, if it was a man page, it manned it, Emacs for source code files, etc. Did it when I was a noob, but still use it to this day. But your idea seems more like the BSD "WTF" program, only for program names. That'd be trivial to write, but how to be sure it's updated for every single program you have or add to a system?

Sorry, but we CANNOT expand "fdisk" to "fix disk" or "man" to "manual page viewer". That would kill the command line. The command line is also what Unix programs use to talk to *each* *other* as well as what humans type in an xterm. Kill the command line and you kill Linux with it.

Usabilty testing by non programmers.

Oh, God, not you too! You started off sounding so bright. Over and over and over again, it must be explained that what's easy to use depends on what you were used to before. Explain to me what's so intuitive about "Control-V" to mean "copy the text I just highlighted and cut here" in a Windows environment, and I'll explain why the commands in vi and Emacs make sense. vi is a tool for programmers. Non-programmers have kwrite. vi can do thousands of things. YOU try binding every one of those thousands of things to a key sequence, and make sure *every* *function* is bound to an intuitive keystroke. At some point, you have to decide between "print" or "paste" for the P key. Which function gets the C key, "copy" or "cut"? Only people who've never sweated out a key-binding chart complain about key-bindings.

Welcome your users.

That *would* be nice, wouldn't it? A couple distros (Knoppix and ?) at least do a splash screen with links to info, with an option to turn it off. Sadly, some distro authors out there really don't care much, and it would be cumbersome to come up with a general-purpose one. But we should try something, here. We're standing by for you to head the sourceforge project!

Re:Whatever!

[poofyhairguy82]

I hate installing software that didn't come with the distro currently. Windows does this well, Mac does this well, why is this so hard for Linux?

Because its not as easy as you make it out to be. In fact, crossing the distro divides is so hard almost all the majors have given up on it (except for Mandriva).

Re:Whatever!

[aethelrick]

you need to try SuSE, it indeed ticks all of these boxes (or is that boxen) *shrug*

Re:Whatever!

[ookaze]

That having been said, I've used linux before, I've used Windows

Me too, and what you say is looking like FUD to me.

If you want to install something not included in the distro, you're in for some work

And it's worse in Windows. Try to install ANYTHING and you are in for a LOT of work, especially when you lose your english-speaking centric vision like all people not speaking english do (that's true even for games).
Want to install anything ? Have to go buy it. Most Windows app on the internet are impossible to install to all of my users, because they don't understand english.

I tried installing FreeNX on Mandriva over a SSH terminal

And I bet you think it's a good example. NO average user will try to install FreeNX, you are already in geeky or experienced people territory.

I never did get it working. Apropos hadn't been set up by default, and install was failing on a file whose package I couldn't find.

So you failed and the packager failed too. Linux could be the best in everything, it could not replace you or the packager.

Be better than Windows

It already is in many ways. Average people do not have a network.

Install all the docs by default. Never assume that your user doesn't need man pages.

But lots of comments on Slashdot say that people don't want to read docs. Often, they are the same that say that Linux needs docs (damned if you do, damned if you don't).

Label each program with a name that describes what it does

Already done (you have used Linux 5 years ago ?), next.
Mandriva destroys this a little, blame Mandriva.

Look at Windows accessories

Before being able to do that, I'd have to open the menu where a mess of non descriptive app names and company names I don't care about. Good try but failed.

So, what's easier, drakxconf or Control Panel?

Drakxconf ...

Let's also map some commands to likely alternatives. man is good, but what if help worked too? Maybe if help pointed to an overview of man, apropos, lynx and some docs?

Already done, next.

Usabilty testing by non programmers. I like vi about as much as the average person. That is, not very. compared to the MS-DOS edit.exe, vi is pretty weak. Or rather, it's very strong, but it makes what should be a 100% intuitive task for anyone familiar with a computer into a series of random button-pushing and man-reading sessions.

Try to stay focused on an issue. Vi was there before your usability testers. It is still around and still more powerful that what you cited. Now try to explain to me what are the intuitive tasks you are talking about.
I take the graphical gvim for Windows (see, not even the best implementation of vi) : it can do everything you do with notepad or edit.exe (which is not intuitive). Plus all the powerful text manipulation that are impossible to do with Notepad.

But if you want to put this sort of thing all over, how about building a map

How about you learn how to do it ? You are not the average user, clearly.

I'd love to be able to download a single installer, run it (in the gui!) let it figure out where everything is, what needs to be downloaded, what dependencies need satisfying

You already have it and don't even need to install it. You never used Linux right ?

Windows does this well, Mac does this well, why is this so hard for Linux?

It's not, Linux does this well. You just want to blame Linux for something it is not responsible for.
Loki installer is not even the only one to install apps like you want on Linux.
I installed at least 3 games (one, privateer, being "free") wich used Loki installers. Try to change your tired FUD next time.

There are tutorials for Mandriva (when you buy it, you even have the printed doc), and at least one book with videos. I agree that for the desktop versions, this would be a good idea.

Re:Whatever!

[nine-times]

Usabilty testing by non programmers. I like vi about as much as the average person. That is, not very. compared to the MS-DOS edit.exe, vi is pretty weak. Or rather, it's very strong, but it makes what should be a 100% intuitive task for anyone familiar with a computer into a series of random button-pushing and man-reading sessions.

Often, there are tools available that are more suited for non-programmers. For you're example, of vi, I'd respond with nano. It's much easier to get a handle on, IMHO. Sure, distros need to include it, and users need to know to use it, but a lot of times, there is a satisfying alternative.

Re:Whatever!

[Tack]

Usabilty testing by non programmers.

Oh, God, not you too! You started off sounding so bright. Over and over and over again, it must be explained that what's easy to use depends on what you were used to before.

Are you suggesting here that software can't benefit from usability testing? I understand your point (that what's usable is relative to user's background), but that point doesn't support the implication that usability testing is unnecessary.

Of course, I also think the grandparent's rant about vim was nonsense (common FUD: find one of Linux's most obscure and complicated programs [which is not really discoverable anyway, at least on my distro] and use that as an example for why Linux is difficult). Perhaps this is really what you were talking about, but in that case you should have quoted a different part of his post.

Jason.

Re:Whatever!

[Hosiah]

Are you suggesting here that software can't benefit from usability testing?

No, I was talking about the key-binding business - vi/m specifically. But come on, are we saying that *nobody* but programmers ever use the software? Every time a beta release hits Sourceforge, it gets downloaded worldwide and at least some of those people (a) are not programmers, and (b) feed back in comments, bug reports, etc, which all get taken into account by the designer for the next release.

I am most definitely saying that - and anybody with a grain of common sense can see it - no programmer starts out saying "heh, heh, heh, I'm going to make my program as difficult to use as I possibly can!" Every program has the simplest possible interface on it for what it does. Please, anybody differs with me on this one: design an interface yourself, and you'll see what I mean. Testing is still a good thing, but it's more for weeding out bugs, technical problems, and seeing what features need to be added and removed. Conventions are followed - slavishly. In the GUIs, the File menu's still the first on the left, still has "Open, close, save, save as...,", blah blah blah blah. I'm so sick of hearing people complain about interfaces that are IDENTICALLY the same as all the other interfaces on the programs that they like, I could barf thumbtacks. And when you're talking about programs that have a really different interface, like Emacs and vi, the extra complication is there because the program has 100 times the functionality; coming back to my life motto: "Stealth Bombers are more difficult to operate than tricycles BECAUSE THEY CAN FLY."

I could go on and on and on and on, and not get to one tenth what I see on Slashdot. The Gimp is more difficult to use than Windows Paintbrush. Emacs is more difficult to use than Windows Notepad. Bash is harder than DOS. C++ is more difficult to program in than Apple II Basic. A nuclear power plant is more difficult to build than a birdhouse. A Thanksgiving turkey dinner with all the trimmings for eight people is more difficult to make than two slices of toast. Shakespeare is more difficult to understand than The Little Engine That Could. James Michener's Alaska takes more concentration to read than a Spiderman comic book. The Mona Lisa was more difficult to paint than a Sesame Street color-by-number picture of Bert and Earnie playing with their fire truck. Handel's Messiah is more difficult to play than Jingle Bells. It's harder to perform brain surgury than it is to apply a band-aid to a skinned knee. It is harder to successfully negotiate the top five Kama Sutra positions in a foursome than it is to jerk off while drunk. I'm not even scratching the surface, here!

Hasn't anybody ever heard of the expression "Form follows function?" And if you care ONLY about the interface and don't give a damn what's under the hood, then who do you think they're building all those Macs for? Go get one and be happy!

Re:Whatever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Label each program with a name that describes what it does.

That would be great if there was only one basic text editor, one web browser, etc. for Linux. I think it would be confusing if every text editor was called "textedit" or something to that effect.

Usabilty testing by non programmers.

Your example of vi is a very poor one. If you want a simple editor, use nano or joe. Other options do exist.

Build a roadmap.So, this distro wants the config file here, and that distro wants it there. Super! Fine! But if you want to put this sort of thing all over, how about building a map? I'd love to be able to download a single installer, run it (in the gui!) let it figure out where everything is, what needs to be downloaded, what dependencies need satisfying. Fix it all, and exit. I hate installing software that didn't come with the distro currently. Windows does this well, Mac does this well, why is this so hard for Linux?

It's called Synaptic. I run Debian and haven't compiled a single program (that didn't have a nice installer) since switching. I add a repository, updated, then choose it to install. Also, it's not the fault of the OS if the applications don't have decent installers.

Re:Whatever!

[shumacher]

Usabilty testing by non programmers.

Oh, God, not you too! You started off sounding so bright. Over and over and over again, it must be explained that what's easy to use depends on what you were used to before. Explain to me what's so intuitive about "Control-V" to mean "copy the text I just highlighted and cut here" in a Windows environment, and I'll explain why the commands in vi and Emacs make sense. vi is a tool for programmers. Non-programmers have kwrite. vi can do thousands of things. YOU try binding every one of those thousands of things to a key sequence, and make sure *every* *function* is bound to an intuitive keystroke. At some point, you have to decide between "print" or "paste" for the P key. Which function gets the C key, "copy" or "cut"? Only people who've never sweated out a key-binding chart complain about key-bindings.

You're half right. Designing user interfaces is hard. It's easy to make a bad web interface, command-line interface, text based interface, and don't even get me started on voice-based interfaces. At this point, "fixing" (if you can call it that) vi is the same as breaking vi. My point was really that trivial tasks should be trivial for the end user, and vi isn't trivial for the first time user in the way the MS-DOS EDIT command is. I agree the x=cut v=paste c=copy isn't obvious, and I see your point. I get crossed up trying to use paste on the palm (shortcut-p) because I'm used to the desktop operating systems. Thing is, there's still a menu option. And the menus also show the shortcuts. The interface has layers.

Nerds don't have to lose in this. A good interface has layers. Well-organized menus allow users to find what they need, but advanced users can use shortcuts. Many people edit text just fine without knowing about the control modifiers (ctrl-bksp, ctrl-arrow, ctrl-del). Windows-key shortcuts are pretty cool. Linux has layers, but it needs the easiest. I don't know if we need to go as far as "hide extensions of known file types", but something is needed.

Welcome your users.

That *would* be nice, wouldn't it? A couple distros (Knoppix and ?) at least do a splash screen with links to info, with an option to turn it off. Sadly, some distro authors out there really don't care much, and it would be cumbersome to come up with a general-purpose one. But we should try something, here. We're standing by for you to head the sourceforge project!

That's a mighty good idea. Mighty good. I've thought about doing documentation and UI work. I'm going to look into what's involved, and of course, make sure I'm not re-inventing the wheel. How about releasing 411?

Re:Whatever!

[xpyr]

And what if you wanna use another distro of linux? Say you wanna use windows 2000 instead of windows xp. There are thousands of setup programs for applications that will install on both without problem. Now you said something about thousands of apps packages for mandriva. Do those "same" apps packages work with every single linux distribution out there? No. They gotta do a custom package for each app for each and every distro of linux out there since none of them follow a standard directory structure for each and every configuration file.

What you have there is like an embedded OS, which is why your linux install of mandriva works so well. Unfortunately there's a new version out every 6 months, with only a year of support at most. So you're constantly upgrading, sometimes needing to do a clean install, where you wipe out all the custom settings on that machine. I'd rather have it like a service pack. Want it more stable with releases every 2-3 years? Then you can pay a linux vendor like redhat for that. But I guess you get what you get when it's free.

stupid

[Cyno]

People aren't stupid

Either people are stupid or all the Gods they believe in would exist here in reality.

It all comes down to authority. If you believe that there are forms of authority you should always obey, you might be stupid.

Re:stupid

[Proteus]

>If you believe that there are forms of authority you should always obey, you might be stupid. I'm glad you said 'might be'. I tend to beleive that I should always obey laws based on universal constants. For this reason, I never drive faster than c.

Re:stupid

[Cyno]

But if you always obeyed laws such as Newton's Law of Gravity or Einstein's Law of General Relativity you might never be able to drive faster than c.

I would choose to work smarter, not harder.

Always question authority.

outb

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't run hl2 out of the box = it sucks

stupid stupid stupid

[Schwarzgerat]

Most people don't know what they are doing in windows, even kids with good marks at school and college continually do and say really really stupid things. people are stupid.

Re:stupid stupid stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Including you and me...

Still no compelling reason to stay

[sinewalker]

Cut and paste, swap "Windows" for "Linux" and the arguments are the same...

Many Linux distro's (e.g. SuSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu) install and "just work", many cases easier and more reliably than Windows, but always at least as "easy" and as "reliably".

Also, besides the price (and you can always pirate and crack windows if you are concerned only about price...):

• If the GUI "protects" me from "confusing configurations files" at the expense of actually letting me configure my monitor's refresh rate, I can resort to the text file if I want.
• If I write a document, I own it, because it's in a format that is free and open, not controlled by a monopolist. My 1997 Honours Thesis is in MS-Word 6.0 format, and does not open properly, even in Microsoft Word these days...
• I can record my own home movies into a format that can be played on my DVD player at home (Windows Media Centre does not allow this, something weired about "copyright violations", but it's my home movie, staring me and my family!)

I have no reason to stay with Windows, except:

• My employer insists on it. Fortunately, my employer supplies me with a computer with Windows on. It is 12 months old now and it has been in for repair three times this year already and is currently in for a fourth time. I should get it back tomorrow...
• Many Pr0n sites insist on using movie media formats in strange codecs. Come to think of it, this is not really a major concern.
• I have a Sony Playstation if I want to play. The TV screen is much bigger than I could afford for a computer monitor, and my couch is much more comfortable than sitting on an office chair to play games...

I don't think it's fear...

[vicgolgo13]

I think it's naivety and that causes people to not want to go to Linux.

Take this for example: Our company recently told our group of our employees that in order for them to get paid, they had to complete their timesheets online. They didn't specify what kind of computer or even the fact that the page is only viewable in IE 6.0 on Windows (...which IMO is one of the worst moves they ever made, and speaking of which I don't even know how they managed to make it so proprietary to just one browser on one OS), they just said you need to access this through the internet.

Well, there were many employees who ended up buying new computers, because they had no other way to access the internet (apparently the public libraries in their area haven't caught up to the information age). Out of the employees that bought computers, over half of them bought Macs and the rest bought PCs (not one that I know of bought Linux). Most of them said, they saw that there was a great deal on their Mac (or PC) and decided to buy it. They didn't bother asking will this run what I need it to run?

So with that said, most people will buy any machine they think will work as long as it "looks" ok and is cheap and comes preloaded with an OS. Others will just ask the local retailer for suggestions. And guess what... that local retailer is usually a Best Buy or Circuit City or Gateway Country or Apple Store. There are no major retail Linux Stores. And even if Linux was preinstalled on a PC and sold at Best Buy, it's more than probable that the salesperson won't know enough about it to try and sell it.

As a matter of fact, I don't think that price comes into play when buying a computer preloaded with an OS. The reason I say that, is because most people think that the Operating System IS the computer. They don't realize that the OS is a separate piece of software that must be installed on whatever computer they get. And to top it off those that do know that it is a piece of software don't know that they have to pay for the software. They think that it is just another thing that is bundled for "free" with their system. Taking that into consideration, telling a user that they can install Linux for free won't make much of a dent in their bias.

Not reay for the market

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is great and all, but for it to be succsessful:
A: The user NEVER has to go into the command line to install or run ANYTHING
B: The user NEVER has to compile ANYTHING
C: The linux community as a whole needs to relese EVERY program they make that has any use as a DEB or RPM or BINARY that works OUT OF THE BOX AKA if the dependancy is not included in 95% of the linux boxes, it NEEDS to be included in the distro of that program
D: WE NEED MORE GUI BASED CONFIG UTILS!!!!!
E: The main distros should agree what dependancies are installed when you select the STANDARD install in the installer for a particular linux kernel

Ya, ya, i know what you are saying, anyone with a brain can do this stuff, but the average user does NOT want to take the time to do many things, and unless things change, linux will always be confined to servers, embedded systems, and geeks

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[bcrowell]

So your claim is Ubuntu worked just fine, other than your specific modifications you wanted to make. I noticed a -dev in a package name, for example.
Try reading my comment again. The first problem was that sound didn't work, which had nothing to do with my modifying anything. The reason I needed libc6-dev was because I wanted to install a piece of software that wasn't available as a Debian binary package.

Now tell me, if you weren't a computer geek, would you even know about those things enough to want them?
You mean only computer geeks want sound to work?

It ain't office.

[Allnighterking]

Nope office doesn't bind. It's outlook, or more precisely outlooks addressbook. If you are a sales/Marketing/Executive type your address book is probably the most valuable data real estate you have. The thought of having to comb through it, re-create it, modify it etc is scary beyond words.

I recently made 3 system backups for our CEO, just to give him a warm fuzzy on his addressbook before we even tried to update it to a newer version of outlook. Let alone to another product.

Then there is the mail itself. We keep copies of 10 year old Eudora installers around just in case 10 year old data in E-mail needs to be re-read. (get sued find out how far back you really do need to go!)

Nope E-mail is the key. Reams volumes and tonnes of E-mail and the associated Address book. Without that who cares what the OS is.

Maybe it's simply for EEs?

[Skowronek]

Most EEs from my University (like me) like and enjoy using Linux, and CSs don't. Weird. Maybe CS teaches the "just use it" kind of thinking, while EE teaches the "poke it to see what happens" mentality?

Easy to install...what next?

[pjpII]

One thing people focus on way too much here is INSTALLING linux. Perhaps this is because it has been a problem in the past, but I personally have installed two distros(Mandrake when it was Mandrake 10 Community or whatever, and Fedora Core 2), and had little trouble. In fact, if all I did was write simple text documents in OpenOffice and cruise the internet, I would have been perfectly fine. I'm a rather competent computer user(I can program in a few languages, I've taken some CS courses at a world class university, I'm writing a thesis in LaTeX)versus the general populace. However, I quickly found that Linux is NOT easy for a beginner, but it's NOT from a perspective of setting up the distro itself.That part is easy.

See, the current problem with Linux is not how to get linux on your computer- it's like installing any other OS, and very similar to installing windows. The problem with linux comes when you want to install anything else on top of it. Installation of things that don't come with your distrobution of choice can be an amazing, extremely painful headache, something which is extremely rare in current versions of Windows(indeed, often TOO easy in the case of adware).

Usually when people criticize linux on the basis of installation of things, they are greeted with shouts of "use apt-get!" and similar programs. The problem with apt-get(and command lines in general) is that they're not remotely discoverable- you can't determine what the options are for input. Sure, GUI interfaces can be confusing, but even the most obtuse adventure game of an interface has a nicely limited number of possibilities. When I fire up apt-get, on the other hand, I have no idea what to type. "apt-get webbrowser"? "apt-get firefox"? What will the response be? Can I be sure it'll give me a version of firefox I want? The only way to have any clue is to google it, which is immensly irritating and that amount of effort could go to downloading the program and running it. (I will note that when it does work the way you want, apt-get is f***ing amazing. Its really darn cool)

Othertimes, especially for anything slightly more obscure, one ends up hunting the internet for various libraries which are inexplicably NOT distributed with other things- I've had to hunt for 5 different sets of libraries for a program, then some of them conflicted with eachother or something, and I was unable in the end, after a couple hours of effort, to run the program I wanted.(This seems to apply for much open-source software in general, even programs that run on Windows- Gimp for windows, for example, requires me to install GTK myself, instead of simply packing everything into a neat installer which is the norm for most more commercial windows programs, or even windows-only freeware)

The other end of things, uninstalling, is similarly difficult to understand- I didn't find anything that seemed to easily remove programs in the same way as a per-program uninstall file does, or even Window's Install Remove Programs dialog.

Hence, I felt that if I never, ever wanted to add anything to Linux, I would be fine- making it great for giving a computer illiterate family member who only does very specific things on their computer. However, it's right crappy for someone who knows a bit more about computers, wants to install things on their own, and generally make changes to the computer in the same way you would with a Windows box.

My $.02

PS- And, wtf, I can't add things to the application menu in Gnome? Jigga-what?

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[LetterRip]

[QUOTE]These were time-consuming, frustrating annoyances for me, but for someone who's not a computer geek, they'd be total showstoppers. The average person simply is not going to go looking for help on usenet or IRC (and my experience with posting on the Ubuntu forums has been that I don't get any useful replies, either). The average person will give up.[/QUOTE]

For the average computer user any small difficulty with windows hardware or software configuration is also a 'total showstopper' - but on Windows there are more people that they can turn to for help.

LetterRip

Who says Windows is "easy to use"???

[sinewalker]

While we are on the subject of Linux being so hard to learn and use (and the only convinsing argument I've heard is simply that it's different): who says Windows is easy?

Every time I've upgraded Windows (or moved to a machine running a different version) I've had to play the "where the heck have they moved option X to now?" game. ODBC driver locations in the Control Pannel between Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows 2003 Server and Windows XP are a pet peive of mine, but also "simple" things like keyboard layout (under International Settings in XP now. Why not in the Keyboard settings where it made sense?)

And don't get me started on the issues of doing things in Windows that the GUI designers or driver manufacturers didn't anticipate. Case in point: can't change the monitor refresh rate on my work's laptop when in dual-screen mode, but can in single-screen mode, and can when when I run a Linux LiveCD, so it's not a hardware limitation, it's a Windows driver limitation, and since there's no "confusing text file" I can't go digging to fix this. Instead I'm stuck with a flickery 60Hz display.

Office is another major offender in the shifting options problem.

Plus, why, after painstakingly arranging my desktop icons in Windows, does it insist on moving them all to the left of the screen whenever it feels like it (yes, the Auto Arrange option is turned off, thanks)?

This "linux is hard" FUD is especially anoying because it's a classic case of "pot calling kettle black". Anyway, if you are so worried about how hard a Unix can be, take a look at Apple MacOS X. It's not hard, even the "confusing" text files can be pretty easy to reach and they work too.

You're forgetting...

[Jesselnz]

...that 40% of computer users don't know what a browser is. Let alone what an operating system is, or being able to install one.

Linux is easy.

[killerface]

Linux is easy, if it's hard you are doing something wrong.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[jtolds]

The first problem was that sound didn't work, which had nothing to do with my modifying anything.

I apologize. That was actually not clear based on your original comment. In fact, you seemed to only indicate you were trying to use something other than ESD.

Yes, people other than computer geeks want sound to work. But as far as other Debian packages, Ubuntu's application installation system is very user friendly for any other packages the user might want, and if it isn't in the list, I doubt they'd know Debian-anything works.

Excuse me?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

People aren't stupid and people who use computers learn new things all the time.

Heh heh. Ha Ha Ha HA HA HAAAAHAAAAHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

*dies laughing*

Re:Not easy to configure - Definitely

[Chaset]

I second this. I think people should realize that Linux, though MUCH improved from a few years ago, is still nowhere near "easy to install/use" as it should be.

When I first tried RH5.2 back in the day, the default install supported neither my sound card nor my network card. Without the network card working, it would be pain in the butt to look up information on the web, go back to linux, try something, fail, and go back on the web in Windows to look for more information. In the end, it looked like I had to compile the kernel module for my network card. This would have lost most newbies right away. I tried to give it a shot, but it looked like the version of libc or something was incompatible with the source code I got. (I don't remember the details)...

...So, fast forward 8 years. Everything is better now, right? Ubuntu seems to be the darling distro of choice these days, so I tried to install it on the PC I was preparing to sell off. Now that I think of it, rather coincidentally, it had exactly the same sound card (OPTI931) and the same network card (RTL8029) as the machine I was trying to get working so long ago....

Ubuntu seemed to autodetect the network card during install, but apparently did not enable it by default after it finished installing. This had me scratching my head for a while, as ifconfig didn't even show the interface. At this point, it would probably be too much to ask the "average" user to lsmod to make sure the module is loaded, determine which of the init scripts or configuration files in the /etc corresponded to enabling the network interface, determine which keyword needed to be added ('auto') in the ifup script, invoke the appropriate editor and with the right priviledges ('sudo') and save the changes.... I would not call this "easy" by any stretch of the imagination. Even nominally 'smart' people in an unrelated field would probably find it not worth the time, espeicially if Windows is 'working' for them.

On the sound card front, there was no sound on first boot. One had to know that the sound card is an OPTI931 chipset, to edit the /etc/modules file, and the name of the module to load to get it working. Again, non-trivial for non-computer geeks.

Trying to get my Intel 740 card to work was a pain. When I first installed Hoary, the X server will only run in 640x480. Despite my several attempts to muck with the Xorog.conf or run the autoconfiguration script, it STILL refused to run in anything higher. I eventually got it to work by re-installing using Breezy.

Not to make it too much of a bitch-fest, both versions of Ubuntu also insisted on trying to configure the mouse on the PS/2 port despite it being disabled in the BIOS. (the port is shot, so I'm using a serial mouse). Again, I had to go into Xorg.conf to tell it to use the Serial port and the "Microsoft" protocol. How is the newbie going to react when the first thing he sees is the mouse doesn't work?

None of these is particularly obscure hardware--stuff like the RTL8029 is practically everywhere. Serial mice aren't exactly extinct, either. A newbie trying Linux on the same computer would probably have gone back to Windows immediately. No FUD needed.

Fighting FUD with Humor?

[FhnuZoag]

Ah, hell, I have karma to burn.

Modern Linux distributions are easy to install and easy to use.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

it's too hard and that the average person couldn't possibly grasp the complexity. That's rubbish.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

People aren't stupid
HHAHAHAHAHha... *choke*

Re:Not easy to configure - Definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll say this, as a reasonable non-technical person who does as much as I need to do in the Open Source world - Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office (at home) and others I'd like to kick MS off my box but since I didn't understand about 50% of that post I guess I'm stuck with it unless i want to toss out the mad jack to pay for Apple's stuff

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Darius Jedburgh]

And if it took more than one keystroke to rotate your screen under Windows you'd be moaning about how hard it is to rotate it. Windows is designed to be easy to use. It's even designed to be easy to use by people who are disabled. But are they supposed to dumb it down so much that it's easy to use by people who are too uncoordinated to aim their fingers at a keyboard? I hope not.

And how did you install those drivers for Windows? You probably just double-clicked on an executable. I use Linux all day at work but I still have no clue how you install drivers for anything under Linux.

Can't agree more on the usability testing

[Sycraft-fu]

There is just a different mindset between geeks and non-geeks for many things. Take GREP for example. What you have is a geek's idea of the ideal search tool. You specify queries in a powerful grammar so you get just what you want. You can do very complex searches with it to get refined results.

Wonderful, however if you write a regular expression for a non-geek, they will look at you as if you are speaking a foriegn language, which youa re in a manner of speaking. It is toally incomprehensable to them and NOT something they want to learn. To them the ideal search engine is one where you type out, in English (or whatever their native language is) what they want and the computer disambiguates it and finds things.

In other words, geeks have learned to think like computers, and so want tools that are like htat for maximum control. Normal users want computers to learn to think like them, so they have the lowest learning curve possible.

Re:Can't agree more on the usability testing

[heffrey]

But grep runs on both Windows and Linux and about a million other platforms. So where's the relevance of your example?

Re:Can't agree more on the usability testing

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

I don't get it. It sounds like you think it's wrong to have both powerful tools and less powerful, easy tools on the same OS?

1. Grep searches for a pattern in a given file, it's not a search engine. If you want to complain about search engines on Linux, complain about Best/Beagle...

2. Grep is _very_ simple and easy to use:

grep search_term filename

Sure, you can use regexps and stuff, but you don't need to.

Re:Can't agree more on the usability testing

[Xanthian]

And how many "average users" (read - 'Daily, run-of-the-mill end users') do you know of that use grep for Windows? Compare that to the number that click on the start menu, go to 'find' and enter a search term. That's his relevance. Most people want to do it the easy way... which may not always be the 'best' way.

Re:Can't agree more on the usability testing

[chthonicdaemon]

"There is just a different mindset between geeks and non-geeks for many things."

That's true, but does that automatically mean the geeks should cater to the non-geeks? If I have an engineering, computer-savvy mindset, should I not use expressions like F = m*a in my code because perhaps a non-engineer won't understand it? I use the things that make me happy and they can use the things that make them happy and we don't have any problem. The problems start when they use things that make them happy but make me sad -- like Word files I can't open and they can't understand. I think that as more formats open up and higher abstraction makes it easier to port applications to the platforms where they are needed, the problem will just go away.

Re:Can't agree more on the usability testing

[bannerman]

Computers don't think. We developed the most efficient interface for communicating what we needed. Just because other people aren't interested in efficiency doesn't mean that our way isn't better.

Re:Can't agree more on the usability testing

[Sycraft-fu]

Grep searches for a regular expression in anything, it can be a file, or is can be a list of files piped to it from ls. Now as for a simple pattern, sure grep wil find that, but only if it's an exact match. It doesn't handle mispellings, ambigious input, etc. For something that does a good job of that, look at Google. It's about the best "regular guy" search engine. You can give it somewhat ambigious search terms and still get what you want, and it'll deal with mistakes.

My point isn't that things like grep shouldn't exist it's that geeks seem to think that's the be-all, end-all. They are powerful, so they are what people should be used, learning curve be damned. My point is that's not how it works. People want a minimal learning curve, they want something easy and friendly, they want something that works on their level.

Re:Can't agree more on the usability testing

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think 'grep' means? Global Regular Expression Print It refers to a commonly used command in ex: g/re/p where 're' is the regular expression. Kinda neat.

You're right about usability, though. There are numerous different audiences with different needs and desires. Some of us want more power and flexibility. A power user who uses a program frequently doesn't want to be hampered by brain-dead wizards and modal dialogs. However, an infrequent user won't remember, nor will likely want, all the shortcuts and would rather have some intuitive guidance in the UI.

All software developers should take the "Human Factors" class. Professor Belz (at RIT) did a good job of covering all of this. vim is great because I can do a lot very quickly; and easy-vim is great because someone who just wants insert and to use the menu for anything else has almost no learning curve.

Lost Luster after being Super Support

[SleeknStealthy]

I have ben using Linux solely for three or four years. For a long time I thought it was the greatest thing, until I started switching people. First I learned around a dozen different distributions and then had to learn all of their little quarks. Friends expected me their "guru" to do the impossible and make something work all the time. This wasted so much of my time it isn't even funny. I like linux but the more it grows the more annoying it becomes because I have begun to support way too many people. I many times wish people just stuck with Windows so I didn't have to solve their problems all the time. I don't know, Linux is fun, but it should be left to the enthusiast, supporting friends for the cause gets overwhelming.

My new ways

[Z34107]

Y'know, rather than just flame every Linux user (I'll get you all eventually :-D) and every Mac user (all five of you :-D) I might just start submitting some Microsoft stories.... Haha, my goal is to now get a WHOLE THREAD devoted to flames against *me*! Support my flame-me cause!

Why Not Many People Convert to Linux

[ZombieRoboNinja]

OK, let's say I'm your average computer user. I have the following options:

1. Keep using Windows and Office, which were pre-installed on my system and I don't have to pay extra for.

2. Somehow find out about Linux, have somebody tell me exactly what an OS is and why I should get a new one, download or purchase a distro, backup or lose all my current data (which is probably on a NTSF drive), install the new distro, get all the hardware working (not always as easy as many slashdotters seem to think; I STILL can't get my wireless card to work under Ubuntu), and THEN learn where everything is on my new OS and all the new programs that I have to use with it.

Bear in mind that the "average" computer user doesn't care too much about long-term stability or security; hell, a lot don't even bother to update their antivirus. What makes the Linux-on-the-desktop advocates think that a significant number of people would want to go to all that trouble?

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[msuarezalvarez]

Experience has shown me that people assigning value to any kind of number purporting to measure intelligence tends to be evetually very dumb. In fact, anyone assigning value to any one-dimensional model of the value of people cannot be very bright (well, that or is way too inmature)

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Still the USA re-elected GWB ! Now that we are shadow boxing bombs for years to come, it doesn't look so easy. The fixed attitude problem of culture is greater than raw intelligence of the individual. As they stack up bodies in the desert, year after year, it will sink in. People are stupid and then they do a good job of hiding behind arrogance. Viva la France.. Europe is so civilized. Living here in Alabama is really a drag.. Someday peace will come, about 50 years after I am dead!

Fortunately Microsoft has been associated with the USA, and as our country goes down in debt, Linux will rise up!

linux != easy to install

[foQ]

I've got about a dozen linux Live CDs and only about half of them run X on my laptop. Only one will actually install itsself to the hard drive, though several have the option. I tried to install gentoo and couldn't for the life of me get it going on my desktop. I tried installing OpenBSD and have apparently fucked up two hard drives to the point that no OS will see nor format them. I'm no master Linux user, but I've got several years experience with command line Linux/Unix/BSD stuff.

Windows and OSX go on cleanly and easily every damn time.

Why should I have to pull my computer apart to see what audio chipset I have, and then translate this into whatever cryptic name the installer calls it? What if it's not there? Why should I have to figure out how much swap space to use before I even start using the computer? And how much user space? And how much temp space? If X doesn't recognize my video card, what do I do? I could edit some .conf file somewhere, or maybe try and run through the setup and try to figure out what video modes X will support on my card. And oh yeah, I'll have to rip the computer apart to see what video chipset I'm using.

Windows uses the lowest common denominator and then detects what stuff I have and then installs the drivers for me. Alright, so many times it doesn't have the drivers built in, especially for newer hardware. At least I've got a GUI and a web browser to go download what I need! OSX is even easier. If you've never installed it, go to one of those Apple stores and ask if you can go through the OSX install. You'll get a funny look, but once you get the chance you'll see that it's nearly brainless compared to Linux/BSD.

Installing software is a microcosm of the above: Linux is confusing (BSD is better), Windows is much better, and OSX is deceptively simple. OK, let's say I get something compiled and built in Linux. Where the hell is it? How do I use it? Is it in /usr/local/share/xxx, /usr/bin/, etc.? Is there an icon in X? Windows usually gives me an icon on the desk, the quick start, or the Start Menu (but it puts it somewhere in my face for me to see). I'm still getting used to OSX and how things install there. Sometimes I can't find them or don't know how to use them, but that's mostly the OSS that is built for it.

Windows isn't perfect and neither is OSX, but they're both better than Linux at setup and installation. Ease of use (for neophites) is a no brainer. For very experienced people, Linux probably wins because it is more customizable. For most people it is probably a toss up, leaning toward Windows. I know folks are going to be pissed off at me and tell me that I should RTFM more, but that's the point! With Windows and OSX you don't really NEED TFM to perform most operations.

intuitive. in-tu-i-tive. adjective.

[Beatbyte]

1. Of, relating to, or arising from intuition.
2. Known or perceived through intuition. See Synonyms at instinctive.
3. Possessing or demonstrating intuition.


People aren't stupid and people who use computers learn new things all the time.

Regardless if people are stupid or not, if the interface is consistently intuitive, they will be able to use it. Take a moment and think about those keywords: consistently - intuitive - interface.

Obviously there are points where explanation is needed, documentation in the form of training or a well written manual can fill the gap. Linux is there (my experiences are with Gnome.. not so much KDE) but lacks a greedy corporation pushing millions into advertising into the DESKTOP Linux market.

Easy to install? Easy to use? Not yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Modern Linux distributions are easy to install and easy to use.

Don't forget some big obstacles left:

1. Missing drivers. Even big brands are still missing. (Personal example: FC4 didn't find my DLink wireless network card, so I had to search Google, and build it from source-code.)

2. The choice trap. One excellent app is 1000 times better than a choice of 8 mediocre ones. Bottom line: I don't want to be a beta tester. I want the best of breed by default.

3. Essentials are missing. If you can't give me out-of-the-box support for MP3 or NTFS, then at least let me install it with a single click of a web-page link on a foreign server. I beg of you: hide all that rpm and aptget command-line stuff.

I appreciate your efforts so far, but don't pat yourself on the back yet....

What??

[Eric Damron]

"If you need to configure anything that isn't out of the box, like latest graphics card support or wireless, you're left out in the cold."

You mean as apposed to if you need to do the same thing on a Windows box?? Give me a break!

Re:What??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, as opposed to if you need to do the same thing on a Windows box. I've got a wireless card that works just fine on this machine when it's booted into windows, but in linux it refuses to work. A couple years ago when I spent most of my time either in class or hanging around, I would have enjoyed the challenge but nowadays I have things I like to DO with my time that don't involve battling a computer.

Right now, it's pretty painful as I prefer the linux environment. When I need to download something, I boot in under windows, download the thing, and save it to a shared FAT partition, then reboot into Linux. But come on, is this really necessary? I suppose the 30 second boot times will eventually add up to the several hours I could spend to make this work, but I frankly wish it just worked before. Besides, who has several hours to spend all in one sitting?

Re:What??

[Eric Damron]

I have had hardware that didn't work on Windows. My point is that if hardware doesn't work it's a pain in the ass on ANY OS. It's not more painful on Linux.

Elitist you are NOT, sir

[Z34107]

90% of people *are* total asshats, as well as idiots. But remember, idiots think that we are idiots. In fact, if there's no difference between the two groups, how do we if we're idiots or not? I mean, if we were idiots, we'd have no way of knowing by virtue of our idiocy.

As for dying sad and lonely... People who despise humanity congregate. As, ironically, do anti-social people. Just remember that most people are best avoided and the trick is to surround yourself with those both likeable and compitent.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[efuzzyone]

I have to use Windows a lot at work. I haven't seen a BSOD in years.
I was wondering what blue screen of death(BSOD) meant. I initially thought it to be some Linux installation related problematic blue screen . But your post explained what it meant.
I think people talking about BSOD must have only used Windows 98, or some other older versions.

Its been atleast 3 to 4 years, since I have ever seen a blue screen. And by the way, I am someone who spends on average 6 to 7 hours daily with computer running Windows operating system.

Humor:

[sakusha]

Modern Linux distributions are easy to install and easy to use.

ha HA HA HA HA HA! Hee hee. Ha! ROTFLMAO!
You guys are killing me.

Ubuntu is not a good example...

[Eric Damron]

Try the newest Suse. Suse 10.0 is sweet and unless your hardware is REALLY odd you won't have any of the problems you just listed.

To say that linux isn't as easy to install/use as Windows is really bullshit.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[efuzzyone]

It seems you are using Windows 98, time to move onto newer OS.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[GoatPigSheep]

modern distros are easy to install, on their own...

But installing on a system with windows installed still requires skills in partitioning and what not to get it set up right.. Granted, it's easy, but quite scary for the average user who can't even deal with a windows install (I have installed windows for many people who couldn't deal with it and paid me to do it, although they had no problem installing their own hardware upgrades, odd)... Even windows often requires a bit of driver installing and what not to get it working, this is too much for most people... Modern Linux distros are almost as good as windows at auto-detection and what not, but it still takes a lot of work to get anything that isn't detected to work. Average users NEVER WANT TO BE EXPOSED TO A COMMAND LINE/CONSOLE COMMANDS. OS X is probably the only unix/unix-like OS which completely shields the average user from the console. Even Ubuntu linux requires the console to get some things working (like WEP)...

My experiences wtih trying to install linux

[blibbler]

I have downloaded and installed a few versions of MacOS and windows on my computer with out a problem, but I came across a few issues when looking for and considering installing linux.

* I have a recent G5. Many distributions (even "2005" versions) won't boot on this machine. I completely understand that the developers require some time before they are able to get linux to run on it, but there should be some warning of this before downloading a 3GB disk image, or even a 700MB "live CD". I can't run OS9, or 10.1 on this machine either, but most places where you can download those OSs, there are clear warnings about this. Also, windows (through VPC) didn't run for a number of months on G5s, but this was clearly advertised, so people wouldn't have to waste their bandwidth on it.
* I encountered many download sites that linked to non-existent files, or had extremely slow download speeds. In contrast, whenever I have downloaded Windows or MacOS, I have never had trouble finding them, and always experienced much faster downloads.

I understand that I could go out and pay for a copy of a linux distribution, and avoid these hassles, but I am used to the convenience of reliably downloading OSs for free, and doing this with linux was not a pleasant experience.

Now, I understand that might seem unfair, to compare the work of a number of enthusiasts to multi-billion dollar companies like Apple and Microsoft. On the other hand, both of those companies leave their online distribution to fans, and provide little, if any financial support to these download sites.

Re:Not easy to configure - Definitely

[CastrTroy]

I think I spent an entire day once looking for a driver for the OPTI931 on a windows machine. Windows isn't any better with the driver support than Linux in most instances.

FUD and education

[PoconoPCDoctor]

I've been in desktop support for 11 years. Each time I suggest that new employees have at least a one hour class with IT to go over the basics of using a PC, with additional courses available, I was greeted with the silences that told me "we're not interested." And yet, when this new employee deletes an entire network directory because they though they were trashing stuff on THEIR PC ("network - do we have one of those?") the cost of a restore, lost time and productivity when other can't work on the network, etc, ad infinitum, most places just don't see the value in providing basic computer training. "Let the help desk help them" must be the mantra of infinite wisdom of those with the word manager nestled somewhere in their title. If training on Windows is not considered vital to the corporate world, why would Linux be any different? Until Linux reaches the point where customers can tick off the distro they want pre-loaded on their systems at Dell, HP, Gateway or whatever site, it's going to be a long haul before the widespread adoption of Linux. IMHO...and let the brickbats fly!

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[i_should_be_working]

Convinient how you ignore the crashing part mentioned in my post.

And the point about the drivers was that in Linux I don't have to install drivers anymore. And even if I did, it's extremely easy. But seeing as how you seem to be so proud of your inability to install drivers I'll let you stay in the dark. But here's a hint to how easy it is: it takes a fewer number of steps than your double clicking and next, next, next, reboot.

ROTFL!

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF!? FWIW and IMHO, any geek should know what FUD is (maybe you're just some PHB reading /. just to try and find out what his NOC guy is doing when not IMing coworkers on AIM or YIM and how it relates to IT at all...) IMHO, I think you should RTFM to at least try and get the meaning in context. Sorry to be a PITA but that's just my POV.

Re:ROTFL!

[Chuq]

LOL :)

Re:ROTFL!

[jtev]

Wow, that had almost as many acronyms as the last system I was told to set up by my PHB. Do you work for the government or a government contracor?

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[drinkypoo]

The Blue Screen of Death in Windows XP or 2000 is either a hardware error, or a faulty driver. Since the user got warned about installing unapproved drivers when they installed it, I think we have to chalk up Blue Screen as a solved problem.

Since I got consistent BSODs when running Catalyst Control Center alongside my Microsoft-approved ATI drivers, I think we have to chalk you up as a troll.

These were not the kind that blink by for about one frame and then you reboot either, which is the way Microsoft has "solved" the BSOD problem. XP still crashes (far less than anything else they've put out, granted) but you just don't see the blue screen any more.

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[KylePflug]

100 = average. Given that "smart" and "dumb" are relative terms, "50% of the people are idiots" is a non-statement. 50% of the people are, by definition, below 100. If everyone got twice as smart and the tests were retaken and scores recalculated, 50% would still be below 100.

And the the way the rest 50% are only better than the rest if you have IQ over 100 it doesn't matter you are a genius.

Jesus christ, did you just write that in an attempt to convince me that other people are dumb?

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[cbiltcliffe]

Is it the driver's fault that ALSA and OSS can't operate at the same time?

ALSA is backwards compatible with OSS, so if you've got ALSA running, anything that's set up to use OSS should work just fine, and at the same time. I've done it plenty of times. The only thing I can think is that you've got a distribution that uses ALSA without OSS support compiled in. I've never heard of such a distribution, but I know it's a compile option to turn OSS support off in ALSA with the 2.6 kernel.

As to why Gnome is slower on a 2.4 P4 than W2K on a 300 Cel, I have no idea. I have Gnome running on a 466 Celeron right now, and while it's certainly no speed demon, it's not horribly slow, either.

I know, I know.....anecdotal evidence. Well, I can say I've run Linux/modern GUI on everything from a PII-300/64MB to an Athlon64 3200ish, usually using KDE, but sometimes Gnome, too. I've got Linux running right now on a P-166 as a server (no GUI), and I've run it on 486's, too. X runs quite nicely in my experience on anything over about 150MHz, provided you've got enough memory, and a recent Gnome/KDE runs reasonably well on anything over about 400MHz. Again, provided you have enough memory. If you're trying to run KDE 3.4 on 64 or 128MB RAM, it's not going to work well. Get yourself 256 or 512, or use something lighter. If FVWM is too light or feature lacking, try IceWM. I've found it to be a fairly nice compromise.

While I can't claim to be the world's best source of Linux-related info, I've got a significant amount of experience with it, and I've never seen anything like what you're describing. How many different machines have you run Linux on? Is this slow 2.4 P4 something you've run Windows on before? If so, how does it run it? We need more information.

I've got a friend who has a 466 Celeron running Windows 98, and the 466 Celeron I've got (mentioned previously) used to run Win2K. Mine ran Win2K significantly quicker than my friend's ran 98. Does that mean 98 is a heftier OS than Win2K? Of course not. It's because mine was a home-built with a decent motherboard, and his was an eMachine piece of crap with a sluggish Via chipset and a horribly slow hard drive. Let's get some more information about your machine, and see if we can figure out why it's so slow.

No way dude...

[thepotoo]

I am the opposite - meh SAT scores, a few bad grades, hell, I'm not even a computer science major (bioscience) and I have had an easy time installing and running suse. I tried mandrake and abandoned it (have they never heard of a library or dependancy?) I also tried debian, knoppix, ubuntu, and redhat before finding suse. If you haven't found a distro that's easy to use, KEEP LOOKING! I'm running suse 9.3 on a mid-top line computer (2.93ghz, 1gig RAM, 256 video), and my only complaint is that I can't run all the games I want to.

Seriously, I've had no problems.

Way I got it to work was install EVERY DAMN package on a 10gig partition, and nuke the ones I wasn't using. Worked great, unlike windows, where you can't kill have the bloat it comes with.

Video card (ATI raedon something) was a snap, and the two times I've used a command line (a couple of winrar files and quake 4 installation), I found it quite easy. But then, I run an old computer on DOS just so I can play all those awesome ancient games (and yes, I have heard of dosbox).

Bottom line: linux is easy, as long as you use common sense and google for every problem you come across.

Linux will never get a dominant market share until something more than word of mouth comes along. We need TV, radio and newspaper adds spammed constantly, free support survices, government grants for development. Viral marketing doesn't work. Look at firefox (awesome browser, marketshare like crap because of no mainstream marketing campaign) or Serenity (awesome movie, too small a marketing campaign).

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[drinkypoo]

I don't think it's even stupidity so much as it is a stupid state of mind. Most people don't want to be confronted with anything new, they see any kind of new challenge as something to fear. I mean my mom won't even get on the internet, she has her boyfriend (who's at least ten years older than she is) to look stuff up for her, and my mom is pretty smart.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[miffo.swe]

This drives me nuts!

You know what the standard thing in Windows XP is when it BSOD`S?

The friggin computer reboots, thats why you havent seen the bsod!

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[at_slashdot]

Well, I wrote something then I deleted something else and that ended up by mistake as "doesn't matter" instead of "doesn't mean". Also, English is my second language so... I have the right to make mistakes from time to time *grin* (or suppose I was responding to an IM at the same time, and subsequently my IQ dropped 20 points).

So, do you always judge people so quickly?

Anyway, the idea is that:
1. My IQ is above 100, I am still pretty dumb (so I have here a reference point).
2. At least 50% are below me and if you asume that there's a correlation between IQ points and smartness/dumbness (what's the word...) then logically you'll have to conclude that more than 50% of people are dumb(er) than me.

Since I know I'm pretty dumb, I feel entitled to claim that at least 3 billion of people are probably on the verge of idiocy.

You can get out of this in these ways:
1. either I'm not that dumb.
2. IQ points doesn't represent intelligence in a meaningful way -- I agree to some point that that's the case.
3. IQ difference of let's say 30 points doesn't mean much (so people are only slightly dumber even if they have an IQ of 70).

But ny experience tells me otherwise...

>>"Given that "smart" and "dumb" are relative terms"
BTW, I thought that smarter and dumber are relative terms, you can be dumb even if you alone on a island. But what do I know...

Yeah .. Easy

[All Names Have Been]

I love Linux and have run it for years. Official Slashdot disclaimer over.

Linux will be easy for the average user when I don't have to download a source package, compile it and install it, extract Windows drivers for ndiswrapper using another tool I had to compile from source, and then fiddle around with rc files to make sure my SSID got set on boot all so I could get on the local network.

Yeah, sing me the song of vendors not releasing drivers. I hear and understand, brother ... But the average user doesn't give a shit. All they know is it doesn't work, and the learning curve is so steep it's more a learning cliff.

Give a user a pre-configured Linux box with everything working, fine - for most uses people will get along fine. Anyone trying to tell me that an average user can install Linux on their home box and walk away happy most of the time is living in a dream world.

Argh - don't forget about surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The biggest obstacle is fear.. fear and surprise... Our chief two obstacles are fear and surprise... and inefficiency. Our three major obstacles are.. hang about, I'll come again. Amongst our largest obstacles are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, inefficiency and an almost fanatical devotion to Star Wars... and those arruring shiny interfaces. Shit!"

Anonymous because it makes the allusion but doesn't quite connect and I don't have time to flesh it out. :(

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think these guys are idiots and jerks, try #photography of efnet. Worst bunch of jerks. Ever. They'll insult you based on the fact you're not from the USA right when you join, if you don't think like them and have the very same preferences and agree with everything they say, then you're a clueless looser, etc.

Re: TFA

[DeafByBeheading]

Since when do chefs wear stove pipe hats? TFA is spreading FUD about chef headgear.

FUDD FIGHTER

[Anonymous Coward]

I fight FUDD in a rabbit costume and frequent the phrase "What's up doc"

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[dhasenan]

su
cd /usr/src/linux
make menuconfig
(arrow, arrow, arrow, arrow, arrow, arrow, enter, arrow, arrow, arrow, arrow, m, ESC, ESC, ESC, y)
make modules && make modules_install
modprobe

Or...
Firefox -> vendor website
Download
Double click
Click, click, pause, click, click, wait twenty seconds, click, reboot

However, finding the appropriate Linux driver isn't always easy. And this is why we have coldplug and hotplug.

So whether driver installation is easier in Windows than in Linux largely depends on your distribution. It can be a one-step process (boot) or an hour-long search for the appropriate module.

totally doable

[ir0b0t]

I switched my law office to open office last year and just finished switching the rest of the way to linux earlier this year. Its gone fine. It may be getting easier to make the switch.

I know its less expensive now that I've switched. I can't wait to not buy Vista.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Explodo]

I've been developing simulation software on Win XP for years without a BSOD...except for when the fan went out on my video card and it was overheating....hardly Microsoft's fault. I leave my 3 systems(2 Windows, 1 Linux) running 24/7 and have NO issues with the Windows systems. I run XP pro on both the Windows systems. If your opinions of Windows are based on anything before XP, I'd recommend looking into XP. You'll find that it's fast and stable. I noticed a huge slowdown compared to Windows when I converted the one system to Linux. Sure I run KDE. I don't like a simple command prompt unless I'm doing something specific. The linux system is running an Athlon XP 3200+ with 2GB of RAM for god's sake. It should not feel slow. I'm about to upgrade it to an Athlon 64 4000+, and it better not be slow after that, but I realize it will never be as responsive as Windows.

Interesting Introductions

[bobbuck]

Ever met someone with an IQ of 100.

How many times do you meet someone and get an IQ score with the introduction?? Or other pertinent metrics? For example: "Hi, Bob, this is Bobbi Jo. She has an IQ of 117 and a 36C chest..." Just curious.

Re:Interesting Introductions

[Anonymous Coward]

0, unless you live in a Kurt Vonnegut book

Windows terminal emulator

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of something that I'm having a hard time finding in Windows: a console program that isn't cmd.exe. *nix can have xterm, rxvt, aterm, eterm, konsole, et all, but Windows is stuck with cmd.exe? Why, exactly? I know the the cmd window itself is not inexorably linked to the system text mode, because I can access the same interface running sshd from cygwin and logging into localhost with PuTTY.

Re:Windows terminal emulator

[Coryoth]

Well, back when I was messing with this stuff there was a version of rxvt that could be compiled against Cygwin to run on Windows natively (no X/Cygwin required) and that was what I used. As I recall it had some minor quirks due to the "X11 program native on windows" compatability issues, but if you're used rxvt on UNIX it should all seem normal enough.

Jedidiah.

Oh, look at the idiots jump all over it!

[Hosiah]

"people aren't stupid", well, what about the people who scream, "I REFUSE TO LEARN ANYTHING!!!!!" ? You *can* be stupid if you absolutely devote every fibre of your being to completely attaining that state.

Not true

[msormune]

Average person, who only reads email and uses web browsers and writes an occasional document, does learn new stuff about computers all the time. He/She doesn't want to do that, either. Many if not most people drive a car every day. Do you learn something new about your car every day? Of course not. When a certain level of knowledge is reached, it is "good enough" if it gets you through most difficulties. Human brain has a wonderful habit of learning mostly what the person finds interesting. How the computer or the OS works or how to use one's computer more efficiently is usually not among those interesting things.

Agreed

[renoX]

I agree with you, I'd say that while Linux is easy to install, it isn't easy to configure the way you want it: I wanted to configure a QWERTY keyboard to put accents, KDE's documentation was poor and it didn't allow me to do the way I wanted it, X documentation on this topic was even worse (and only in English which could be a problem for some guys), I finally accepted the 'configuration by default' because it was too hard to change..

Currently I have a problem with KDE (on RHE3), when I want to iconify all window, all the window on the current workview are iconified, I would like to have all the window on all the workview to be iconified and have really no clue on how to do it.. and this is very annoying because of the windows which are open on all the workview (my email browser for example).

So Linux is easy to install but usually its default configuration is far from satisfying and when you want to change the configuration, it can be very easy if its something common, if for whatever reason this is a bit uncommon, this is *hell*, especially when you don't talk English!

Re:Agreed

[orasio]

especially when you don't talk English!

Liar

Re:Agreed

[renoX]

I speak English sure, but many people do not!

Re:At the danger of coming across as an elitist...

[seriesrover]

ahh....the Linux mantra - blah blah blah _WILL_ \ _ABOUT T0_ \ _IN THE FUTURE_ blah blah blah

Usability of "Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

3. The formal seperation of System and applications is not very good, see OS X for an example of how to do this properly.

I'm always amazed when the usability of Linux is discussed. There is no usability of a kernel and only a small part is usability of the desktop. Usability of a system is almost entirely defined by the usability of the used applications. But not the usability of single applications, no the usability of all used applications in an correlated manner. So as long as there isn't anything established as proposed by wyoGuide, this discussion will just go with no end.

package management

[Erpo]

It has a need for package management. To me, this is a fundamental flaw with the design of the operating system. There are other techniques and ideas to handle how software is installed.

A lot of people have bad experiences with package management, but I think they're a symptom of the lack of a true Linux platform.

A package is basically a bunch of files, instructions for installing those files on the computer, and a list of dependencies, so the main difference between a typical windows installer or Mac OSX application and a package for Linux is that the package has numerous, specific dependencies.

Those dependencies reflect an expectation on the part of the application author or packager that it isn't a good idea to simply assume certain basic system components (such as libc or GTK+) will be there by default. And that's a reasonable assumption, given that there are lots of versions of libc, and there are multiple windowing toolkits available rather than a single standard.

In other words, each dependency represents something that can go wrong.

Contrast this with the windows or Mac OS X environments. There are dramatically fewer platforms to support that change much less often, and it's easy to inventory what those systems come with and decide to bundle anything that's necessary and mission.

You missed my point

[Sycraft-fu]

My point is that when there's a problem in Linux, it's difficult as hell to solve for newbies. Most people have an even easier time with Windows than you have with Linux. Their computer has a CD, with all the drivers on it, that'll do a recovery for them. These days there's a recovery partition too so it's as simple as a keypress. Also, all patches for OS stuff are automatic.

What I'm talking about is when something more needs to be done. Like, say you get new hardware. Well, ideally in Linux the drivers are already there, or easily available and it just works. However when that's not the case, you are screwed. No easy install to download.

In my case, I tried the easy install option, I setup the FedoraFAQ yum installer and used their ready-made ATi package. Also a no-go.

Basically all the Linux stuff is wonderful... If you can get it to work, but that's often the real trick. I watch the amount of time it takes the Linux guys to get it all setup and running right on their laptops and they know what they are doing. It's way above a normal user.

Linux is fine for some things, but if you think you could put it in the average home with no problems, you are kidding yourself.

Re:You missed my point

[JonJ]

My point is that when there's a problem in Linux, it's difficult as hell to solve for newbies. Most people have an even easier time with Windows than you have with Linux. Their computer has a CD, with all the drivers on it, that'll do a recovery for them. These days there's a recovery partition too so it's as simple as a keypress. Also, all patches for OS stuff are automatic.

I guess that's why we get tens of computers in each week that's completely borked, because it's so easy to fix.

No he probably believes it

[Sycraft-fu]

I'm amazed at the number of non-Windows people that seem to think BSODs are still a normal occurance. They honestly believe Windows boxes crash all the time and that's just how it is, nothing you can do. I attribute it to 3 main things:

1) The last time they used Windows was a long time ago, when they converted. They haven't touched it since 95 and thus haven't seen any of the improvements.

2) They dislike Windows and so remember bad experiences more than good ones. No matter what the OS, you will inevatibly run across someone who screws it up and it's never stable for. These people usually complain loudly about this. Being as there's lots of Windows users, and many are the "L33t ovacloka' gamer" types that push their hardware too much, it's not hard to find. They remember those whines, and forget the hundreds of people who just use it and don't complain because it doesn't crash.

3) They badly want Windows to be unstable, since that's been such a cornerstone argument for so long. Sometimes I'll challenge people to try and convince me why I should convert and I'd say at least half the time stability is one of the first things they try.

All sides of the OS wars engage in FUD and the Linux users are just as bad as any others. They are quick to scream foul when people bash Linux, but come right back with equally unsubstantiated things.

Re:No he probably believes it

[orasio]

BSODs were a big problem, that still does happen.
Of course, faulty hardware can make all the system fail, but a good system should cope with most of those problems, and provide some easy way to fix them, or at least diagnose them.
Most GNU/Linux users can tell you to watch some files in /var/log after a hardware failure. I don't know how to diagnose a hardware failure, post mortem, in Windows, after tinkering with it from its existance to around 2000.
It's not a matter of mswindows failing too much.
That happens, too, because users need to install their own drivers sometimes, and that of course can lead to some failures, it's understandable, and I believe XP has somewhat good hardware support.
The problem is that when it fails, it's very difficult to know what happen, and to have a chance at fixing it.
When it works, mswindows might suit the needs of the user, but once the user has some trouble, things start to get exponentially harder.
What I like in unix-like systems is that stuff has increasing levels of difficulty, so you can learn while you use it, and problems like hardware compatibility issues or troubleshooting the network don't require wizardry.

That, and the fact that most people I know, keep reinstalling their mswindows systems because of issues like "Internet is too slow" or something. We have a mswindows 2000 server, that had soe issues with terminal services (they use it for develoment) and the only fix available was reinstalling. That's too much of a cost.

Well, maybe you can tell me that people who know enough of mswindows should be able to fix issues without reinstalling. I just know that I took two MS courses on win 2000, and I can't fix a damn thing on windows, and most people I know can keep their systems going for years without reinstalling (and for months without rebooting ) with GNU/Linux, man, HOWTOs, and some googling.

And about switching.....
Well... that's not a technical issue.
Do you know what Free Software stands for?
If you read some stuff at http://www.fsf.org/ , aside from what many of people think about them, and wit an open mind, you could realize that the issue of using free software is not technical, although it does have technical advantages. Its an ethical issue. Sharing software and having the possibility to do your own fixes to software should be your right, and you lose it with proprietary software, other technical issues aside.

Re:No he probably believes it

[cavemanf16]

My wife's computer crashes repeatedly (WinXP Pro on a 6-month old Compaq laptop), and I still can't figure out what's causing it. Maybe it's all that software she's installed, re-installed, deleted-reinstalled-deleted-reinstalled, and just plain deleted so that she can actually run her solo-practice law firm, but I don't know which one it is, what errors or files in Windows are causing the problem, or anything. I've turned on error reporting, but so far it gives nothing but errors like: "The server stopped responding. Error code 0x0023AB023" and crap like that. What the hell does that mean?!?! I DO NOT have the tools or the knowledge to have any clue what 'error code 0x0023AB023' means - that's for the Windows developers.

Another /.er suggested that the reason Linux is "hard to install for the average person" is because the average person never installs an entire operating system. I think that is a completely true statement. Linux, Windows, MacOSX and any other OS installation is hard for the average computer user to install because the install program asks the user questions that must be answered! OMG, am I in EST, CST, or GMT time zone!!! OMG, where is my Windows?!? All I see is this funky computer screen asking me to "format a partition"... wtf does that mean?! Those are the types of responses any average computer luser is going to give when installing an OS from scratch.

Microsoft has done one thing, and only one thing right: partnering (or strong-arming those who don't want to be their "partners") with vendors of PCs to provide their operating system "free of charge" and preinstalled on each computer that the vendor sells to its customers. BillyG must have figured out pretty quickly that no matter how great and wonderful he wrote his software, the average idiot user would never totally "get it", and took to getting it installed on the PC before the customer ever even saw that step.

This is why so many people think computers are "Microsoft Windows" and vice versa. They see the interface, not the underlying mechanics. A "Ford" has a certain style to it and certain standard features, which makes it a "Ford." They don't care where all the engine parts, frame, tires, etc. come from that turn it into a "Ford," they just know it looks like a "Ford." The same exact problem exists with personal computers, hence the ever-present /. quip of tech support calls involving phrases similar to "my Windows is broken" (meaning: my computer is broken), or "I can't get on my internets" (meanin: my modem is broken and I can't connect to your company's servers). The average computer user just doesn't know any better - and usually doesn't care to know any better either.

Re:No he probably believes it

[bluGill]

Even though I've used Unix (linux, FreeBSD, Solaris) more than Microsoft windows, I've seen more blue screen of death's than I have the equivalent in the Unix world (kernel panic). When I have seen them in the Unix world, the entire machine was no longer functional afterwords, no matter what I did.

So while I'll agree that Microsoft solved that problem, it took them a lot longer than it should have.

Re:No he probably believes it

[Sycraft-fu]

Look in the system log. Administrative tools, event viewer, system. They'll be an alert there, unless you turned that off. By default Windows writes an alert to the system log and makes a mini memory dump in c:\windows\minidump. You can change teh way it works, including having it dump the entire memory to disk.

Normally, however, the BSOD itself is what you need. It'll tell you the kind of error, and, if applicable, the file that caused it. If you don't know what it means, you can then look it up later. For example maybe you get an IRQL_NOT_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL and it's in ati2dvag.dll. Ok so you look up the error, it means that something tried to access the page file in an elevated IRQ state, which isn't allowed. The driver that tried it was ati2dvag.dll. Look that up, it's the driver for ATi Radeon cards. Ok, so it's a screwed up driver, it's not making sure that everything it needs is non-pagable. Get a new, certified version.

Better yet, you don't have to dig around on newsgroups for this, it's all on Microsoft's site.

It's not hard to troubleshoot, most Linux people just choose to throw up their hands and be helpless about it because it's different than Linux.

As for the ethical issues, fuck that. I'm not a programmer, I don't want to be a programmer, and even if I was I don't have the time to mess with other people's code. I don't care about source code access at all. I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist, my computer is a tool, nothing more, like a hammer or a stove. I want it to do what I need with a minimal amount of fuss. That is achieved through proprietary software.

So if you want to be happy because you have the source code that you never look at (be honest, you don't) or modify, more power to you. However I'll take just being able to accomplish what I need please and thanks.

Re:No he probably believes it

[orasio]

Part 1:
I understand you can fix problems in mswindows.
The only problem is that it's too difficult. I know becuase I tried to learn. For years. And all the knowledge I got through the years is useless, I know, because I can't help people with XP systems. I try, not too hard, because I don't enjoy it, but I honestly try. I just give up and tell the to find someone who understands XP. I did fix win98 systems for money, and I used win98, and I used win NT for development.
On the other hand, I learned to compile kernel modules back in 1996.
I hadn't done it for a long long time. I had to do it last month for a parallel port dual joypad with no advertised linux support (I bought it because I needed just one, though). The kernel had support, but it recognized just one joypad. I used knowledge I aquired back in 1996 for compiling the kernel.
I tweaked two constants in a C program, copy&pasted an "if" statement, and now I have two joypads, so I can play FIFA2005 on winex. By the way, I kept a win98 for gaming purposes, but FIFA got fucked up, and TV-out keeps de-configuring itself. I needed the damn joypads to just work, I can't spend an afternoon installing mswindows.

About looking at the source code, well, I am a developer, I use source code for a living. I use lots of third party libraries (most of it BSD licensed), and I need to read code so I can understand how to code, myself.
I used to program in VB6, and they has the MSDN, but nothing beats actually being able to look into the implementation of the library that will become part of you application.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Sycraft-fu]

What version are you using? If your answer is anything but XP or 2000, stop right now. Talking about problems in Windows 98 is like someone whining because RedHat 6 is too hard to use. If you ARE using XP or 2000, you need to learn how to use them properly.

The main problem sign is a disk check. Those don't happen anymore, barring bad sectors. NTFS, which is the native file system for 2000 and XP, is a journaled file system. That means that there's no need for consistency checks. So you are either using an OS too old to have it or you aren't using it which means you need to learn to take advantage of your OS's features.

where there's fire, there should be smoke

[phooka.de]

If Linux were so easy to install, wouldn't there be someone in your circle of friends who tried it, was surprised how easy it is and recommends Linux because of its ease of use?

Funny, but I never met anyone like this, even though I know a lot of people who tired Linux. I do know people who recommend Apple for ease of use and was convinced to try a Mac by this myself.

If Linux was so easy to install and use, wouldn't it be hard to find people who tried Linux and then switched to Windows or to an Apple?

Well, the opposite is true. Of all the people I call friends, noone still uses Linux at this point in time. One close friend (programmer, uses a lot of Open Source Software in his work) is now using Windows 2000, another (musician) is now on XP, I personally left Linux for an Apple, my girlfriend's brother switched from Ubuntu to XP.

I know noone personally who "switched back" from Apple to Windows, let alone Linux. Yes, these folks exist, but I know more Apple-Users now than I had Linux-users among my friends at the same time, and none of them regretted getting a Mac.

If Linux is so easy, and if people use to recommend an OS because of its ease of use, why is Linux never seen in that light?

Hard to tell, isn't it? Can it really be that most people who use Linux try to keep the public in the dark about its qualities? Can it really be, that Linux users pretend to use other OSs while sticking with Linux in secret? Even less likely. Could it be, that Linux is in fact not as user friendly as Windows or MacOS X? Is that really so unthinkable? All evidence I have points towards this.

Think about installation

I'm not talking about the distro of your choice or the software that came with it. I'm talking about drivers and applications that you want and that you had to download. Wellcome to package-hell.

Think about uniformity

No two applications look the same, configuration of the OS and let's say, the UI (e.g. KDE) are not unified... the list goes on.

Closing your eyes and saying "If I ignore these issues they'll go away" won't help.

You could at least get the author's name right!

[mikehunt]

That's Marcel not Marvel. Been reading too many comic books?

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Martz]

You wouldn't happen to be using an Intel onboard graphics device would you? I've seen this happen before with Intel desktop motherboards.

Use control+alt and then left/right arrow keys to rotate the screen. Ctl+alt and up/down arrow mirrors/inverts the screen. After that, you can set the preferences for the Intel software which sits in the system tray - and disable the hotkeys.

HTH!

Yes it is that hard

[Krommenaas]

No, it's just that it's hard and a lot of hassle, and that the multitude of distributions make it very hard for a newbie to get efficient help for his specific problem.

Here's my story, as an example: I'm an engineer, I'm generally good with computers, I strongly dislike Microsoft, and I'm a Firefox apostle. Years ago I had a Linux loving friend of mine install Linux on my PC, but he couldn't get it to boot, which ended my interest. Having been enthused by all the Linux praise on Slashdot, and posts like this which say it's become so much easier to use, I decided to give Linux another try and not give up easily this time.

I first tried PCLinuxOS, which looked perfect for me, but I couldn't get it to find my ADSL (which "just works" in Windows XP). After much time wasted on it (googling for solutions, installing pppoeconf etc, all things which a computer illiterate could never even try), I decided to just try Ubuntu instead. Same problem, more time wasted.

Then I read that Knoppix has such great device recognition, so I tried that, and yes, this time ADSL just worked! However, the explanation of how to make it a permanent installation was rather discouraging, and it looked butt-ugly and I got nowhere trying to get it to look as slick as PCLinuxOS. By now I was sick of the fact that every Linux distro has three different tools on average for every kind of setting, and that they seem to be randomly mixed across the completely unlogical start menu structure. Also I wondered, if one Linux distro has such great device recognition, then WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY ALL GET IT?

So I tried to get ADSL working on PCLinuxOS again, but still no luck. Then I tried Red Hat, which also had no problem with the ADSL. Since I wanted Linux for home use, I decided to download the related Fedora Core which had a more recent release. ADSL still worked, I could change the desktop to my liking... okay Fedora was going to be it for me!

Now Fedora had an old version of gAim which couldn't connect to msn, so I decided to get the latest version. I downloaded a supposedly super-user-friendly self-installing package with the latest version for my specific distro (it didn't say "Fedora" anywhere on the download page, so an average computer user would never have even found it) and started it by double clicking it but it did nothing. After hours I figured out that I could only see the error message (and hence the reason that the package didn't work) by starting it from a console - VERY user fiendly to not show the error messages in the GUI! The error message was that I was missing some other package with a cryptic name. After much googling I found this other package, but it wouldn't install either. Guess why - it needed yet another package to work! This package I simply couldn't find.

At this point I just gave up and decided to stick to Windows. If it's such a pain to just install the latest version of a simple program, then Linux is not for me. In Windows you just download a .exe, double click it, and it always works, you know. I used to take that for granted, but my appreciation for Windows has grown enormously since I've tried Linux.

In my opinion, the one thing that condemns Linux to be a complete failure on the desktop is the multitude of distributions which all have their different problems. Finding a solution to even the smallest problem becomes an intangible mess because of it. Linux will never get beyond it's pathetic 0.1% market share on the desktop as long is it lacks a standard distro that everyone can throw their support behind.

Re:Yes it is that hard

[Anonymous Coward]

then WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY ALL GET IT?

Would you believe that most people are perfectly capable of reading lowercase letters?
Anyways, your question is indeed valid: why don't all distros have device recognition?

The answer, in short, is that the different distros serve different needs. Not everyone wants automatic device recognition--for example, there's no need for it at all on devices that only come in one hardware configuration.

If PClinuxOS has a reduced memory footprint due to not having device recognition, then WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY ALL GET IT?

(the gAim (sic) story)

That's very fascinating. I'm sure the gaim developers would like to know about it--I'm sure they'll agree it's a bug and in clear violation of their human interface guidelines. Better yet, report it to the GNOME usability experts--maybe they'll suggest using bitlbee (through, say, xchat) as the preferred IM client, who knows.

This package I simply couldn't find

Right. If it's an issue, why don't you collect packages from the official repositories (switching package management system if that matters)? Truth is, it's not important enough to you. What you've failed to see is that using GNU/Linux is an investment. Initially, you invest O(1) time to learn how it works, then you use what you know to save O(n) time. Big win, if you get it. You seemingly didn't.

Here's a popquiz for windows users:
How do you download all documents (tree-wise) below http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
How do you rename all files named foo.bar to foo0.bar?
How do you replace foo.bar with foo0.bar in the above mentioned files?
How do you make your computer automatically update all installed programs at 2:17 AM every friday?
How do you remotely connect to your machine?
How do you add logo.png to *.png in the lower right corner?
How do you make sure no one alters or deletes the files not stored in a "My Documents" folder?
How do you fork(2) in a non-NT kernel?

Here are my solutions, using only the stuff one can reasonably expect to find on a default installation:
manually, manually, manually, manually, manually, you can't, you can't.
For almost any real OS: wget, rename, sed, ssh, pildriver, chmod, fork.

pathetic 0.1% market share

Please don't pull numbers out of your ass, they'll get your faeces all over them.

---

All in all, I'll write you off as someone who thought he understood what all this "lun1x" thing is all about, expected it to be exactly like Microsoft Windows, and was shocked to find that it actually a well-designed OS.

I hope you're going to like shelling out lots your bitterly earned money on a load of poorly-designed insecure resource-hogging DLL-hell-inducing aesthetical piece of roadkill made by a criminal company which most unethically disrespects your privacy for reasons of their own economical gain.

You are not important.

"Intuitive" is the wrong word

[CoolBru]

"Intuitive", though very commonly used in this context, is really the wrong word for user interfaces. It's not the interface that's intuitive, it's you - computers can't intuit anything as yet. The real word would be "intuitable", meaning that you, a creature capable of intuition, should find that figuring it out is not difficult. "Intuitive" would mean that it's capable of figuring out what YOU mean - I wish!

Re:Clearly... it took 40mins to load a CD!

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for an ISP helpdesk, among many users who just wanted their internet/computer thingy to run. I have had a user that took me over 40 minutes over the phone to walk him through loading a CD into his windows computer to just begin the process of reinstalling IE (to fix a fault in viewing secure pages).

And some automatically panic regularly when their machine does something slightly different, like claiming that their machine was getting hacked (even when offline!) turns out they had wireless keyboards and mice and that someone else in the area was using another set using the same fequency.

Some just call the helpdesk and expect us to work magic from our end to get their computers to work properly and don't want to be guided through fixing the small problem themselves. Even though re-creating a shortcut or getting to the control panel to adjust connection settings that they (or thier kids) have dicked about with.

In short - some people learn new things, others tend to be outrageously stupid. I see a mixture of all types of stupidity in both my previous job in helpdesk and my current job of pizza delivery (and yes "do you sell pizzas" is a more common phrase than you think!)

You left something out

[pedestrian crossing]

Installing Windows is simpler:

0. Buy PC. Windows is already installed.

1. Install a bunck of crapware. Windows goes south.

2. Try to remove some crapware when your system stops working as expected.

3. MS support recommends a re-install.

4. - 99. Get Windows back into the same state as the original install (if this is even possible).

Still too hard for most

[Gaius Julius Zodiac]

Ankarbas, I think you are rather glossing over the reality of the situation. Whilst there are many technically competent users that could easily switch to Linux, in my experience there are far more users that struggle to cope with windows let alone office. I have worked in a variety of technical IT roles for the last 17 years and I have found it difficult to perform some Linux installs. As far as office goes good luck opening that word or excel file attachment using a Linux install. There are plenty of server applications where Linux is ideal but as a desktop OS for the masses Linux has a long, long, long way to go.

When are you going to learn? It IS that hard

[Jurph]

Hey, I'm pretty tech-savvy -- check out my slashdot user number. I build hardware from scratch all the time, even when it's more expensive than a Dell, because I like to know what's inside. Every year since 1999 I've given Linux a try, and I have yet to install a distro that

(a) recognized all of my hardware
(b) was able to connect to the internet
or
(c) had any semblance of useful HELP info

I ask around on Linux-flavored message boards and get eighteen replies - "You're a n00b, why do you want Linux?" "You should use Redhat." "NOBODY uses Redhat!!!111!" and so forth.

The article's claim that "people learn new things all the time" is based on a desire to learn them. Windows works out of the box -- whether or not you want to admit it -- and Linux still doesn't. You guys squandered your lead in the "better stability and performance" race, and Bill caught up to you.

The average person can't grasp the complexity. Remember, it's cool to be able to snag college kids who are willing to give anything a try, but you've got to win over the grandmas. When a hardware dork with time to spare treats Linux as a "wasted weekend" each year, you guys have a long damn row to hoe.

RED HERRING ALERT!

[Crayon Kid]

"How the fuck am I supposed to support 500 different pieces of software?"

Insightful? What are you people on? What does MS specifically have to do with making sure that the client who needs support uses (tada, drum shot) supported software?

Obviously, sane people who offer technical support (and want to remain sane) will make sure first thing that the clients will be using only stuff they (the support) know about! What exactly that thing is (MS products or a KDE suite) is irrelevant, as long as both the client and the support person know what it is.

So there's no inherent advantage to using MS products, unless you're already locked in because your support contractor only supports MS products.

Re:RED HERRING ALERT!

[jacksonj04]

That was my point. It's not MS's job to support anything, but it is the job of the techies for the school district to support the mail clients. And selecting one mail client is the easiest way to do it. And if they have an Exchange server, the best client is Outlook.

Sorry, but that's the way it works.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[ookaze]

I have a hard time believing what you say is not FUD ...

(1) The sound software I was trying to use didn't work in GNOME, because GNOME uses ESD

The average person does not install these kind of sound software, but worse, the cause you give is wrong.
I use multiple simultaneous desktop, one of them is Gnome, with ESD. ESD uses ALSA since a long time, so I have a hard time believing it would block any app (it doesn't at home), specially because IIRC Ubuntu is what started the correct ALSA software mixing. Even worse, since 2.10, Gnome uses ALSA as its sound system by default, even when esd is launched, esd being there for old apps.
Your killing of esd should not be necessary anymore nowadays, so I rather think you tried to be elite with your Ubuntu install, and screwed everything, like (2) indicates.

(2) I couldn't install some libraries (such as libc6-dev) because they were in a munged state at the point where I did my apt-get update.

An average user does not install important libraries like libc. Even worse, they don't do things like updating from one version of Ubuntu to another with apt-get, giving them a munged state.

To sum up, you wrongfully attributed flaws to Linux, when these are your flaws instead. Even worse, the flaws you talk about, average users don't do them.

These were time-consuming, frustrating annoyances for me, but for someone who's not a computer geek, they'd be total showstoppersw

Fortunately, they will never do such things, so they will not even have to give up.

And BTW, Gagne might want to update the subtitle of his book, "Kiss the blue screen of death goodbye." I have to use Windows a lot at work. I haven't seen a BSOD in years.

You haven't but I have, and mine was documented on the MS support site, so stop believing you are the center of universe. A lot of BSOD for Windows XP are documented on MS site, try informing yourself instead of spouting nonsense.

Linux is not easy!

[Odisej]

Ok, ok... I read a lot of posts and I would agree with most of them. But Linux is not easy to use. Really, really! I am sorry to say so. I use it (FC4), but I have to use WinXP as well, because using Linux is like eating a sandwich but what I would really want is a tasty coq-au-vin. Here are the problems as I see them:

1. Before one can really use it, you have to do some serious installing by yourself which means adding repositories and to know how, you really have to learn a lot about Unix and Linux.
I started using Linux about a year ago and have given up after one month. Had to solve all sorts of problems all the time... how to startup applications by default, how to listen to MP3s, how to... It took me five times longer to do anything at all. And I need the computer every day.

2. To setup to access NTFS partitions and to watch movies was a pain too. Having to optimize some settings for the processor (AMD) it took me a while to make all things work as they should. I was really angry that it was so complicated. Did I mention that there was no driver for S3 graphics chipset that would support 3D?

3. Every application has it's own look and feel. When will the developers realize it takes more time if you put different functions in different menus for each application. In Windows all feels and looks the same, one can quickly find all even if an application would be used for the first time. In Linux it is not so. And it will not be so for a long time it seems.

4. The last setback was that the scanner I use and have is not supported by Linux and it is not a no-name scanner as many may think. It is a HP scanner, 3500 series. Not supported to this day. Oh, and btw, no Linux OCR can compare to Abbyy Finereader 7 or 8.

So, I gave up on Linux (Fedora core 3). Fortunately I am stubborn enough to try to learn new things and I installed Ubuntu the moment I heard about it. Had to delete it though as it did not work with the laptop I use (the fan was constantly on). Had to install FC4 instead. Now it works.

You see. Linux is not easy to use. Even for me and I am using computers since 1985. My mom would go crazy! So would most of my friends.

But I am optimistic. I predict that in two years Linux distributions will be superior in most features Windows will by then have (in the context of the above mentioned problems) but at this moment it is just too complicated to setup. If MP3s and DivX movies could play out of the box, a lot would be done already. Making a desktop "for newbies" that would include some features users know and use in windows already would also be a step in the right direction.

But that is the future. I support Linux and will try my best to do so but to say that Linux is easy to use is just not true.

Re:Linux is not easy!

[bmalia]

Fedora Core isn't for newbies. Things break in it constantly. Which is what it's whole purpose is for. It's meant to testing out bleeding edge technology, not to use as a stable OS. I've never used Ubuntu, but it should have been close to what you were looking for. If you havn't given up on Linux yet, try out the Xandros' Open Circulation version. I have never had linux install so fast (~20 minutes) and be setup so perfectly before.

Re:HAHA - Jokes on us?

[dwandy]

I wonder if billie reads /. on his megabucks laptop, on his megabucks couch in his megabucks house and laughs as the linux supporters argue incessantly about whether or not it's ready for various people to use.

I used to think that the problem with linux was the complexity, but the more involved I become, the more I realise the problem is far simpler: marketing.
What linux needs is a full time international public awareness campaign aka: marketing. Succesful companies don't necessarily make good products, nor do they necessarily make products people need or want. What succesful companies all have in common is succesful marketing.

Answer the marketing question, and you'll achieve market penetration...FUD works 'cause it's the only set of 'facts' most people ever hear...

Why linux fails!

[euroBob]

First off, linux, bsd, and unix, utilize the hardware of machine much better than Windows. However, Linux, BSD, and Unix completely fail in providing an out of the box enjoyeable experience.

Points where Linux for the Desktop fails (Ubuntu and Suse):

If you want to play a MP3 in Linux...
If you want to play a DivX or Xvid in Linux...
USB Stick Drive in Linux...
Photoshop ( don't say gimp... lynda.com does not have tutorials on gimp )
Dreamweaver ( don't say hand code, today's websites require too much for hand coding )
Games
MP3 players, zen, ipod, etc... windows only drivers.

None of these things work out of the box aleast for Ubuntu or Suse. You have to go to the Xine page, or the Mplayer page, or the Xmms page, or GNU project. You have to install the codecs in /usr/lib/w32 yada smada. Reconfigure your gnome or KDE to Xine to play DivXs. O and Xine can't see accross your network so the file has to be on your hard drive. So that means you need to install samba, configure samba, mount shares. All this and then you still go to play the avi of something and low and behold the mpeg/layer2 codec is not properly there so no sound just video. Or my favorite in linux is what I call the library
run around. ./configure -> requires something from ^here^ -> that requires something from there -> that inturn requires another library from another place... Some apps you get from source, some apps you need to use apt-get, some times you have rpm's. Only FreeBSD and its port collection impress me. The ports system on FreeBSD should be what the other Nix's do.

Don't get me wrong. I know that all of these will work when 'configured' properly, and I also do know that you have some of the same stuff going on in Windows. However, I never need to go into a /usr/local/etc/config.file and change things to get them to work in windows. I don't have to go to 4 different web pages and download 6 different glibc extension libraries to get something to work.

For serving things hands down Nix's are better, mail, www, ftp, smb, you name it they do it better than god forbid Windows 200x. However, for using in day to day life I have to say Windows does a better job of making things easier. Hooking up a digital camera, USB pen drives, playing things. Doing something just a bit more than emailing and web browsing.

This is going in my fortune cookie file!!!

[pentalive]

Here's one for you...

It is by will alone I set my mind in motion,
It is by Caffeine that thoughts aquire speed,
The hands aquire shakes
the shakes become a warning
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion

I use 98 and XPProSP2 at work

[hummassa]

And my day job is developing Delphi systems over Oracle databases.
My workstations are garden-variety 1GHz Celerons with 512 MB RAM each. Both of them have factory-installed drivers and default configurations.
Windows 98 crashes and burns during Delphi 7.0 debug sessions at least once every two days -- BSOD. XPPro crashes about once every fortnight during a debug session. None of them stays on at night (meaning they have the opportunity to start anew every morning).
This is just my anecdote, but it's also a reflex of all my experience with developing under windows platforms. To compare, my 24/7 home workstation runs the same Delphi7 under WINE without ever crashing the system (ok, Delphi sometimes crashes and takes WINE with it). To compare, I had NEVER had KDevelop crashing on me (and yes, I use it daily).

Dangers of humor in the workplace

[mnemotronic]

My experience with humor in the workplace is a tale of cultures, political correctness, and caution.

I began using humor in my work many years ago. I worked for a high-tech company doing software tools, which requires (on my part) some level of user support in the form of documentation, web pages, and email - the end-user in this case being the other engineers employed there. Technical documentation is such a droll, dry medium, and I wanted to make it more interesting, and help hold the reader's attention. There is nothing funny about the X3T9 or 1394 specs. I also felt the need to extend my personal creativity beyond the realm of interesting code comments.

Things went ok, even fine, for a few years. I received lots of positive feedback from users, indicating how they always looked forward to my next group broadcast email, or how funny a web site was. But such feedback encouraged me to "push the envelope" in terms of content. Our company is multi-culture, multi-ethnic, and multi-national. What might be funny or innocuous in American English can be mis-interpreted by people in Thailand or Singapore. Eventually I crossed an invisible line, and the Political Correction department, sometimes ironically referred to as "Human Resources", came down on me like a ton of diarhea. With my future at stake, I retracted my email and publically apologized. My job had been saved, but my manager's reputation had been compromised. He was in trouble for not "keeping the reins tight enough", as if any manager can effectively herd cats. Of course, while my actions caused problems for my boss, they caused greater problems for me. My future with that company had suddenly grown much more circumscribed, a fact I was not to learn for some time, when raises and promotions sailed past me like leaves in a nor-easter.

After several years, that incident was forgotten. I glided under the radar during subsequent management shake-ups and re-orgs, and ended up working for another manager. Our company policy forbids managers and HR personel from officially discussing individual employee records, so I felt that my past was behind me - safely locked away in the depths of HR. I could relax and drop my guard, which I did but, as you can probably guess, this led to another lapse in judgement, which resulted in the "final warning" from HR. My manager at that time issued an edict demanding "no more humor, no more creativity" in all my work. At the time, it felt like a knife through the heart, but it actually inspired me to redirect my energies and intellect for my own gain, not the company's. The company would survive.

Or course, I accept responsibility for what I said. I could have kept my keyboard locked, toed the company line, and been a happy drone. That company is ancient history, so all I can do now is reflect, and use my talents elsewhere.

Bottom line? The HR department is no longer the "personel" department. It's geared toward protecting the company, not representing the individual worker unit. HR's primary task is protecting the company from harrasement and defamation lawsuits brought by current and former employees. This is extremely difficult in America, with it's current "Politically Correct" atmosphere - an attitude that people are not responsible for their own feelings, thoughts, and interpretations, combined with a "get rich quick" lotto mentality.

Re:Dangers of humor in the workplace

[bluGill]

You should have quit after the first warning. Seriously. First of all, as you discovered your past cannot be left behind so long as you don't leave. Second, so long as you let them get by with snuffing your humor out, they will, and your only resource is at the exit interview to tell them you can't stand things. (This works better if you tell your boss why he is loosing a good employee, because now he is mad at HR) Third, you never know for sure that they won't put you on the next lay-off list (when you firesomeone they can sue if the cause isn't good enough, but when you lay them off it is impersonal budget cutting nothing against you, and you can't win a lawsuit for that).

So find a new job now. You should have long ago. A first warning is a good sign that you have been there long enough. Find the job now, while you are still paid. It make take a year or two, but that is life. Much better than to loose your job in a downturn (when you are more likely to be laid off), and still not have found one after unemployment runs out.

Maybe ...

[hummassa]

it's because XP hides the BSOD, making it reboot the machine by default? Ok, XP BSODs far less than 95/98/Me/2k, but it still does it. You are just lucky or not a very power-user type.
Hint: developers and gamers see a lot of BSODs.

Really?

[hummassa]

You seem to be trolling for me.

let's see:

1. QWERTY w/ accents: KDE control center -> international settings -> keyboard layout -> add "US - international" (or "US-latin1") and you are set.

2. iconify all windows -> there is a "show desktop" icon in the default panel of kde. If it's not there (ex. if RH had taken it off their defaults), right-click on the panel, "add applet" or "add special button" whatever it is, and the "show desktop" or "minimize all windows" will be there.

3. some of the items above will be wrong, because from some years now I only use my KDE workstation in my native language (Brasilian Portuguese), and I really forgot how stuff is written in the original English. So, no English is required to operate KDE in principle.

Re:Really?

[renoX]

1. Except that it didn't do it the way I wanted: I wanted to use AltGr as a compose character to make the accents, which didn't work.

2. Nope, it iconify all windows in the current workview, not all windows on all the workview which is very annoying when you have a window shared on all workviews..

3. As said, if what you want is normal, KDE is easy, if you want to configure it just a 'bit differently', you have to speak English.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of years ago, I talked myself into using Linux as my one and only desktop at home. I was sick of Windows, I still am. After 2 years, I am utterly disgusted by it and am planning to switch to Windows at the next convenient time or maybe a Mac. Why? Because things don't just work.

Sick of Windows, annoyed with Linux, wish you had something *like* Linux but a bit more friendly/supported/"that just works"? I'd say there's nothing maybe about that "maybe a Mac". Sounds like just the thing.

also posted anonymously to say off my record, because... I'm really bordering on flamebait here. Seriously, though, I went through the same thing you described, more or less, and found the move to Mac to be the more pleasant than I would've thought.

Re:Clearly... it took 40mins to load a CD!

[jtev]

That wireless keyboard and mouse thing does sound kinda scary. I'd start tripping out about it, and I'm a 1337 l1nuX d00d. I probably wouldn't call my ISP over it, but I'd certianly start trying to find the intruder, and probably set up a sniffer.

Linux wants YOU too, Malachai.

[elrous0]

I am an avid gamer who makes heavy use of utilities like Photoshop, MS Office, Pagemaker, Namo, and Vegas Video to do graphic, document, webpage, and video design.

I can't believe anyone would say that Linux can't do everything that a Windows machine can do! Why, Linux can run all these programs and games and all for free!

...Oh wait, scratch that, I just realized that it can't.

-Eric

Running Windows means never having to say...

[elrous0]

"That sounds like a neat program. God, I hope a port is available soon!"

-Eric

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[ajs318]

Seriously, just buy a DVD+RW recorder {Argos have them for £79.99}. Connect it to your VCR with a SCART to SCART cable. Make sure to plug the TV aerial into the VCR so a picture will come out of it at first -- this will fool the copy protection circuit in the DVD+RW recorder into thinking the picture is "clean", it only checks for Macrovision when you first press RECORD {hey, the guys in Philips' labs -- all these machines use Philips chipsets -- have massive collections of Macrovision-encumbered VHS cassettes themselves, you know .....} Start the DVD recording, then play the VHS. Manually insert a chapter marker at the beginning of the movie and skip the crap next time you watch it, or mark the chapter 'hidden' if you can find the menu option to do so.

You could use your computer as a DVD recorder ..... and you could use the saw blade on a Swiss Army knife for cutting down trees. But something that was designed for cutting down trees and only cutting down trees, will invariably do a better job of cutting down trees than something that was designed to be used for many different jobs. On the other hand, you won't have much joy getting a stone out of a horse's hoof with a chainsaw .....

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Blakey Rat]

At the time I bought the video capture card, which was a few years ago, it was half the price of a stand-alone recorder and I didn't realize all the software that dealt with it is in an infantile state and impossible to actually use. Your suggestion is appreciated, but I'm trying to avoid throwing good money after bad... if I can't make a simple mpeg2 file from a video capture card, God knows what'll go wrong with some standalone unit.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[heinousjay]

You know, I think I'd notice a reboot, too. I am somewhat observant, and the fact that all my work disappeared and I was dumped to a logon would probably register.

Face it, the BSOD complaint is toasted. The only time I saw one under XP is when I had a faulty memory stick, and I'm pretty sure just about any OS would be hard pressed to work under those circumstances (on a regular desktop PC, before someone tries to shoot this down with some big iron example.)

Yes, if you want non-geeks to use your stuff

[Sycraft-fu]

If you are happy with Linux being a geek-only OS then great. Make it as hard to use as you want, make it expect that the person be an expert with computers. That's fine. However if that's what you want, don't then go and insist that normal users should try and use Linux instead of Windows or MacOS. However if your goal is to have Linux take over, and to have normal people start switching, then you need to come down to their level. You need to make things work on terms they can understand. If you refuse to do that, you might as well stop trying to convert them because you aren't going to succede.

So what I ask of Linux people is to decide which side of that you stand on and then be consistent. I find far too many Linux advocates that will crow on and on about how much Linux rules and how everyone should use it, but then when it's suggested things are too hard for non-geeks get hostile, call people stupid and demand they should learn the OS, and say they don't want change. Well, that's not how it works. Perhaps in your ideal world everyone is computer savvy but I'm telling you how it is in the real world.

So really I don't care which way Linux goes, or if it goes both (you could have geek and non-geek distros). I'd be fine with Linux taking over the world, I'd be fine with it remaning mainly in the realm of servers. However advocates need to decide how they want it to go and "taking over the world, but remaining geeky" isn't a real answer.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[bluGill]

So? There are people like that everywhere. Go outsometime and you will soon meet them. Some are worse than others. There are abusive people everywhere looking for a fight. Just human nature. Like most geeks, I have not figured out how to deal with them.

Nobody expects the inquisition

[mohkev]

"The biggest obstacle is fear"
Fear and a Fanatical devotion to TheBill. The TWO biggest obstacles...

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[miffo.swe]

I work as a network engineer and i have on numerous occasions seen this irl. A computer that just hums along on Linux is unstable as nothing else on Windows XP. It can be explained by the fact that one of the OS is more fault tolerant than the other. I always test my machines with memtest86 and there have been many times when XP BSOD when theres nothing wrong with the mem.

Recommend Outlook, mention Linux & Thunderbird

[Ignominious]

Have you considered why he might recommend they use Outlook? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that it's already installed on many desktop PCs.

Popular Linux distros have Thunderbird installed by default so while obviously it's pretty rare to buy Linux preinstalled, it's an OS issue rather than an applications issue. The instructions for configuring Thunderbird would be the same cross-distro too.

A lot of people are dissatisfied with MS software; a good IT professional would at least provide some basic information about the available alternatives, mentioning that Thunderbird is cross-platform.

I call BS

[hummassa]

Sorry, but:

1. either the altgr is the way that windows comes preconfigured, or you can't set it that way without resorting to black "editing configuration files" magick. and you *can* do "editing configuration files" magick on /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xkb too.

2. I'm almost sure there is an option in the control panel for this. But anyway, Windows DOES NOT HAVE multiple "workviews".

3. If you want to configure Windows "just a bit differently", you have to speak English, too.

That said, you are definitively trolling.

Re:I call BS

[renoX]

1. and xkb documentation *suck bigtime*!

2.
> I'm almost sure there is an option in the control panel for this
Well if there is I've not been able to find it and the help files doesn't help here.
> But anyway, Windows DOES NOT HAVE multiple "workviews".
And? We're talking about Linux here who cares about Windows?
Linux has multiple workviews so I should be able to use them efficiently..

3. If you want to configure Windows "just a bit differently", you have to speak English, too.
But why the hell are you talking about Windows? This is about Linux here.

For the record, I don't think that Windows is a good desktop either: just as yesterday my sister-in-law was locked out of her PC because the keyboard switched from AZERTY to QWERTY.. And the keyboard switcher is not accessible from the lock window (happened to me also once but I've was able to type the correct password because I'm used to switching between AZERTY and QWERTY, she isn't).
And the Windows guy would throught about having shift+right click should be shot: the difference between right click and shift+right click is usually only one entry: 'Open With..' which sometimes is very handy and nobody knows about Shift+right click!

I'm not a troll, I'm just disappointed that the pundit described Linux as the best thing since sliced bread: it clearly isn't!

Could someone pls. explain...

[Hymer]

...what is so bloody complicated in Linux installation process ?
I almost daily see those "I tried to install Linux and it was a pain in the ass so I am back on Windows"-posts... I have recently installed SuSE on 3 different IBM servers (all with different types of RAID and/or SAN, wich usually are a pain under Windoze) and on 4 laptops (ThinkPad's and HP) and I did not have any problems.
I put the Linux CD in the CD-drive, boot, answer some simple questions and it is up and running... why is it working ?? what do I do wrong ???

Ok, I withdraw

[hummassa]

and apologize by calling you a troll, because of 2(b) and 3.

1. yes, xkb documentation would be terrible ... if there was any. :-)
2. (a) I don't think this is a very "used" or very "wanted" option anyway (you are the only person I ever heard about that wants to minimize windows that aren't in the current workview.)

But I, personally, use my linux desktop very, very efficiently.
And I can't use the (day job) Windows desktop as efficiently.

Re:Ok, I withdraw

[renoX]

> I don't think this is a very "used" or very "wanted" option anyway (you are the only person I ever heard about that wants to minimize windows that aren't in the current workview.)

Well, this is because I have my email browser which is mapped to 'all workview': when I maximise it, it is maximised in all the view, when I iconify it by using the short-cut or the desktop button, it is minimised only in the current workview which is annoying..

PS: the two days I've lost thanks to the lack of xkb documentation didn't made me smile..

Dune reference

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who didn't notice, this is a reference to a passage from Frank Herbert's Dune.

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[Anonymous Coward]

Hit ctrl+alt+ an arrow key to reset your display. Try them all! Isn't it fun?

Re:not easy enough to install, not easy enough to

[cthulhubob]

My brother has a mythtv box he set up, he's done what you're talking about, I think. He showed me once that he could cat /dev/video > file.mpg and it would automatically create an mpeg-2 file. I think you might need a card that does hardware-encoding for that to work though.

But before he got the card that did mpeg-2 in hardware, he had a software driven one that worked as well. Unfortunately I don't know any specifics myself, I've never set one up. But it is possible! Check the mythtv forums for info on your card, perhaps.

Sigh and shake one's head

[Proteus]

I look at books like this, and the inevitable cries of "but Linux has usability problems! It doesn't do (some thing that Windows does), so your average user doesn't want it." in response to such things. All I can do is sigh and shake my head. People who argue on either side of a 'Linux vs. Windows' dichotomy need a few clues.

There is no dichotomy.

The dichotomy of Windows vs. Linux is imaginary. Windows does some things exceedingly well. Linux does some things exceedingly well. Both have shortcomings. There are places where both succeed; there are places where both fail. Ultimately, these are tools. If one wishes to promote Linux, one should be promoting that people understand the truth about it and every other major OS, and decide for themselves which tool is best for them. I think a lot more people would consider Linux, but a lot wouldn't -- and that's OK.

There is no such thing as an 'average user'.

Every user is unique. There is no mythical "average user" to target. People use computers for different things, and have varying degrees of proficiency at those tasks. Ideally, software should be created that scales to a range of abilities and investment in eductation -- creating it to please an "average user" is a waste, because it will just frustrate everybody.

Most computer users are not idiots.

Yes, there are lots of people that make us geekier types want to pull our hair out. These people, for the most part, are not stupid, they just don't care. Why should they? Most people do not buy a computer to own a computer: they buy it to write documents, send e-mail, use the web, or whatever other thing they want to accomplish. Users are task-driven: if the task they bought the computer for becomes more complicated than its "analog" equivalent, they will be (rightly) upset.

Power and simplicity are tradeoffs, as any good developer knows. Grep is very powerful, but it is complex. Edit.exe is very simple, but not very powerful. More often than not, users will prefer simple over complex. Again, scalability is important: what if you could use grep on the CLI, but someone who just wants to find a misfiled document had a very simple interface wrapped around it? Complexity is ok, but most users don't want it until they know they need it.

As long as the things that came with a computer do the job (like Windows), no one wants to bother changing. That's not idiocy, that's apathy.

Users need compelling reasons to change.

Most users do not care about our definitions of usability, the finer points of security, or the magic of a well-designed packaging system. The user wants to spend as little time as possible learning to accomplish what it is they set out to accomplish. If a user is already using Word, they have no compelling reason to change to OpenOffice. If a user is already familiar with Windows, they don't want to bother learning the difference between Windows and Linux. To them, it is a waste of time. There's nothing wrong with that.

My mother moved to Linux when she realized that all she does at home is use Firefox (which is basically no different on Linux) to surf the web, and that with Linux she would no longer need to pay for her AV subscription or for upgrades. Because she's on a budget, this was compelling to her. My mother-in-law uses the computer in the same way, but paying for upgrades doesn't concern her: it isn't worth it, to her, for the time she'd have to invest to re-learn. She'd rather read a new book.

Any user who isn't interested in computers for fun or profit is just using it to do things they do have fun with or profit by. These users would, obviously, rather spend time doing something fun or profitable than learning to change how they already do these things. Asking an author to give up writing time to convert from using Word on Windows to using OpenOffice on Linux will seem, to that user, to be pointless.

Moving to Linux