Slashdot Mirror
Breaking Down Barriers to Linux Desktop Adoption
Jane Walker writes to tell us that in a recent interview with SearchOpenSource.com Jono Bacon takes a look at why some of the reasons people give for not switching to Linux might not stand up under closer scrutiny. From the article: "For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
give the end users what they want or suffer their apathy.
... an "illogical" reason?
I think, that in essence they honestly just want to justify the decision they make. It's harder to go out on a limb and go open source if you are the person making decisions. The old addage that "Nobody was ever fired for going Microsoft" is still correct, it's still correct as ever.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
People reject OpenOffice and reject even Mac, because they don't know any different. They have been "programmed" to use Microsoft Windows, therefore, until they are told different, they will continue to use Microsoft Windows.
We can sit around all we want and say stuff like "when people get tired of (malware|viruses|spyware|whateverelse)" they will switch to (Linux|Mac).
It's just not true. People will switch when they are told to. Nothing else. Until Companies FORCE people to switch, there will be no switching.
While he makes some good points about "lethargy" and people not wanting to learn something new from scratch (esp those not techinically savvy), there are some programs which simply will not work on Linux. If you happen to need these programs, you're just not going to switch.
Let's also not forget hardware issues. Yes, there have been major strides since I first experimented with Red Hat 5.2, but the fact that I couldn't get my non-winmodem or sound card to work under the OS turned me off from using it for some time.
There gets a point where it's not so much of lethargy as it is a hassle to deal with and *still* not being able to do everything you need/like to do on your computer.
That's a major difference between Americans and other people in the world:
we don't care if we need something, we just want it dammit.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Even if I never use 'all the features' there is a good chance a client, business partner, or coworker does.
So some way to make use of that feature may be a business requirement whether I plan on using it or not.
LetterRip
The first thing I tried to do was create a presentation and export jpg images of the slides. Open Office couldn't do this, or I couldn't figure out how to do it. Back to PowerPoint, which does this easily. Damn.
Breaking down Barriers
Q: So. Why don't you like Linux?
A: Well... Office doesn't have features you want.
Q: Are you a freaking moron? Few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, you're saying you want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features.
I can't imagine why Linux zealots have a hard time communicating with the masses.
(asbestos jockey shorts on)
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
But they sell anyway, and unneeded features in office software are a world cheaper than hot cars. Hell, MSOfice is cheaper than the monthly insurance on hot cars, and you have a much better chance of talking $EMPLOYER into paying for MSOffice than for a Ferrari.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
that someone is wrong won't make them see the light. Show them what the system can do for them and how easy it is to switch over, and they will. Until then, the arguments against switching might be stupid, but arguments against those are even worse. Many many people and companies use Linux, it is the most used OS in many academic pursuits (I know for a fact Astronomy), and has its great points. But it isn't Windows, and if people are happy with Windows and use it efficiently, even if it's just because they are familiar with it, to them that's the best possible reason not to switch, and unless you can show them they can do something new and much better, they just won't care to switch. And even then, the familiarity argument will keep many where they are. People don't like change, and arguing that not linking change is stupid won't get you anywhere.
Normal, everyday people are not going to get as excited about Linux as most of the people here. Other than the price, they are simply not interested in the benefits. However most people will pay through the nose for something as long as it "just works". They don't care if it is Windows or Linux. Can they still email? Can they still write Word documents? That is all that matters and Linux seems to be too much of a hassle (and lets be honest, for Average Joe, it is).
So in order to sell Linux to Average Joe he must not be able to see the seams. He must be able to do everything and more in OpenOffice that he was able to do in MS Word. Even if he never uses the advanced features - the fact that he knows they are not there makes him think that it is not as good.
I meta-moderate because I care.
Just because few people use *all* the options doesn't mean that the all of the options aren't used across the entire user base.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Don't forget to put large amounts of spin loops in all the code. That way the hardware venders will support you in that the users will have to replace there hardware more often.
I agree with the article that a large reason that change isn't coming is lethargy. Most people have the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. So as long as Windows suits their needs, they will think why change. There are also all the costs involved in any kind of change. I also don't think the average home user (outside of geeky types) will ever change to linux as long as Windows is what he is using at work. He doesn't want to worry about changing formats, he wants seemless integration with home and work. Most of the people I know that do use a different OS at home, they use a Mac because they say they can use it without thinking about how it works. Most of us Linux users, use it because we like to know how and why it does what it does.
... I don't know about barriers, but I hear breaking down chairs is as easy as giving them a good toss at the Redmond campus.
when windows 3.1 was new, there was a saying that was going around. What sells windows? Three things; applications, applications, applications.
the F/OSS movement has a dual personality. One wants their stuff to be widely used, especially by the corps. The other personality is flipping those same people off.
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I believe it is because most people are comfortable with being part of the herd.
90%+ of the desktops out there are Windows. If you have a problem, even if you cannot get it fixed, you'll be among other people who have had problems.
With Linux, you have to expend effort to find such a group of people.
What benefit is there for any particular individual to do so?
So, home users won't migrate until businesses do. And for a business, there are real benefits to migrating to Linux. Which is why more businesses and governments are.
Users don't view the features they don't use as clutter. They view it as pontential. Just because they have never used a feature doesn't mean they won't some day, at least that's what they tell themselves. The mindset is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
I also suspect that users saying open office doesn't have the same features is just user speak for it doesn't feel and act exactly the same as what they are used to. People don't like change, so if it's not immediately easy and familiar they are going to resist it.
He said it all with this one line, "Unless I can see a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm not going to change my current system for something else that doesn't really give me a straight-up benefit."
Windows and Office is good enough for most people. Why is Firefox doing so well? Easy IE isn't good enough. Yes I use Linux for my desktop but for most users what do they gain by going to Linux. For a company what do they gain? Forget about free as in speech as a motivation for a company. They don't care about the GNU religion. They want to know what they will gain. The only real benefit is getting of the Microsoft update treadmill. The cost is in training and potential compatibility issues. Yes I use Open Office but I sometimes have to use Office when dealing with Spreadsheets and some Word documents. OO isn't 100% compatible and doesn't add any features that make up for it's cost for many users.
I am not saying that Linux will never win big on the desktop but it has a ways to go. If I was starting my own company I would be tempted to start off with Linux on the desktop right now. For the current company I work for it just wouldn't be worth the cost right now.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Many people don't switch because the computer they buy already has Windows on it. Whether its from Dell, Gateway, or Best Buy, the computer already comes with Windows and it works. Considering you can buy a pd from Dell for $500 with XP, why would anyone venture to Linux? I'm an of course asking that question as the average computer user. Obviously more tech gurus like Linux, but thats a small percentage of the user base. Windows works ok and already comes on the PC. That's about it.
http://religiousfreaks.com/I run Red Hat 9 (yea yea, need to upgrade, blah blah) under VMWare when I surf the web or just want to mess around. I _would_ put Linux as my main OS if it had support for games. And yes, I know all about the emulators that are out there that will emulate DirectX9 but they don't run as well under those environments as they do under Windows.
Drivers are another issue but ehh, whatever.
I think a lot of the problems with OSS stem from one issue, the fact that the developers are very out of touch with the average user. I'll give you an example:
I have been striving to use all open source or free software on my latest windows machine. I found that winamp had become problemsome for multiple reasons, and that I disliked windows media player 9 for certain reasons as well. So for video playback, I've attempted to use VLC (something I'm still trying to play with). Now, VLC seems all-in-all like a great player. However, it lacks very basic features that every single other player has.
One of these is a draggable on screen display so you can seek while you play full-screen video. While this may not be the most important item on the geek list, it's definitely important to an average person. We've grown accustomed to seeing a drag bar pop up when we move the cursor down to the bottom of the screen, and it's simply not there.
Another one, at least in windows, is the lack of reasonable playlist support. Not only does "play all" not work from windows explorer (which I honestly could say I wouldn't even expect as it is a multi-platform software project), but the playlist in general is buggy. About 50% of the time, when it goes from one video file to another, the program completely dumps and commits some type of illegal operation.
At the same time, VLC has plenty of options not in regular players that all work perfectly fine. This just goes to show me that the talent and the effort is there, but the priorities are out of line with the audience. They could fix the issues, but they'd rather work on geeky features like "background mode" instead.
I've noticed this with Linux as well. There is definitely more support for some really neat little gadgets, but then base functionality may not even work without a lot of tweaking. Not to mention, installing applications on Linux is something an average unknowledgable computer could even conceivably do without a manual or someone instructing them.
I understand that Linux and OSS is hobbyist stuff, that's why I love it. But being built by a hobbyist is a double-edged sword, you have to realize that if you are coding based on your own priorities, that your priorities might often be out of line with the average user. Which is fine if you don't want to convert everyone.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Sure, the software may have 500 features, of which nobody uses more than 50. What these people don't seem to understand is that everybody uses a different set of 50 features, otherwise those extra 450 would have never been written.
Many people have thought that all of those features create lots of clutter, so they created software without those features. People didn't use it. So then others created software with all of the features but only showed you the 50 features you use all the time. This was much better, but still confusing when you go to find that 51st feature.
It turns out that the only really good answer is to give everybody all of the features they may ever need, while making the most common ones easiest to find and the other ones put in logical places so they may be found when needed.
dom
Most people I know (including a lot of the office folk where I work) use their Mac or Windows PC 99% of the time for Internet related activities like email and web browsing, and increasingly for streaming media like Internet radio and iTunes. Some do compose text intended for print and when they do could get by with Wordpad or TextEdit for basic font control and text formatting. Excel is still an important tool for some, but fewer all the time, usually just the bean counters now. PowerPoint is simply abused. Anything more complex than an RTF file could be handled online by someone like 37signals.com.
In short: 99% of computer users could get by with a basic machine running the basic installed apps saving to broadly available file formats (RTF, TXT, HTM etc) so long as they have broadband. And they don't even know this because nobody pointed it out.
An interesting experiment would be to pull them off the M$ Office Koolaid and watch how they cope. After the initial world-is-ending tears and rending of garments, I suspect most wouldn't miss a step.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Being a long time linux user, I'd say most zealots (of the linux variety) tend to miss the most important point. People want the "real deal" applications. Despite the fact that it works to an acceptible degree, gimp (as an example) is NOT a suitable replacement for Photoshop. Right or wrong, people learn an application and unless a replacement is a mirror image of the original, they simply aren't interested. If the gimp folks would stop with all the chest beating and make the interface comparable to Photoshop whereas you wouldn't be able to really notice much of a difference, THEN it becomes a suitable replacement. Until that day, we'll be reading these sorts of stories over and over. I know this comment is a karama burner, but I just had to say what many think.
Karma: Neutered
...people think they need MS Office and Photoshop, who actually don't. Amongst others:
1. It's what "everyone else" uses.
2. They think they'll someday need those features, and don't want to invest time in other tools.
3a. For most people, it's already paid for with their computer (not free but "sunk cost").
3b. For most of the reminder, it is "free as in beer" *cough*
4. Most people have it preinstalled with the PC they bought, and changing it is inconvieniencing them.
5. It's easier to blame something you "can't" change, if MS OFfice doesn't work it's "meh what can you do"
Personally I think 3&4 are the killers. If Dell started shipping with OpenOffice preinstalled with an MS "upgrade" for $$$ you'd see real uptake. Because well it's there, it mostly works and well... you thought you were going to upgrade but somehow you never got around to it...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It doesn't offer me enough. Nor does Openoffice. Heck, Firefox barely has any advantages for me. Tabbed browsing is about all I regularly use.
All the source code and such does nothing for me. I can't do anything with it. I never will. Installing programs? Sometimes it is easy, but there's a lot of times it isn't.
So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
I hope this is not the common development mode in Open Source, because it's just arrogant to presume what a user might or might not want to use.
And so what if these users really want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features? Let's face it, if that's what they want and you couldn't deliver these to them, you have failed.
Open Source should really do more on marketing (finding out what consumers want) than sales (selling what you have).
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
MS Office, is good .. and Office 12 (having seen the new Excel it looks like a huge leap). Check out some of the graphing etc.
.. I think M$FT with "Vista Basic" .. IF they price it in the sub $50 range .. then it's low enough that someone won't see much of a reason to switch to Linux. Of course this is assuming they pull off the hugely hyped security improvements properly.
.. which further erodes a reason to get Open Office.
.. to compete with M$FT the feature set has to equalize and offer something truly innovative beyond what MS Office has.
.. as for security I run the default firewall etc. and set active X to "prompt" and therefore disable it on websites I dont trust .. so havent had any probs. But yeah I am looking to see how M$FT improves security in Vista.
..I'm sure a lot of you guys think there are gaping holes in MS Office feature set (besides saving to an open format .. solved in 12) .. but I havent thought of any major ones. Maybe I'm just good at using it.
.. Open Office must produce some innovative features (like how FireFox introduced the tab concept to browsers .. and before u say it tabs exists already in Excel etc. so that's not one to add to open office).
The only barrier is price. And quite frankly this isn't a big barrier when you consider piracy.
So I think Office accomplishes just a lot and there's no big reason to switch.
On the OS front
Although Open Office is good "enough" to the point where nobody is forced to buy MS Office for compatibility reasons. MSFT also makes a free Office reader for all their formats
So
Traditionally (for me), the main reasons to switch from MS for me are stability and security. For most of the apps I use, they solved the stability issue with XP (especially after SP2)
Anyway
So here's the challenge
So you're saying you can tell users what they really want? And that currently they're wrong? Oh that will go over real well.
AutoCAD is still not replaceable. I've tried all the available Linux alternatives,
and nothing could be used to seamlessly read, write, and show AutoCAD dwg files.
We need the equivalent of OpenOffice in the CAD world.
I say the best way to be adopted on the desktop by users is to provide 6 versions of linux. Here are the names - Linux Starter 2007; Linux Enterprise; Linux Home Basic, Linux Home Premium, Linux ultimate, and Linux Business.
Its all about games. Did regular people have 3d accelerators in the early 90s? Nope. It was after the gamer adoption that people (and businesses) saw the need for them. Linux will be the same. Until gamers adopt linux, there will be no mainstream attraction to them. I would be running it 24/7 too if I had support for my games, but alas there isn't. A lot of the fault is on the game developers and of course M$ but still a focus of linux for mass consumption requires gamers.
"For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
Someone needs a wacking with the clue stick. I don't use all the unnecessary features of Microsoft Office. But at some future unspecified point, I may need one of those obscure features. If a client sends me a particular file that uses one of them, or if I have to perform a function that is part of one of them. People don't want desktops cluttered with things they don't need. But if there is a chance that they will need it, they'd like it to be there ready and waiting.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
The reasons they give are reasons that engineers and other smart people might illogically reject Linux. You need to remember most people don't have a clue. They are not engineers and they probably don't want to know too much about computers. They reject Linux because they bought their computer for $1500 and it came with Windows XP installed and they click the AOL icon to get internet when they bring the box home. Little do they know that they could have put together the box theirselves for about $500 and installed Linux for free. I really question the assumption that most people are knowledgable enough to have a discussion of the benefits of Open Office vs. Microsoft Office. The other problem is that most people don't want to take the time to figure it out.
No Sigs!
At home I use linux. I do my writing in html.
What I'm gathering from general opinions of Linux users is "people are giving bad excuses for not wanting to use Linux!"
Well guess what: It doesn't matter if their excuses are bad (even if they really are!) as long as they HAVE excuses, and telling them they're idiots isn't going to get people to join the cause anyway.
People are looking at this from the wrong angle.
...use Linux as my primary OS: Because documentation is weak, support is nonexistent, and the interfaces--until recently--have not been nearly as intuitive as Windows and Mac OS. The biggest problem is documentation and support. I know dozens of people who have installed Linux, played with it some, and found themselves unable to do what they want to do and unable to find out how. They can't even find out how to get help inside the OS, and the only support they can get is via community forums, which are notorious for not answering tough or oft-repeated questions. Windows puts a "Help and support" link right in the start menu, making it a lot more user-friendly in that sense. ..use OpenOffice.org instead of MS Office: Let's start with an example. In OOo, start a blank document. Do the same in Word. Now let's change both pages to landscape format.
Word: Click file, choose Page setup, click landscape, click OK. Done.
OOo: Click file...hmm...no "page setup". Let's try properties. Nope. How about printer settings...not there either. Okay, try the help index. Type "landscape" and choose the "landscape and portrait" section. It says go to Format -> Styles and Formatting, then create a new style, set it as landscape, name it, and save it. I notice as I go into the format menu that there's a "Page" option which lets me set the document to landscape like I want about as quickly as Word does.
I went through this very process when a user asked me how to do that when we switched to OpenOffice. Now, OOo *has* an easy-to-use landscape option, but it's not where Word puts it and it's not in the documentation when you type "landscape".
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
If Linux/Xorg can make the font as clear as that of Windows on LCDs, I'd like to switch to Linux. There are too many screenshots to promote Linux, with useless themes, backgrounds and other eyecandies...
All it takes is one "must have" feature to be missing folks. One digital camera not supported. One person who needs Word document change tracking. One person who needs feature X in your organization and Linux is out.
We use Linux almost exclusively server side, but not on about 50% of our clients. Basically, if you need Word, you need Windows.
I LOVE Linux, but this fanboy stuff is just silly.
Deja-vu?
Instead of pretending that people don't perceive Linux as a good enough desktop, why not just improve the Linux desktop? I mean, if Linux is usuable to users, then users will start using it. Period. I find the whole "Linux as a desktop is good" skew a bit of a twist on reality. It's like the article (Bacon) wants Linux to be a better desktop system and figures if it covers it's ears and keeps repeating the mantra it will just magically happen. Good open-source doesn't just happen. It takes hard work.
Drivers and the fact that installing software and drivers are a huge pain. When I used to 'dabble' in Linux, everytime I needed to update my drivers, I had to recompile something. Or I had to type a boat load of commands into the command prompt just to install something. Try making a nice installer like windows for the less Linux savy people and it may take hold.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
...so I am as pro-open-source as the next person.
It's just not easy "enough" to switch, yet.
With a user's desktop, they don't look at specific features as much as the whole experience. It's a flaw that's been with Linux (and its various desktops) for a while now, and is just beginning to get better: feature-based instead of user-based design.
Honestly, we all know Linux has all the capabilities (and then some) of Windows and OSX, but still everyone insists on asking, "gee, why isn't everybody and their mother switching? It's FREE for god's sake!!" So why isn't everyone switching?
I think it's just not better yet. By that I mean that "whole experience" thing has to be better than all the rest (because we know everything else works). This is why this is one of the better articles I've read about this—it actually says this in so many words. Linux is improving the user experience on all fronts (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. etc) and it's on its way to possibly becoming better than the competition, and then it will start to get attention. As it stands, it has no chance, and we sure as heck can't blame that on the users. If anything, it's our fault for ignoring good usability for so long. Fortunately things are improving, and once it reaches that breaking point, where it offers a consistent and pleasing user experience from end to end, it could actually have a place on more of the worlds' desktops.
"!"
The average person, who has little technical skill, will only switch to linux when linux gives them a reason to switch that benefits them. People switch to Mac because the interface is nicer and it's easier to use than windows (among other reasons). Linux has no such positive.
To the average user, the linux interface is inconsistent, the documentation is poor, and setting up hardware is a major chore. There is no consistent way to set up drivers that doesn't require editing config files and browsing through man pages. Applications also don't play well together. Things that should be easy are not easy. In short, the community doesn't really have standard ways to do things, everyone does their own thing.
Some of the reasons people switch to linux because its a stable operating system, or a better server platform, or because there are many more developer friendly tools. All of these are good reasons for technical people, none of these are good reasons for the average person.
Working in the defense industry, it is just not feasible to use anything other than MS Office since *.doc is the required format on 95%+ of all contracts. If by chance it is not REQUIRED, it is very often prefered. Let alone the apparent dependance on MS Project for all your scheduling needs.
As a company we've looked at transitioning to Linux several times, but between the Office dependance and the lack of hardware design toolset support it just isn't possible.
M@
Two Words: No Games
i used linux on the desktop for years. i lovezed it. then i got myself a latitude x300. here are some links to getting linux set up nicely on this machine:
d ell-x300/l l-latitude-x300/
http://jrv.oddones.org/x300.html
http://chris.quietlife.net/2004/05/29/linux-on-a-
http://pof.eslack.org/blog/2004/01/06/linux-on-de
http://www.irvined.co.uk/x300.shtml
long story short: sweet mary joseph mother of PETE! i guess it serves me right for buying a crazy little dell.
There are a few things wrong with that features argument. For one, just because you don't need a feature now, doesn't mean that you won't need it in the future. Secondly, just because you don't need it doesn't mean that someone else won't. Picture this: You're in charge of getting a word processor. You decide to get OpenOffice instead of Word. It doesn't have feature A, but no one uses feature A, so you figure that you can go with OpenOffice. Fast forward 6 months. Your company starts a new project that requires feature A, and you don't have it. Now that purchase doesn't look so good to the boss after all. It's always risky getting something with less functionality, because you may need that functionality in the future. And making a wrong choice costs money. Open Source itself may be free, but the man-hours spent installing, configuring, and training people how to use it are not. If the product doesn't work out, all that money and time is wasted.
Secondly, this is the worst of all possible strategies. When someone says "I won't get your product because it doesn't have A", the solution is not to say that the customer really doesn't need A. Believe it or not, the customer usually knows what he needs better than you do. If the customer wants A, give it to him. That's the problem with a lot of Open Source software. There's an attitude that the developer is always right rather than that the customer is always right.
I'm comfortable with the number of fellow Linux users. Do we really need more Linux users? It might dilute control over the direction of the OS towards being more of a Windows clone. Linux already does just about everything I want it to, with the notable exception of really great prepacked data analysis like origin http:www.originlabs.com.
I use Linux and OS X almost exclusively, apart from checking web pages in IE, but I have to say that much open source software runs better on Windows than on Linux. I can't fathom why. OpenOffice is an absolute dog on Linux and spreadsheet columns frequently lose their settings. Font rendering is still inferior on Linux, at least with most out-of-the-box distros. Seen that wonderful flaky Courier Knoppix uses by default in dialogue boxes? Hideous. Default fonts in Mozilla/Firefox are appalling on Linux to such an extent that I dread Firefox/Linux ever being adopted within the company I've developed a large website for. Linux is still pretty damned ugly compared with Mac OS X and Windows and sadly it's eye candy that wins new users. Until the graphics and font rendering improve OUT OF THE BOX I can't see desktop Linux taking off.
First of all - I've used Linux since early 90's Redhat/Cygwin back then. Up until last year I had at least one, and up to 5 systems running Linux - Mandrake, Debian, etc. I am not a novice. I upgraded my dual AMD system and had a devil of a time getting the system to power off when I shut down, but I got it to work. Upgraded later, had the same problem. But this time I could not get the system to power off no matter what I did. This was the final straw. If something as simple as powering off requires futzing with bios/boot scripts, etc. what is the average Joe blow going to do? I am now happily running windows with Open Office, GNU GIMP, Avast anti-virus, apache, and postgres - and powering off the system on shutdown just works.
There are at least 2 other admins that I know of that are in the same boat as I am. Without the capability to create Shared documents it just is not going to work.
I see this over and over again in small and medium size businesses where they use shared documents for scheduling and such. So when it comes to adopting OpenOffice it becomes a dead end almost immediately.
Also if Open Office opens a MS Shared document that is shared it locks it up for all of the other users.
That was point number one. Point number 2 is that nobody knows how to code in Open Office and there is not extensive documentation on it.
Recently we had a process which came up that didn't need shared documents, so I requested that the user try doing the coding in Open Office and use that instead. He came back 2 days later and said that it was to difficult and that he was able to use code he found for MS Office.
That's what it comes down to. I mean, look at all the features on your digicam. Or, worse, on your cell. Do you need half of them? No. But would you take a phone/cam that doesn't have those features?
Appearantly, not even if it's free. Then again, for most people, MS stuff is "free" as well. Stolen, but still...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It is user comfort that matters to many. I use Linux almost exclusively. That means I use Linux at work where possible and I use it at home always. I have learned how to do the things I want to do under Linux or I have learned how to wait until I can or I have learned that it takes a bit more work at times to make it happen. (Taking more work is becoming less frequent these days I am happy to say... as of FC5, my laptop's functions will be 100% supported 'out of the box!' It's a very exciting turn for me and a tremendous statement about the readiness of Linux or any one distro.)
Even if people never use a feature, they like to know they can do it if they need to. It's rather like gun laws. I am against any law that takes guns from the hands of owners. I am against removing the right to own a gun. I, personally, do not expect or intend to own a gun, but I feel VERY uncomfortable if the right were taken away from me. I'm not suggesting that this is a perfect analogy, but I do understand the feeling I get when a possibility or potential might be removed from me.
"We" are eroding against the Windows desktop. It's gradual but it's extremely persistant. I do very cool things with Linux and I do it without worries of the BSA or any other pirate agency knocking on my door. When people see that such a life is possible, it becomes a consideration when they begin to make choices. And we're a great many steps in the door compared to a year ago... a great many beyond two and three years ago. There will come a time when all hardware vendors will support Linux drivers or else be excluded from corporate buying decisions. That day is coming very soon... especially when WalMart IT departments decide to make the switch and save themselves even MORE money... and when they agree that it will save them money, there will be no stopping them.
"So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features." - We have that, it's called KDE.
And people wonder why Linux gets such high uptime.
Every time I see one of these articles about "when will Linux be ready for the desktop" or "what can we do to excite people about Linux on the desktop", I just substitute "laptop" for "desktop". Given that some analysts are reporting that a majority of PCs sold are in notebook form factors, it's important that the user experience be seamless -- and in most cases, it isn't. Folks wanting to know what it will take to make Linux mainstream need look no further than the laptop in front of them.
"No one was ever fired for buying IBM"
And it hasent been true for more than a decade, I personally know someone who WAS fired for buying 200+ IBM PS2's (and he deserved it) it was the LAST time IT let Purchasing buy any computing resources.
I'm a techie from way back, I hate Microsoft, I dual-boot Linux with Windows now, and I use OpenOffice.org, Thunderbird, and Firefox even on Windows. But I still find it next to impossible to set up Linux the way I want it. Here are the major problems with 'Desktop Linux' as I see them:
(1) Lack of drivers. True, this is generally because the manufacturers don't support Linux. So what? Sorry, but it's still a valid argument against Linux. My Canon scanner doesn't work, and there's no driver for my particular model of Canon printer, unless I want to spend $40 for a printer driver. Likewise, my USB thumb drive isn't recognized until I execute a command in a shell. While Windows doesn't autodetect and install drivers for absolutely everything, it does a helluva lot better job than Linux.
(2) Obscure stuff. My drives aren't automatically mounted, and I had to manually edit a well-hidden file and reboot to get them to do so. To run some programs I have to compile them, or apt-get then convert from rpm to deb with alien. Huh? I can do it, but can grandma?
(3) Hidden features. Where is the 'search' feature in my file browser? Nowhere. I have to use a separate program for searching my files.
(4) Zillions of distros. Don't get me wrong, I think this is gererally a good thing. You don't always want 'Desktop Linux'. But there are dozens of 'Desktop Linuxes', and none of them 'just work'. I would love to see a unified effort to come up with a single version that does.
(5) Redundant applications. Even your best 'desktop' Linuxes ship with 2 or 3 different wordprocessors, several shell programs, a half dozen text editors... for God's sake, people, pick ONE!
(6) Non-standard interfaces. Your average Linux distro has dozens of differents looks for the apps it includes. If something works in Gnome or KDE (whichever), there's a standard look. But there are always many more programs with their own look and feel.
(7) Incompatibility with the real world. I love Google Earth, and Google Desktop. I love Paint Shop Pro. I have to use Visio for work. No Linux compatiblity with these. Sorry, but Dia is no Visio, and the GIMP is IMHO user-hostile.
And tons of other small irritations too numerous to mention.
Sorry, but if I can't replace my real-world computing needs with Linux, what chance does a 'normal' non-geek have?
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
They're not there because I use them, that's for sure, but that doesn't make them useless.
Mike Hoye
There are logical reasons to reject a Linux/OpenOffice.org desktop.
.doc as its native format. Yeah, it can open them and save to it, but people don't want to have the hassle of selecting .doc when saving (yes, people are that lazy), worrying about if it looks right saved, etc. They just want it to work and they don't know as much about computers as Slashdot readers. They don't want to have to think.
.) that Windows just wins. Yeah, there is a flash plugin for Linux, but it isn't installed with many distros and it isn't as good as the Windows version. Yes, you can get gstreamer to play mp3s and such, but it isn't as good as the Windows equivalent and there are tons of proprietary codecs that it doesn't support and won't support anytime soon. Not to mention the games and other proprietary software that doesn't run on Linux. So, for consumers, Linux often doesn't look like an upgrade because it doesn't do many of the things they are used to computers doing.
1) OpenOffice.org doesn't use
2) Linux is different. Anytime there is something different, there is a cost of switching (you have to learn something new which costs you time - time you could use doing something better). Now, if Linux ran 2 million times faster, it would be well worth the effort to learn it since it would greatly increase your productivity. But Linux isn't amazingly better than Windows - I use Linux as my primary OS, but the difference is marginal, not night and day. Plus, there are consumer things (streaming audio and video, flash. .
People buy Windows with the expectation that "anything I want can run on Windows". There is a lot of great Linux software out there, but it just isn't the same as being able to head to BestBuy and grab the latest version of Civilization and be playing it that evening. And please don't say things like "Well, there's FreeCiv" or "They could use WINE" because we all know that it isn't the same. Also, please don't say, "they can replace iTunes with Rhythmbox" because they also are not the same.
The fact is that there are many logical reasons NOT to switch to Linux. Linux is great, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it beats Windows at every turn. There are many things that Windows does better (whether this is an outcome of market conditions or something inherent, consumers aren't going to care - telling the consumer that proprietary codecs and archaic market conditions are the things to blame for why they can't play their iTunes in Linux or watch a video online isn't going to make those files play any better and consumers don't care, we care but consumers don't).
Let's live in the real world where we can fight to get rid of the problems in both Linux and the market for operating systems so that we don't have to go around waving our arms saying "Linux Rules" - consumers will know it for themselves.
I've been trying out Linux lately by dual-booting with windows. This is a problem I recently ran into: upgrading the video card. I took my old card out, booted into Windows (at 640x480), installed the new drivers, rebooted and Windows was working with my new card. Then I tried booting into Linux, and it just dumps me to a command prompt. No 'new hardware detected' or 'video card config invalid'. I ended up having to reinstall the whole os to get it to work.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features.
Same goes for most Linux Desktop users - why do you think Ubuntu is so popular?
For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features.
Is this surprising? Many of us find ourselves living in a society that promotes the idea that "more is better". Many people go to restaurants where quantity is promoted over quality. Lots of individuals prefer to buy a large number of cheap goods over several more expensive but well-built ones. We're told that we're due to upgrade our computers even if Windows 98 running on a first generation Pentium would probably serve most of our needs just fine, because we want the extra (usually unnecessary to 99% of people) features and the bragging rights of having more and newer things. In the age of capitalism where super sizing, companies like Costco, and status symbols influence so many, I hardly consider this unexpected.
Hell, I barely used a fraction of the features in MS Office 97, but my computers are still running Office 2003 / 2004 (Mac).
Additionally, I think that part of the problem is that free software is... well... free. In many cases, people attribute value to a product, sadly, based on what they paid for it. Think of it this way: if you're given a car by a rich relative and you accidentally destroy it, you're probably far less likely to be upset than if you work for that car, pay for it, and then accidentally destroy it. It's easy to dismiss MS alternatives when they cost nothing because they're essentially not worth anything to people until they're convinced of their usefulness.
I'm sorry to say this, but frankly as far as home desktops are concerned, the battle has been won by Windows. I'm not talking about power users, but just the people who want to do their office work and deal with the minimum of hassle, maybe upgrade their drivers etc but are generally not fussed. The reason for this is that Linux is, from the perspective of end users, needlessly complex, whereas Windows is for the most part easy to use and simple to understand.
As an example, contrast installing NVIDIA's drivers under Windows and Linux. Under Windows, you download a driver file from NVIDIA's site, run it and then reboot your PC after clicking next a few times. Done. On Linux, however, that process is more like go to NVIDIA's site, download file, kill X (not a very simple task for newbies on distros which have things like GDM and KDM), find the file you downloaded using a terminal, run it and follow the instructions. If you're LUCKY, you won't need to build the kernel module and a prebuilt one is available. For everyone in the world ever, however, you need to futz around with GCC versions and kernel sources and what have you...
You see, most people would have given up as soon as GDM popped back up. Installing using apt-get or shell scripts or even configure; make; make install doesn't seem very logical to most people, they prefer just going onto a website, downloading a file and double clicking the icon.
Then there's the software which has numerous features missing. OpenOffice.org shines as an example of what software should NOT be. I tried running it on a fairly new PC, running WindowMaker on Debian. It was dog slow; menus took seconds to open, rather than being instant as they are on Windows. Just unusable. And it might sound like a small thing to some people, but there's a complete lack of decent MSN Messenger clients for Linux. The closest is Kopete, with Gaim frankly unusable, as Kopete has support for webcams and personal messages while Gaim does not. But still, on both a simple task like changing your nickname, changing your personal message or setting a display picture is a darn sight harder than it really needs to be. Hell, custom emoticon support would be nice. You might scoff at this, but for most teens and even some adults this is an important thing.
AmaroK is a nice application for Linux, one I do miss while on Windows (I run Win2K as my primary OS). But still, what Linux is missing is a Windows Media Player/iTunes-alike. Something that rips CDs, syncs to iPods, burns CDs and plays music files all in one program. Yes, you may cry, there's Sound Juicer/KAudioCreator and yes, there's Rhythmbox but both of those have very serious flaws. KAudioCreator is, and not to mince words here, a pile of shit. It is a pain in the ass to use, a pain in the ass to configure and a pain in the ass in general. Sound Juicer follows the GNOME philosophy of hiding features from the end user, and so is a pain in the ass to use. Grip, for all its power, has no usability whatsoever. What most people want to do is just open Linux Media Player, insert a CD, click the start rip button, wait 5 minutes and come back to find a load of MP3s. That's it. This is a serious failing on the part of Linux desktops, people like this sort of integrated functioning.
I'm not going to bother with the arguments about not having MS Office or games, because they're bleeding obvious and have been rehashed many times before. But Linux has a long way to go before it is even remotely as usable as Windows or Mac OS X. It's simply far too complex for the average end user to understand, and the software which most people want and need to use day in day out is woefully inadequate.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Why did my Dad buy the computer he has now? Microsoft Word and Turbo Tax. Does he care about telnet, KDE,Gimp, WINE, etc....nope.
Does he care that all of this stuff is free? Nope.
He'd rather pay and get something he is familiar with than use something he has never even heard of.
Yes, and the problem with Linux is not the lack of applications, rather, the fact that installing any is a total bitch.
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
I'm calling Stallman and telling on you guys!
FYI, The GUI interface of OpenOffice on Linux SUCKS. Plus the differnces between the K Desktop vs. Gnome software (not to mention the occasional other GUIs) doesn't help matters any.
So you want Desktop Linux uptake? Then it's time to figure out a new model. Only then will people switch.
Let me give you an example. My mother has a Mac. I wanted to recommend a PC with Linux, but couldn't b/c the truth is that Mac is easier to use and she needs easy. Nonetheless, when using iMovie and iDVD she could not understand that they were two different applications and she couldn't understand where her projects were being saved. She ended up saving one project a dozen times which ate up most of her harddisk space. You might say, 'well she's dumb', but that's not the case, and many many people are actually just like her, actually many people are worse. I'm an expert and I still feel like I spend too much time fussing with silly problems too.
So there's got to be innovation on the front-side of things. I think interface designers should envision more tactile interfaces --more like the real world. In the above case, for instance, when someone saves a project it should provide them with a very real-world-esque THING distinct for its type, name, content, etc. And it should have a very real-feeling PLACE in the virtual world. You should be able to see it and then move it to another place for safe-keeping. That way one whould know exactly where it is at.
I'm sure much more innovation can be had if things were thought through along these lines.
HTH.
:T:R:A:N:S:
There is one killer app that is making me less keen to move to Linux - iTunes or actually the lack of it, looking around there seems to be no decent alternative. I would have thought Apple would have been keen enough to release a Linux version - even if they offered no support for it. It would certainly help their iPod march to dominance.
The only OS option I could find was what looked like a halfarsed bodge with virtually no features that make iTunes great and it seems to need me to faff around reformatting the ipod and setting it up in a new mode. Personally I would like to be able to use the Pod on either XP or Linux - not have to format it everytime.
Umm its 2006 - it should just work. Apple could do the Linux community a great favour by letting a Linux version out.
that this article represent why people won't change. It assumes open office suits everyone's needs and is good enough, which just isn't true.
There is no object analysis of what is holding people back and what the driver would be for people to switch and assumes that everyone else is ignorant and lazy. I know linux and every year try open office and am always disappointed with it. It many ways it is inferior and I prefer to pay MS $100+ than only use open office for free.
But I must be stupid and lazy.
Yet, AOL has never launched a Linux dialup client.
Internet connectivity is the key to establishing Linux on the desktop. Certainly, the Linux camp has already solved the problem with idiots installing Linux. Most distros have a nice idiot-proof script that you can run to install Linux on most desktops.
Now, the idiots just need Internet connectivity via dialup. Where is the necessary client?
I installed Ubuntu the other day; first time I've loaded up Linux to test out the desktop aspects for a couple of years; I normally work with it at a server level.
Anyway, I do think things have improved. Pretty much everything "just worked". NIC, Monitor, Video Card, Mouse, Sound card (Really!), SATA disks the lot. The install was very very simple, when I logged in all the updates came down from a local mirror (i'm assuming) at about 800 k/second and within a single reboot I had an entirely up to date system.
Evolution connected to my work Exchange Server perfectly. Firefox worked perfectly. Gaim connected to MSN and Yahoo without any fuss. Even the tray icons worked.
As a developer there are still a few apps I miss on Windows, but I think for most "normal" PC users it's good enough, which makes me wonder why people dont switch. Personally I think they just cant be bothered. If Dell started selling PC's for 50 quid less (or whatever the MS tax is these days) with Ubuntu instead of XP things would change. As PCs become cheaper (you can get a desktop from Dell for 300 sterling and a laptop for about 350) the overall percentage that people pay for Windows goes up. Eventually there will be a tipping point where people say "I can save a quarter/third/half of the cost of the machine by not using Windows". Until this happens, I think things will stay as they are.
Lets face it, most people just dont re-install their OS. Almost everyone I know would send their PC to a workshop if they needed to reinstall their OS.
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
are the major barrier to Linux desktop adoption. If you spend less time belittling customers for telling you what they want, and more time actually delivering what they want, you'll end up with more customers. If Linux is ever to make headway in the consumer desktop market, the elitist snarking has to stop first.
Mad Penguin reviewed a migration tool not too long ago that helps make migration from Windows to Linux almost seamless. It's a commercial product, but foolproof from what it looks like. Also the licensing cost is pretty low.
people don't use Linux is because it involves them actually installing it themselves.
U see when it comes to software its easy choice for a business,
u either pay a fee (for windows based products)
or u go open source and hope u dont get stung by weird licensing or high costs of hiring professional geeks to fix ur software
btw i myself run several linux,freebsd servers and i love them, after initial pain of getting evrything to work they just keeps working
Before I get called a MS lover, I program on Linux and Windows at work. Windows for embedded programming and Linux for everything else.
I can think of a bunch of reasons:
Bad driver support.
Lack of adoption of automated installation tools.
Lack of core/common tools easily visible (simple stuff like a file system explorer or search).
Lack of easy to install software
Lack of ease when it comes to updating.
Complex folder naming convention in root folder (bin, boot, dev, etc, home, lib, mnt,usr)
Its easy for me to do the tasks above because I know what to do. But its not that easy for the average Joe. Average Joe shouldn't have to know how the computer and software works, he should just be able to use it.
What idiocy. It's people like this that hold back OSS. In essence, it's the same old "if only people weren't so stupid they'd all switch over from Windows."
What doesn't occur to this guy is that Microsoft doesn't sit around thinking of "unnecessary" features, they're almost always in response to user requests. Say what you will about Microsoft, but they listen to their customer's feature requests.
The other thing this guy misses is that what is unnecessary to one man is a critical feature to another. The set of unncessary features is different for everyone.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
All they have to do to take the consumer market is get a GUI that works with Linux that looks and feels like the best of 98/2000/XP and is easy to install with a variety of hardware, and then it would be easy to sell to joe blow down the street!
It's a shame that people in the OpenSource community get so easily worked up when people say they want "unneccessary" features. All it tells me is that no one has taken a really good hard look at Office.
Office alternatives are never going to unseat office until a few things happen:
1) The ease of use and development of a databse similar to Access is created. I've used a lot of databases, and none of match up feature-wise to Access. Yes, I know, there's more powerful databases out there, and ones that can do X. But none out there use the native Operating Systems widget set to build applications.
2) The interoperability of the various Office programs is unmatched. The ability to use a custom Database built in Access to pull information from the corporate server, which then uses Word to display reports, and Excel to put the information into usable formats is currently unmatched, and a bigger "unnecessary feature" than OpenSource developers give it credit for.
3) A long, hard, cold look needs to be taken at Office. As long as people continue to beleive that Word is "just a word processor" and Excel "just a spreadsheet", and Access is some "database throwback to the 90's" then you're never going to make any headways against office. The Win32 API/OLE/ActiveX/Acronym of the Day combo is a much more powerful set of tools than most people give it credit for.
4) Hardly anyone buys Office for home. Most of them pirate it from work. As long as work drives their usage of Ofiice, it's going to stay entrenched. As long as companies continue to use the "unneccessary" features of Office, nothing else is going to manage to make a dent.
Reeses
Back in my days of my naive youth (1999-2000), I had my hopes that Linux would eventually overtake Windoze on the desktop. It was "almost" there.
But hobbyists are not the people who are going to do, "Hey, let me drop work on this neat feature that really interests me, that doesn't exist anywhere else, and instead work to dumb down the desktop interface in a manner that would be conducive to stupid users, and write my own device driver for X that the manufacturer is too cheap to do themselves." AND have it work for multiple versions of kernels/distributions. Which only goes to show, that even Linux zealots are fucking idiots that can't see the obvious when its staring them in their faces. So go to OSX or Jesus, and find more fertile environments to spread your religious ideology.
My hope was with the commercial distributors like Red Hat and SuSE. After all, they actually HAD a stake in getting Linux adopted on machines. They should see if they hired X developers to work on the interface, and determine a set of drivers to write around, EVENTUALLY they would produce a desktop that any USER would feel relatively comfortable working with.
But then, at some point, Red Hat said "There were a server software company, and they weren't going to invest money to improve the desktop for users". The funny thing is within a year they did a 180 on that message, after all the corporate businesses started yelling at them because THEY wanted to replace Windoze on the desktop, and they didn't NEED the desktop to be Windoze compatible; only useful enough for their company work environments. But the writing was on the wall; these corporate developers did not have the vision to see where they could be if they did x, y, & z. At that point, I just lost hope, and accepted the fact that I could enjoy linux, but I wouldn't be seeing it compete with Windoze or OSX anytime in the future.
Until you zealous assholes realize that Linux cannot possibly get traction on the desktop until USERS can pop in a disk, and have every MAJOR, DESIRABLE feature be available to them WITHOUT configuring a damn thing, Linux is not going to challenge Microsoft any time soon. That means a DISTRIBUTION is going to have every device driver for every device manufactured for PC computers on Earth, and will be able to recognize it, and have it operable within any machine, without a single config file to tweak. This exists for Microsoft because every manufacturer makes damn sure they have a device driver CONFIGURED to Microsoft's specifications for anything they produce. When you convert the world to an autocratic dictatorship, and can shoot people for using Microsoft, then you can go talk about making manufacturers develop device drivers for Linux, for all their kernel versions, for its multitude of distributions, and work in every situation, etc. etc. Until then, realize this Linux utopia is not coming about anytime soon.
Microsoft will never make the error of pricing themselves out of the market. I cannot hand off to my Mother or my siblings a linux box, and expect them to be able to cope with basic usage with my direct intervention. I can repair/reinstall their XP systems once every year to two years, and even that odious task ends up being less work than providing Linux user support for them.
The best avenue for desktop adoption is a commercial Linux distribution getting the clue, and producing that magic interface that works on all varieties of PC devices, and doesn't require user intervention or configuration. Until then, stop fucking the skull of this dead horse.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
And maybe another way to get people to think about switching over to Linux is to stop acting like some elite geek calling all the people you want to switch over "idiots". Thing is, unlike a majority of the /. crowd, 99% of people in this world have a life that doesn't revolve around computers.
People keep saying that the availability of Open Office should break down a big obstacle to Linux adoption. My question is, have these people even used Open Office? The technical staff at my company generally runs Linux, myself included, but I *still* have to boot to Windows to work on a test plan or a requirements doc. The last time I opened one of Product Management's Word created docs in Open Office, it cut about 25 pages out of the middle of it. Open it in OO, 9 pages, open it in Word, 34 pages. Perhaps documents that were originally written with OO are better, but I'm here to testify that from my experience , the MS Office/Open Office compatability still sucks ass.
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
The average person, who has little technical skill, will only...
We are talking about the same person who owns a computer that, by every standard that matters, owns a computer more powerful than the supercomputers of the previous decade. That they have little technical skill is the problem. Mind you, windows does not magically alleviate that, but it does make them forget it. "Gee, it's almost like I have a skull that's not full of shit, sometimes windows does something like what I want, if I could only think a coherent thought! What's the difference between ram and a harddrive again?"
People with little technical skill will always get little out of a computer. It will only ever be a game console, or a word processor, or an internet appliance. This is true regardless of what OS they use, and linux just doesn't bother to baby them.
Of course, if you buy a PC with MS Windows preinstalled, it will have all the right drivers. Dell, or whoever, won't ship the box otherwise. In turn, Best Buy isn't going to carry something without that MS seal on the box. I get tired of seeing Windows (XP,2000) being listed as a system requirement when I know that it works with Linux (without ndiswrapper). The Linux community typically only has trouble when companies do things like change the chipset in mid-version. The manufacturer will typically write the driver for Microsoft and leave everyone else to fend for themselves. I understand that Linux just doesn't have the marketshare, but then the company becomes so secretive about there blase' engineering. Sometimes this is done to cover up software features that are misrepresented as hardware features. Really only a minimal amount of information about the hardware is needed to write drivers, but the Linuix community gets stonewalled while the manufacturer sucks on the MS teet. To paraphrase another slashdotter: Get Windows XP running on a Spark Laptop and we'll talk about driver compatability. For God's sake, MS waited half a decade to become 64-bit capable and no one seemed to notice. Quit this double standard MSBS.
Personally, I can see exactly why workplaces and homes dont switch to Linux. It can be summed up in 3 reasons. 1. People don't like change. 2. People don't like change. 3. People don't like change. And more importantly, there is not a reason to change. People know Windows. They know how to use Word. They know how to send mass e-mails in Outlook, and they can crank out a simple spreadsheet in Excel in the time it takes to open a package of cookies (which may be several minutes depending on the packaging of the cookies). Essentially, a switch to linux is pointless and counterproductive for most people. Why would someone want to learn a completely different interface and have to re-learn all the things that they knew how to do on Windows? They don't. And until there is a unbelievably compelling reason to make the switch, they won't. But I wish they would, because Linux is 6.64 x 10^29 times better than Windows.
Statements like this, and the general l33t attitude of Linux proponents are what keeps a lot of people from embracing Linux. Seriously folks, the messengers are killing the message.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
OpenOffice?
That's my 2 cents, in the hopes that some talented programmers with lots of resources and vision will read this and decide to make Linux into a better desktop.
are such that the lethargy you talk about can be identified as step 1.
Step 2 would be where the curious users give linux a try (I'm talking curious users, not curious geeks)
Step 3 would be where some of the curious have liked it and it spreads via word of mouth. Then the less lethargic try Linux out. At each of the above steps, the number of Linux users grows.
Step 4 is when Lethargic user 1 has a majority of people in his/her cyber communication cirle use Linux and has to think about switching out of necessity. Some lethargic users will switch at this stage. At this point, Linux is considered by all users to be a viable alternative.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Where did you hear that?
Thats not at all why we're not using Linux across the board at our company. We've used it as a server in the past, but never as a client. We use knoppix to debug hardware and the network but thats about it.
X's latency was an issue. This was brought up a few times on slashdot with the fanboys yelling and pretending there was no latency issue with X + decent windowmanager. Now both redhat and novell are releasing opengl-based X servers which will fix that issue. Next in the line is binary compatibility. We just have too many win32 apps out there that we NEED and cant confidently use with WINEX. No matter how 'certified' they are to be used with WINEX, I dont care. They were never designed and tested with WINEX, and we'll have hell trying to get support for a broken win32 app on WINEX. Not a position companies want to be in.
After that will come standardization. Redhat and suse are kind of the standard these days. When you have to build a commercial linux app, you make it for redhat AS and suse. The layout and configuration of these distros are fixed and predictable enough. What you need is to be able to put in a CD or double-click an icon, watch a meter go for a while, and the app show up in your windowmanager's application bar. Other apps should know its there and the dependency system should never ever ask for that app while its really been installed. Uninstalling or reconfiguring or patching or upgrading the app should be just as easy... click click click.
Fix these and the uptake of Linux will bring Microsoft down fast. App developers dont want to pay through their arses for Microsoft dev tools and their horrid interfaces, and want to use API and wrappers they can use to build for multiple OSes. They WANT to build apps for Linux. Consumers WANT to use linux. Its just these nagging issues that are in the way (and are currently being fixed). The biggest one is binary compatibility. I know there are 100,000 userIDs on slashdot who pretend this is not an issue, and that you can find equivalent OSS apps. You cant. You just cant find the equivalent of photoshop, lotus, autocad, dreamweaver and the plethora of ERP systems. Now THAT will take time and $$$ to fix. Nobody cares for the obscure Microsoft features that noone uses.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Linux fonts are based on the DPI, so you can replace your monitor with one with 2x resolution and the interface looks the same, just sharper. Windows fonts are by pixel, so are hand-optimized to look nice and sharp at various sizes. Result is that Windows has weird size problems but always looks nice and crisp. Linux always looks kinda smudgy and with subpixel it is even worse.
I have 400 users that really dont seem to have any problems using Linux at all. Im a 100% linux admin, not that good but i manage very well. The thing is, not that many users i know tends their own computers. Using linux is simple, its managing it thats pretty much as hard for your normal user as with Windows. Its not harder by any measurment. I install Windows XP and Linux machines all day long and i find XP much harder to manage than Linux even considering i have extensive training in Windows.
Whats hard with Linux for the Windows freak is that its different. In reality when working with both Linux gets the upper hand real quick.
An OEM Linux computer with MP3 support, DivX, WMA and such is by no means ever hard to use. The same goes for an Office computer installed by the local admin.
I switched 400 users literally over the day and none of them have had any problems adjusting to Linux, this without a minute of training.
HTTP/1.1 400
Ive tried several times to swap to Linux.
I went out and bought a NEW PC. AMD x64 machine with a TV tuner card - twin 200 GB HDDs that was going to handle my home computing for the next few years.
But things werent so good
Firstly I Dual booted windows and Linux so i could keep using the software I know while i learnt.
The first time I tried was on fedora core 3. It didnt have the drivers for my video card - i couldnt even boot. Eventually i found instructions on how to boot in text mode - did that - and managed to download a new kernel which had the drivers.... but it was time consuming and difficult.
Then I found that AMD 64 support was pitiful. To be honest... windows is worst but it meant I had to reinstall back to x86. ( I think you can swap and match 64 bit and x86 bit rpms but im not sure and not willing to risk it for my main PC) One of the reasons I got the 64 Bit CPU was because I believed LINUX could use it. Maybe but not in the way I had believed.
Then i hit the whole MP3 thing. Couldnt get MP3s going without a lot of fussing (OK - I know its a legal issue but its a put off) Couldnt get Java and flash going either.
The simple stuff I use like open office and firefox worked fine. but other stuff.
I use CDEX to rip my CDs. I rip at 192kbps vbr. All the CD ripping stuff I found in LINUX required obscurwe parameters to set codecs and rates - and I didnt want to spend all the time ripping my entire collection to find It wasnt done at the level i though
Then my winfast TV card - worked but I couldnt get colour - only B/W pictures.. although in windows it worked fine. Again.. im pretty sure its a setting somewhere but I couldnt find it.
Fedora core 4 came out... still had most of the same issues - although flash and Java seem better now.
Then i had another issue...
Linux doesnt write well to NTFS - so its recommended you only use FAT32 (of the windows readable File systems) . My music collection from my CDs is 36 GB. Bummer (and i was debating re doing it all as FLAC)
So i needed all these different dick partitions... Annoying and difficult to manage...
So I gave up
Ive installed UBUNTU on an older machine to play with and it looks good actually... but I cant test the TV Card and it doesnt have speakers so the MP3 thing is moot anyway.
I even bought a LINUX game - which wont install
Also I use DVD decrypter and DVD shrink to back up my DVDs.(I never play the originals - only the copies) I am not aware of Linux equivalents of these either
So all up - as Much as I hate MS... LINUX is too hard and too much fussing at this stage...
I hope to get there soon but I see no solution to these issues yet.
I've been using Unix's and Windows since before the web, and have been using Linux at home as a server for almost 7 years. I'm a strong Linux and OSS supporter yet 4 out of 5 computers in my home run Windows. I tried several times to use Linux as my primary desktop and it wasn't good enough for me. The reason isn't necessarily all familiarity and learning curve issues. It's that all distros are poorly integrated. This is where M$ is kicking butt. Every app has a different look and feel. If you want to change the look and feel of the desktop you gotta change it in four different places. It gets even worse if you want to download a new color them. How do I configure my device? I dunno.. try one of the three "System Admin" menus scattered in different places. I'm sure it makes great sense to the person that knows how and why the distro was assembled, but it is useless to how a user uses a computer. The problem isn't even the quality and availability of OSS applications or the capability of the OS. It's really an issue of poor ownership of the final product you ship to the end user. I got excited when I heard Apple was going to use an OSS operating system. I thought they'd return their great integration work back to the world. They don't have to and it's fine that they didn't. But for a moment I thought, "Apple is the one company that really knows how to produce exactly what common users want." I was really excited they were going to pull together the best Linux distro ever... or should I say the first? :)
Scott
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
I call bullsh*t.
Severely lacking by default are Performance Graphics drivers (NVIDIA/ATI) and any specialty USB devices (Eventhough USB wireless isn't a specialty device and that lacks too - don't give me the NDIS wrapper bull)
I run my machine exclusively as a linux machine, but I have to be really
diligent in researching whether my latest toy will play with linux or not. Until I can go to the store and buy *anything* I see on the shelf and have it work on my linux box with minimal pain, your statement will remain bull !
..From linux users. "well they havent tried it. blah blah". Listen, Ive asked many people on irc and elsewhere if theyve tried linux and the vast majority HAVE. But if you ask if theyve switched the answer is NO. Why cant you people get it through your heads that maybe linux is lacking in more than a few areas? I myself try linux regularly. The big word is "try". Im extremely far from switching and I just basicly tinker with it and hope that some day it will be worthy of me switching. I am not a microsoft fan in the least, basicly no one is, and MANY people would welcome an OS thats as good or even close to being as good. But my friends, linux has a long way to go. Im sorry to break it to you.
Becuase what they have is working, and don't want the downtime asociated with Linsux.
Linux is free but so is Windows! LOL.
How about OEM agreements...
A lot of people seem to regard difficulty of installation/setup as a big reason for non-adoption. However, most non-tech users I know would balk at the thought of having to install and set up Windows. But then they never have to, since almost all new PCs come with Windows pre-installed.
Case in point... I suggested to my wife that I install Linux on her home PC. She wasn't too keen on the idea because she would have to learn everything from scratch (and isn't Linux just for geeks?). I set it up as dual-boot so she could give it a try, and showed her how to get at email, internet, games, word processor etc. The next day I asked her if she had tried Linux. Her reply... "Yeah, its fine." I don't think she has started Windows since...
An awful lot of people I know have never installed an OS, or even any new software... Most just use what they are given.
I already use OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird in Windows XP. I'd love to convert to Linux, but the professional audio and imaging applications are still amateur.
The Gimp can't touch Photoshop for crucial features (CMYK, Pantone, for starters), and the GUI gives me migraines. Audacity is a decent audio editor -- not as nice as Wavelab, but useable. But there are still no audio content creation tools that can hold a candle to Calkewalk's SONAR. I could go on about Nvu versus Dreamweaver, or Sodipodi versus Illustrator, but I think you get the point.
If I were a software developer, or if I just did web, email, mp3s and IM, then Linux would work for me. But there are still no killer Linux-based content creation apps.There are a few reasons for wanting to change (expanding my resume, coolness factor, security), but there are far more reasons for not changing:
There's many more issues, but those are the first ones I've thought of. I don't dislike Microsoft, so I've got no problem dropping some cash every 4 years or so for new software. The linux community needs to realize that some intelligent users have good reasons for not switching. Calling us lazy doesn't help one bit... asking WHY we won't switch and then trying to address those issues would be much more beneficial.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Nice try. The parent wanted to do this for all of the slides in the presentation...t hreshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14811911 #14812153
t hreshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14812153 #14812210
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178681&
However this is unavailable in OO.org, and is one of the deficiencies of OO.org as compared to Microsoft Office
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178681&
And I know suv owners who demand 4 wheel drive capability even though they never leave the house when it snows and never go off-roading. So what. Just because they don't use a feature presently doesn't mean they should limit their options. Would you buy a car whose capabilities you've mastered in every way? Or would you buy a car which has double the capabilities of your present skills?
No, they are saying that even though they don't use half the capabilities of their current office suite, they still want double the capabilities available should they decide at a later date they may need some of the capabilities they don't use now.
What a dumbass attitude. If you are going to evangalize for OpenOffice.org or GNU/Linux, then do it fully understanding your target audience. Putting them down or regarding them with contempt will get you nowhere fast. That's just what the Borg are counting on.
And I'm posting this from Debian/Sarge on a 900 Mhz Duron, forwarding X to a (former) Lindows computer now running Knoppix from CD. I've got a backport of OOo sitting on another desktop, and all I can say is get rid of the Java crap, get rid of the bloat, and maybe we'll get somewhere in the next few years.
As for missing features, even GNU/Linux users (or at least Debian Sarge users) are also missing features in OOo. OOo 2.x.x is backported to Sarge, but looking at all the little extra packages normally available for OOo (like are available for the 1.3.x series of OOo), most of the little packages aren't backported to Sarge. (some of the suggests, perhaps). Haven't checked, but I'm hoping OOo 2.x.x is available in Etch, along with all the little apps that normally accompany OOo. Looks like another long wait for the latest and greatest. December at the earliest for Etch/Stable from what I see in Debian weekly news.
Most copies of Windows were (still are) sold on new PCs where the user had no option to decline it. The PC market was growing so fast, within 18 months about 75% of the installed base of PCs was going to have Windows, whether the users demanded it or not. While Windows made a whole new class of applications possible, the availability of apps was not essential to its success (or at least ubiquity).
The criticism that MS Office is feature rich yet people barely use those features hence those features are not required in an Open Source product is extremely flawed. If you ask Microsoft, a statistic of 50-80% of feature requests they receive from their users are for features already included in the product. The difficulty of increasingly feature rich products, is a user friendly interface that is intuitive but flexible and powerful. Microsoft has spent a lot of money into UI development in Office 12. Their approach is to ensure the users are quickly able to access the features that are relevant to what they are doing, instead of having to click through a ton of menus.
Many IT professionals forget that despite the penetration of technology throughout people's lives, that the average user uses IT resources for business purposes. They don't care about what the technology is behind the screens and mouse clicks. They care about systems that helps them do their job efficiently and effectively.
Regardless of the religious battle between Microsoft and Open Source solutions, the fact remains that the winner will be what delivers on your users needs. In large enterprise, it is rare that a decision is made in the vacuum of IT logic only. There are politics, costs, supportability, and liability issues to consider regardless of whether you go with an OSS or non-OSS solution.
That's so nonspecific and generalizing a claim as to be completely worthless. People don't use all the features, therefore they don't need any subset of "all the features," except the ones OO authors decided to give them? When people say "all" in that context -- it doesn't have all the features -- they're really just talking about the features they were looking for, and encompassing them in the "all" statement. "I don't like all the movies," doesn't mean I don't like any movies.
But that's pretty much irrelevant. I don't know why anyone's even doing this sort of "investigation" anymore. Everyone knows the problems.
Commercial software also enjoys two significant advantages. First, regardless of EULA's, people actually feel like they own something they purchased, and they're entitled to all the things that go along with a purchase: Namely that someone will be there to support it. People aren't so sure what to make of "free software." After all, you get what you pay for, right? That's a difficult concept to overcome, because it's so often true.
Second, computer stores are more than just a distrubution channel; they're a place to showcase software. Even though most software is never loaded up for customers to tinker with (except for the occasional console game), people infer things from product placement. A title with a huge display at the end of the aisle must be better than the titles sitting in the 2 for $9 bargain bin. And usually they are. There's no such mechanism for showcasing F/OSS.
The one thing that I think could tip the balance would be if Linux and F/OSS take hold in developing nations. When fifty, sixty, or seventy percent of the world's population grows up and lives with Linux, then it will enjoy the same entrenchment that Microsoft has today, and that will be tough for anybody to change. For better or worse.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Use Synaptic. It comes with Ubuntu. There's no reason for you to manualy edit sources.list.
*puts on flame-retardant clothing*
/., ars, and other sites religiously. I know enough to build my own box on the cheap. But that's it. I don't work in or study engineering or computers. I'm a hobbyist, and a light-handed one at that. My life and interests lie elsewhere. I think I represent a fairly large number of users in this respect.
I'm only mildly tech-oriented. I've played with programming on Windows and the Mac, and I read
That doesn't mean I don't want to run Linux. I love the idea of OSS, GNU, Creative Commons, the whole open-society notion. But there's a sort of "activation barrier" at work here. I need a critical mass of things to switch from Windows XP to Linux.
The absolutely most important of these is ease of installation, both for the OS and for applications. I'm not a programmer - I can't change environment variables or set up appropriate scripts without a LOT of reading to catch up - so I need an install that's going to run my hardware w/ few (if any) hassles.
Another issue, closely related, is the choice of distro/core packages. I haven't the faintest clue how to pick from all the choices out there. (And I at least halfway follow the community - imagine what the less-technical user must feel like!) Ubuntu? Xandros? Fedora? RPM or DEB? GNOME or KDE? WTF or FTW?
This is why pie-in-the-sky ideas like Goobuntu are exciting for people like me. We know, at the least, that Linux might represent a cool option - a way to break free of MS control or at least introduce some autonomy into our personal computing experiences. But we also know that the learning curve is pretty steep. And if a compan known to be user-friendly (in some respects) puts its name on a distro, we might be inclined to go for it.
Part of what bothers me about these discussions is that people assume extreme points of view - users are either know-nothings who just do what they can to match their work environment, or they're on a higher plane where OSS is a breeze to configure/run/maintain. Where's the recognition of the middle ground? OSS advocates could do a LOT for their cause by catering their campaigning to this kind of group. Some kind of resource where we could go get all the answers we need would make us much more likely to switch. Complaining that our objections don't stand up to scrutiny will not.
So you can laugh all you want to...
From the article: "We want less people hacking on frameworks and more people hacking on applications that use frameworks. It's not a technical problem so much as a social one."
We've got people who like OS hacking. But because no one has committed to a minimum specification aimed at the desktop, all creative types are likely to see is shifting sand where they cannot build or distribute without dozens more headaches than in a structured environment.
'Linux' is frightening to someone, say, with a lot of interest in small business accounting or background in the arts and who just wants a consistent framework for expressing themselves. People who aren't "systems oriented" need a less chaotic environment in which to learn and build.
OTOH end-users are frequently pressured into installing software ONLY from their distro's central repository. So the power users (people who like to sample and compare many different apps) among them are likely to feel very constrained, or that "nothing works" when they download software independantly-- The result is they forget about 'Linux' and about recommending it to family and coworkers.
Take a look at Mac download sites like MacUpdate and Versiontracker: Notice anything? Little bits and pieces of the OS are NOT dominant on the menu!
I suppose the upcoming LSB Desktop spec will be a big step in the right direction. There will be quite a few distros supporting it in short order.
Until then, Mr. Bacon should be reminded that no "Linux" exists which has real meaning to an end-user. They can't bring the "Linux" moniker into a CompUSA and use it to shop. If you wanted to open a "LinuxMall.com" online, what on earth would your criteria be for Linux-compatible products?! Plain LSB perhaps, but then that doesn't cover GUIs so you are back at the servers market selling to people who know more than you.
Now, what about those drivers...
Jono Bacon is a highly intelligent guy but the moment I hit the word "lethargy" I despaired. Users have a perfect right to stick with Windows if they wish to and the term is too redolent of the stock Linux-user nonsense about Windows users being dumb and lazy. There is simply no logic in the notion that if only Windows users weren't lazy, dumb or perverse (in their choice of features, for example) they'd all see the light and switch to Linux. No they wouldn't. And they never will. This is such a non-article. The same arguments have been going round and round the Linux camp for years and are no nearer a conclusion, imho. I like Linux and use it as my desktop, but there is an unhealthy whiff around desktop Linux now. It hasn't broken through in any meaningful way and is still stuck in feuding and the blame game. Just my 2 cents, but the BSDs or even OpenSolaris begin to sound preferable in order to escape the endless rowing and pointless noise that has come to characterize so much of the Linux "debate".
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
the only thing right now that's keeping me from not using linux is that, for the life of me, i can't figure out how to get wpa-psk going on it. i'm currently trying kubuntu (oooh, shiny!), but i've also tried a few other distros and in no case have i been able to get the thing to connect to my wifi router using wpa. save for that, and a few minor things i can either work around or learn to live without, i'd be really happy to use linux.
If you know what you're doing, creating a dual or multiple partition hard drive isn't that hard at all. I was doing it back when I was a freckle-faced 12 year old, and I'm sure I'm -not- the only computer geek out there. FDisk can do it pretty easy if you know how, as can Disk Druid; but if you're green, I even had the administration at my high school on Linux after showing them how to dual partition a hdd using PartitionMagic.
There's tons of stuff out there, and tons of documentation. It's easy enough if you RTFM before you try ^_~
I'm an average power user. I troubleshoot my own machine, and extend my knowledge to friends and family. Not stupid...til you put me infront of linux box. Ok I'm more than a little scared. BUT I've tried Linux a total of 8 times in the last 5 years or so. Why? Because I WANT to use linux on my desktop.
Here's what's stopping me.
1) Growing up I had a lot more time to diagnose/fix windows machines. That same knowledge is not easily ported to Linux. When something doesn't work quite right, it takes a degree of programming (yes altering text files I consider programming) to fix. It's not just hidden somewhere in a clickable interface.
2) Linux is not giving me a huge speed performance over Windows. Sure you can show me the specs, but at the end of the day, if it doesn't load up apps like openoffice fast as lightening consistantly, I can't say the learning curve is worth it.
3) Apps. Ok here's where I'm lazy. I don't really know where to get GOOD equivalant (and free mind you) software apps to things like quicken. I have already bought my Quicken 2002 years ago and don't want to rebuy.
4) True plug and play. Same problem I have for windows I have for linux. Guess which one's easier to find drivers for? And don't give me crap about "buy LINUX HCL". Linux is free, and my parts are cheap. It's my reason.
5) People Don't read. Get over it. This is probably the single biggest breakdown of any OS. People don't read the boxes before they click ok, they certainly are not going to read which is better for them KDE or GNOME...heaven forbid install both on the same system and get their head around it. Options overwhelm users. I read to understand quickly, not to relearn how to simply install an application each and every time I want to update it.
6) ADD REMOVE SOFTWARE. I'm a tinkerer. YAST drove me NUTS because I couldn't find an easy way to install and uninstall apps. Even when I did, the changes didn't stick. Apparently I wasn't smart enough to tell the system the hardware I was installing and it would tell me what I was installing (issues with NIC) Sure the system comes with everything I could possibly want....except for what I go looking for.
7) Naming conventions. For gods sake, someone give me an OS that has it's options INTUITIVELY named. YAST for adding/removing hardware software/libraries? Wha? I don't know what the hell anything does! Oh yeah, READ the manual eh? Check out #5 and talk to me again.
8) Disruption. I have to say that my experiences with linux have seriously disrupted my time. 31 hours Time not worth the struggle to get a USB wireless adapter working on a laptop. Even after I got it working and then wanted to somehow have it in that state everytime it boots up, I couldn't find the proper text files to do so.
9) Complexity. Linux is beutiful. I love the fact that opensoftware is finally giving Microsoft a run for it's money. But as complex as microsoft is, they give end users a half fighting shot at fixing things themself through graphical tools. All my experiences (just trying to change the desktop resolution!) have been having to do complex things which should have been easy. A list you ask?
Changing Desktop resolution
Installing a USB Wireless card
Getting my camera to work
Finding some half decent financial software
Installing ANY linux on an old laptop (insert another set of issues here)
Setting up shares to windows box
Summary? I'd love to switch full time. But until there's "definitely a way" to fix most problems graphically, and I can remember how to spell the distro I just installed, and it's semi-intuititve, it will be stuck being for the "not faint of heart". And I'll be stuck envoying people who make Linux work flawlessly for them and their families.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
I've never heard it put better than how you just put it. You've just summed up the prime reason why the tech-head geeks never, ever get "their" way by being bull headed about things. You cannot force people to like what you like just because you like its technical elegance. Pity that most F/OSS people cannot figure that out.
Getting users to adopt new software (such as desktop Linux) is really much simpler than you might think. You must do the following:
1. Provide a seamless (or near seamless) transition. This means the user interfaces between the old and the new must be as similar is possible. Or, if the old interface was a godawful nightmare, the new one must be uber-intuitive. Sadly, a lot of F/OSS misses the concept entirely, as UI design seems to be the absolute last thing on any developer's mind.
2. Provide the features users use. This is a tricky one because 95% of the features in stuff like MS Office goes ununsed by most folks. However, the 5% that is used varies wildly from office to office. The only way to make sure you're covering all bases is to get 100% of the features ported. Again, a lot of F/OSS misses this concept because developers develop for what they want, not for what some other target market might want.
3. Give the users a reason to change. Again, simple concept, but one that most F/OSS packages completely fail to deliver on. Why should I install a new OS and entire suite of apps just so I can keep doing what I already do just fine on my Windows/Office setup? Stability? Sorry, a properly-managed XP box can have great uptimes, and most corporate setups are done with standardized images that have ultra-stable drivers and thus few (if any) BSOD's. Lack of viruses? This is probably the best angle, but again it's not enough for most people to want to switch. With modern antivirus software and a well-managed environment, virus intrusion isn't nearly the problem it once was. The vast majority of issues you read about are ones where either it's a home-based box (which are rarely well administered) or in a company that has no idea how to secure a Windows box. Cost of acquisition? Again, this one falls pretty flat. Corporations aren't going to install free Linux distros, they're going to purchase things like RHEL so they can get support. Have you priced RHEL lately? It's no cheaper than WinXP is on a corporate licensing program which is how most businesses deploy Windows.
If F/OSS can satisfy these three points, there's no reason why it can't succeed on the desktop. The fact that it has variously failed to some degree in some or all of the above traits is why desktop Linux has enjoyed but a shadow of the success of server-room Linux.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I see so much argument about why people don't switch to Linux. OpenOffice isn't good, there's no Photoshop, installing stuff is too hard (total myth), blah blah blah. I think the biggest reason has nothing to do with any of that. People haven't HEARD OF Linux!
Penny - plain text accounting
"For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
We are computer nerds and we know what YOU need. So don't think you can make any suggestions as to what YOU want on YOUR desktop!
For people who seem to want the average user to migrate to Linux, you are not very accomodating. Yes, for people who know computers well all the buttons and widgets and garbage on your desktop is annoying to say the least. But the average user doesn't want to have to go searching through six menus and thirty sub-menus to find the tools they need.
I used to say that Linux was still just a baby, and one day it would eventually be ready for the average persons desktop, but I am not so sure any more. The people behind Linux and the open source community seem far to arrogant, believing that end users should just accept Linux because you tell them it is better, not because it gives them what they want. It is just too bad, because Linux did have a lot of potential at one point.
I do the same thing (only with SuSE 10). The only thing you really need 100% performance for rather than say 90% in VMWare is games. I tried dual-booting, but in the end it was too much trouble to reboot even for just 30 minute of unreal tournament. And inevitably you want to switch to the browser to look something up, so you have firefox installed. And you want to check your mail. And get IMs.
The best thing for Linux would be something like a free VMWare player image of a bare-bones Ubuntu configured to save everything else to an expandable file on the user's drive. Who wants to buy partition magic, repartition, burn the installer CDs, say "Yes" to "This operation may totally screw you", then dual boot -OR- totally ditch Windows in one go? Just so they can see what Linux is all about, or run OSS apps the right way, or get extra security for web browsing, etc? Nobody, and that's why Linux destop adoption is so poor.
if you ask any business person about what it takes to get a consumer in any field, from the mundane (soap, ketchup) to the exotic (fourier transform resonance mass spectrometers, which start at a cool quarter million) to swithch to a new technology, they will say
/. actually wants to get linux on the desktop, the question is, what do people want ? ...I really don't know, but I do know that I have open office and thunderbird and firefox and so far as i can tell, firefox is the only one that does soemthing for me.
its hard
the new thing has to be BETTER then the old, not just "as good" but better.
The degree of better varys; with fully commoditized items like soap, maybe a cheaper price will do.
but with desktops and os's cheaper is not good enough - people consider the aggravation of switching greater then the cost savings.
So, if you want people to use linux on the desktop, it has to do something that ms does not.
learn from firefox: it is successfull NOT because it is open source, or it is free, or it has some tech mumbo jumbo, but because..tabbed browsing, and cntrl plus to enlarge works, save all tabs in a folder...these are features users want.
I don't know what people want from a desktop and a office suite; but until linux can find something that people - NOT geeks or proselytizers or techno nerds, but the mass of normal people - want, linux is going no wheres.
So, if
Perhaps it is something really simple, like the stickys program that use to come with MacOS. Perhaps it is better plug and play hardware, or good integration with voip, or
one place to start is the crappy formats available in default email replys..how about an easy to customize template for your emails, that makes em look snazzy ?
or how about, in the excel part of open office, instead of default autofil functin, a window pops up, and if you have in cell a1"the grass 54K at 47 bld a1" the window asks what part of that expression you want to increment, and how... or instead of linear mouse menus that dont correspond to the ergonomics of your wrist, curved menus...
Attitude of Linux community towards new adopters:
I know that this is unfair, and that many in the Linux community are willing to reach out and help the novice. The problem is that there are vociferous, vituperative, and vicious "old-timers" (the ones who like to use the Vietnam-era term "FNG" to describe a newbie) who scare off anyone who doesn't get things right the first time.
Worst of all, the Internet is a wonderful place - and one of the wonders is how a loud individual can amplify himself/herself to the point that they can out-shout the quieter, more helpfully-minded individuals who are found more frequently.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Getting a user (i.e. non-techie) not use even a "user friendly" distro requires some amount of instruction. People resist change, especially if they feel what they have meets their needs. And even today, not everything in Linux can be done from a pretty GUI. Try imagining talking your mother-in-law through installing an RPM, or Term or installing an NDIS Wrapper? Or explain to her why she can't run the game or other software she got as a gift. That is why my mom-in-law has a pretty little XP machine at home. Cause I don't feel like drivin' 4 hours to fix it. Don't get me wrong, shes great, but there are limits. ;)
"Build something idiot proof, and someone will build a better idiot" - Samuel Clemens
I love Linux. I've moved my office to it and I would use it on my home computer except for 1 reason: seamless multimedia integration. How easy is it to view wmv, mov, mpg, etc. files in a web browser in Linux? It's not that easy. I've given up trying. Sure you'll flame me for not setting up mplayer correctly with the web browser. But that's my point, why should I have to? You think a grandma who wants to see a movie of her newborn grandson will do that? Now you'll say, just download it and my answer is that just takes too long with all the clicking, saving, opening, and closing. Yeah I'm impatient and I hate clicking on other apps because that distracts me.
But you can please some people most of the time or most people some of the time... Or something like that, one thing is for certain, you can please none of the people all of the time.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that reason why people want MSOffice is not because they use all the features of it. But, it has the features they need when they need it and when you are talking about larger offices different departments have different needs and Office can typically serve most of those needs and then some with one installation. If all any office needed was Email and Word Processing then all anyone would really need is PINE and vi.
One of the big things is also the NAMES of these apps... I'm sure the developers thought they were being very funny or smart when they came up with names like the GIMP, Xmms, Noatun, TiMidity++ etc. etc.
Aside from names like the Gimp being ones that most older people wouldn't WANT on their desktop, the rest are just confusing as hell as to what they really are.
At least with Windows and the Mac you know what applications are by what they're called in most cases:
Photoshop - Hmm, probably has something to do with photos I'm guessing
Word - oooh, it's a toughy
Excel - Ok, a bit odd actually
Media Player - Wait... I can work this one out
etc. etc.
Names are important... just because they're in a user friendly folder called 'Audio' or 'Office' etc. doesn't mean you can get away with having app names that are incomprehensible or just plane offensive to most.
From TFA: "The one thing that people tend to get wrapped up in [is:] 'Everything should work.' If you take Windows and, for argument's sake, deduce that it performs five hundred functions, the typical business or home user may only use a hundred or fifty of those functions."
Yes, we get all wrapped up in things just working, because usually when you buy a PC THINGS JUST WORK. If I go out and buy a new PC I don't have to cross my fingers and hope that the OS properly supports the hardware. Wi-fi? WORKS. Sound? WORKS. Video card? WORKS. USB 2.0? WORKS. Bluetooth? WORKS. Firewire? WORKS. I realise it might sound crazy to a Linux user who's USED to having to recompile the kernel a few times a month (or more) but for people who think a kernel is someone who's one rank below a general that kind of techy tweeking is seriously off-putting.
If you dismiss out-of-hand the desire for a functional system out of the box then chances are you have nothing useful to add to the conversation. MAKE IT WORK and they will come.
I love Linux, however there is a *huge* problem with Linux. Strangely, people don't talk about this problem often enough.
... but the "alt" key would suffice
Simply: cut/copy/paste functionality needs to work exactly like it does on Windows/Macintosh desktops:
1. ideally, it needs to be "clt-x", "clt-c", "clt-v"
2. *all* applications need to use the same clipboard... i.e., the cut/copy/paste fuctionality needs to work across all applications.
usually when I see people address this issue, the conversation quickly degrades into nonsense.
The biggest problem with linux is its community mentality...
,but it turns off most people. Most people don't care about all these great coding features, then want to know it in terms of "technologies" how they can enjoy their PC. This I think is the biggest flaw with Linux advertising.
1) You have this hacker culture of "look what I coded" mentality. From the very beginning, Linux advocated weird names for very simple things. "oh, you want to run your USB thumbmouse on linux? No problem. just recompile the kernel with constipator, patch in the parts with ogglian, and don't forget to untar the sources in this order using gloosnot." -- this is not so farfetched as is how the community functions. Its more important for a hacker to add features and cool names than it is to make their application more user friendly on a desktop. This is the big difference with microsoft and linux. microsoft crashes but the learning curve is faster.
sol: Get off the nerd trip and build with the desktop as finally gnome is figuring out...
2) The community arrogance of coding and forcing others to be a "hacker" to use linux. Yeah, we have progressed but still you hear "Well its really easy just type..." (you hear this response so often no wonder linux never gets off the ground for the desktop.) Still to this day, they have the terminal. Thats great for you hackers, stinks for mainstream. You don't have people typing commands on ms-dos terminal anymore. So why doesn't the thing go away? because you nerds love to do all these commands.
sol: be brave and get rid of the terminal.
3) linux advertising is overwhelmed with geekness rather than desktop/office features. You hear more news (bragging rights of authors) about hacks on linux than you do any real office/desktop features. If you go to a microsoft page you don't hear all this tech speak crap. Its hidden in the developer pages. But the hacker authors love its geekness
sol: sites that advocate linux tend to advocate geekness. its you their disadvantage. since linux will go no further than a developers os and not a desktop.
4) Linux is not advertised for the office well either. A good analogy is having engineers take over marketing instead of the marketing people. The engineers gear the advertising on all these detailed features rather than what people value. Sadly, its more important to discuss all these bits and pieces of things linux does rather than show off a consistent suite (like staroffice did) and target the cost savings to businesses. Not to mention what linux does well. -- When was the last time you heard a linux vendor talk about that rather than all the bells and whistles of this script tool or that?? sol: hire marketing people who are not former linux techies. take a look how msft does it and learn something.
5) Linux people are totally obviously to the installed base of ms products in the sense that they think people will adopt the desktop for the "spirit of linux", that "microsoft is evil", "open source" -- Who fucking cares!
The only reason people will adopt an alternative to office is cost savings overall for the boss and BIG features they can't get with MSFT. The problem is that the product can be cheaper to license, but the support costs will be costlier. -- its common sense, most people don't know linux so you will have way more support calls, thus costs go up. Linuxers will have their shades on and tell you otherwise, but thats the reality.
sol: bundle free apps that cost extra with MSFT. build in more user friendliness.
What Linux needs is a well publicized worm to get to that level.
Unix is state of the art - since the 60's.
I have been playing around with Ubuntu, Fedora Core 4, Mandriva LE 2005 and have come to the same conclusion I did laster year and the year before...Linux is too complicated for my staff. I can't rely on the office geeks who charge loads of $$ to fix problems that shouldn't happen to begin with. I am a lawyer with a personal staff that is fairly good at using the Windows operating systems. Windows is not perfect (sometimes I find it just as fustrating as understanding Linux). Here are 2 simple things Linux can't do but should 1) Hit the windows key + E to bring up a file explorer immediately (yes I realize I can code this but this should already be done). 2) When I hit Windows + F it should allow me to do a file search immediately (I shouldn't have to type anything in a terminal) Now here are the problems I have with Linux in our office: 1) Linux doesn't recognize our printer off the bat I would have to "find" and configure the printer which was easier this year than last year's assessment. 2) Gnome vs KDE gui??? Just pick one and make it a standard that corporate America will accept (get rid of the cartoon penguin nonsense) Too fustrating for novices like my staff 3) Linux doesn't support 2/3 of the law programs including all of the billing and recording software we use. 4) Our accounting package is not Linux compliant (yet) 5) Our mailing lists are in Access (yuk I know) and I can't get it right in Base(OpenOffice) yet Ok here is what we already use that is open source: 1) Abiword 2) Firefox & Thunderbird 3) Apache web server (though in Windows) 4) MySQL (Windows) 5) A host of open source stuff for PDAs I totally appreciate the open source idea but Linux is not ready to be our workstation though it is a solid server (We use it as a fileserver\mail server and firewall)...but even these things took too long to configure
1) Software. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the desktop. It seems that there are always a few MS applications that many users feel they must have. Dual boot systems, running two computers, or using emulators; are all inadequate solutions. I know lots of people who say they would like to use Linux, but then they wouldn't be able to this particular game, or that particular application. I know there are Linux alternatives to a lot of standard PC software, but it only takes one "must have" app to kill the deal.
2) Hardware. Since Linux only commands about one quarter of 1% of the desktop market, it stands to reason that hardware manufacturers are not overly concerned with making Linux compatible products. Linux will always lag MS in this area. I don't think I have seen Linux drivers included with any PC hardware. It is possible to put together a Linux box that runs all the hardware you need, but it takes a lot of careful planning. With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typically pre-installed, and any PC hardware comes with windows drivers. You can read right on the box which windows versions will work with the peripheral. With Linux you have to look it up, or guess. Even if a driver does exist, you may have to go all the web to find it, you may also have to compile the driver - which most average users don't want to do.
3) Cost. Practically all PCs come with MS operating systems installed. PC buyers will never get their money back for those operating systems. Which mean Linux is just an additional expense. You may also have to buy an emulator if you want to run your windows apps, or partition magic if you want to dual boot. Yes, OS-less systems do exist, but none of the majors sell them (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, Apple). Most people don't feel comfortable buying Wal-Mart or no-name PCs.
4) Performance. Without a GUI, Linux is very fast, and will run with minimum hardware. But, once you run KDE or GNOME, Linux performance is much worse than windows. I know there are other trimmed down GUIs, but they don't generally have the functionality of GNOME or KDE, and certainly don't approach the functionality of Windows or MacOS.
5) Lack of standards. No standard distribution, no standard interface, no standard way to upgrade, no standard installation for OS, or applications, or drivers. Frankly, no standard anything. Those who like to tinker endlessly consider this an advantage. But, the vast majority of desktop users don't want to endlessly tinker.
6) Support. Your ISP many allow you to use Linux, but don't expect the level of support a windows user would get - not even close. If a peripheral isn't working correctly, don't expect the hardware manufacturer to you if you are running Linux.
7) Convenience. With MS, the user can purchase a PC, with OS installed at any department store or electronics store. Applications are also easy to find and install. You never have to wonder if a particular peripheral will work with windows. You don't to search all over the web for drivers. You don't even have to install the OS. With windows you just go to CompUSA and pick up what you need.
8) Relative reliability. Linux advocates like to say that MS systems are too unreliable. That may have been true, with Windows 9x, but 2000 and XP seem reliable enough.
9) Available free software. Linux advocates also like to point out all the free applications that come with Linux, but there is tons of free software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice.
10) Ease of use and installation. Linux is getting better, but still lags MS.
I dunno maybe, but I can tell you this:
- My very standard HP Laserjet Series II has never worked with Linux. No problem with any version of windows, or MS-DOS.
- Even getting a DVD to really work can be a pain with Linux. Hate to even think about a DVD-RW.
- Scanners are a pain. Those multi-function printer/copier/scanners, almost never work.
- About 50% of the USA population still uses dial-up, and you can't count on linux to work with a win-modems. Sorry to say, win-modems are the stardard.
- A lot of drivers that you can find for Linux are crappy, like ATI.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Piracy is the greatest barrier to the Linux desktop. If I look at my brother and other friends I know they have thousands of dollars pirated windows apps and games that they use and they don't think anything of it. A few of them would happly switch over except for the fact that these pirated apps that don't run on linux.
What's even more anoying to hear is the mentality: "well, it costs hundreds of dollars so it must be better than this freeware thing". Buy that time though I'm to exhausted to try to explain GNU.
My home PC is for entertainment. I need to do email, surf the web, and Microsoft Office stuff. All of this I could do on a Linux-based PC, and I'd switch tomorrow, except for one thing - GAMES.
/real/ computer. I'm not interested in another single-purpose toy that I hook up to my TV. Doubling as a DVD player doesn't do anything for me - I already have a DVD player.
Most PC games are written for the Windows OS. Until that changes, most folks who use their PC's for games will stick with Windows.
I don't want to dual-boot just so I can say I'm running Linux.
I don't want a "gaming console" and can't understand the appeal. I had my Atari 2600, thank you, and was quite glad to move to a gaming machine that I could use for other things, namely a
My PC has to play mainstream games like Call of Duty 2. When I'm confident I can get my games on Linux, I'll switch.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
From TFA "One of the biggest things is lethargy."
...etc... then you are assuming that my time is wortless and I am lethargicly lying around mindlessly strokin my johnson
you're never going to get by that -- ever -- not when XP and OSX are OEM and packaged into the cost of a PC or MAC.
Lethargy is a relative term as well -- why fix it if it ain't broke AND if you are implying that I am lethargic because I don't load *NIX on my laptop, toothbrush, the wing on my honda crx
sorry i have bills to pay, wife to entertain and friends to hang out with.... breaking a perfectly working computer and hten fixign it ti;; it works again is no longer my idea of a good time.
*back to mindlessly stroking my johnson*
What do you think prevents people from switching?
Bacon: One of the biggest things is lethargy. I consider myself a semi-technical person. So moving between software platforms doesn't mean anything to me. But if, for example, I have to switch between insurance or phone plans, I just don't want to do it because I don't want to learn about it. I don't want to learn about what's different. Therefore, I'm resistant to change even if it might save me some money each month. Unless I can see a big, perceived win that attracts me, I'm not going to change my current system for something else that doesn't really give me a straight-up benefit. I also think some people, particularly in business, are skeptical of open source because it is community-based and it's free. The toughest thing is change. Microsoft carved out a culture. To its credit, the company commoditized computers. There's no easy way around that without education and giving someone that significant win. For some people, the PDF export feature of OpenOffice 2.0 is a major thing for people who send out invoices. It's a very tiny feature but they see it as a significant thing for them because it affects their business.
If computers are not their field, people are resistant to learning and experimenting with OS. Obvious no one here is beyond using different OSes, however most people are trained in other fields. When it comes to computers, they are going to choose the one OS that which the most supported so they don't search around for the right software, computers, and devices. Unfornately, that OS is Windows. Worse yet, if tried to presuade them about alternative OSes, I find that most people will zone you out or be outright hostile. Microsoft needs to massively screw up before people will look to an alternative. That is how Firefox has made some headway. Alternatively, Linux advocates can use marketing, however, I think that is more Apple's cup of tea.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
That's what I need on my desktop before considering a switch. I didn't mention Office, since I belive OpenOffice will cut it. Firefox and Thunderbird handles internet superbly.
It's been a year since I tried to check out these items, so there might be some viable alternatives. Any pointers appreciated
"For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
This shows the arrogance of the Linux, Open Source, anti-Microsoft crowds. It is NOT the place of the developer to define for the user what are unnecessary features. It is the place of the developer to either promulgate a product and way of doing something that the users adopt out of their own free will and maybe as they do with MS Office, use as their yardstick OR more frequently to follow the existing yardstick.
MS Office is the yardstick and ignoring that fact will get a developer's backside beaten with the yardstick. Stop whining and give them what they want already. Don't get haughty and try to talk down to them and tell them you know better and what is needed and what is not.
One place I worked, we didn't ask why our design specs were what they were. We simply said, "it's because the name on the letter head is (redacted)." At another, we simply said, "it's because that's what is on the memo." Similarly, the coders of today need to get with it, stop being stuck on their own ideas and sense of genius and apply that to doing what the people want. Calling it Open Source and free doesn't make the requirement that it conform to others' needs and wants less relevant. I could make balloon animals that looked like mutant aliens all day at the park and give them away for free. If the kids and parents don't want them, what's the point?
Simple test: give a brand new out of the box PC to a newbie sort of person who's only used PCs lightly and done not much with them. With the drive clear, hand them a copy of Windows and have them install and get it running. Now wipe again and have them install a copy of Fedora Core 4, Gentoo, whatever. I GUARANTEE that you will NOT have an easier time with Linux. In fact, those who remember the old DOS days will have a very deep internal defensive reaction most frequently and that is it. No more openness to learn something they associate with horrible text based complexity.
Unless and until the Linux and Open Source worlds give the users what they find they want in Windows, or come up with something amazing that makes it the new yardstick, they must obey the existing yardstick... or get whupped with it. Car makers understand that. Gun makers understand that. Candy makers understand that. Why can't geeks get that?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I switched my daughter and my non-techie best friend. First off, people don't get that "software" works on specific platforms. They think that when they get a disc from their professor or from the store that it should work, (linux runs on windows right?), So when I moved my daughter to Mepis, and her Mom bought her a PSC1610, "why won't the software work?" You don't need the software. "but how will i print?", did you check to see if you had a printer? "No, where do I do that?" AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!, you see my point. Later my daughter says she can't do some things on websites, so I ran her through setting up flah and mplayer plugin, the w32codecs and then she was fine, until the next thing that isn't like windows... there is a mindset that has to be changed, the fact that they NEED those smileys and that unicorn screensaver... ahem...
I have gotten to the point, that when I take a class at the local community college, i bring either slax or mepis,(depending on what I need, sometimes knoppix), and I reboot the classroom workstation in with the cd and use koffice or openoffice to deal with any projects etc. That way I have no OS malfunctions and can get my lab work done. On my own linux boxen, i never worry about my data, as I install and test various ditros, my home folder is my home folder wether it be gnome, kde, or xfce, all my stuff is there and open-document is supported all over the place.
The thing is they THINK windows is easier, you would be surprised how some people who one week are fed up cuz windows just ate their files, and you switch them, and they want all the windows crap back.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
or seems to be that everyone should want to switch to Linux. Why would this be?
If I have a working XP machine which runs great, has tons of software on it, games, productivity, you name it, virus free, spyware free, plenty of peripherals, great sound...
why would I want to?
Additionally, I know the ins-and-outs of my WinBox down to the driver, and I'm going to sacrifice all that hard won knowledge for the devil I don't know?! Come on. The problem with Linux and why it can't break MS and Mac on the desktop is that it can't offer a valid reason to do so. MS and Mac simply do things better at the present time. All the reasons offered for the switch (security, etc.) are dubious at present. If you want Linux to unseat Mac and MS, it will have to offer ease-of-use comparable to both, a decent level of organized on-demand support, and THEN SOME. There must be more than just marginal value-added in excess of Mac and MS offer to get people to switch to that which is terra incognita.
Just ask yourself the question: "Why would someone intentionally make their life more difficult just to get less out of the deal?" Is there some undercurrent of masochism in the Linux community that I wasn't previously aware of?
I have been a Linux fan for many years, but it DRIVES ME NUTS that I have to try all kinds of work arounds just to get a simple US Robotics USB-wifi-adpater to work.
I used to recommend Linux, but I won't anymore. Not untill *every single piece of hardware* plugs and plays into the system without any fuss.
And this is the kind of story potential users will hear from 'us' Linux users: that the system might be very easy, but that you cannot buy a piece of hardware of software, and expect it to work just like that. While almost everything you buy nowadays works right out of the boxx with Windows XP. So why bother again?
Frankly, I understand her very well. I like to have user interfaces that I am used to. I have enough Linux experience to do network configuration or disk repartitioning from the command line without looking up man pages. However, that doesn't make me automatically like defalult linux UI. I hate it. First thing I do on a fresh install is that I rearrange Gnome desktop and panels to look just like my old Windows 98 that I used to have for years.
I use Linux at home because it is free, and I have a warm feeling that I could look up and, perhaps, change any part of the code that runs on my computer. Otherwize I would, probably, be as just as much happy to get my things done using Windows XP.
And don't forget that as far as most of the people are concerned Windows comes free with their new PC.
Ive been trying to sell linux/bsd to non techies for a while and am about ready to give it up.
Telling them abstract things like ' its more efficent ', 'its cheaper', 'not feeding the beast' bla bla bla doesnt really matter to the average guy beyond a passing 'oh, thats cool.. where is the start menu.. oh, thats interesting.. now i want to play my xyz game, can you make it go back to windows, for me. '
sure, it makes more sence for most of us here, ( and in the datacenter ) but for the average joe, he would actually be worse off.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
For some reason the Calc people don't seem to get it -- after countless bug reports and 100's of messages. OO Calc is useless to anyone who rely's on the numeric keypad. Since Visicalc, operands on the numeric keypad (+-*/) have initiated a formula field. It doesn't in Calc. This means a large number of the decision makers (CFO's, accountants, etc) who use Excel cannot convert to OO without changing the way they have worked for more than 20 years.
... is the wrong question. The right question is, "what compelling reasons do people have to switch to Linux?" The mere existence of an alternative is not sufficient reason to adopt the alternative. Sure, there are reasons, but are they sufficiently compelling to cause action? Inertia is a powerful force!
The people reading this slashdot article arent the ones you have to sell, regardless of which side of the fence any of us fall on. We all have an opinion. An informed opinion in most cases with good reasons on both sides of the fence why linux is or isn't right for the desktop. Ask the sales weasel sitting in the cube across from you what he thinks about linux on the desktop and you'll get one of two reactions. Either they will look at you blankly and ask "Which OS do I have now?" or they will ask "Can I run Outlook and will I still be able to use my Blackberry?" The big MS Office vs (insert open source substitute here) debate isn't really a debate, any more - at least technically speaking. Adoption is another story. As long as Outlook lives as the only true Exchange Server mail client with all the features today's business execs expect (you know the guys/gals who sign the checks) then Linux on the desktop is a worthless conversation. The average user wants to change their wallpaper, play music, surf the web, use Office-like applications, synch a PDA/Blackberry up to their email and of course run whatever apps they are required to use to do their job - but most importantly they want to be able to figure all this out without having to show the folks in IT how non-savvy they really are. Until I can hand Vic Ferrari, VP of Sales an OS install disk and expect him to be able to get through the install on a laptop - forget networking even - this isnt going to happen folks. (I wouldnt do that, but sheesh you get my point: even my MOM can get through an XP install). ./Dingo
It's all about marketing , getting the name and message into the minds of the people.
.Net server software to Linux. Hanlon said that regardless of the restructuring options it selects, the company will fulfill its contractual requirements." - quote source Yeah, I bet.
But you also have to fight what I like to call the name gobbling effect. For example, when you tell people about X Windows, what is their response? "you mean Windows XP?" how about Linux Live CDs? "you mean Windows Live?" Or how about, I run X on my box? "you have an xbox?"
Getting people to remember the name is important, but often difficult, look what happened to Corel Linux before it even had much of a chance? Sure, it's now Xandros, but you see, people knew Corel, and a name like Corel Linux would've stuck easily. It was Debian based and even had a GUI installer. But you see, here again the name was too powerful, and sure enough "Corel Sells Out To Microsoft" * and following shortly after with "Corel to Spin Off Desktop Linux Unit" and "Xandros Buys Corel's Linux".
"The terms of the Microsoft investment included an option under which Microsoft could request that Corel translate Microsoft's next-generation
* = "It isn't quite as strange as Microsoft 's investment in Apple Computer several years ago, but it ranks right up there."
In tin foil hat speculation mode, look what erupted in the press about Google via the censorship/China/web issue, even though Microsoft itself and Yahoo were also mentioned in news articles regarding the same issue, but the outcry was all against Google, and what did this follow? The wide news coverage of a possible "Goobuntu".
How many corporations are going to tolerate pressure from an outside source to stop selling Linux if they start? Especially when the millions of dollars are wiggled in their direction. We need someone with actual balls to stand up and market Linux to the masses that won't back down under pressure. On their way to success, you can bet every skeleton in their closet will be brought out for parade when they turn down offers for buyouts.
As others have suggested elsewhere, the fight needs to be taken via EFF or some other means to break up the grip that exists at the OEM level and bring choice to the people when they purchase their computer to begin with.
I'm a Linux fan. Though I use OS X for most of my day-to-day computing, I've used Linux in the workplace and at home since the Caldera days.
That being said, I think there are still numerous blocks to Linux adoption:
Again, I think Linux is terrific, and would be using it fulltime if I didn't find Macs so damn pleasant.
Most of the blocks described above pertain to consumer desktop adoption. My opinion is that the best place for Linux evangelism is the workplace. Get someone using Linux at work, and the home will follow.
Linux still must make its case to the consumer. The best drawing card these days is security. It used to be stability, but that's no longer the case. While I feel strongly that computing should be free and open, cost and community-supported software aren't the silver bullet in regards to mass Linux adoption.
I think we should be supporting developers who work hard to make Linux simple, secure, and usable in a business environment. I was looking at the Vista press release today. We can all snicker about Vista's late release date, its bloat, the fact that its major features have been available in OS X since Tiger (or earlier), etc. It will still be irresistible to corporations. Not only because of their legacy commitments -- it's draconian features like hardware DRM for documents that warm a manager's heart. I got fired a couple weeks back. They asked me for my data before long before they reached for my door key. Companies are serious about safeguarding their secrets. Linux will have to pace this if it wants to rule the world.
Which would please me.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
I write a lot (a fun addiction :-) and I find that OpenOffice.org Write simply stays out of my way - I tend to not to have to think about the tool, just what I am writing. Microsoft Word (Mac version OK, Windows version less OK) is not that bad for writing, but problems with master documents and version problems between different versions of Word put me off.
.termcap definitions, life is OK enough using Linux servers. That said, Windows basically sucks in my opinion as a desktop except for a few things: runs iTunes OK, plays DRMed video content purchased on the web, and TurtleCVS and TurtleSVN rock!
I think that much of the friction in adopting OpenOffice.org is simple laziness of not wanting to learn something slightly different.
I have been a Linux user since I downloaded Slackware over a 2400 baud modem internet connection, but I must admit that I have started using OS X for my desktop more recently than Linux. For consulting work I need to deploy to Linux servers, but OS X is OK enough as a development environment and makes a nicer desktop, and if you load up Linux servers with Mac
I live in the U.S., and I don't see Microsoft losing desktop 'space' here anytime soon. For the rest of the world however, I will quote myself from my blog: "Really, what country should depend strongly on proprietary software written and owned by a company in a foreign country?"
It is hard to predict, but I think that Linux use in the third world will explode while more "developed" countries will have more enertia and move away from proprietary software more slowly - much to our disadvantage.
So Linux is techincally correct but looks like crap and Windows is wrong but looks good?
What about OS X?
I haven't moved to Linux not because of the lack of MS Office, but because Linux interacts bizarrely with PC hardware, especially networking. Networking can be fine one minute, then go out on the next. The sound server, lack of 3D accleration, and buggy software round out the package. Linux is very difficult to uninstall, and tends to render Windows unbootable sans some heavy duty wrangling. Linux, being second to Windows, has to play nice, and not take total control of the MBR and boot loader. Now, I'm sure that most of my criticisms can be answered by seasoned Linux admins, but Usenet and mail lists are quite useless for anything but the most basic Linux problems. If Linux is unusable for those who have been in IT for many years as a desktop solution, it's market penetration will remain close to nil. On servers that have gone through heavy testing prior to certification, yes, Linux may be a good choice, but not the desktop.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Frankly, I don't want Linux to catch on in the general desktop market.
The general desktop market is absolutely infested with spyware, viruses, crappy shareware/freeware programs, and people who will download and execute anything as long as it contains the words "hot" and "babes." The more marketshare Linux grabs, the more the Linux desktop will be infested with the same crap we on Slashdot complain about cleaning off our grandmothers' machines. Linux may be more resistant to these things than Windows, but it will not be immune.
I say, let the Lusers have their crappy OS with their Bonzai Buddies and their "pay us $20 for this pointless utility in 30 days or we cripple your machine" software. Linux is designed for power users who value functionality over bells 'n whistles, and who value stability and standards over proprietary interoperability. If we let in the masses, we will also be forced to lock down the OS, and that will clamp flexibility, thereby removing all value Linux has over Windows and Mac. They don't need it, and we shouldn't force it on them.
You wouldn't put a 16 year old with a driver's permit in the cockpit of an F-22... why would you want every Joe Schmoe and his grandmother to use such a powerful and possibly dangerous operating system as Linux?
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
There is no reason to care whether anybody else uses it or not. This isn't a goddamn religion. Quit campaigning to save the world. Linux has enough of a user and developer community that it will thrive forever without any more input from anybody outside of it at all. I'm glad to help those who want to learn it learn it, and to offer what little contributions I can to make it better. Anything beyond that is a waste of everybody's time.
The font problem remains. The only thing Linux has to offer in the font department is anti-aliasing. That's fine for those who can stand the blurry look, but some of us need letters in focus. AA gives me a headache and prevents me from reading text for more than 5 minues. It literally hurts my eyes.
On Windows it's *easy*. Just turn off anti-aliasing with a little checkbox, and fonts are *perfect*. They're *beautiful*, perfectly sharp and clear, and letters are razor-sharp and highly readable at any resolution.
Now try to get that on KDE. The checkbox has *no effect at all* and the developer claims it's not a bug.
Supposedly you can get the Windows non-AA look on Linux by (a) install Truetype fonts (b) compile X with certain options (c) make the GUI use the new version instead of the old one.
Well, I spent a whole Saturday trying to get all that working and could not make it happen. And I'm more computer literate than most users.
Not everyone whines about merely esthetic details like the "jagged edges" on curves. Some of us want readability instead. What do I say to someone who's interested in Linux but can't stand the "fuzzy letters"?
So the devs go on building shiny icons, sidebars and other useless junk but won't work on the fundamentals. Well, I appreciate their work, but don't have time to do it myself. I would pay for a solution if I could. I really want to get free from Windows, but readable fonts are pretty basic.
"There is no reason to care whether anybody else uses it or not. This isn't a goddamn religion. Quit campaigning to save the world" Don't confuse religion with philosophy. The free and open source movement is powerful, it scares many a big greedy corp because it returns power back into the hands of the people. Those who care about humanity and something greater than themselves will not stop. That's the problem with the world today, too many people just don't give a shit.. so long as they can press their new shiny gadget up to their fat little chin and smile while giggling like a winner of the special olympics and satisfy their own desires, to hell with everyone else, let the corporations spoon feed us.
Right now I've built a PC for a friend of mine. She was planning on installing Windows on it when I give it to her, I thought it would be interesting to show her that Linux would work too.
Well, it doesn't. I've tried several flavors so far, and they either won't work with the on-board graphics chip (Nvidia 6100 I believe) or they won't work with the on-board network chip.
And that's just the start. She has 5 requirements. Open office, GAIM, Email, web browing, and pogo.com.
If I could get X and the network working, getting the JRE (for pogo) installed is a whole new complication. I tried it on my home system using FC4 and it's "Jumping through hoops" time.
Why do we need libraries now anyway? DLL hell exists for Linux, and it shouldn't. Feel free to make the source available, but until someone makes a simplified "Pre-compiled" version of linux with no libraries, this won't get better.
I understand the whole "Source code" thing, but the vast majority of people who use Linux now don't need it. And if you want Linux to become popular on the desktop, that number will balloon greatly!
To sum, libraries and source code are important to coders, not users!
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
First, I should say that it sort of is--I have 3 desktops up and running all the time on my large desk, and Ubuntu Linux is one of them. The other two are Windows and Mac OS X, with the Mac in the primary position, where it handles 99.9% of my desktop work. (By the way, I'm a programmer, and have even written a book on UNIX/Linux programming.)
Here are ten reasons why the Ubuntu machine isn't on center stage:
1. Clients, despite my telling them to send PDFs, keep sending Word and Excel files. Yes, I do open them with OpenOffice, even on the Mac, but I very often find that the conversion is imperfect. The main stuff is OK, but things like balloon-style comments don't appear. If it's an important document to review, it's unsafe, and unprofessional, to attempt to review it if I'm not sure I'm seeing all the text, arranged as it should be. Sometimes the Word or Excel file is on a web site (e.g., Texas Education Agency), and I can't "tell" them to send me a PDF.
2. No Photoshop. Yes, there are image-editing programs for Linux, but I need precise color management using ICC profiles, support for raw files, including Adobe DNG, Adobe's Camera Raw, and the ability to convert raw files to DNG using Adobe DNG Converter.
3. No monitor-calibration device (I use Spyder2PRO) for Linux. I can't do my work on an un-calibrated monitor.
4. Having used the Mac, I just couldn't bear to use anything less usable, powerful, agile, and attractive. It would be like trading in a BMW for a Chevy. (If I weren't a Mac user, I could easily trade the Windows GUI for Gnome.)
5. No Quicken. Sure, I could switch, but I have a check register that goes back 20 years, and it's connected to my credit card and bank accounts. Maybe I could reproduce this on Linux, but I don't have the week it would take to do the research and set it all up.
6. No iTunes. Not for buying songs--I've never bought one. But I get a download from Audible of NPR's Fresh Air every day, and it automatically shows up on my iPod. So do the CDs I rip. Yes, I've used other software, but its irritating to do all that clicking. I like it that the stuff just wends its way to my iPod without my intervention.
7. I've started to write Mac Cocoa programs in Objective-C with Interface Builder. I've used many other languages and IDEs, but this one is far-and-away the most polished and gives me the most intellectual and esthetic pleasure
8. Integration. When I first bought my Mac, I went to a web form and the Mac automatically filled it out. Strange, because I had never entered my address and phone number! Turns out that I had synched my Palm, my info made it's way into the Address Book, and Safari picked it up from there. This is only one example. All the Apple apps (and a few non-Apple apps) work together, often in amazing and unexpectedly brilliant ways.
9. AppleScript. I hate the language, but I love that most of the important Mac applications are scriptable. I like that every Mac comes with Java, too. Not yet true of Linux (wrong license type, or something like that).
10, PDFs are the basis for all document display, and the heart of the printing subsystem. Built-in, deep into the system. Having them just on the surface, as is true of Linux and Windows, doesn't work nearly as well.
OK, I'll stop at ten. The point is, why use a system that's less than the best available? And, such as the case with Java, I know that I can install the stuff myself, but why bother? I have other things to do with my time! I want a desktop system that's complete and ready to go out of the box.
--Marc Rochkind
Fundamentally, making Linux mass consumer friendly is incompatible with the concept of a Unix operating system. The basic premise of Unix is that, you have programs that do one thing well. You string lots of these programs together to perform a particular function. That is the strength of Linux, customiability. However end users don't want this. They want everything in 1 neat package that they don't have to think about to use. Notice how many real world business managers love Lotus Notes and how many techies hate it.
One of the things that really bothered me about using Linux for general desktop purposes was that there was a lack of overall visual consistency. Maybe I just never configured the thing right, but I would take, say, 5 different applications and they would all look and "feel" slightly different...some apps used GTK, some apps used something else. I think this is where Apple really did a good job with Mac OS X, in that all of the applications look like they really belong with the OS; they really look nice and integrate very well.
And he is trying to cover it up with trying to be buddhist
Here is the complete story:
http://www.giganticurl.com/url/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5nZW9 jaXRpZXMuY29tL3RyaXg0a2lkejI=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5nZW9ja XRpZXMuY29tL3RyaXg0a2lkejJhSFIwY0RvdkwzZDNkeTVuWlc 5amFYUnBaWE11WTI5dEwzUnlhWGcwYTJsa2VqST0=aHR0cDovL 3d3dy5nZW9jaXRpZXMuY29tL3RyaXg0a2lkejJhSFIwY0Rvdkw zZDNkeTVuWlc5amFYUnBaWE11WTI5dEwzUnlhWGcwYTJsa2VqS T1hSFIwY0RvdkwzZDNkeTVuWlc5amFYUnBaWE11WTI5dEwzUnl hWGcwYTJsa2VqSmhTRkl3WTBSdmRrd3paRE5rZVRWdVdsYzVhb UZZVW5CYVdFMTFXVEk1ZEV3elVubGhXR2N3WVRKc2EyVnFTVDA 9aHR0cDovL3d3dy5nZW9jaXRpZXMuY29tL3RyaXg0a2lkejJhS FIwY0RvdkwzZDNkeTVuWlc5amFYUnBaWE11WTI5dEwzUnlhWGc wYTJsa2VqST1hSFIwY0RvdkwzZDNkeTVuWlc5amFYUnBaWE11W TI5dEwzUnlhWGcwYTJsa2VqSmhTRkl3WTBSdmRrd3paRE5rZVR WdVdsYzVhbUZZVW5CYVdFMTFXVEk1ZEV3elVubGhXR2N3WVRKc 2EyVnFTVDA9YUhSMGNEb3ZMM2QzZHk1blpXOWphWFJwWlhNdVk yOXRMM1J5YVhnMGEybGtlakpoU0ZJd1kwUnZka3d6WkROa2VUV nVXbGM1YW1GWVVuQmFXRTExV1RJNWRFd3pVbmxoV0djd1lUSnN hMlZxU1QxaFNGSXdZMFJ2ZGt3elpETmtlVFZ1V2xjNWFtRllVb kJhV0UxMVdUSTVkRXd6VW5saFdHY3dZVEpzYTJWcVNtaFRSa2w zV1RCU2RtUnJkM3BhUkU1clpWUldkVmRzWXpWaGJVWlpWVzVDW VZkRk1URlhWRWsxWkVWM2VsVnViR2hYUjJOM1dWUktjMkV5Vm5 GVFZEQTk=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5nZW9jaXRpZXMuY29tL3RyaXg0a 2lkejJhSFIwY0RvdkwzZDNkeTVuWlc5amFYUnBaWE11WTI5dEw zUnlhWGcwYTJsa2VqST1hSFIwY0RvdkwzZDNkeTVuWlc5amFYU nBaWE11WTI5dEwzUnlhWGcwYTJsa2VqSmhTRkl3WTBSdmRrd3p aRE5rZVRWdVdsYzVhbUZZVW5CYVdFMTFXVEk1ZEV3elVubGhXR 2N3WVRKc2EyVnFTVDA9YUhSMGNEb3ZMM2QzZHk1blpXOWphWFJ wWlhNdVkyOXRMM1J5YVhnMGEybGtlakpoU0ZJd1kwUnZka3d6W kROa
Your brain is coming at this from the totally wrong angle. When people are talking about complexity, which do you think they are referring to?
a) number of steps
b) number of keystrokes
c) shortest amount of time
And the answer is---NONE OF THE ABOVE! What they are referring to is how easy it is to figure out how to do something if you don't already have the knowledge. Your answer about how simple it is on gentoo with "emerge nvidia-kernel" is senseless because how would someone just know to type that? And your second comment about how it only partially works until you type "eselect opengl set nvidia" only emphasises this point even more.
With the Windows way, people can start from no knowledge and still accomplish their goal with just a little reasoning:
"This video card is from NVidia, so I'll check the NVidia web site."
From there it is very easy to see the link for 'Download Drivers' and then the site walks them by the hand through finding the one they need by selecting what video card they have and what their version of Windows is, and then they just double click it, etc., etc. There is no special training required to know what the heck "eselect opengl set nvidia" means.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
What monitor are you using?
You say USB modem, are you talking cable, DSL, or analog? Also USB support for networking is realy spotty on Linux, if you're talking cable or DSL you'd get more success with ethernet instead.
The problem with lines and weird things like that sounds like a sync rate issue. The USB mouse not working is something totaly outside my experience. It has quite literaly NEVER happened to me, so I don't have any idea what the solution could be.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
Games
Im using a Samsung 19" tft.
:)
The USB model is an Alcatel ADSL USB Modem. The modem that comes free with most adsl providers.
The lines and weird things looks more like a graphics card issue. It works fine in xp.
Do you see my point though? Linux has to get better and easier before anyone will adopt it. If i can't use it, imagine my parents...geez....specially my ugly mother
“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
It appears some people need an economic lesson. Linux is not free!..At least in an economic sense. It is important to think like an economist when understanding a topic such as this, which deals with product adoption.
Everything, even things that are given away, have a cost associated to them. Cost may even be classified as opportunity cost, which is simply missing out on using something else and/or extra time associated with using or learning something that is "free". For the basic user, the cost associated in transitioning to Linux is too high. Don't agree with me, OK, but market share simply backs up my point. Microsoft users are still free to make a choice, and they choose Microsoft. And to user's that don't know that other systems exist, boy has Microsoft done a great job at keeping that customer satisfied, at least enought to prevent looking for alternatives.
For many users, for the sake of argument business users, the cost to adopt a Linux is too high. They simply don't have the time to learn a new system. Especially one that presents no significant benefit over their current system.
Furthermore, opportunity costs are high and include missing out on Google Earth, PC Games, Microsoft Office, and Viruses. Yes, Viruses. However, for many users, Viruses are a marginal threat. I use the word marginal because is does not deter the basic user away enough to leave Windows.
Concerning the Jono Bacon, will somebody get this developer a good business associate? His attitude is completely arrogant, and he questions the rationality of the basic consumer. In business, not necessarily politics, it is good practice to adopt the capitalist value that the consumer is rational, and will make choices in his or her own best interest. Jono's attitude is one that typically results in a product extinction. Luckily in the case of Linux developers, his attitude is probably in the minority.
BTW. The Open Office suite, even given away for "free", is still not worth the cost to many consumers. This is why you see MS Office in the lead, even at 150 to 500 bucks a Suite.
-- The Arizona Kid
“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
-- You want your sex don't you? Well don't you? ... Well, no sex for you until you reformat your hard-drive and install this operating system. ... I don't think you mean that. You think that you're going to really care how easy it is to use Windows or how you have all your favorite applications on Windows, when you haven't had sex for a couple of weeks? ... See? I thought you see it my.
Get me something just as good and/or working under wine and I'll be 100% happy (only 99% now) with Linux.
Half the time I'm right, the other half you're wrong.
Linux is free. No profit/comission/whatever. It is even harder to push an official distro like RedHat/whatever because the customer feels cheated because they're paying for something that is supposed to be free, even though it is cheaper than Winxxx.
Analogy: Customer walks into a shop and says he wants a $10 bottle of solvent to clean something. Now tap water is just as good. Is the salesman going to (a) sell him the bottle of solvent at $10 or (b) say "tap water is just as good, here is a bottle of tap water for $5" or (c) say "tap water is just as good, use the stuff from the tap at home". If he does (a) he makes some money. If he does (c) he makes no money, but the customer says "hey thanx". If he does (b) he'll get the customer's abuse for trying to sell him a bottle of tap water for $5.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Why not have a common standard for Linux OS's have a way of getting patches and drivers from centralized software or website for most / all distros's?
There are a plethora of bugs plaguing Linux-on-the-desktop. I know, because I've moved our sales department to a Linux desktop. Let me tell you: there are serious problems.
... wait for it ... being able to delete files with their file manager. Did I mention that it's 5 years old? http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40990
- Nautilus doesn't correctly check permissions of files it's deleting, and gives incorrect 'permission denied' errors. This bug is 5 years old! It prevents people from
- Multiple, crippling bugs in gtk+ prevent any serious application development:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317387
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156017
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308474
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161837
Most of the above bugs are over 1 year old, and have basically never been touched by a gtk+ developer. Of course, over the period of the past year, there have been numerous major gtk+ releases, as well as numerous major gnome releases. The problem is that fixing critical bugs doesn't "scratch anyone's itch", so nothing gets done.
I imagine people would recommend that I try out QT instead of gtk+, but the licensing doesn't really suit me ( have to pay big dollars for a commercial license ), and I'm not convinced that the situation would be any different anyway.
After watching the 'progress' of the above bugs for over a year, I can tell you now why people aren't developing any applications for Linux-on-the-desktop: because the desktop is too fucking bug-ridden, and that doesn't appear to be about to change.
Who gives a rats ass about which OS you use? Its about the applications, not the OS.
If linux interface worked like windows 9x and had plenty of graphic configuration tools i might consider it.you see alot of text utils in lunix but they don't worth messing with.text apps are niche,most users
want full GUI apps(command line switches optional).
Linux is not that fast,and most apps
wouldnt work on it(emulation is incomplete).Besides what is i'm going to gain for switching? Win98 is good enough for me.
If people wanted to manually configure
their X config files and find their drivers off net it might be viable.
The design of linux/gnu is major turn off for many users,ex:mounting their Cd-roms,shutting down computer(Plan 9 required to [fshalt] and THEN shutdown).
Windows requires only Start->shutdown
(though i use: ` s
` parses" Start s.bat"
which invokes @win/z in Dos mode to shutdown,very convienient)
In my personal experience, everything about the KDE environment was great. I ran SUSE 10 64-bit. I attempted to acquire open source versions of 3d software - Blender -. Put that up against Maya or 3DS and it pales in comparison. I have no perspective view, so I can't toggle around the object and the interface is so far from what I am used to. Gimp isn't bad but I still prefer CS2. There is the interaction between the suite. The bridge and all that. The actions. I think its hard to match what a team of pro's can come up with, when they get paid to do this all day long. If I could find a way to get Maya, Adobe Video bundle, Flash, Dreamweaver,& Cubase ported to linux I would use it hands down. I love everything about it, except the lack of professional software I need.
If you guys studied and worked in the Marketing area with focus groups and surveys, it would be pretty clear to you why consumers don't want your operating system.
Jono Bacon is one of the speakers of www.lugradio.org
It is really an excellent podcast, interesting and funny at the same time... and is the only thing I listen when I do jogging in the park.
Does openSuSE tell you which application is using the CD? I don't use SuSE at home (Debian for me), but one of the things I've found awkward about umount is that it'll simply refuse to unmount the drive without providing more information. The problem could be anything from a program actively running from the CD, to an obscure xterm behind a million other windows that's still CD'd into a directory on the disk.
This falls back to one of the most common problems with usability everywhere, I think. Lots and lots of errors simply don't indicate clearly what the user needs to do, and I think this is largely because current programming techniques make it difficult to do so (and it's a very hard problem to solve). Even when the user isn't allowed to do something erroneous (such as ejecting a CD or selecting a menu option), they could still be wondering why particular menu options are unavailable.
There's so much abstraction in the sorts of things that can go wrong in a lot of software that it's probably going to take yet another quite revolutionary step in software development techniques to make UI's more helpful in this way.
after all the idea of having the page format under "Format" instead of "File" makes sense. A newbie to both systems would probably identify the OO.o way first.
A newbie to computers, or a newbie to OpenOffice.org? A newbie to OpenOffice.org who has used Windows or Mac OS will probably look where almost every other application for Windows and Mac OS has put landscape, namely in File > Page Setup....
It's interesting to read posts about drivers and such, but the reasons Linux hasn't been adopted by the masses are social, not technical. Say what you want about Microsoft (and believe me, I have), it has at least provided a standard operating system that most people feel safe in adopting. Not so the penguin, whose multiple distros and minority status are major barriers to anyone looking for an alternative OS. Name brands succeed for a reason: people want comfort and familiarity, whether it's a local watering hole or an operating system for their PC.
Once Linux has achieves 50% market penetration or more, people will flock to it. But for that to happen, there will have to be a sea change in the way it's perceived. In other words, a major distributor will have to emerge, narrowing peoples' choices -- the way Microsoft did back in the 80s. Maybe Google will pick up the banner; ghod knows they're taking over everything else. But in the meantime, any discussion of the widespread adoption of Linux will have to take the social aspect into consideration. Populism may not be pretty, but it's essential in selling technology to the proles.
MAC
Home networks are common now as is more than one PC in the house usually its the weaker of the two that becomes a candidate for a linux install.
Theres a lot that could be done to make Linux more attractive to windows users.
1)automate the joining of a linux box to a windows workgroup including network printing and a shared folder visable on the network.
2)Improve remote desktop access to windows standards, that is simple and with sound. both windows and linux desktops should be readily available from either PC.
3)Linux newbie help.
basically a list of windows programs and the installed linux counterpart.
4)IRC help via a desktop short cut.
Every new user of linux needs to feel comfortable which means linux will be treated like an application accessed from a windows box and hopefully windows can become an application accessed from a linux box.
As long as whats familiar is a click or two away linux will be stress free for newbies.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
play music and movies properly (they gag on DVDs and won't play OGGs)
All the major media players for GNU/Linux support Ogg Vorbis audio playback. As for DVD Video, that's not the Linux distributors' fault; it's the DVD patent pool's fault and the major American motion picture studios' fault.
open all common file formats (pretty good on MS-Office formats, not so good on others);
Which "others" are you talking about?
Why should people want to adopt an operating system that will not work with much of the hardware they currently own?
Because they're buying new PC hardware that's heavily advertised on TV, and said hardware comes with Windows Vista as the pre-installed operating system. The only way to get */Linux in a new PC is to pay extra for a dedicated Linux box (which is not sold in brick-and-mortar stores nor advertised on cable news or on the broadcast networks) or to build a machine from parts (which is beyond the median user's skill).
One word: famialiarity. 99% of computer users use, have to use, or have used Windows. And even those who went from Windows 95 straight to Windows XP (don't laugh, I have a lot of customers who just did that) get used to the differences very quickly because the same basic GUI is there, the control panel is there, and everything else. You still perform most basic tasks the same way. Imagine taking your grandma from her WinXP box to a Linux box. Better take your phone off the hook. It's not even that Linux is hard to use, it is just different than what Windows users are used to. When you're vying for mass market acceptance, you have to woo the biggest crowd. And for 90% of the userbase, it's people who use Windows.
The other reason more technical minded people don't move to Linux is the fact that driver support is lacking. I know a previous poster just said the same thing, and it's true. When is the last time you bought a mass-market printer, scanner, wireless card, web camera, etc, and it came with a Linux driver? Grandma doesn't know how to get on the Internet a download one from the manufacturer, if they even make one, or download a driver put together from someone in the OS community. They're used to putting in the driver CD, clicking OK a few dozen times, reboot, and the new hardware works. Until Linux mimicks that approach (or comes up with something better, like the OS automatically finding, downloading, and installing the correct driver from the 'net) it is going to be hard to convince Granny, Mom, and your brother to switch.
Don't get me wrong, Linux has come a long way and has a lot to offer, but even the most die-hard penguin fan has to admit that the whole Linux "user experience" is still more oriented towards computer geeks than Mom and Pop. Remember, the average computer user has a difficult time using their microwave, let alone a operating system as powerful as Linux.
I'm not saying that progress hasn't been made, or that it can't happen. Linux just still isn't "there" yet for the vast majority of computer users.
If you installed the OEM disk made for your computer, maybe.
My Microtek Scanmaker 4850 USB flatbed scanner works on Microsoft Windows 2000 because I installed the Windows driver that came on a CD in the box with the scanner. The CD had no Linux driver, and SANE still lists the scanner as unsupported.
I can't be all the consumers, only myself, so I listed what 'I' would want out of what Linux has:
Less licensing muck (counting copies, reg keys, EULAs)
Affordable
No pre-loaded marketing crap (no AOL, no preloaded AV tie-ins, etc.)
A feature rich desktop environment (KDE)
Advanced application deployment environments (i.e. web apps)
Solid security
Time proven multi-user environment (from desktop userspaces to LTSP, its all there)
A truly creative environment
- Inkscape
- Gimp
- Scribus
- 3D
- Video
- Audio (audacity, Rose Garden, etc.)
Access to lots of good example source code (learning/doing friendly environment)
No worms
No viruses
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
I just got done playing a session of [M-rated first-person shooter]. [Another M-rated first-person shooter] is nice.
What about E-rated games, and genres other than first-person shooters? Some families have school-age children who want to play computer games.
I play ET all the time.
I hope for your own sake that you don't mean this E.T. game through this emulator.
You fail to mention that almost every computer sold already has Microsoft's OS installed. Microsoft has used its monopoly to bully vendors into NOT offering preloaded Linux PCs.
An Linux does have several things that Windows does not. 1. Stability 2. A lack of viruses.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Have Ubuntu cough up the fee for MP3 licensing.
This is incompatible with a Free or even royalty-free distribution.
Get the USPTO to overturn the MP3 patent.
On what grounds? If there were any reasonable grounds to overturn the Fraunhofer patents, Groklaw readers would probably have known about them by now.
Allow software vendors to install Linux players with MP3 licensing.
This is already a possibility, but there are very few PC makers who preinstall Linux.
Improve the software download tool(the name has completely escaped me) to include functionality for non-free software.
This is already possible within the Debian APT structure, but who would take the fall if somebody sues the operator of the non-free server for patent infringement? On the other hand, if Wine were improved to the point where it could run Nullsoft Winamp, then Thomson would be going up against the mighty Time Warner.
If you buy John Doe's wirElessXtreme, he probably won't give you linux drivers. If you stick with cards that have some quality, you shouldn't have any issues.
What if one must stick to the cards built into the PCs that are donated to an individual (e.g. as a birthday or Christmas present) or to a non-profit organization (e.g. to a charity or a public school system) for budget reasons?
On most commercially available PowerPC or SPARC machines, you have support within Mac OS X or Solaris OS for all the hardware that came with your machine. No Free *n?x operating system running on a national brand x86 machine can make this claim.
You read this far into and post on Slashdot. Don't try to give anyone the idea that you have a life.
So what if they spend their time trying out something different? That's not really a lack of life as much as it is the desire to have more out of life. Yes, choice of OS can show something like that.
What kind of pathetic existance just accepts what's given to it? If people just followed what everyone told them to, we'd still all be following whatever religion and ideas our family forced upon us. Everyone would be the same, and life would not be a worthwhile experience.
"For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
Cost isn't an issue for most businesses, and the only other reason you can sight to switch is that it does less, but you don't need the extra features. That's pathetic. The author talks about people being irrational in wanting more features. I see no rational reason to switch from something that provides more features to something that provides less features just to save the equivalent of a couple of days pay per year. It's irrational to force people to use something they don't want just because you like it for irrational reasons. They must be irrational because you can't even list any.
folks are getting sick of the windows spy/mal/crap/key logger/ware.
;-)
my dad, who thinks computers are way to complex - even windows - asked me about installing linux on his home box. i will be doing that next time i visit him.
If I've said it once I've said it a 1000 times but I'll say it again, the gamer community by and large despises Windows for the long slew of obvious answers. That being said, we are attempting to push our machines as fast as possible while maintaing our graphics card budgets, simply put, Cedega makes us lose frame rates. I cry myself to sleep every night over the essential collapse of the OpenGL movement because it would have brought my two favorite things into a manage a trois (threesome) with me, that being Gaming and Linux. So I'm typing this on my windows box (gaming) but my heart is set on linux and some day (probably the day DRM or Vista goes live) I will leave the evil empire behind and make due with Cedega. I am one of a million gamers in the same situation, probably more, we use computers as much as the geekiest of geeks (I know, for I am twice a geek - linux/games) and consequently we, as a community, are just as tortured by Windows, but the cost of frame rates is too great to convert en masse - and that, is the single reason holding back possibly the biggest potential Linux conversion population in my estimate.
Help us Linus, your are only hope.
Make it cheap and easy to develop and run consumer applications on Linux, and then people will move. People (like myself) use Windows because it has the applications. Sure, you can have all the most used applications on Linux, but people want obscure shit. Good emulation of win32 is still the best hook Linux can ever hope to have.
Anecdotal. YMMV, and probably will. I hear this all the time from my windows friends (I am a boomer, assume middle aged non IT adults as my casual circle of friends, just regular joe and josephine sixpacks). They just plain don't want to change because they can't learn new stuff. They only know MS, and that barely. They don't know the difference between a browser and a computer or what a window manager is. None of that. Absolutely no freaking idea. Complete buzzword and acronym chaos to them. They really don't know what an operating system is. They are totally lost when it comes to doing anything "new". It was a struggle to get most of them to "try" firefox or mozilla. A few have, that's it. I have two friends to try linux. One got back to me said "it didn't do anything" I pressed for details, got nothing, just "nothing would work right". Another took a look at a live CD and didn't "get it". Their computer came with hard drive boot first in the BIOS, and I could not explain how to get it to change for them. I used the easiest simplest words I could. "On boot, press F1 or whichever it says to get into set up, and then..." Nada. tooooo scary.
Now, I really don't blame them, it IS too complicated to do all that it takes to actually fully use it, unless you have someone personally to sit down with each one and walk them through many hours of training. And a lot of patience.
If they have spent x-years "learning" a set of rote mechanical functions to navigate to the very few MS OS and apps menu entries they have been forced to use, then that's it, that's all they are interested in. MS stuff is so utterly wasteful of the human potential that it seems purposely designed by a psychologist to actually instill terror of change in people, it's like a zombie brane lock in. They get completely freaked out and lost if anything is different. About as far as they will go is install the ISP "helpful software" disk because it's handed to them to "get online with" when they get a new provider.
Linux is not going to get to this homeowner computer user guy until the current younger generation of mini linux guruites reaches mass pointy headed boss status and they insist on it, and the big vendors just stop forking around and slap pick out one stupid distro with one stupid DE and stick with it and start shipping it installed and preconfigured intelligently.
And they aren't going to do that any time soon so there ya go.
when/if/maybe it might change no idea. It's a cinch now though the way things are so utterly and completely and chaotically fragmented in linux and OSS land that it has reached a generic plateau on the home user desktop. 2-3 years ago I thought different, I thought there would be a little more consolidation and general build to cohesion,but I have changed my mind, I forgot the most important lesson, human egos. FOSS is the biggest case of NIMBY and reinventing the same round wheel evar. It is obvious it has stalled badly. Not development, tons of that, but any cohesion. This leads to lack of acceptance. Lthis leads to overly complex stuff. this has lead to eye candy "themes" over everything else. Nothing works together. it's 'close", but not the same.
Business might go just a shade faster, because they can insist on ONE WAY to do this or that in their own shop and really simplify things, but back at home games will rule roost along with a few packages like tax software, etc, so MS isn't going away. I expect to see 98se and XP "home" out there for many more years, and most of the upgrades will come from windows media type editions as new machines get bought. You just aren't going to see any major migrations until you crack the vendor/MS symbiosis in a big way, with multi million dollar advertising campaigns, and etc. I mean in a big way, and again, doubtful this will happen any time soon. You just plain won't see it.
3% or so TOPS linux home desktop market penetration for the next few years on the desktop. And I think that is being generous. 1% is more like it.
I think there are enough people who never use that feature but know there will be that one time they need it.
1. No true "killer app". So many of the great tools that originated on *nix have been ported to Windows. To an extent, many of the features of KDE have enticed people I've demo'd it to, but even KDE is making a migration to Windows.. The fact that these ports will run NATIVE on Windows (versus emulated Windows apps on Linux) is quite nice.
.. while I cringe at the fixes/troubleshooting ability of these self proclaimed Windows gurus, the fact that there is someone to call and _physically_ troubleshoot a computer is reassuring to _most_ people. While this is mostly a market percentage issue, the support network is huge for most people.
.. given the few pre-installed Linux choices available, assuming me and my friends did buy pre-installed Linux machines, the distro used has a high probability of being different. With a different distro, the GUI tools are generally different (or completely different interfaces!), the default apps are different, the file system might be different, etc.. needless to say, this fragments the support network very much. I can easily see hardware vendors only supporting a given distro (yikes!). Atleast with Windows, even if there is 7 different versions of Vista, the base system will be largely the same and buying different computers from different OEMs will still allow a support network to function.
2. No OEM commitment. It would be great to go to a tier-1 hardware vendor and get some _choice_ in various hardware categories (PCs, laptops, printers, multifunction devices, etc..) that were -certified- linux compatible (read: I can call someone and get support if I run into issues). The fact that it is difficult to determine hardware compatibility with a particular pre-built machine is rather aggervating.
3. No support network. "my buddy knows this guy who is a tech wiz.."
4. Windows-centric content. Need I say more? Sites requiring the latest flash plugin, media encoded in WMV and other Windows-centric formats, sites tested or requiring internet explorer, sites using shockwave, yada yada yada.. it sucks. It would be nice to see web devs only coding to standards and perhaps some nice good open standards for media encoding (yah i know, I am asking a LOT).
5. Lack of consistency
Having said that.. the thing thats nice about Linux and OSS in general is the lack of shareholder accountability. There is no need for Linux/OSS to meet quarterly obligations, meet profit expectations, etc.. Given this, it provides a HUGE advantage to the FOSS community to work on a much larger time schedule. Even if growth is at a much slower pace, every time someone new gets involved, the community becomes that much stronger and the very nature of FOSS allows that individual to build upon the work of others (instead of building from scratch). As a result, as a community, we can largely afford to wait. I personally think the advancements in desktop-centric distros and desktop use has already started to make Linux viable for niches and I truly expect to see a gradual increase in usage.
to get documents to match exactly,
you've got to have the same fonts,
or everything word-wraps different.
users complain there is no easy way
to get font-parity between the platforms,
and this screws up power-points and
word documents -- people won't for it
until these sorts of 'glitches' have been
worked out.
Yeah, I don't doubt that there is a way to get them to work. My main point was that they created a spreadsheet program that imitates Excel in almost every respect, including naming their functions the exact same thing. That would lead people to believe that typing in the functions and equations they know from Excel should work. Instead, they changed the syntax of the functions around for no reason I can tell except just to be different.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
I have long believed that Linux on the desktop is less a matter of feature parity than of education and technical support.
Here in Portland, we have a non-profit organization called Free Geek which provides both. They deploy refurbished computer systems with Debian and KDE. A huge number of them go to total computer newbies. Most of them love Linux.
Check it out...more organizations should be doing this stuff. And those who don't should take a look at how good education and tech support can impact usability.
Pete Forsyth
An airbag in a car is almost never used. But when it is needed, it better be there. Is the airbag an unnecessary requirement?
Similarly, 20% of the people use 80% of the features of MS Office. I work in a bank and i use Excel to the hilt. You wouldn;t have used half the features of MS Word like i do.
On the other hand 80% of the people use only 20% of the features. But they DO know that the remaining 80% is available when they need it: Like an airbag.
That is the prime reason why Linux Office is failing.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Let me just start off by saying that I have been using Linux as my main OS for about 2 years now.
... I am in a graduate business school (MSIS) in which there are classes that requires the use of Spreadsheets such as Excel. Excel has many features, and in particular it has Solver and TreePlan. There is a version of Solver within OpenOffice, however its not fully tested and seems a bit buggy. Some individuals can get it to work, however I can not. Solver is huge in developing decision models. And lastly, it would be nice if OpenOffice had TreePlan in it as well.
... if Linux was marketed to the world liks MS is, you can be sure that people would follow.
Now
I'm still sticking with Linux, but occasionally I need to have access to certain tools that is not available within Linux. It doesn't happen often and I fight it when it does happen. I should also mentioned that the whole debate of why Linux isn't used more is like the Chicken and the Egg. If there were tons of Linux users, you can be sure that commercial support and applications would follow. Or
What many of us fail to see - and I've only started to understand - is that people don't have reasons. They make up reasons. The only real reason is that people dislike change. Some are afraid, some just don't want to change their habits, some project bad past experiences with change, whatever.
But if you look closely, whenever you argue with a windos fanatic, you realize he's making it all up. "Word has that", "Word has this", "OpenOffice doesn't", "Firefox is", "Thunderbird can't" - it'll all strawmen.
What he's really saying is: "I don't want to change, for reasons of my own, and if you come at me all logical and argumentative, well I can play that game, too."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I think it is misrepresentation: most people blame OpenOffice for not having features that they actually care about, they don't blame about unused features.
Example: when my office assessed viability of OpenOffice vs MS Office + Wine, it came that OpenOffice has much less mature collaboration features and the exchange of precisely formatted documents with outside vendors may lead to ugly looks.
While the latter is solved by using PDF, the earlier made it impossible for us to use OpenOffice, because every paper we write must be reviewed and modified by many people.
PS Yet another story of headline news which is essentially disinformation by clueless journalist?
The problems are where people decide to give it a go on their current systems without even looking up what parts are in their current systems - a few minutes of looking up specs or reading the fine manual can save annoyance, agrovation, and annoying flames about linux/bsd/solaris/beos or whatever being a useless pile of whatever.
I myself have cursed what appeared to be bad drivers after spending weeks on and off with various SCSI options when the reality was that three of the four SDLT320 cartridges used to test the system were faulty. Sometimes computers are not easy things to set up.
It's technically correct AND looks good :-)
Where to start? This misunderstands software on so many levels. It's true that most people don't want clutter if you ask them. However. People want options. Programs with fewer features have fewer options. People don't vote for fewer options with their feet.
In fact people want options so badly that they will pay for them. It's one of the major reasons why people are prepared to pay money for new versions of software that they already have. They are even prepared to learn new things for the promise that newness brings a better future.
If you want people to switch, talk about how their options are greater, now and in the future. And back this up. Make sure that people don't lose any critical options in the switch. And I'm not just talking about straight features; it's more than that.
Options go even further; future options have value too. I trust that my Windows software will continue to work with future versions of Windows. Hell, even my DOS software still works. I don't use any of it any more, but I have the option to.
If I switched to Linux, here are some options I might lose:
What options would you lose?
What options would you gain?
Is the difference worth the pain?
For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features.
No, they aren't saying this. They're saying they want the specific features they use in Office. If you can't offer them those features, why should they switch? However, if I have to choose between having the features I need, and a slim app which has no "unnecessary features," I choose the app with the features I need...even if it has extra features I don't want/need.
Of course, this is ironic, considering how bloated and slow OO is. It's hardly a "slim" app, even though it is missing tons of features that MS Office has. The best solution is the firefox extension model, I believe.
At the moment, the main feature I miss in OO is the "text to columns" feature of Excel. There is some macro add-on which tries to fill this need, but it has always had problems, and such a useful feature of a spreadsheet ought to be standard, IMO. Data cubes are another big deal.
Users do not want every single feature of MS office. They want the ones they use. Until a reasonable subset of MSO's features is implemented, most users won't find in OO what they need. And until the entire group at one workplace find what they need, that entire workplace is unlikely to switch (standardization). This will be hard to overcome (especially as MS adds features), but that is the problem being faced.
I'd argue that OO isn't even "good enough" for most users (it is getting much closer). It certainly isn't "good enough" for power users. And finally, it's just too damn slow. So don't say we're being illogical when we reject OO for not having features we use every day. Every simple, remotely useful feature of MSO must be duplicated or you will never convince the average user to care about OO. Most businesses can afford to pay license fees to get these features, and they will do it until they don't have to anymore. And frankly, it's absolutely logical if those features make the employees even moderately more efficient.
-Dam
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
LOL if you can't get a HP LJII, which speaks raw Postscript and/or PCL, which is the bread and butter of printing on linux, and therefore is very much supported, then I think that the problem may just lie in that your an idiot.
I purchased used an old 2nd generation TI laster printer a while ago for $15. $10 later on ebay and I had enough toner to last several years. The printer speaks PCL and Postscript. My dad first attempted to use the thing on his windows machine. TI has absolutely no drivers on the site for it.
Plug it into a linux machine, 4 clicks and it's set up as a raw printer, and workign perfectly.
I can't believe that anybody can tell anything about the Linux desktop without reading the "ODSL Linux Desktop survey" (http://www.osdl.org/dtl/DTL_Survey_Report_Nov2005 .pdf) before! Else Jono Bacon would have known the first top inhibitor for the Linux desktop adoption is "Application support".
. html) how to possibly solve it.
Read the article at LXer (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/54009/index
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
Cups is a disaster. I have seen more than one linux user quit because they cannot print.
The point is that even though they only use 10% of those features, every person uses a different 10%. If you add it all up then 100% of the features are being used, somewhere.
The second point is that with Windows preinstalled on just about everything, there's no will to change. Changing is a proactive thing and most people view their PC in the same way as they view their TV set - a closed appliance.
Just yesterday I was helping somebody choose a laptop and they were convinced they needed 1GB RAM - all the 512Mb RAM machines were somehow "useless".
When I pointed to the 512Mb RAM modules on the shelf next to the laptops they were, like, "Oh! You mean you can put more in...!"
They went home with the machine they actually wanted/liked (but thought they couldn't buy) and saved money in the process.
That's ordinary folks for you, and no, Linux isn'tgoing to take over anything.
No sig today...
Linux desktop does not exist. No, it doesn't. There ARE a lot of distributions around that can give you a decent desktop experience. And I can believe it's actually a lot better coded than Windows, but that doesn't mean you can switch the average person just like that. I bet that out of any 10 users, you'd be lucky to be able to switch one, provided you're there to solve their problems.
...
If you really really want linux desktop to succeed, start ONE project with ONE distribution and ONE consistent GUI and make it easy to switch, make it at least as easy as XP, never mind Vista, and make conversion as painless as possible.
All other efforts are fine for large business, small geeky business or geeks and their friends provided geek likes to offer support.
I'm not saying you should do this, but you can't complain about users not switching "en masse" and at the same time disregard what the average user needs to feel comfortable. This article, while educational, doesn't address any of the real issues involved.
- work with windows documents without having to reformat the buggers, send windows users documents that don't go screwy
- plug and play
- get support from people who don't have to first find out what distro and windowing system and whatnot they use, and who don't totally change their setup because geeky support guy prefers it that way
- have similar user experience (not necessarily identical) as windows users
- not having to deal with all this source code and license stuff
And while dumbing down is part of the process, it's not about dumb users, it's about trouble free computing for those who aren't into their computer like you are. And it's about consistency, recogniseability (is that a word?), even appeal. And the feeling that you're using a great OS instead of a free but strange alternative.
OS X does all this to the extent that most mac users feel good about their computer, and that could make you realize three things:
1) you don't have to mimick windows, just take it into account to a very large extent.
2) you can't underestimate the effort involved.
3) even having great marketing and huge halos and stuff doesn't change the fact that some people need to run windows even if they don't want to.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Did you check compatibility/vendor support before purchasing their crippled hardware? Did you install the driver for the NVIDIA graphicsboard? Did you contact Alcatel to see if they fully supported their own hardware? Did you contact the makers of the Razer to see if they fully supported their own hardware? Did you contact Nvidia to see if they knew what went wrong with the NF4 board? Did you ask any Ubuntu representatives if they had a solution? Did you ask any Mandriva representatives if they had a solution? Just curious... What do you do if some part of your car breaks or doesn't start? Buy another one or contact a professional for advice? What do you do if some peripheral, piece of hardware or some application doesn't work in Windows or OSX? Switch operating system? To what? If you just give up immediately on every tiny obstacle with other things too you're probably a total looser.
No, vendors have to support their own hardware on multiple platforms and some people need to stop being so afraid of trying something new. Linux itself is already great and has been for several years. What's needed is better marketing, more mainstream apps/games and good quality vendor support.
My guess is that modem would give you grief on a mac as well. A quick google search showed a driver for OS 9.2 or something....anyway, does that mean macs or osx sucks? that it doesn't 'just work'? Not at all. I love my mac and it does 'just work'. When you choose to buy certain hardware and certain vendors that only support windows, you have simply restricted yourself. I also love Linux and as a consequence before I purchase hardware I make sure vendors or the open source community support the hardware with drivers before making my purchase. If you decide not to take the time to do this, then you have 'chosen' to lock yourself into windows. This doesn't mean Linux sucks. It just means your lack of choices do, and that's your own damn fault. =P
Did you -pay- for all of that software, or did you just load a copy? I know of very few people who have actually paid for every single instance of their applications, most people I know simply run illegal copies of commercial software, or rationalize loopholes that don't legally exist, so they can avoid paying the true cost of applications.
To me, free application software is the killer app.
You can complain about GIMP or Blender or whatever all day long, but if you haven't paid for every single instance of Photoshop that you are using, your complaint is not valid.
It isn't about the kernel (although that is nice), it isn't about the desktop (although KDE is certainly better than XP), it is the huge repository of free applications.
Commercial software companies know this, otherwise Adobe, for example, would go after crack sites as hard as they went after Skylarov.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
it's the usb modem you get free with most adsl providers. It also runs fine on osx.
Do a google search for Alcatel 330 on linux and you'll find a different story.
Well, almost, but you missed the main point: When I get a distro, I want it to do "normal" things right out of the box. For example, I want it to play DVDs, allow me to backup my disk to CD/DVD, etc.
My experience with Linux -- and I love Linux -- is that it just isn't there yet! For example, I spent 5 hours trying to burn FC4 iso images to CD on Sunday, and finally gave up. Complete BS. And I still can't play my DVDs on it, which is BS. Those who are not technophiles, like 90% of the users, just won't put up with this BS.
Now, before you start the flame wars, consider that Linux is 15 years old this year!!! Happy birthday, thanks Linus and all the developers, but it needs to finish that last 5-10% to grow up. And maybe this is the biggest hurdle for it. With Windows, you have one main force (Bill/Steve) driving it. Nothing is going in without their approval. Linux doesn't really have this control except for the kernel.MS is often verbally abused in this forum for microcontrolling user interfaces, but that control also buys increased usability.
In addition, there is a plethora of software used in professional settings (Framemaker, Photoshop, and inventory, personal ue and tax programs, that have not been ported to Linux, and may never be ported. This alone would force most users to run a dual system. The question that everyone has to ask is "why would I do that to myself?" IOW, what does Linux offer that is worth my buying and using it?! If there is no overwhelming reason, most will never bother with it -- unless the governments get involved. Ask whether you want the government to dictate what you use!
Despite the heading, i am a linux fan. But at the same time, it really frustrates me. Because i WANT to use linux, but i CAN'T. Because there's still too much that sucks. Drivers are a pain, though thats getting sorted, and preinstallation fixes that. But migration is a huge headache. I currently have 30GB of windows software on my laptop. Do i want to pay for linux versions of everything? are there even linux versions of everything? the answer is, of course, no. Now you can argue that it's sofware maker's fault for not making linux versions. That's true, but it doesn't make the problem go away. .deb of the dev's website. But... how on earth do i install it. No, i refuse to use command line. And after half an hour, i find a solution. It's a glorified shell script, supported by a lone developer on a backwater website.
But it's also the niggling things. I see many article explaining how the problems people point out arent actually problems. But i don't see enough articles on how to get linux devs to fix some of the obvious failings of their OS. Take package managment.
What follows is a real experiance of software installing, expressed through satirical internal monologu:
Ooo look, i have apt. But its command line, and i hate command line on a matter of principal. But yay, here come synaptic. That's nice, although the search doesn't come up with the program i want... Aha, found the
It's ridiculous, this is basic functionality, a GUI for DPKG should have been an integral part of GNOME for years, but it's just not there. Instead we see shiny stuff thats only appreciated be developers. I'm not a devloper, i'm a power user/artist/gamer/student. I think my type pushes computers the furthest. Sure some people need more power, but they're just doing one thing. I need speed, i do everything with a single, powerful laptop. My word processor must be slick, Photoshop must run like a dream, Games must run over 60fps. I want things to be easily configurable, i want to be able to throw away every manual, and i want it to look good. Currently windows is the best platform to do all of this. Mac's do most things better, but still lack software support (and are too expensive. I'm a student dammit)
Oh, and a final point: gaming on Linux sucks. Period. Don't point me to "Tux Racer", cus i'll shoot you for thinking that that will satisfy me when i say "i want games". Or maybe i'll just show you a REAL game and your head will explode out of amazement.
Do you see my point though?
Not really, considering I've had all those kinds of problems and worse with Windows. A Windows install CD won't even boot on my (Intel) FreeBSD server - DOS-based ones crash during install, NT-based ones just hang on boot - FreeBSD, Linux and OpenBSD work just fine. Windows just fails to work entirely on my iBook, Linux works just fine. Windows fails to rip some of my CDs, the same CDs rip just fine with cdparanoia under Linux. Windows can't read any of my filesystems - NFS clients are crappy third-party things and it won't even try with ReiserFS.
It is also a myth that winmodems are totally non-functional under Linux, just because there is the prefix "win", and people think only Windows can deal with win-stuff. A winmodem is simply a modem that has almost no hardware and relies on the driver/CPU to do most of the work. Such a driver can be made for Linux.
I switched my sister to Linux last month, and she is on dial-up, with a Conexant winmodem. I found a Linux driver for the modem, and she can now happily dial her way to the net.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
I've installed linux as desktop many PC computers.I figured out that people don't have problems with fuctionality -AT ALL but with look and feel of linux apps. People just want their apps to blink and shine ! They need visual setisfaction above all !!! There are some ppl that already care for the look and feel (k3b,Amarok,d4x,GNOME and KDE...). I like simplicity of linux software (they feed us with comercials evrywhere), but my girlfriend or my sister... Just take a look at installers on Windows.Developers spend a lot of time and money to aproach this way to people !! Over the years as linux desktop user I got this feeling that people in this comunity love simplicity above all "GUI -why the hell do you need that..".But first time avarage user just MUST be impressed! People should recognize that application and REMEMBER it. Logos nice special icons and similar make applications unique. For example gedit. They have realy nice logo in their About menu...but I just recently discovered it.Then let's take for example NVU editor. I noticed their logo on the top and imediatly remembered it. Simple eye candy makes the whole difference to some people. I'd love to turn that thing off later but.. :)) Fact is that logos tell "avarage user" that app is not in developing process any more but it is a finished product that can compete. I know you'll think what about themes that you can change inside of KDE or GNOME but that's not enough I guess. So my advice show your GUI's to your girlfriends and let them judge them, make research and get the feedbacks from ppl. You don't need themes for simple apps just that special eye candy.. With this simple aproach, open document standards and working graphic, printer drivers there would be much more then 0.5% Linux users.
Have fun playing wit Gimp ! By the way sory for my english :)
Well that wasn't really my point...sigh
Heh. Back in 1994, I read somewhere in alt.games.doom that the Linux port of Doom ran 2 million times faster under Linux than under DOS. I was so stoked, I had to get in on that action, even if it meant learning a whole new OS!
Long story short, Linux Doom loaded about 10 times faster, but the runtime performance seemed about the same. aww. Well, after spending so many hours getting Slackware up and running, I wasn't about to just wipe it away, and I also just heard about this supposedly "cool" program called NCSA Mosaic... =)
I wound up using Linux almost exclusively up until 2002.
The main reason I find that Linux hasn't gained ground in the desktop arena is due to complexity in installing apps. With Windows, installing an application doesn't take a degree in programming. I love the cost and stability of Linux, but I hate when I have to install an app that was written without an installation routine. I am comfortable editing text files and copying files manually, but the masses are lucky to get an autostarting Windows app installed without tech support. There is no way they will feel at ease editing a text file or manually creating directories. Until there are applications that all install in a similar manner and have the same look and feel, I think it is going to be hard for Linux desktops to gain ground. As for the previous comment about Open Office, I don't think most users would mind switching to Open Office. I have switched some of our Windows based users to it with very little backlash. People use MS Works and other programs that ship for free and are content with them. For the most part I find Open Office to work as well as Microsoft Office. I have defaulted their document types to be .doc, .xls, .ppt and they trade files wih our full Office clients with no problems.
I thought of a simpiler way to explain my point...
If you bought OSX and it didn't run on your machine would you be surprised? Probably not right? That's because OSX isn't designed for any ole hardware. You know that, and you accept that. Well either is Linux. (or Windows for that matter.) All three operating systems are setup to run on a clearly defined set of hardware. Heck, Windows 2000 + doesn't support many items of old hardware that were clearly supported in earlier versions like Windows 95 and Windows 98. Why? Because they haven't release new drivers for the old hardware. In otherwords, Windows won't support hardware it was not designed to support. Well, either will Linux. If you buy hardware that stated definatively that it runs on RedHat Enterprise Linux 3.0/x86 and then it doesn't, then you have a legit beef. Linux may be versitile, even magical, but its not the amazing Kreskin.
If your point is that your ADSL company only supplies this hardware, I would complain to them. Or if possible, use the network port instead of usb. I've been using Linux with broadband at home for almost 10 years now. Sure I can't run Qwests fancy software, or Comcasts registry clogging bloatware, but is that really a bad thing? =-]
ITYM "let the corporations spoon feed THEM." Look, nobody led me to Linux, I sought it out. I did it myself with nothing but the Hacker's Dictionary and Neal Stephenson's "In the Beginning was the Command Line" to guide me. I didn't have to call a 1-800 number off the TV set and have two Linux missionaries come over and witness at me. Had somebody tried to drag me kicking and screaming to Linux, I probably would have avoided it. What is so hard to understand, here? Linux is as free to download and burn for anybody else as it is for me. There is documentation available. That's all anybody needs to get Linux, and to try to do more is stoooopid, because you can't make people who refuse to change change.
Actually, it offers everything that WinXP and OS X offer too, including subpixel antialiasing for digital LCDs (a.k.a. ClearType, CoolType, what-have-you). I have this enabled on my Gentoo desktop box and with TTF 'corefonts' installed, it looks every bit as good as my OS X typography, and better than XP with ClearType enabled! It's so good, in fact, that I almost prefer reading on the Linux machine to anything else (also I'm a typographer).
you had me at #!
... Yeah, it can open them and save to it, but people don't want to have the hassle of selecting .doc when saving (yes, people are that lazy)