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."
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.
Um...learn to read? "I couldn't get my non-winmodem or sound card to work" It's NOT a winmodem.
If you just want to take a peek at the current state of Linux, I'd recommend going with a live-cd or dvd distribution like Knoppix or Gnoppix (I'm not putting a link so it will hopefully moderate them getting slashdotted...).
It's not perfect but the combination of a boot DVD and USB thumb drive is pretty cool. You can pop the thumb drive in the usb and boot from the DVD on different computers, yet have the same environment and all your files, settings, etc.
I wouldn't try setting up a dual boot until AFTER I was sure I thought the state of Linux was such that I wanted to risk toasting my current OS.
I have had both good luck and bad over the years creating dual-boots... any where from "no sweat" to "no working OS". Live media distros alleviate that since they don't harm the existing installed OS(es).
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
Interesting. I built an XP vanilla box over the weekend, and it took about 15 minutes to get the sound card working. (went to the manufacturer's site, downloaded the driver, double-click, install, done).
Oh, but nevermind. As previously mentioned, XP "sucks out of the box" for drivers.
Frammin' on the jim-jam, frippin' at the krotz!
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.
How many digital and video cameras can you plug into a Linux box and have them work right away, WITHOUT having to install extra software which may not exist?
So you don't have to install extra software on a Windows machine to get your digital camera to work? With Linux, I install "gtkam" (an included package in many distributions). I DON'T have to install extra software.
Once the pictures or videos have somehow gotten into the computer, can I edit them?
Yes. Photo editing software is quite good on Linux (Gimp). Video editing is not yet very good however, you have a point there.
Can I plug in a Windows formatted USB or Firewire drive and read/write data?
Yes.
How many printers work with Linux where the system recognizes the printer when I plug it in and asks if I want to use this as my default printer?
Yeah, setting up printers is not that easy in Linux. If the hardware manufacturers wanted to support Linux the same way they want to support Windows and/or Mac OS, this would cease to be a problem.
What advantage does Linux have if these things cannot be done without having a geek license?
It's a hell of a lot cheaper, it's easier to install new software (with Debian apt), and there are free equivalents to most expensive applications, all downloadable and installable in the same way. It's pure heaven compared to having to drive down to Best Buy, or pull out your credit card and enter it online whenever you need another software tool, and fighting with each tool to get it installed, only to find out a couple years later that you have to pay for it again to keep it running.
All in all, Linux is a pretty decent desktop environment, superb for thise with above average technical skills, and those with a limited budget - and frustrating to those that don't want to change, or have oddball hardware that they're emotionally or financially attached to. It has its flaws to be sure, but it's not the "geek only" system you make it out to be.