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."
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.
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
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.
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.
when windows 3.1 was new, there was a saying that was going around. What sells windows? Three things; applications, applications, applications.
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.
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/This "out of the box" argument has always confused me. Especially in light of the fact that the original poster was talking about absolute availability of drivers, not just whether it ships in the box.
There are a lot of devices out there without ANY Linux drivers, such as recent ATI video cards, various wireless chipsets (and NDISWrappers is only a partial solution to some of them, especially if you need to do more advanced things like netstumbler), etc.. that's not even counting the stuff like the USB video encoders and the like.
This whole "out of the box" argument seems to be a smokescreen put up by people that don't want to argue about absolute driver availability.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
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
...so I am as pro-open-source as the next person.
It's just not easy "enough" to switch, yet.
I'm not bloody interested in "getting by." I want my documents to look good, and I want it to be easy.
You can bloody well "get by" with a 56k modem, what's this broadband nonsense? I hope your monitor is monochrome, mister "getting by". In fact, what are you doing on a computer? People "got by" for a jillion years without one.
Oh, I get it, sometimes "getting by" isn't good enough.
And my captcha is "misleads" - ironic, wot?
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'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. --
When my shop has a bunch of extra Spark Laptops lying around that I would have to upgrade to XP, I'll take that as a valid rebuttal. Until then, I've got a bunch of Dell equipment which runs XP just fine, and would have gods know what problems switching to Linux. Yes, the driver issue is the fault of the hardware manufacturers. It's still a problem.
As for 64-bit, can someone give me a good reason to have this on a machine who's primary purpose is to be an over-glorified typewritter? On a developer machine I can see it, but on an office machine, it's overkill.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Are you serious? You can't be serious.
"Mom? You can't open Microsoft Office documents? Well that's the great thing about Linux! You can just write your own Microsoft Office clone yourself!"
Your first argument also implies that it's impossible to make new software or create drivers for Windows, which is obviously wrong.
That's a terrible selling point for Linux unless your a bearded geek, like yours truly.
Then if you start blathering on about Free vs. free you'll just sound like a nut. Nobody outside of the slashdot crowd cares. I could spend hours on these points with my mom, sister, boss, friends, etc and they all wouldn't care one bit. They use Microsoft Windows and all the proprietary locked-down software that entails and think it all works just fine. To them a computer is a tool, not a philosophy.
If you still have a crowd (that isn't from the local insane asylum) left and you launch into some tirade about software patents, the RIAA, George Bush, et al. then you'll quickly lose that crowd or be beat up by Bush supporters.
When you're all done with your "certified guaranteed Linux switching formula" you'll have all of yourself around to switch to Linux.
This is not a war. This is not some battle to be won. Microsoft Windows is just another choice, like KDE is to Gnome. You may not like that choice, but it is there for people to make. If I'm not mistaken, choice is one of the beliefs of all us open source nutties. Unless I'm mistaken, that choice extends to OS as well.
But here we have a problem. Sissy or no, the average computer user doesn't want to have to surf websites or go to chat rooms to get their computer going. The topic isn't why geeks don't use linux, it's why the average user doesn't use linux. The average user just Wants It To Work. I may not mind spending a few hours getting things working. Hey, I'll coming out knowing even more about the system so it can even be fun! But this isn't the mindset of your average user who wants to get things going so he can go play minesweeper. That said, I'm often impressed at how far Linux has moved in the way of Making Things Just Working. Xorg is a great example. I will never, ever miss the days of having to do a detailed config by hand. On the whole Linux hardware support have seen these sorts of improvements, but there's still work to be done. Don't blame the average computer user for being an average computer user. It's up to us computer geeks, who actually like this stuff, to put together a system that will consistently work well for Dad who just wants an easy way to burn to dvd a camcorder video of his kid hitting a home run.
I love my sig.