Slashdot Mirror
Can Ordinary PC Users Ditch Windows for Linux?
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Mark Golden, a reporter for Dow Jones Newswires, tried to switch from Windows to Linux, and found it too complex for his liking. He writes: 'For me, though, using the Linux systems didn't make sense. I often send documents and spreadsheets between my home PC and the one at work, which uses Microsoft Office. And the files are sometimes complex. Meanwhile, for both personal and professional computer use, I want access to all multimedia functions. While solutions may exist to almost every problem I encountered, I was willing to invest only a limited amount of time as a system administrator. Claims by some Linux publishers that anybody can easily switch to Linux from Windows seem totally oversold.'"
I just ran the Ubuntu live CD which didn't want to give me a higher screen resolution than 1024 by 768 and didn't get the network running. :-( Such things really need to be resolved, because even if _I_, in discussion with others, would be able to resolve all problems, my grandparents surely wouldn't.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Did this man do any searches for Linux on Vaios? A lot of laptops have special sites out there that aim to make the transition easy for users
Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't try Mandrake/Mandriva for his laptop. I found that one to be the most friendly for my Dell back in college but perhaps things have changed? I think the users just have to have the patience to go out there and find the multimedia programs. They do exist, you know. I don't think that these claims have been made. I've seen publishers encourage it but I haven't seen a marketing push to claim anyone can do it. Some people don't want to climb more than one learning curve in their life. Those are the people that can't make the switch.
My work here is dung.
The person couldn't be bothered learning how to use another system after investing a large amount of time in Windows. I see it all the time. But perhaps what most gets me down is the fact that I go to my local Uni and see overseas students who have had little experience with a computer who say that they struggled harder with Windows than they did with learning Linux and both systems took the same amount of time to learn.
This only proves that those who can't make the switch perhaps can't be bothered or just plain can't do it. And if I had an employee in either camp, I'd send them packing. Not being bothered isn't a legit excuse and not being able to do something just means more training or they are incapable of doing their job - which really isn't the problem for the majority of people, which leaves us with the fact they can't be bothered.
Lazy user syndrome.
I always wondered where this setting was...
The question came up when I decided that my six-year-old version of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system had to be replaced.
Stupid. Why did it have to be replaced? Hmmmn, I guess his story needed a setup!
Anyway, the review was reasonable - summary: linux is fine if you just want to surf & email, but no good if you need to interoperate with Microsoft Office users (particularly complicated documents) or use a good deal of multimedia.
The second issue is somewhere that the linux community really need to be paying attention to at the moment.
There is no technical problem here, the problem is software patents. Everyone needs to:
1) Attempt to revoke (or prevent coming into existance) patent laws, through writing to your lawmakers / voting / grassroots activism.
2) Write to companies with software patent portfolios that you're going to boycott their products & agitate for your community to do the same.
Multimedia support is a huge gaping hole in the linux desktop - we need non-technical action to fix it (and this is something all the non-programmers who want to help out can do.)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
While it is true that some multi-media content is a PITA on Linux, this is hardly the fault of open source but more a symptom of a lack of usable standards in the industry.
I have been using Linux exclusively as my desktop, and when I have to use Windows I feel I am in a prison cell. Things that are easy in Linux are painfully difficult in Windows, and things that are easy in Windows, can often be difficult on Linux.
However, articles never focus on the difficulties of Windows, only the problems with the easy things on Windows being difficult on Linux. Why not take all the time users spend updating McAffee and other anti-virus software and learn Linux? Why not take the time users have to reboot, and learn Linux. And so on.
From TFA:
"Meanwhile, for both personal and professional computer use, I want access to all multimedia functions. While solutions may exist to almost every problem I encountered, I was willing to invest only a limited amount of time as a system administrator."
And therein lies the real problem. Its not that you can't get these things working--and its not that they aren't fairly easy to get working (My Ubuntu desktop took about 5 minutes to get all multimedia enabled to play on it with very little knowledge of Ubuntu, Synaptic, or the apt system)--to be 100% fair, this is a whole lot easier than scouring the internet for random, obscure codecs that people like to use. So how is it "too difficult?"
Simply put, the issue is not one of how much administration time people are willing to put in; its about the fact that under windows, they've forgotten about the administration tasks they've either a) already done or b) done so many times on new machines that they just don't notice it and its just become part of the routine for them. It's about not wanting to learn how to do it differently when they already know how to make it work one way. It's back to the original premise as to WHY users don't want to switch from windows to *nix--its not that the system is harder; its just different.
With the exception of there being more "off the shelf software available" I've found that Windows users also flounder if you stick them in front of OSX. Does that mean OSX is difficult to use or immature? Of course not, but it is definitely different than windows and there's a non-trivial learning curve before you start to feel comfortable.
Cheers,
Linux is not a drop-in windows replacement. It is not supposed to work like windows.
It is not supposed to route around basic, essential knowledge required to operate a computer like windows does.
Also the claim that anybody can switch from Linux to windows is true. But I don't think it means what you think it means. It doesn't mean that you don't have to "unlearn" the windows way of doing things or that you're not required to learn how to operate Linux properly.
"While solutions may exist to almost every problem I encountered, I was willing to invest only a limited amount of time as a system administrator."
Dear journalist, please continue using your tricicle then on your way to work, because obviously a car requires more expertise and attention. Obviously it is not ready for most people.
P.S.: I talk about Linux, where I obviously mean some distribution of Linux. Also the car analogy is flawed as I spend much less time administrating my debian desktop I'm writing this post from as I'd spend with fighting windows to do what I want. This installation is over 4 years old and absolutely tweaked for my needs.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
"I wonder how much more time he will be willing to spend admining his box once it is rooted by malware and his bank accounts are periodically cleaned out?" The funny thing is, as an intelligent Windows user, I've never had that happen. I tried Ubuntu, Mandriva and Knoppix (install from live CD) and none of them wanted to get my Dell XPS 400's network working right. Also, none of them configured x properly for my PCIe 6800. For reason's like that, I gave up on Linux. I had ubuntu working fine on my 1 Ghz Compaq Armada. However it took ~5 minutes to boot. My Dell boots in 30 seconds and returns from hibernate in 10 seconds. I know that has a lot to do with hardware (7200 rpm sata hdd vs 4200 rpm laptop drive) however it also has a lot to do with the OSes respectivly. I can't have 5 minute booting times on a laptop which is turned on and off 10 times a day. The desktop isn't such a problem as I leave it on for weeks on end. But it's the Dell desktop that I couldn't get working right. On a side note: I guess that's what I get for buying a Dell.
For readers of Slashdot, using Linux probably seems a trivial task. But for the millions of PC users out there who have been using Windows for years, switching to Linux is a serious investment in time and learning. Put simply, in Windows, everything works out of the box in 99.999% of the cases. In the case of Linux, there is *always* some modicum of configuration needed. There's no distro of Linux I know of that plays DVDs and MP3s out of the box, simply due to the licensing issues that Windows has covered. And *everyone* listens to music on their PC, right? (I know, I know, Windows doesn't play DVDs either. But it's a lot easier to set that up in Windows.)
Once a company steps up and licenses some software, and puts together a commercial distro of Linux that works out of the box in the same ballpark as Windows, then it will have a fighting chance at winning people over. Then the only problems will be the cost - because it won't be Free Software - and convincing people that they need to learn a completely new GUI.
Best of luck.
Most ordinary PC users might be able to install some Linux distro or another. That's not even the issue. Why should they? More than that, I believe that ordinary PC users don't know anything about Linux other than it exists. Sure, it's great, it can do anything a PC can do only free, but there's no really good reason to switch if their computers are working right now.
A non-geek friend of mine just bought a new laptop. We (me and another geek) were sitting around helping her install the latest windows updates, and talking about how she should try Linux, since both of us used it regularly on our personal computers. Finally she asked us, "Do I need Linux?" and both of us realized that neither of us wanted to be Linux admins for her so we said no. There was no real benefit to her switching, and quite a few drawbacks since she likes to keep current on Flash cartoons and movies.
So she knew about Linux before we talked to her, but she didn't really know why she'd need it. There was no motivating factor to switch. If a person isn't motivated to do it themself, few people will really want to do it for them. It would get annoying pretty fast, all those phone calls when wifi or email stops working mysteriously, or they can't watch some movie clip.
steampunk web design
Linux is not windows.
These "problems" are our _features_.
The problem is user mentality expecting things to work like on windows. The hard thing is getting rid of that mentality.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Please don't get me wrong; I really like Linux - and had some years of working with unix systems before I tried it, but I too was surprised how much trouble I had getting some things set up; considering the marketing I was being given on its ease.
I've got a Linux network at home, and I have no plans to dump it; but I know several people who have computers and are considering an upgrade. As much as I'd love to recommend Linux, for reasons of principle as well as practicality (they don't have a lot of money to throw around), I simply can't. They're not up to the job of handling the OS.
That may not be the market that Linux is after; I don't know, but I agree with the author's conclusion (whose emphasis was removed in the summary): "Claims by some Linux publishers that anybody can easily switch to Linux from Windows seem totally oversold.:
Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
Joe Normal User tries to get on his wireless LAN with this cool new Fedora Core system he found and wanted to try. Sure it loaded up fine onto his system; the installer was intuitive and straight-forward. However, he has no internet. He plugs in his CAT5 and the problem fixed. But that sucks. He bought the wireless router so he could do away with that ugly red cable that snakes across the living room and pisses off his wife. Oh well, he'll keep going, he's curious.
What is this about no mp3's without setting up yum and grabbing the needed stuff? Okay, Joe Normal User has read up on yum and yum.conf and struggled through getting it setup after searching the forums and jumping on IRC (Joe is happy about an IRC client coming standard). He finds the repository he needed (and writes down the steps he went through for later reference) and types "yum install blehbleh". He thinks the typing is quaint and makes him feel like a hacker. Cool, mp3s are working now. Joe is getting a sense of power from bending the computer to his will.
He excitedly tries to play a DVD. Nothing. Okay, hit the forums again. Damn...no DVD support. Something about media cartels and general nefariousness seem to be getting in his way but there seems to be a solution. He uses his newfound hacking skills and fires up yum again. He downloads some libraries with cool hacker-sounding names like 'libdethdvd3' and VLC, as well as MPlayer just in case. Cool! Now his test DVD title screen comes up....but DAMN, it freezes when play is pressed. MPlayer does nothing. He hits the forums again reads something about certain DVD's that don't play nice and something about evil media cartels again.
He decides he doesn't have time for this so he slicks the drive and re-installs Windows, then goes and makes love to his wife after apologizing about all the cables and how he is spending too much time in front of the computer.
others do it for free themselves
It's only free if your time is worthless.
Malware and virii may be an administrative nightmare, but i'd say the number of people who's bank account has been drained due to these applications is very very small. If even significant. And periodically? Please, stop with the sensationalism.
Even with a totally unprotected and lazily patched Windows box you're more likely to have your credit card or bank details stolen by more conventional methods.
Spam and email scams are a different matter, but as well all know that has nothing to do with what OS you use.
I love to tinker. I'm writing this on a Windows Laptop, but I'm also listening to some music playing on my Apple desktop, and this post flows through my home network where http proxies are running on my Linux server - which hosts my mail, proxy server, internet filter, backup drives, and probably about a dozen other services I'm forgetting at the moment. My point is that I probably don't qualify as one you would describe as a "lazy user."
Having made that disclaimer, most people buy computers to do a task, not to tinker. In fact, the reason I switched my desktops to Mac OS X from Linux (where I had been an almost exclusive linux desktop user for 6-7 years) was because what was possible on Linux was made easy under Mac OS X. I looked seriously at cinelerra and Kino and other tools for editing home movies, and decided that iMovie/iDVD was quite adequate to meet my needs. Does that make me lazy? No. It means that I wanted a tool for a particular purpose, and found one.
Windows *owns* the market. You want to "beat" them? Make the transition seamless and painless for the customer. It's like making a "better" car where the turn signal lever is mounted on the right by default. (You've got 300 other options available from the config file, too) Also, the clutch pedal is on the far left - about twice as far as in "regular" cars, and the shift lever is longer and includes the volume control for the stereo. You might make the argument that people would prefer these changes, and it's not hard to get used to them, or that they could "easily" modify the configuration to match the "inferior" standard car. Would that make people who are frustrated by these minor differences lazy?
I submit that it's this "insult the user" mindset on the part of the OS community that slows adoption of superior tools. People are not stupid - they also generally have no interest in becoming an auto mechanic or a PC mechanic. There's nothing wrong with you being an expert in lots of different configurations - that interests you. Good for you. Make the "better" product just like the original - only better, and people will want to follow in your footsteps.
As an example, I suggest to you Vim. It's pretty geeky, but look at what it did. It incorporated all of the fuctions that vi provided - exactly the same way that vi provides them, and ALSO provides about a zillion enhancements. People who switch back and forth find basic functions work exactly the same in either product, and enhanced functions are available when on the better product. Does that make Vim designers bad designers, or people who choose Vim stupid or lazy? I suggest not. Your mileage may vary.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
#1. After using the console for a short while, you quickly learn that many things are both faster and easier to do via the Command Line Interface. And running Gnome or KDE, when did you last HAVE to open a console? /proc or /dev, and can't because some people would rather never even be reminded that they exist at all. If you don't need it, don't use it. I don't use Internet Explorer, but I think you'd cry yourself to sleep were you deprived of using it simply because *I* don't like it.
#2. "The User". Who's that? I take pity on those users who actually DO want to use
#3. Yeah, and the Windows registry is as logical as it gets...
#4. There are exactly the same kinds of ownerships in Windows as there are in GNU/Linux. The only difference is that on GNU/Linux the ownership actually makes a difference.
Blog -
I tried Switching from Windows to Linux a while back. I ended up switch to OSX. OSX is what Linux should be, but unfortuantely never will be because too many OSS developers don't place enough importance on usability.
My 15-year-old daughter has been running Mandrake since she was ten. How hard can it be? ;-)
.doc format itself. It'll be interesting to see if Word *will* eventually support .odf documents.
Granted, some Word documents don't translate perfectly in OpenOffice, but I'm not sure that's so much a problem with OO as it is with the
And laptops are almost always a problem unto themselves, whether trying to load Linux *or* Windows. Try loading a "generic" copy of Windows, i.e., one that wasn't specfically made for your specific laptop...you'll have problems with it, too. Laptop hardware is often just too specialized to make for easy installs. That said, Linux improves by leaps and bounds with every release. The next release of Windows is due...when? 2009? I lost track...
I understand the author's reluctance to spend much time being a "system administrator," but, like I said, he would have likely been in for that when loading XP, too. OTOH, I've found that Linux installs on desktops are almost *always* easier and quicker than Windows installs. Far fewer reboots during the process, too. And Linux doesn't try to "phone home" during the installation, either.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Linux will not work for average users until a way is found to include some basic features that ship with both Windows and Mac OS X. Flash plug-ins for the browsers is one of those things. Many distro's include this if you buy their retail, or Pro versions, but most average users are either going to download the fully free versions, or get them from someone they know to try out.
Even if Flash and other multimedia components where auto installed as an update process, much like Nvidia drivers are with Suse and some others, that would be much better.
Recently I installed Ubuntu 5.10 to see what was up with it. In order to get Flash installed I had to use command line utilities*. When your average user gets to this, they will give up. Some might take the time to figure it out, but let's be honest, very few of them are going to keep going when they run into that with the next piece of software, and even less are going to learn the system better and become truly comfortable with it.
Many comments are already complaining about the fact that people like this are either stupid or lazy. People, this is the 21st friggen' century. We have had GUI based computing for a long time now. There is no reason to have to jump through command line hoops to install what is considered a basic necessity on the web, especially by average users.
I can already hear the clicking on moderators sending my into the troll or flamebait abyss. Go ahead, that doesn't change basic facts.
I myself have no problem doing this, but there are people that I work with / am friends with / are related to that I would really like to get off of Windows as they always are having problems. I can't recommend Linux until I know they will be calling me with real problems, not "how do I play this movie," or "why can't I see this web page?"
From what I have seen, especially in the past day or so, is that a lot of this comes from linux zealotry involving licensing. Just look at the recent Koraraa debacle. The maintainer isn't being asked to pull a live cd by either Linus, or ATI/Nvidia, but some random linux user concerned about 'the open source ideal.' That is one great way to keep this stuff out of people's hands.
I know many people that enjoy linux don't necessarily want it to take over. And that is fine, but referring to people that don't want to jump through hoops that this day and age should not be necessary as lazy/stupid just makes the people making those comments look bad.
* - Ubuntu doesn't ship with flash. And if you go to the Macromedia site linked to by any flash using page, the linux page seems to either be missing or incorrectly linked. The solution is to edit a file containing the repositories, then updating (its been a while and I don't use Ubuntu, apt I think?), and then attempting to get it to install. This is akin to asking your average Joe to fire up regedit, make changes, then fire up the dos prompt and run a few commands. Silly, absolutely silly.
Shawn's Tech Articles
After reading TFA, it seems that this was on the top of his list of "things to avoid doing."
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
I'm reading the comments here and this strikes me as missing the key point. Look at this user:
1) He is completely satisfied with windows he just wants a free OS.
2) His core app is Microsoft specific (office)
3) He wants to use windows specific multimedia
4) He doesn't care about any of the free software issues at all. For example he's fine with having his data locked up in proprietary formats.
Well yeah he'll like windows better. Why should he like Linux better? This article is just stupidly stating the obvious.
In that case he should probably avoid Windows as well...
;)
There aren't really any machines that "just work". Except possibly with MacOS in some cases... I dont run MS Office and don't do multimedia on my iBook so I can't really comment on that aspect. I did try connecting a webcam though. Yuk.
Linux may require a tad more learning (or more to the point, forgetting what you've learned and relearning new concepts), but afterwards IMO it at least makes sense. The little Windows tinkering I still do always leaves me baffled because I'm not sure there's any logic to the way that thing's been put together.
In the end though, just use what works for you, it's not as if anyone cares
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
As a guy who is doing the same thing he is, trying to drop Windows from my everyday computing, I feel his pain. While editing config files itself isn't too hard, knowing what config file to edit and when, and how to edit it is very difficult for a newbie.
:) But he is not anal retentive enough to get the mouse "just right" to manipulate the GUI. We had a bunch of text files that did not end in .txt, and it was too much of a pain to look at these files via "Open with..." or similar, so dropping to the commandline was easiest (and my preference anyway).
:), then Linux "if they know what they are doing".
I've been using Linux for about 12 years now, and I would NEVER give it to someone as an alternative to Windows.
Issues include. Difficulty installing software and hardware. Having to RTFM to do anything. Difficulty in viewing common formats like PDF (No, block characters and unreadable text is not sufficient even if the file does open). The GUI is still early 90s feel at best.
The past week, I've been using Gnome again on Linux via CentOS 4.3, and I can't recommend it to anyone. The person I am working with on this box is in his mid 50s and is a PhD in CS (although he knows nothing about computers
Lord forbid if you want to do something like watch a DVD or video clip. I haven't tried it yet, but I'm unsure if flash works (I hate flash, but people seem to like it, and expect it to work).
My bias for GUI is OS X (pre-10.4). It is reliable and intuitive and it "just works". Then I would tell someone else that if OS X was not an option, then use Windows (no support from me then
It took Apple about 15 years to get a decent OS underneath their GUI. It will probably take 10+ years for Linux to get a decent GUI on top of their excellent OS.
What a long strange trip its been...
The big mistake that people like this reporter make is that they expect to just "switch". They don't take into account that doing things in Linux isn't necessarily harder or more difficult it's just different. Usually these people are thinking "I'll just go to Linux" assuming their work process will still be exactly the same.
Well news flash: it doesn't work like that!
When I first switched to Linux I found it frustrating as hell. The same things I found initially complex are now overtly simple. And now that I've been exclusively using Linux for some time I actually find Windows difficult and frustrating to use!
The same goes for an "ordinary" person trying to switch to a mac. I worked in a public computer lab once that had a mac section and I often would take amusement in watching people's expressions as they sat down at the macs and attempted to use them. 99%+ of the people would eventually look some combination of mad / funny / confused / curious, but eventually most of em would get up and walk to a Windows machine.
Is a mac any harder to use? No, of course not. It's all about what you're used to. When you switch to a system that works differently you NEED to be prepared to invest time into learning the new system.
It'd be like buying a new car that doesn't use pedals, guages, and a wheel for controls but rather something alien like maybe sliders, joysticks, and audible tones or something. They both accomplish the same task, and yes some people are better suited to one configuration over another, but generally speaking it's just a matter of training your brain to think in the new way.
Ever tried converting someone who's not very computer savvy to Linux? I have, and generally they love it and catch on right away. Because it's all new to them anyway... whether they sit down at a Windows machine, Mac, Linux, whatever they're in for some learning... they don't have the barrier of expectations bringing them down.
So are we there yet? I say yes. And we have been for some time. People just can't expect to "switch" and not invest in a serious amount of relearning. If it didn't take a lot of time it wouldn't be a different system and therefore it wouldn't be worth switching to!
Interesting... I was under the impression that even Windows XP couldn't play DVDs until you installed something from a CD when you get your DVDROM drive.
That was the case with me, anyway...
The statement in my message subject will surely rub some Linux and Mac faithful the wrong way ... but I don't see how a logical pesonal can deny it. I'm primarily a Mac user myself these days, but use quite a bit of Windows between my PC at work and the occasional use of an Athlon 64 at home (mainly for gaming these days), and I deal with Linux here and there too. (I built my own MythTV box, and our proxy server at work is a Linux-based system I set up with Dansguardian, etc.)
In my opinion, every OS has its good and bad. Just as a good mechanic won't try to get all of his work done with only one tool, a good systems administrator or smart consumer won't assume that there's only one OS that meets *all* of his needs.
But that being said, "majority rules" when you're talking about computer training and the average user's knowledge of computer usage. Windows has so much market-share, it's the platform someone has experience with 9 times out of 10, if you pick a random person who claims some computer literacy and ask them what they're familiar with.
For this reason, Apple is smart to embrace as many Windows technologies as they can (things like Active Directory and Microsoft's networking protocols via Samba), and to keep the basics of the GUI somewhat similar to Windows.
I think part of the Linux community realizes this too, of course. (Heck - look at the Windows look-likes they've grafted on top of the X Windowing environment!) But at the end of the day, the "out of the box" experience for users trying to get the OS to recognize and properly use all of their hardware is key.
Mac users are generally very pleased with OS X because it all "just works" from the time they power on their new Macs. Windows, these days, gives largely the same initial experience. You bring home your new Dell or HP, power it on, and XP starts right up - properly using all of your devices. Linux, however, is usually lacking in this area. You can't often buy systems pre-loaded with a Linux distro that's pre-configured to find everything on the machine and use it 100% properly. But even if you do, you might get stuck as soon as you add another devices. (EG. Throw your new USB scanner into the mix, and will Linux auto-detect it and use it "plug and play"? Possibly... but how do you make it work? Do practically all of your applications have a "Scan" selection on their pull-down menus that automatically realizes your new scanner is installed? In OS X or XP, yes, they would.)
The Idiot box is the Television set, okay?
i re
all you want - call it Linux for People...Linux for idiots...call it
what you want.
You place the user in front of a TV, the user turns it on
and watches TV for hours, just like the average Joe out there.
What's that got to do with Linux you might ask?
Answer: Everything! Windows = Idiotbox, it works, it has got excactly what the neighbours got. Mr. Johansen the worker bee knows it and so does his beer drinking buddy Mr. Svanson.
Svanson and Johansen are good friends, they exchange DVD's and when Johansen bought a game for his kid - naturally...Svansons kid gets a copy.
When Johansen is online doing some home-banking, he's expected to use Internet-Explorer by the bank (god knows why..but just humor me) it works!
Svanson got the idea that Linux must be all the rage because he heard someone using it somewhere and he got a free cd, he lost all his data being the average schmoe he is...and forgot to back up. Oh well.. he's in Linuxland now and all's well.
Johansen! This is Svanson here, guess what? I've installed Linux! Johansen doesnt really give a sh*t but being Svansons beer-buddy he hops on over to share some DVD's. What the H*ll? The DVD isn't playing. Whats this? Linux? Yeah...it needs some sort of DeeeeCeesssS something... (gulping beer).. What? You nerding now? F*ck this.. I've got better things to do Saturday night, remove that crap and lets see some movies.
Now... this was just an example, take it from me - I've been using Linux for over 8 years now (10 maybe)... and I've only got Linux installed on ALL my computer. But it has taken quite some years and quite some HAIR-pulling to get anything to do what I want for my creature comforts...mp3 support, DVD region-free playbacks, Nvidia-3D gaming, Audigy-2 support, Obscure-web-cams, IN-Sane scanners etc.... not to mention the night that it took to get the new WIDE-Screen 1680-1050 up and running with editing etc/X11/xorg.conf with an entirely new modeline with numbers enough to scare the bajezuz outta "Svanson".
And you know what? Slashdotters had the very same discussion 5 years ago - and probably will the next 5....and...5...and...5 and so on.
Because Linux will NEVER be for the ORDINARY MAN - ever!
You can candy-wrap Ubuntu-PCLinux,LinSpire,WinSpire,GIN-and-tonic-Sp
Linux is TOO radically different from the "Average-Joe-mindset".
In Linux you're expected to do stuff by THINKING...and no matter
how SMART you and I make the systems.... won't help Poor Svanson.
My point is essentially this: If you make Linux the Idiot-Box
Linux won't be Linux anymore, you've cloned Windows.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
I had to explain to a client earlier this week that to backup a windows XP installation. First they had to find the original install medium and install the Microsoft XP backup software from the ValueAdd folder. Then they had to right-click on a drive, get properties, flip to a "tools" tab, and trigger the backup script from there. The full backup requires, of course, a Floppy Disk, because everyone has one of those. But partial backups were possible without one.
XP is by no means well laid-out. Want to hide extensions of known file types? That's in Control Panels -> Folders. Want to change the default folder view style? Nope, different place. That's under Tools -> Folder Options. Want to share a folder? Another different place. Try right click -> Sharing and security. Want to change what launches on startup? That's Start Menu -> Programs -> Startup Folder. Unless it's Start->Control Panels -> Administrative Tools -> Services. Or Run -> Msconfig -> Startup. How intuitive is it to launch the program manager by right-clicking on the taskbar? You even find the occasional command that ONLY exists in the "optional" hot bar to the left of the folders. Want to update your modem's driver? It isn't the modem control panel, it's System -> Device Manager -> Network Adapters -> Your Modem -> Driver. Mail app died and need to access your real profile folder? Try C:\Documents and Settings\Username\Application Data(invisible)\maybe company or app name\maybe profile? or try C:\Documents and Settings\DefaultUser\Application Data(invisible)\Microsoft\ Or AllUsers\Local Settings\Application Data. Or maybe it's in the Program Files\CompanyName\AppName\Profiles. Or the Windows folder.
Want to delete MS Messenger? Want to get the annoying HP software to not crash on reboot every single fricking time?
I'm not saying Linux isn't a sewer for usability. It isn't a desktop OS at heart, or at the core of development. I'm just saying that XP is passably usable to people simply because it's the sewer that they learned the layout of first.
The ______ Agenda
I agree with the comments I've read so far, but that's because I'm a Linux user. It took me a while to learn Linux, and being a CS major certainly helped. (It also took me a while to learn Windows, it's just that I've been using it since th '90s.)
But the value of TFA is that it shows us an average Joe who thinks it might be cool to make the switch, and it didn't go so well... We should learn from his experience, not tear it up. For example, if there are better alternatives to the distros he chose, why didn't he know that?
See, you just explained exactly why Linux is not ready for the public (or the public is not ready for Linux, perhaps). The general public does not want to spend time, researching, learning, trying out a couple different things to see which they prefer, etc. The general public wants to stick a CD in the drive, click next a couple times, and have it just work.
All good points, but isn't the very point of this article?
To be a viable alternative, shouldn't users without cherry-picked hardware whose idea of compatibility IS being able to swap large Office documents, be accomodated?
Not everyone is a geek, and not everyone is prepared or able to dive under the hood - and not everyone with the skills has the time to do so - so until linux can offer the hardware compatibility that windows has, I don't think it can be classed as a seamless alternative - which is the author's point.
The little Windows tinkering I still do always leaves me baffled because I'm not sure there's any logic to the way that thing's been put together.
This was also true of my experience. I was a lifetime Mac user with some early Linux tinkering experience when I got tossed my first corporate Windows laptop.
There's nothing inherently sensible about the way Windows does anything. In fact, in many cases quite the opposite -- the "Windows way" only possibly seems natural to people who have been using it for years and years.
The way it's set up is just as arbitrary (in my opinion, more arbitrary) than the default install of any Linux desktop, and as unintuitive. Moreso, in many ways, because it just seems to assume that its way is the Right Way, without any consideration of different ways that other people might want to work. It seems to almost actively resist customization.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
People who *want* to switch from windows to Linux, will do so, and even if faced with some problems initially, usually manage just fine.
It's the people who *don't* actually want to switch who have such issues.
Fair enough, they wouldn't have switched anyway.
But at least they should consider that hundreds of thousands of Linux users across the world aren't exactly fools, and are managing just fine.
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
It really is impossible for someone that's unfamiliar with a particular system to judge how "easy" or "difficult" it is in the absolute sense, compared with the system that they are already most comfortable using (and likely prefer). The article is not seeking to judge the platonic usability of Linux- rather he's honest about evaluating it strictly from the perspective of whether it is a usable system for windows-familiar users to switch to. So to answer your rhetorical question, "articles like this" don't evaluate the difficulties of windows because they're evaluating the claim that Linux is something practical for *windows users* to switch to- people who are already able to overcome windows deficiencies (at least to some extent).
Your assumption that the "prison cell" feeling when you use windows is largely due to the unfamiliarity of the system is absolutely right. However, it disqualifies you from an unbiased judgement- you would feel like windows was a prison cell no matter what.
I'm one of those annoying people who is truly and thoroughly proficient in both. I worked as a UNIX system administrator for 4 years, and know UNIX-based systems inside and out. I've got a credit in the sendmail source code. I've built a "Linux from scratch" system. However, I currently work as a small business computer consultant, spending 100% of my professional time in windows, and have an entire practice built around helping people navigate the incredible pain that is keeping windows systems running reliably in undstandardized environments. So believe me when I say that I know the pain, and I'm not a defender of the windows way of doing things.
But challenging as windows is, my opinion as a fairly unbiased observer and user is that Linux really is more difficult. To pick one very recent example, I've got a computer science degree, and it still took me hours to get my canon printer working with Linux. I'm not laying blame here... Linux has a much tougher road to hoe when it comes to usability because of several inherent factors:
1. Market share disadvantage- few manufacturers package drivers for their hardware
2. Fundamental conflicts between the GPL and software patents- multimedia codecs and the like
3. Total and complete lack of UI standardization- there are few if any UI conventions between different projects- even with simple text configuration files, the basic syntax is hugely different from system to system
I can see someone might argue that the third is a fundamental, structural issue like the first two. But I think it is an inherent result of the great strength of open source software, which is the constantly evolving, creative process of innovation. The fact that there are dozens or shells or window managers is a byproduct of hundreds of thousands of volunteer programmers saying "I know a better way to do this", and the best parts of what they come up with eventually spread widely.
This is why it confuses me when Linux folks get "up in arms" about usability complaints from Windows users. Linux is harder to use than windows. So what? Why do you care? You don't use Linux because it's easy. You use Linux because it's better, more creative, and gives you more control. In a lot of ways, control and usability are conflicting goals. Automatic transmissions sure are easy to use, but a lot of people prefer the control and efficiency of a stick shift. Manual trasmissions aren't going away anytime soon, and Linux doesn't have to defeat windows and recruit all of the "normal users" who value 'easy' above everything else to be successful.
If you want a user-friendly UNIX, get a Mac. Enjoy Linux as it is, and be secure in your superiority...
-R
Instead of doing that, he should have invested some time to checking out some others more suited to new users. The distros that come to mind are SimplyMEPIS, PCLinuxOS, and Kanotix.
I'm a daily Slashdot reader, and even I'VE never heard of those.
This, again, is one of Linux's biggest problems: Too much fragmentation. If distro developers could put their egos aside and combine forces to create distros with some semblance of popular recognition, Linux's fortunes may change.
You're not gonna win-over an already confused user by presenting him or her with 50 more obscure and semi-obscure choices. That person is just gonna say "fuck it" and stick with what he or she knows: Windows.
Also, people want to install something with staying power. Half the distros out there are gonna be gone in a couple of years, replaced by a whole new set. How can you have faith installing something you've never heard of?
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Yep, I use linux for PHP/Apache/mysql developments. I also write some shell scripts. All of this is under Gentoo. When it comes to media however, I'm lost. I can't burn a CD/DVD, I can't wathch video, hell, I've never even gotten the audio to work.
I've run into the same problem. I recently set up a Windows machine for someone else, and a Fedora Core 5 machine for myself. The windows machine was 1 CD for the OS, 2 CDs for Office, and a half dozen downloads for video driver, firewall, anti-virus, web browser etc...
FC5 on the other hand was 5 CDs for install, a couple dozen package downloads from all over, and a good bit of configuration file editing. Now of course after this install the FC5 machine had capabilities the WinXP box didn't - I added quite a bit of development software, a minimal install would take mabye 2 CDs. However to show the gap in whats required to get FC5 to the same level as WinXP check out this page: Fedora Core 5 Installation Notes
Its a fantastic writeup about how to get the multimedia working, however look at the length of that page. Its an incredible amount of post installation stuff to do, and if that guy didn't take the time to write it up I probably never would have figured it out. Other distros may be better, but FC5 isn't even close as an easy to use drop in replacement.
What stops a Linux software company from licensing MP3 or the DVD decoder? Nothing. Why haven't any Linux companies done it? Well, one has-- Linspire. Just a few days ago there was an article about how "non-Linux" Linspire is because, God forbid, they're trying to make Linux easy-to-use!
Comment of the year
One of the requirements that all these comparisons have is "It must be compatible with my Windows computer that I use at work". As long as the requirements spell out "Windows" rather than just functionality like word processing and whatever, then Windows will always have the advantage. If the requirement read "Must be compatible with my Linux system at work", then the comparison would be very different.
The critical mass is still with Windows. People try to hide that by rewording the requirements to something that does not mention Windows by name, but it always comes back to compatibility with Windows functionality and Microsoft formats.
This is why things like Open Document Formats are important. If the requirements shift from a microsoft format to a non-microdoft format, then you've knocked down one more element of their critical mass. You could count media as windows friendly formats in this context. But it is only one of many windows friendly formats.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Background: CS major. I've tried two distros of Linux.
Now, the last time I tried an install I just plain gave up. Why? fstab. You know what? I just don't care which label is which for a hard drive. I think expecting users to manually edit something critical like the fstab file is what make the Linux experience such a painful memory. It's not that users are dumb. But why can't computers do the work for us? Isn't that what they are for?
yeah, mPlayer is just great...for the "average" user.
ohh, well, sorry sir, we don't officially offer "binaries" (WTF is a binary Joe Average asks)...
but you can grab Source and Binaries, then a codec, and some fonts and then compile one just for your very own computer... it's really great....what compiler do you like to use Mr. Average?
Or, you could choose an unofficial build...but you wouldn't want an unofficial build Mr. Average, only cretins use unofficial builds
The whole point of debian-based distros such as Ubuntu are the package-management features. Yes, the link you've showed would allow firefox to run faster (due to whatever differences between the globally compiled version that would be distro-included vs the source one)... but it's by no means necessary to get firefox. If you want the speed of a self-compiled verson then windows wouldn't likely help you either...
Ubuntu: Run synaptic. Reload lists. Search for firefox. Check off. Click apply. Done.
Windows: Find package website (in this case mozilla.com). Surf links. Download firefox from link. Figure out where you just saved the installed (I've seen many users choke at this, strangely). Run installer. Click next a bunch of times. Done
So really, with Ubuntu you're either just as easy, or even a bit easier. If you're using KDE (or I assume gnome) then the program will be on your menus after install. Of course, Ubuntu also comes with a fairly recent version of firefox anyways... so depending on how old your install discs were it might do you just fine anyhow.
And yet, here's the first link off google. And the second comment:
Any particular reason you want to use version 1.05? If not, then you can get the latest using synaptic.
My second link took me here, which doesn't mention firefox (probably because it's already installed) but does mention install instructions for a schwackload of other common software. It does use apt-get instead of the synaptic GUI, but the steps are simple enough.
Demonstrating one of the hardest ways to install software on linux as an example that it is "too hard" doesn't make you informative, it makes you a troll.
Linux (and F/OSS in general) has been continually struggling with promotion, but this is not the same struggle as before. We are putting our energies toward solving a set of problems that have already been solved, but it's important to realize that Linux/FOSS is now facing a different and new problem.
When Linux faced technical problems, we needed hard core programmers willing to delve into the nitty gritty of making the processor run. The geeks of the world got together and hacked out a solid, stable kernel and the collection of GNU utilities.
When the problem was the UI, we needed people to know how to make things pretty and convenient. We built GNOME and KDE and Xfce on top of X.
When the problem was mindshare, we needed credible spokespeople to spread the news of Linux. The Economist and Time magazine and IBM (and SCO!) stepped in for us, and now the world has heard of Linux.
Now we're after market share and acceptance, and what we need is people who know what ordinary users want and need in order to take up Linux. Who would know what ordinary users want and need? Hint: I've already mentioned them twice in this paragraph.
Folks, Linux is now at the point where it's "ready to take over the desktop" --*if* we move in the right direction. The thing is, we're *not* moving in the right direction. We have been ready to make a left turn at the crossroads and start heading toward the desktop, but we just aren't making the turn. Of course, yes, we have sort of meandered towards it with cool new interfaces and a plethora of apps, but that's like making three right turns to turn left. We need to recognize that what it is that people want in order to make Linux "The Desktop".
"The Tipping Point", by Malcolm Gladwell, is a book about how and why little things can make the difference between some memes spreading like wildfire and others simply not taking hold. Although recently promoted by Barnes & Noble bookstores under their Sales/Marketing Books department, only a small section talks about how to get a product to catch on. The ideas are fascinating, and can be applied toward smoking cessation and other health promotion, or anything else where you want to leverage a small effort to make a big difference. Recommended read.
In the book, Gladwell talks about three different types of people needed to spread a meme epidemic: Connectors, Salespeople, and Mavens. Mavens are members of the potential market who are knowledgeable, and to whom other market members go to for advice. We do want to pay attention to what they say because others pay attention to what they say, even if they are not necessarily that knowledgeable (compared to us F/OSS geeks). In the same way that my gynaecologist friend has to watch Oprah because all her (female) patients watch that inane talk show and come to my friend with questions, so we need to pay attention to people like Mark Golden of WSJ and see what they're saying, rather than dismiss them with "Ahh, he won't even invest the time" or "It's not our fault, because the DVD is DRM-encumbered".
I'm not saying that those Linux problems will be easy to solve, but those are the problems that we have, and they loom closer than a lot of people here on Slashdot realize.
Just a note for those of you who would say, "Well, I don't care if Linux doesn't gain market share, because I just want it to tinker with, and I actually prefer if the unwashed masses would stay with their spyware-ridden proletariat systems!" Remember: market share is clout, and clout is what will make the hardware manufacturers release their specs so that we can have open source device drivers. Clout is what will get EU politicians to back off on software patents, and it is what will get universities to stop thinking that Microsoft is everything. Market share is what will improve Linux, so that you can go on with your happy tinkering.
Whew. Sorry a
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
That is one of the things that DOES make him a "typical" user. Most users outside *don't* want to play with the computer - they want to do stuff. And if they can't "do stuff" easily, without having to think, they just won't bother.
THAT is why Windows is so successfull. It doesn't matter how crappy the O/S is on technical grounds, or how buggy it and the other software is.
Put the CD in, click on a few buttons, and you can "do stuff".
Neither Linux, nor any other O/S, has any chance in hell of being a general windows replacement unless they become just as well packaged.
Remember, folks - Microsoft has not, and never will be, a technology company. Bill Gates has not, and never will be, a geek - he's just an incredibly accomplished marketeer with funny looking glasses.
What microsoft does well is market and package. And that really DOES count.
IF you want to watch movies buy a DVD player.
If you want to play games buy a console.
And if you want to do both of those as well as programming, web surfing, and e-mail? Buy a general purpose device, something which can 'compute' different kinds of stuff..... hmmmmmm....
I've got it! A computer.
sheesh.
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Your post betrays the fact that you indeed are somewhat blinded by 'the Windows way', and haven't even asked why some things are different. The Dock is designed so that it doesn't matter whether an application is running or not, and when you think about it, it shouldn't matter to the user whether an application is running. Just that they want to use it. The Dock downplays the distinction very well, and gets to the real core of what the user is intending to do - use an application. They shouldn't have to know or care whether it is running already or not.
As for the start menu. In Windows 95 it was a decent application menu. Nice. In XP it's hideous, a mess of command and concepts. Can you describe what it does in one short coherent sentence? No! It's a settings altering, document listing, search capable shutdown/restart/sleep/application menu with a "Run..." command bolted on. Seriously... why are there so many things in there? Because MS didn't want to rock the boat, won't or can't innovate and add these things in more descrete intuitive places. And in Vista, I simply cannot believe my eyes when they see this: Vista Menu
The Start menu in Vista is absolutely ridiculous, I use OS X mostly, but also have a PC, and EVERY time I open that thing I have to stare at it for 2-3 seconds before the information overload is over. It is crazy
This sig has been deprecated.
These same Linux zealots are the people who's eyes glaze over when someone tells them they could change their own oil in their car for much less money and also get the satisfaction of doing it themselves. "It's easy!" says the hobbyist mechanic, "just read this book, and do it yourself". The Linux zealot thinks, "why the hell would I want to change my own oil - that's what I pay the mechanic to do - and it's boring".
These people are people like my mom. My mom is fairly computer illiterate. She uses Debian Stable, kmail, firefox, and tetris. Occasionally she'll use one of the word processors available, but usually not. But she didn't have to install it and she doesn't have to maintain it.
When she has a problem I can remotely log in and fix it. Her main problem so far: clock skew. This is after 2 years or so, on a $199 machine from Fry's.
Unlike when she had windows. Her computer got viruses and spyware. If she had a problem I really had no good way of helping her out. She's happier now with Linux.
She couldn't install Linux. But then again, she couldn't install windows, either. She couldn't administrate Linux or set up a printer. She couldn't do that under Windows either, probably.
I think we're getting to the point with Linux that the average person can use it and feel comfortable. However, administration and installation for both Windows and Linux is still difficult.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
I'm a daily Slashdot reader, and even I'VE never heard of those
And I'm not surprised. The commercial distros from which some are derived are good enough. For example, Mandriva commercial distros address every problem the guy had. A free distro is for people that know what they are doing, no wonder the guy could not do everything he wanted with what he got.
This, again, is one of Linux's biggest problems: Too much fragmentation. If distro developers could put their egos aside and combine forces to create distros with some semblance of popular recognition, Linux's fortunes may change
Not at all. This is not even fragmentation. You forgot that this is FOSS here. All these distros are compatible.
You're not gonna win-over an already confused user by presenting him or her with 50 more obscure and semi-obscure choices
Nobody does that. Mandriva will present you Mandriva commercial offerings and nothing else. Go check their website if you don't believe me. Yes, what you are saying is stupid, you just have to realise it.
That person is just gonna say "fuck it" and stick with what he or she knows: Windows
Fortunately, most people don't really know Windows. That's why those that don't have a geek at hand or did not get a new PC still have Windows 98 (if they manage to keep it until today, meaning not connected to the Internet at least).
Also, people want to install something with staying power. Half the distros out there are gonna be gone in a couple of years, replaced by a whole new set. How can you have faith installing something you've never heard of?
That's true. But Linux distros have that fantastic feature : it's very easy to dissociate the user files from the OS, which means easiness to change distro.
Yes, I do. Based upon the fact that they seem to manage it with cars, why not?
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
I completely agree. Yes, Linux is a great operating system, but I myself am still learning all the intricacies of Linux. Once you know it, you're fine. But try teaching my Mom Linux. It took her a little while to learn how to use Windows, to be able to access what she needs. She's gotten much better. But for the average or below average user, Windows is pretty easy to set up and use. If you want to install a program, just click "setup.exe". Linux it's not always so easy. While certain distros like Ubuntu and Debian have a proven apt-get package manager, not all are so easy. Try getting someone who pretty much just surfs the internet, types up documents etc. to be able to consistantly be able to configure, make, build the programs in Linux. Its much easier to simply click on setup.exe which for all the good/bad, is much simpler for the average user. Sometimes us "computer gurus" forget that alot of this seems natural to us so its easy for us (I've been guilty on more than one occasion). Not everyone always gets stuff as easily as us.
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
Speaking of being blinded to alternatives... It damn well does matter what is running and what isn't. Every program you have spinning its wheels in the background is eating up memory. I don't want a copy of Visio or Word running in the background when I am trying to play a game, when I close it, I want it to close. If it doesn't close, or I leave it open, I want an indication of that.
Now, the Start menu, I'll agree with you on, partly. The co-mingling of system functions and program functions is annoying. Why MS decided to let system functions get outside the control panel, I'll never know. Though, I do think that the Run command should be in the program list, as it is a program. Then again, I'm an old DOS junkie, so maybe I just like knowing my old friend the command line is there for me. (Am I the only one who still does network drive mapping at the command line?)
The Start menu in Vista is absolutely ridiculous, I use OS X mostly, but also have a PC, and EVERY time I open that thing I have to stare at it for 2-3 seconds before the information overload is over. It is crazy
You do know you can customize that right? First off, I would recommend going back to the classic menu (I prefer this myself).
- Right-Click the Start menu
- Click Properties in the context menu
- Select the Start Menu tab
- Select the radio button for Classic Start Menu
- If you feel so inclined check out the Customize options
- Once you are done, click the OK button
Next, organize your program folders, so that they make sense to you. Click and drag stuff where you want it. To alphabetize a folder, right click in it and click Sort by Name.But then, like the author of TFA, I guess you just don't want to spend time at it.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I know for a fact that there are ordinary PC users who have no problems with using Linux. From my experience I can characterize those users as "users who don't even think about installing software themselves".
:-). I know, that most things are possible if you put in enough effort, but what ordinary user really wants to?
But if Linux and the necessary apps are provided by a system administrator or a friend, these users hardly have any problems when using it.
The users I know were either company workers in small companies who used special software for their needs as well as some standard software (like browser, mail, Acrobat Reader and office software, which in this case was Applixware).
Or they were older people who just wanted to surf the net, send some e-mail to their grandchildren and type the odd letter.
And as I said, all those users hardly had any problems. Because Linux is a multiuser environment and for years had stricter user rights, the users (who of course didn't have root passwords) couldn't even mess with their system (except for the desktop settings).
On the other side those users who do install software themselves and who expect to buy a new gadget and pop in the driver CD and click setup.exe do have problems when using Linux. If your software needs vary and change you can have a hard time using Linux. I know this from first hand experience, too
But for every user of the second type, there are maybe 20 of the first type. So I believe there is a huge base for Linux to grow.
But the value of TFA is that it shows us an average Joe who thinks it might be cool to make the switch, and it didn't go so well...
I would be interested in seeing how the "average Joe" Linux or OSX user deals with switching to Windows - my guess would be "not very well".
Before I started this job I hadn't used Windows for around 5 years - A year after I started this job (which requires me to use a Windows XP workstation) and I still can't get the hang of it. Things that I take for granted under Linux just can't be done under Windows - even simple stuff like having the window manager do sloppy focus (yes, I've used TweakUI to turn on X Mouse - many applications have problems with it though and it has a habit of randomly raising windows).
My experience tells me that just because people find it difficult to switch doesn't make the OS they are switching to inherently "less user friendly", it's simply hard to switch to a system you're not used to.
IMHO, kids at school should be using several different systems (e.g. Windows, OSX, Linux) as part of their daily work so that they learn the problem solving abilities needed to switch between different systems rather than just learning by rote. You wouldn't believe the number of people I've seen sit infront of a Linux machine running Gnome/MetaShitty and immediately be scared off and never use it again because there's no button that says "Start" on it - they don't use any problem solving abilities to work out that maybe the button on the left side of the task bar does the same job as the Windows Start button.
Of course, getting large numbers of kids to use non-Windows systems at school isn't going to happen while MS is allowed to continue pretending to be the "good citizen" and give cheap/free handouts to schools and students - how can a school justify replacing a chunk of their Windows network with Linux systems (and paying to retrain some of the staff) if MS is providing everything to them at knock-down prices anyway?
(For the record, no I don't personally use a Windows-alike WM - I use E17).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Not at all. This is not even fragmentation. You forgot that this is FOSS here. All these distros are compatible.
...and right there is PROBLEMO NUMERO UNO, everyone!
It's fragmentation in a mindshare sense.
Also in the sense that they could be working TOGETHER to improve the whole, instead of everyone spending effort redesigning the wheel in their own way. But nobody wants to collaborate.
Nobody does that. Mandriva will present you Mandriva commercial offerings and nothing else. Go check their website if you don't believe me.
I'm talking about the Linux community as a whole. The "mindshare" thing I was getting at. Not 50 distros from a single group, but 50 distros from 50 different groups. The average user isn't gonna know what the hell to pick.
The major players could band together and release a special "n00b Linux" and promote the hell out of it in the mainstream as THE distro to get for beginners. It's easier to get people into something with simplicity. Once you get them in, and they're comfortable, THEN you present them with the myriad of distro choices.
Yes, what you are saying is stupid, you just have to realise it.
The "fucking asshole superior linux nerd" that people detest so much. Linux in the big picture suffers because NO ONE WANTS TO RISK DEALING WITH YOU.
Would you buy a car from a dealer who talked down to you? No, they pucker-up and kiss your ass through the entire process. (Yes, they also try to rip you off, but they do their best to cover it with smiles and sunshine. And it works.)
Fortunately, most people don't really know Windows. That's why those that don't have a geek at hand or did not get a new PC still have Windows 98 (if they manage to keep it until today, meaning not connected to the Internet at least).
Exactly. If they're not willing to jump to somewhat familliar territory in Windows XP, why in the world would they want to jump to the totally foreign world of Linux? (Money isn't the issue here: Getting a pirate copy of Windows is trivial.)
That's true. But Linux distros have that fantastic feature : it's very easy to dissociate the user files from the OS, which means easiness to change distro.
People don't generally want to change. They want to stick with something familliar. That's why they're all still using Windows.
Plus, define "easy". How many steps does it take to change distros, while maintaining all your user files? (With no command lines involved, of course.)
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
I'm aware that there are a lot of third-party customization tools available for Windows; however I was referring to built-in features of the OS itself. It's possible to change most aspects of the GUI on any platform if you install the right tools (I remember reading articles years ago on how you could make a Mac look enough like a Windows machine to really confuse someone clueless), but that's not much of a commentary on the operating system's design philosophy.
I disagree about the Start menu. It may let someone who's just pointing and clicking around on their desktop launch an application, but what it does is hide and confuse where programs are really stored. As does the Windows directory structure in general. I think OS X does this much better: programs are stored in [Your hard drive]/Applications. Those are the actual executable files, they're what's actually being run. And if you want easy access to something, then you can put it into the Dock.
Until some of Apple's own applications muddied the waters (iCal, I'm looking at you), I also think the Mac's take on close-versus-quit is a lot better thought out. Programs can run with or without a window being open; closing a window normally leaves the program running but windowless. On Windows, sometimes closing a window will quit the application, sometimes it won't (depending, I think, on whether it's the last remaining window open). This sucks: I can't count the number of times I've accidentally quit a big application on my windows machine, when really I just wanted to clear one document's window and open something else. The only time an application should quit on close is when it's a one-window application and doesn't open files, or have any need to run in the background.
The Windows system tray also bugs me; it's just an example of one feature trying to do too many things, and failing at most of them. You've got some widgets down there that are just controls (the volume thing), others which represent backgrounded applications, others which are just notification/status icons...it's a mess. Every time I want to change the volume on my PC, I have to hunt around for where that particular icon went (since the damn things move and disappear and reappear, because even on my gently-used PC there are too many of them to show at once); it's like playing whack-a-mole.
What some kids can do when sat in front of a computer without any training isn't a particularly good metric. I've seen kids that can't talk yet put a cartridge into an NES and start it up, so clearly that's a more intuitive interface than storing programs on a hard drive. I know a kindergarten teacher that still has an Apple IIc in her classroom, because you can teach 20 kids how to use it in five minutes (if computer is not on, put disk in drive, close door, turn computer on. If computer is on, wait for red light on drive to go out, open door, remove disk, insert new disk, press Control-Apple-Reset).
Windows, in general, hides complexity from the user. But the cost of this is confusion, because computers are inherently complicated devices, and eventually those users will run into the limits of the smoke-and-mirrors that was used to protect them at the beginning. An oversimplification designed to make things "easier" for the clueless user, can easily devolve into a morass like the Registry.
I could go on; I think this same philosophy is perpetuated into most of the Office products. They're all simple on the surface -- it's not hard to type a basic memo or report in Word, for example. But that's not a very high bar. But there are a lot of things that just don't make any sense when you move further: when my bulleted outline stopped working with the Tab key (tab to indent, shift-tab to outdent), I had to go through three different menus to figure out how to turn it back on. (Solution: it's an "Auto-Format" option, apparently, even though it doesn't seem like anything that ought to be special or automatic. When making an outline, that seems as though it ought to be the fu
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Sure, interoperability and ease of use (application installation/enhancement) could be a bit clearer. There are going to be problems with some of the hardware out there, and there is definately a learning curve. The community is great, the software is fast, the ideas are plentiful and there are solutions for nearly anything. When I'm on a windows box, I feel trapped in a sandbox littered with dog shit. It's ok if you watch out for the shit and only want to play in the sand, but anything more and I'll find myself wanting a return to linux. Bash scripting, gnome, kino, gimp, openoffice, firefox, emerge, etc, etc, etc. Linux is so much more complete, it's no wonder there's a bit of a learning curve. Devote a weekend and an old harddrive and don't look back.
Of course, getting large numbers of kids to use non-Windows systems at school isn't going to happen while MS is allowed to continue pretending to be the "good citizen" and give cheap/free handouts to schools and students - how can a school justify replacing a chunk of their Windows network with Linux systems (and paying to retrain some of the staff) if MS is providing everything to them at knock-down prices anyway?
There are so many things wrong with these statement that you surely wrote them as sarcasm.
Nonsense. You must be living in the nineties.
.) is shipped in RPMs that you can install directly, simply by double clicking on them, ala Windows, except with automated dependancy management.
.). But on the low end (utilities, DVD copying, picture management, basic office work, e-mail, etc. . .) and on the high end (Oracle, Apache, serving, enterprise level stuff) Linux trounces Windows in terms of ease of administration.
Windows: Search internet, download file, double click and follow onscreen instructions. Idiot proof.
Wrong. If you are running as a user, not administrator, then:
1. Search Internet.
2. Download file. Pray you have the right file.
3. If it's shareware, register the damn thing, or if its payware, buy it. Either way, wait for the e-mail pre-registration confirmation to come through with the "you must download this within 30 minutes for the link to be valid" e-mail.
4. Download file.
5. Once downloaded, make sure you can locate the file. This is not a trivial task for the average Joe user; neither browser is configured out of box to download directly to desktop. I've assisted many a user who "lost" a file.
6. Right click on file. Select, "Run As administrator". Type in your administrator password.
7. Follow dialogues.
8. Find out you need some Visual Basic runtime. Go back and locate that from Google. Repeate steps 5 through 7 for the runtime.
9. Repeat steps 5 through 7 after you've installed the runtime.
10. Run software. Pray that it doesn't need to run as administrator.
Linux:
1. Click on "K" or Gnome menu (Windows translation, "Start Menu").
2. Click on "Utilities".
3. Click on "Software Management(SMART)"
4. Type in your administrator password at the GUI dialog, asking, "Please type in your adiminstrator password".
5. Type the name of the software you want to install in the search box, or browse by category
6. Click the checkbox next to the software(s) you want to install.
7. Click apply.
8. Enjoy your software.
Linux seems quite a bit easier.
Oh, but your software isn't in the repository? Suprising to me; most things you could possibly needs are avaliable in SuSE's numerous repositories. But if not, just about any software (including Skype, Firefox, OpenOffice, Acrobat, etc. .
And the next generation of distribution goes beyond that; download an autopackage or a klik:// file, and there's very little work to do at all!.
Linux software install is much, much easier than on Windows. Just because your used to the headaches of Windows installs doesn't mean that it is less complex.
Now, I do admit there is _less_ Linux software out there, at least in terms of professional midsized business office suites (Photoshop, etc. .
Besides, I highly, highly doubt that your enterprise level Windows apps are installed via "search on internet and double click."
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I like linux today, but I absolutely loved it back in '95. I loved it all through the 90s actually, because it was damn impressive what it managed to do. In '95 a Linux machine with X and a basic wm was way cooler and for certain things much more useful than a DOS and windows 3.11 machine. For as long as windows 9x was the norm, linux was a very impressive alternative and you had plenty of resons to laugh at the common windowses at the time. They felt like toys in comparison.
;-)
However, there was never a good reason to laugh at NT. I think the biggest blow so far to Linux was the switch MS made with XP. No longer any windows 9x. Every PC now sells with "Windows NT 2001". There is almost nothing you can do in Linux that you can't also do in XP, but the reverse is just not true. Windows has always had a lot of capabilities that Linux lacked of course (games, apps, drivers) but prior to XP there was also a ton of things Linux could do that Windows 9x could not.
XP and most apps that run under it today are stable, the filesystem is advanced and mature, multiprocessor support and multitasking is top-notch, just about any application, service, programming language or even unix shell is available for XP. There are very few technical reasons to switch from XP to anything else.
I think Linux has a way to go, but the good news is that it is never sitting still. Even Debian releases new versions more often than MS these days.
Hmmm, last time I went to play a DVD in windows there was no software available to play it.
Surf time to find free software:
windows: 1/2 an hour, and it was loaded with ads and spyware.
Linux: The distro I had had Mplayer, and Gxine already installed.
So true. The thing that amazes me the most about the linux on the desktop debate is this: It seems that the Linux community (at least the portion of it that I see frequenting forums and slashdot) is only interested in being able to say that Linux is ready for the desktop.
As soon as a linux outsider (read: member of the target market for desktop linux) comes along with criticisms, the response is invariably to discount all those criticisms, usually with comments that boil down to, "Well, I don't care what he said because he's obviously not particularly computer-literate nor is he very clueful about the ever-changing shape of the linux universe."
As long as people continue to carry the implicit assumption that the biggest barrier to Linux being desktop-ready is that not everyone has more than a passing understanding of computers, or that the tastes of the vast majority of computer users aren't as important as the tastes of geeks w/r/t choice and fragmentation, Linux will never be ready for the desktop.
It's not that these are bad attitudes, it's that these are attitudes that are only useful for a server or workstation OS that's aimed at geeks who like and can handle an incredibly tweakable operating environment. They're poison to a project whose primary focus is the general computing market.
because there are too many legal hurdles.
Distros will not be able to come equipped with the ability to play all the patent-encumbered media formats, so linux newbies will say, "what, ubuntu doesn't play my mp3s on a fresh install? I'm switching back to windows."
And when new linux users complain of drivers not being installed automatically, they're probably thinking of their new ATI or Nvidia card that have proprietary, GPL unfriendly drivers.
-------
Incite and flee.
The value of TFA is showing that Linux is crippled more by third parties than anything else: Apple constantly fiddling with iTunes (and not releasing a Linux version) puts the burden on the wine and CodeWeavers programmers to keep up. DVDs... I won't even bother. Multiple Windows formats (streaming media, documents, etc.)... All of these systems push the burden to F/LOSS developers by their inability or unwillingness to encourage Linux compatibility. It's a huge tribute to the community that we're able to keep up at all, I feel.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
What third-rate OS are you using that doesn't support proper virtual memory? On a modern system, the primary difference between an idle application and one that's not loaded at all is that the idle app's data (but not the app itself) might be moved from RAM to swap. Should you need to access that data, paging it back in is almost certainly going to be faster than starting the app from scratch (thereby having to re-initialize everything, load the data file from disk, parse it into its in-memory representation, etc.).
I'm not really clear on what supposed benefits I should be getting from constantly closing and later restarting my applications. Next time I feel I'm being too productive, I'll give it a shot.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You have to be kidding, I'm not particularly an apologist of Linux on the desktop (although that's what I use and that's what I install in managed corporate settings) but install the Windows OS and basically all you've got is a broken web browser and a fairly bad text editor. Install any packaged Linux distribution and you've got a working environment for pretty much anything (except that YMMV if you want to listen to MP3 files or watch DVDs in the US, big deal, can Windows play DVDs out of the box anyway?).
So yes it might take some time to setup on some hardware (hence the *managed* settings above, i.e. a sysadmin manages the machines) but you can do a hell of a lot more with them.
My point however, to which I'll stick, remains that Linux currently makes a fine corporate desktop in a lot of cases. OTOH it won't make a *domestic* desktop for the masses any time soon unless there is some support from the industry (which won't happen IMO). The lack of documented specs for hardware and file formats will always hold it back.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
That's the beauty of open source, no one gets to say what it is or isn't. People can do all sorts of things with it. You speak of Linux as if it were some monolithic project, which it isn't. So some companies have created less than spectacular desktop solutions. Take it up with those companies, don't blame Linux for not being what you think it should be. Don't assume there is some kind of Central Linux Administration that decides what it should be. Don't assume there is some goal that everyone can agree we all should be working towards.
There are companies that make decent Linux based Windows replacements, for those who want such a thing. No one is going to read your mind, know that's what you want, and drop one in your lap. Same here as in the rest of the world.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I have never. Not once. Seen a useful error message from windows XP. If you could provide an example of such an elusive beast I would be interested.
The unfortunate problem with Linux is that Microsoft got there first, and as the systems are inherently different, it's very hard for distributors to ease the learning curve between the two. People have already been trained to use Windows. A lot of them probably found it quite hard to learn the quirks of Windows and may well be scared of going through all that again. Also, as every man and his dog seems to use Windows, if someone gets caught up with something, they can always ask a friend for help - something which is not possible when you're running Linux.
Of course, Apple is in a different boat as their OS can only be run on their own hardware, which it comes pre-installed on, and I think 99% of the problems people have with Linux are installation-related.
George Wright
One of the problems with microsoft giving deep discounts to free software is thsat the agreements usualy state they cannot place a competing system in. This has been covered by slashdot and many other outlets before.
Now i'm all for getting stuff on the cheap when it comes to tax payer funded ventures. But i'm not all for making the schools a microsoft advertising camp or a training facility that uses the discount to not train student in certain areas.
Could you imagine Coke supplying bottled water free to the schools as long as they teach courses in drinking coke and refuse to teach howto drink pepsi or some other competitor? Doesn't sound quite the same as microsoft giving free software does it? ThAt is because we don't see any real competitors to microsoft and discount the little guys rumblings.
> urpmi kmplayer mplayer win32-codecs :(
> Dear god, that was hard, wasn't it?
Yes, nothing says "install" like urpmi
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Yes, and that's yet another reason why Linux is not ready for the average user to use on the desktop. Whenever a distribution makes a choice to sacrifice 'freedom' to do something that an average user would actually want (like play MP3s), half the community throws up their hands in disgust. The novice user then has the choice between a distribution that is crippled or one that is generating loud complaints.
This is fundamental to free software development. The people who believe most in free software are devoted and do great work, but expect everyone downstream not just to comply with the GPL, but to adopt their philosophy. That's not really 'free', in my opinion.
And you will never get average users to care about what is (from their perspective) the abstract philosophy of a bunch of hardcore nerds.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The GNOME menu is cunningly accompanied by the word "Applications".
;)
As in "Applications" > "System Tools" > "File Browser".
As opposed to say "Start" > "Accessories" > "Windows Explorer"
No one mention the "I have to click 'start' to shutdown" story
The guy didn't report particular problems using his GNU/Linux desktop, he reports problems importing/exporting Word documents (Microsoft keep the format secret to discourage competition). Handling DVDs (the DVD consortium want you to paid them so you can have a player for your DVD).
And some issues with hardware recognitions, and media formats. Again the media formats are largely a proprietary format issue, and the hardware recognition largely comes down to industry support. The predominant difference between installing Windows and GNU/Linux these days, is that usually someone else installs Windows for you, and ships you a reinstall disk.
Mostly the story screams to me "don't buy into proprietary data formats" because you'll be locked into paying the same supplier no matter how expensive their product, how slow the release schedule, or how poor the quality. Guess it is a bit late to tell people what most good IT managers had learnt by the 1970's.
Don't buy media with daft copy protections schemes, which are designed to rake more money out of the consumer (DVD regions anyone?), because they'll rake money out of you.
I was thinking of writing an article myself on why GNU/Linux hasn't found widespread adoption, but I don't think it is simply an ease of use thing. However the reputation for being "hard to use" may contribute.
And I certainly agree a completely free software GNU/Linux desktop has issues with the current plethora of Flash, and other rapidly changing formats, if you are happy to bung in proprietary components for Flash, Java and such like, which some distros do, and get it preinstalled, I think many more converts could be made.
It is a great pity, as the underlying technologies in many free software operating systems do make Microsoft look pretty mickey mouse by comparison.
Sorting an (a known issue -- I lept into the deep end) issue with a cutting edge version of GNU/Linux the other day, I uninstalled and reinstalled 1400 graphical applications, which required almost no manual interaction, no reboots (I said applications, not operating system changes), no accepting of licence agreements, or entering of license keys. I couldn't even conceive of anything close to this under Windows, without requiring a full format and reinstall and a lot of time, keys, and clicking.
Recently getting a Windows XP box back to the level of performance it should have on the box in question required 3 reboots for what shouldn't have gone wrong, and could have been fixed in GNU/Linux with one command. The underlying bug (a problem with how XP handles errors for IDE devices) is serious, basically unfixed as the Microsoft's "fix" just makes the issues less common, and presumably is slowing down an awful lot of PCs out there with less clueful Admins/owners.
Better yet I quickly established it was a software issue by booting with a LiveCD (Yes you guessed it GNU/Linux). What was really scary was the LiveCD could run 40 odd simultaneous multimedia apps on the hardware at the same time (from CD) smoothly, where as even when it was working correctly XP struggled to get passed one or two without getting a bad case of the "Max Headroom's".
But I'd have to concur that the free software desktop experience is still lagging slightly (when Windows works that is). What's more I don't expect that to change, until and unless it gets widespread adoption, at least in some parts of the world, as until that happens the Adobe's and Intels of this world will treat it as a second class citizen. Hopefully India, China or Latin America will be the place it happens, but I'm not that optimistic any more.
But that's the rub. Linux is certainly desktop ready, but it's *not* aimed at the general computing market. The two are not tied together.
While certain distros like Ubuntu and Debian have a proven apt-get package manager, not all are so easy. Try getting someone who pretty much just surfs the internet, types up documents etc. to be able to consistantly be able to configure, make, build the programs in Linux. Its much easier to simply click on setup.exe which for all the good/bad, is much simpler for the average user.
Yes, Ubuntu and Debian and others have good package managing, so why would you not direct newbies to them? Why would you get them a distro where they have to configure, make, and build programs when they could just click on programs in a nice gui package manager? My best friend doesn't have a clue how to bring up a CLI, yet she uses Linux just fine to surf the internet, type up documents, etc. How? Because I gave her Mepis, instead of trying to teach her some complicated distro.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.