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.'"
Oh well, maybe in "another five years..."
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
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.
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 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.
I could see how it'd be difficult for him to invest the time it takes to set up, since I'd bet the clock on his VCR has been blinking "12:00" for 20 years.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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
> This only proves that those who can't make the switch perhaps can't be bothered
> or just plain can't do it.
Well, it's got to be one of those, doesn't it!
People always complained that Linux was too hard to install - well, now the installers are easy to use and it's getting stuff like networking, printing, modern graphics cards working that's the issue. Yes, many people can't do it. It doesn't make them lazy - it makes Linux not up to the task of detecting hardware invisibly and just getting it working. It knows what USB modem I have - it's plugged in and can be interrogated, just like Windows manages to.
Lazy operating system - expecting the user to fit around it, and not vice versa - syndrome.
"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.
The person couldn't be bothered learning how to use another system after investing a large amount of time in Windows.
The author of the article fairly clearly lays out his problems, word interoperability & multimedia.
They're both 'problems' with linux, although as they're both of a legal or social (rather then technical) challenge, its hard to know what the linux community can do about them.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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
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.)
Consider, however, that the foreign students are working with something, well, foreign to them. This isn't to say that computers aren't foreign to those of us in the US, but we expect to understand the metaphor. If you approach Linux from the standpoint of rules to be followed, with an expected and logical result, it's easy. Here's the current state of affairs, as I see it:
The computer is only as good as the software you can obtain for it. Until it's easy for users to obtain quality packages and simple apps with a slick, consistent interface, the article should be pretty indicative of the user experience switching to Linux.
Jasin NataelTrue science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
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... Lazy user syndrome.
The person couldn't be bothered to comprehend some people derive more entertainment and results from an OS when they use it and not when they spend most of their time learning it. The person who forgot that stuff is easy once you know it, but before he knew it, it was hard for him too. The person who can't comprehend not everyone is interested in tuning config files, and hacking sources just for the pure fun of it. The person who still doesn't realize the computer is a tool like any tool, and just like with a car or a TV screen, you have to be able to use it without being an expert mechanic.... Smug Linux user syndrome.
I hope you're talking in a purely user-based sense, because being a Linux admin is not remotely simple. Learning how to use a nice stable Linux system that has been set up for you is pretty easy. Learning how to go through the agony of setting up a new system is much, much harder. I'm a programmer and I'm not afraid of poking around in config files, but in my recent setup of my first Linux system (an Ubuntu/MythTV box) I had many points where I was ready to break my keyboard in two over my knee. And I still do whenever I try to get the thing to do what I want. As soon as I leave it alone and accept it as-is, there are no problems. But if I want to fix an annoyance or add a feature, it's no end of trouble. And believe it or not, but there are a lot of people in the world who would rather be doing things other than searching the web for the magic script to fix their problem or fiddling with config files to get something working.
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
The simple fact is that most people view their computers as fancy appliances. Hell, they even buy them at places like Best Buy and Circuit City that also sell appliances. They expect to turn it on, use it for its intended purpose of email and pornography, and thats that. They don't have any interest in learning a system, when it should be as simple as the other appliances in the house (yes, I know as well as anybody here that computers are complex machines not unlike cars, but lets look at it from the everyday Joe perspective).
And there you have it. The Linux community would like people to feel that there's an alternative to Windows, which Linux is, but it isn't, simkply because you don't get the "out of the box" experience with it. That doesn't make Linux bad or Windows better, but it does show the disconnect between the development communities for both systems and customers.
Gates and company started off trying to make Windows easy to use and jazzy enough that everyone would feel comfortable with it. It slowly began to dominate the market but had its fair share of problems (the blue screen of death). As years have passed, it's gotten more robust, and the suote of things that runs on Windows is enourmous. But it didn't start out that way and it took MS time to incorporate all the functionality that it does today.
Linux is undergoing the same growth right now. There are many issues, both technical and legal that it will have to overcome if its to become as ubiquitous as Windows. So I can see where right now, a switch to strictly Linux is not as good an experience for the average Windows user. But given time that chasm will shrink as Linux continues to grow and improve and Windows continues to bloat and bust.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Part of the value of any technology is in knowing how to use it. When we're talking about Linux on the desktop for Joe/Jane Average - who are not technical people - the system needs to run out of the box with minimal configuration, be intuitive, and do what the user wants it to do.
Perhaps it's an unfair advantage, but it's an advantage nonetheless; Microsoft products have been in the market a long time and there are a lot of people who know how to use them and configure them. Linux, on the other hand, may have been around a long time, but not on desktops where people work every day.
I made a distinction between "using" and "configuring" above. Users operate fully configured computers; admins configure computers to do what users want them to do. In the case of home (or many small business) computers, the user and the admin are often the same person, and light on real technical admin skills. Microsoft operating systems are (on the small scale) easy to configure. User wants a wireless network card? Plug it in. User wants to share files and printers in a workgroup? Plenty of detailed help files and wizards available. In order to find the same support for Linux, the user would need to spend a great deal more time finding accurate support (and when I say "accurate" I mean step by step, button by button) and executing that support properly.
That additional time is costly. Maybe not for Single Instance X, where it only takes a few minutes to accomplish, but over the life of the system(s). For a small business with a file/print server and ten workstations, learning everything that needs to be learned in order to convert to and provide continuing support for Linux in place of Windows is extremely costly, and paying an outside consultant to do the same is also extremely costly.
When most small businesses run on tight finances, calling them lazy for not switching completely ignores the needs of those businesses.
Now, home users.
Not being bothered is a completely legitimate excuse. Individuals have every right to not be bothered by having to learn how to use a new operating system and all the applications that go with it. You may not feel it's a legitimate excuse for you, and that's fine. Jane/Joe Average have lots of things that demand their attention, and also have the freedom to prioritize those things as they see fit.
Computer systems don't exist in a vacuum. The world and all its machinations continue on, with computer use as a part. Computer administration is a much more minor part.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
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
Seems to me like this guy wanted to see what Linux would be like with almost zero work at all. He didn't try popular apps like GTKpod to connect to his iPod, or MPlayer to watch his media, or install any plugins to Firefox to be able to watch online videos. It's like installing Windows XP and expecting all of your applications to just be there. Guess what, you still have to install iTunes, you still have to install the flash plugin, you still need to install Quicktime, and MS has been in antitrust hearings repeatedly for bundling its media player.
.exe to download). The fact that he tries to install iTunes, use Office, etc, makes it look like he's trying to just use Windows apps on Linux, which everyone knows doesn't work very well (and it's really not Linux's fault, the developers of Windows and its applications can't be bothered to help Linux developers, not to mention the fact that the Windows libraries and environment must be emulated).
If he'd spent maybe ten minutes googling for "linux ipod" or "linux media player" he could have found the names of the apps he was looking for quite easily, and then installed them through his distribution's package manager (unlike in Windows where you have to search for a download mirror or find the download link on a site, followed by choosing the right
I'm glad this guy tried more than one distro, but I still think he could have bothered to see what alternatives were available.
"I should NEVER need to open a console (How often do Windows Users need cmd.exe?)"
/proc /dev and the likes. Hide these."
/, but the user doesn't really have any reason to go poking there. If he wants to investigate, why should we try to artificially try to stop him from doing so?
/lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib, /usr/share/lib/, etc, and my application is almost certainly not going to have its own directory."
My wife uses Linux and she has never opened a console. I occasionally open it, but that's because I like to do "advanced" stuff. If I really wanted to, I could live without ever opening the console.
"The user doesn't care about the neat things they can get from
Well, normally they are hidden. Usually the user just sees his home-folder. Of course there are other interesting (and not so interesting) stuff lcated in
"Coming from Windows all of my libraries are in windows\system32 or in the directory of the actual application. Linux could put them in
And the problem is.....?? Is it "It's different from Windows!": Well, duh!
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.
I seem to see these every few weeks here on /. This user starts from the assumption that Linux is now easy to install and use for anyone with any hardware. This is, of course, not true.
First of all, his choice of distributions is based on what comes with an old Linux for Dummies book. He could have perhaps looked into (or asked a friend) what modern distributions are popular from a usability and hardware detection standpoint. He likely would have tried (K)Ubuntu or Mandriva.
Second of all, he does have somewhat unusual hardware. I would go so far as to recommend that nobody with a Sony Vaio should take the Linux plunge unless they are prepared to do some manual hardware configuration. My wife had a Vaio which I ran through multiple distros/versions, and always had some issue with the hardware.
Third, he assumes that complete interoperability with Microsoft Office is a condition for success in his test. I have always viewed OpenOffice's MS Office compatability as a convenience, but realize that I will likely never be able to rely on it. Anyone who has to swap complex, particularly formatted documents in MS Office format must use MS Office. This should not, however, be a reason given for Linux non-usability.
All this is to say that if he wants a usability test, then first hand over his laptop to someone like me, I'll get everything working as smoothly as I can, and then we can discuss his issues with usability. If he wants an ease-of-install comparison, then compare how much of his hardware works after he installs Windows XP from scratch vs. some Linux distribution.
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
Neither of them know the difference, or had a hard time learning it, because they had never used Windows before.
ok now wait two years and then get them to install Windows on their machine. Just give them a Windows install CD and don't help them at all. Tell them to log all problems they have.
Then write an article "Can ordinary PC Users Ditch Linux for Windows"
Just in the interest of neutrality...
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
To move to home user desktops codecs must be included. Until then, it's just to hard for them to use. I have to add {unknown} repositories to Yum to get the required applications, codecs, drivers, or other files so that my desktop functions properly. Either include them in the distro or have the OS/application recognize what is required and link to where it can be downloaded and automatically installed. Non-techie home user isn't going to know that they need to add any software much less what software needs to be added. Then they have to know where to get it and how to install it. That is a mountain of unknowns to someone that is new to Linux. It's easier to just use Windows. If you don't have a codec, Windows media player tells you and ask if you want to try and downloaded it. What a wonderful idea!
my thoughts anyhow...
I wish the writers at Newsforge and such places would take some cues from this article. It is clear, concise, and avoids commonly overused slang and metaphors. What a relief from the usual "Linux switcher" articles.
Mark Golden is a smart guy, and though he doesn't say it, he apparently was comfortable reinstalling Windows on his machine. He did something that is very smart, that most Linux reviewers don't seem to have done. He bought a book. Installing six, count them, six, different Linux distributions shows quite a bit of determination and interest on his part. The interoperability testing he did between office software packages showed some depth as well. Judging from the end of the article, he has been bitten by the "if I just can get this other thing to work under Linux" bug. I would ascertain that he will probably be a Linux hobbyist now.
I appreciate that he didn't go into long paragraphs of complaining about Free Software. It's free, so you are not allowed to complain about it. If you don't like it, use something else. He understands this.
I would say that, as a longtime Unix guy, he has come up with an accurate evaluation of the situation. Common things are easy or at least doable under Unix these days, and most everything else is possible, but only if you are willing to do some work yourself. It is this last catch that is the most frustrating part. As someone who spent a good bit of time this past week breaking C code and tweaking linker knobs, only to fail to make things work, I can readily say that this extra work can often be a bottomless pit. I certainly appreciate the efforts of the wizards who have made the rest easy.
fyi, it's "dependency hell" :) since nobody else seemed to want to respond. And packages have actually helped this immensely, it was mainly from the days when everything was compile from source and lucky you got to go out and find all the necessary packages by hand.
This article looks only in one direction. Mark Golden has years and years of Microsoft experience, working with Windows is just what he knows. Its just never easy to swap to a whole different operating system.
But what if you take somebody who has been working with Linux non-stop for 10 years, and has never worked on a Windows machine. Place him before a empty computer with a Windows CD. How easy would that go..?
(Anybody willing to test...? Probably not...)
The switch itself might be hard, but it says nothing about how easy working on Windows or Linux is, just a matter of what they've learned to work with.
Link with intresting discussion:
http://sig9.com/node/269/
My blog: http://www.redcode.nl
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!
Actually, the Unreal Tourniment and Doom series of games run NATIVELY on Linux. I know because I play onslaught in UT2004 all the time using Linux! If you want to play Half-life games, use Cedega.
Meh.
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.)
Let me answer your problems for you.
1: Linux is not Windows.
2: Linux is not Windows.
3: Linux is not Windows.
4: Linux is not Windows.
You see, this is all symptomatic of a larger problem - you want Windows on your box, but you haven't installed Windows, you've installed Linux. And Linux is not Windows, so after you installed Linux, you didn't have Windows.
This is leading to all your problems. For example, setting permissions doesn't work like it does in windows. this is because Linux works like Linux, not Windows, which is understandable when you consider that Linux is not Windows. Also, you wonder why you have to use the console when Windows users don't. This is because Windows doesn't really have a console. Linux does, because it's Linux, and so is not Windows.
Now, there are various reasons why this Windows/Linux confusion might happen. For example, you might have got the CDs confused. This is less likely these days thanks to the proliferation of Sharpie markers.
More likely is that you wanted a Windows that is not broken. I know that feeling! But, alas, Linux can't help you there. Linux can get you a Linux that isn't broken, but it's still Linux, which is not Windows.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
It's time for another installment of: can you guess the year?
We give you 3 newspaper headlines and you try to guess the year. Ready?
1) Renewed tensions in the middle east spark violence
2) Republican accused of ethics violations
3) Gas prices could rise says analyst
4) Linux still to complicated for the avg user.
Can you guess the year?
A PC for people without any training or experience whatsoever should have:
* Voice recognition, so the user can yell at and curse the machine with comfort
* AI intelligent enough to handle stupid questions and demands
* The always handy CD-drive so the user can use it as a coffe-mug support...
* one-button mouse for those compulsive M$-geared next-clickers...
* VR 3D-glasses rather than a monitor, so that users can imerse themselves into a 3D desktop and search for files and other resources scattered all over in dark, messy 3D labyrinths filled with daemons, trojans and other plagues... good thing you have your handy BFG with you...
I don't feel like it...
I am a graphic designer and creative director. I have been looking into Ubuntu, Fedora and Novell as possible replacements to Windows for over a year. The problem is two-fold.
...sorry I have to reboot or my system will crash - thanks Bill Gates.
First; software compatibility. No Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark or any of the "mainstream" software necessary to send files to printers/clients.
Secondly, the "holier-than-thow" attitude towards new users. I am a reasonably technical person, but with poor manuals and instructions on the basic usage (i.e. installation of new software, hardware, command-line workability, etc.) and the ever increasing attitude of the so-called experts telling people like me to go back to windows makes for a very difficult migration.
We all want to get a away from the Microsoft dominated world and work in a more open environment, but Linux and it's communities need to be more "user friendly".
I still want to make the switch but at present, I am stuck with the Microsoft world.
Windows != Linux and Linux != Windows
So many switchers want a drop-in replacement. This is not the case. If the expectation is a "free Windows" then they will be sorely disappointed and not give Linux a fair shake.
As a result, a successful Linux switcher needs one of the following:
1. Reason to switch to Linux (the "killer app")
2. Reason why Windows is not viable (security risk, drm, whatever..)
There are lots of areas where using Linux makes sense. However, it *does* require some learning of new methods of accomplishing tasks. Unfortunately, so many new people to Linux attempt to run it like Windows which is generally a bad idea (I find myself doing the reverse which tends to also be a bad idea).
No it doesn't. Windows media player can play DVDs only if you have a separate DVD playing app installed. Of course, 99% of all pc's sold with Windows today do come with DVD players preinstalled, and most DVD burners, graphic cards and motherboards have a player bundled. So it might feel like it comes with Windows.
In contrast of course, most Linux distros haven't got a legally clear way to play DVD's, (I don't actually know if there is a legal way available at all?) so your point about it needing the same ease of use still stands. Same goes for a lot of things under Linux, DVD playback is just a small example.
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?
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?
It's not easy to install most software and when you do manage to install the software most still don't show up in the programs list. The average user relies icons not the command line that's where windows has you beat. I'm a computer professional and I like Linux and it's abilities, but there is no way my mom or dad could use it as far as installing new programs goes.
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.
While I understand your point, your example is a pretty crappy one... since drag&drop from browsers (and most other apps) works just fine in Windows also. (Even in IE.) Given, most Windows users I know wouldn't ever figure that out because they run their browser "maximized."
To be a real Mac snob, you have to point out how Apple's had well-supported drag&drop since version 7.0 and Windows applications didn't really support it until around 2000ish.
Oh, and just to add insult to injury in my flamebaity post, right-clicking an image in Safari gives you a "Save Image to the Desktop" item which works exactly how you'd expect... so her not finding it might point to a reading deficiency, might wanna check that out.
Comment of the year
I suspect 90% of programmers don't care about that at all. What they do care about is:
- Cocoa Bindings, which make it trivial to write the controller layer of your MVC app.
- Core Data, which makes it very easy to write the model layer.
- A well designed set of view controls, which mean you rarely have to do much for your view layer.
The amount of an application you can generate before you even start writing code with Cocoa is simply staggering. Oh, and this gives you a nicely layered and abstracted app, not some kind of VB-like mess.I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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]
When people buy a PC, they buy it with Windows ALREADY installed, with the drivers ALREADY installed.
In other words, the users have done ZERO WORK to make Windows usable. (for this it doesn't matter if Windows is the worst, most unstable and prone to viruses OS. The installation "just works" and that's what we're discussing here). What we want to do is insert a CD that says "Installing Linux", ask very simple questions as what country i live in and what keyboard layout we have, and be done with it.
When I installed WinXP on my machine, Windows already had drivers for all its hardware. It didn't require me to install an additional driver. Of course, when I upgraded the motherboard, it was a very different thing (I really can't speak about this, since this was about the same time SP2 came up, and there were other complications).
But for most of the machines i've installed WinXP on, installation went flawlessly. It "just worked". Yes, I had to install the video driver, but it went flawlessly, too.
Now compare with my installation of Ubuntu Hoary, where the internet didn't work (thank God I installed it in a dual boot, otherwise i'd be locked out), the audio drivers didn't work, so I had to boot windows to google for help installing ubuntu with PPPoE modems (which are the grand majority in my country). I'd reboot back to Linux and try, and if it didn't work, I'd have to reboot to Windows again, browse the web... do you have any idea of how exhausting that is for a technical user? A Joe user would be COMPLETELY CLUELESS about it.
And if the OS can't just install right, we're talking about a SHOWSTOPPER. So no, Linux is *NOT* ready yet. However, when Ubuntu Dapper comes out, i'll try again and compare.
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 completely agree. The amusing thing is that the reaction, by some clueless geeks, to your comment will be to create a new distribution! This new distribution will be the one EVERYONE uses and it will be SWEET!!!!
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
My wife uses Linux and she has never opened a console.
My wife uses Linux and she always opens a console. She's not a computer geek; she surfs the web, checks email and imports photos from our digital camera. She confessed to me one day that she hated clinking icons and fishing through menus, and wanted me to show her how to use an xterm window like I did. She finds this much faster.
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
The short but accurate answer (I know that's not at all popular on /.) is that people will switch when it's time to replace their old system and when they go down to WalMart (or wherever) and they have a choice to buy a system that has Linux preinstalled and it comes with monitor, printer, CD/DVD reader/writer/player, fully multimedia capable, etc. Until that happens, switching to Linux is simply not going to be a common occurance. Period!
Heard any good sigs lately?
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