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.
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,
"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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
"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.
It is not supposed to route around basic, essential knowledge required to operate a computer like windows does.
Hang on, wait a second. First of all, you're defining knowing what a codec is (and where to get it, and how to install it), as "essential knowledge." I'd argue with that one. But even granting that, how can something be essential knowldge required to operate a computer when the single most commonly used OS doesn't require someone to know it? Neither does OSX for that matter. Doesn't sound particularly essential to me...
Dear journalist, please continue using your tricicle then on your way to work, because obviously a car requires more expertise and attention.
Actually, these days, it doesn't. Just like a Windows PC doesn't, if you don't go out of your way to screw it up. Sure, Windows 10 years ago was crap. Arguably so was Linux, although crap in different areas. These days though, a basic XP-SP2 system with IE7 can do pretty much whatever you want to do. So can a Linux system. So can OSX. The difference is in the complexity that they expose to their users.
In this case, the complexity of Linux when asked to perform what, for a large number of people, are the core tasks that they use a computer for -- was high. Attacking the author of the article as you have done is not particularly helpful, and indeed makes it seem as if you realize the issues and have no useful solution for them.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
The parent post has been responded to adequately already, but it's such a classic example of the way certain people think -- or rather, fail to do so -- in the Linux/OSS world that I thought it was worth throwing my 2c in as well. So here goes:
Yeah, I'm not impressed with Sony Vaios. It seems like they were designed to run Windows and be really small and light.
Yes, and they do run it, with a few handy usability features that make their small size easier to take advantage of, and they are really small and light. Impressive.
And presumably well suited for what the guy actually wanted to do.
Did this man do any searches for Linux on Vaios?
I guess not; I imagine he just wanted to use the computer for what he actually wanted to do.
Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't try Mandrake/Mandriva for his laptop.
You're surprised that he didn't take a few days to do a general comparison of all Linux distros to isolate the one most suited to his hardware?
Again, key concept: there were particular things he actually wanted to do, research into the cost/benefit profile of Mandrake not being one.
I think the users just have to have the patience to go out there and find the multimedia programs.
No, here's the thing; sure, users _could_ that, but wouldn't it be easier to just sit down and do what you actually want to do?
Some people don't want to climb more than one learning curve in their life.
Thing is, climbing a learning curve doesn't seem to be what he actually wanted to do here.
Those are the people that can't make the switch.
Yeah, there's a tiny number of people that just can't make the switch. Then there's a far, far, larger number for whom making switches, climbing learning curves, googling, consulting websites that tell you where to download nearly-finished source for the driver for the little rocker switch thingy that Vaios have, etc, are just not things that they ACTUALLY WANT TO DO .
What would you think of a vendor who demanded of their customers what you have just demanded of the laptop user? You'd think, 'sell short!' Wouldn't matter how cheap their prices were.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
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.
I think that Linux adopters will fall into 4 categories:
1. They will have Linux preinstalled (in which case they don't have to go out and search for the software they need for day to day usage)
2. They will have gotten it with a book (in which case they can read the book to find out what to do)
3. They have actually gone out and sought Linux to install on their computer (in which case they've *already* gone out and searched for the software they need)
4. A friend told them to install it and gave them the CDs (in which case they can bug their friend)
None of those cases give the result of the Author's point. The review is corrupt simply because the author both sought out Linux but even though he took the time to install it he didn't want to take the time to install any software. He obviously didn't even read the sections of the book concerning it (if there were no sections it's a crap book). Even Windows without preinstallation requires huge amounts of time to install software - you'd set aside a day to do it properly.
Anyway, I'm calling shinanigans.
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?
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?
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?
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]
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.
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?
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.
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