Slashdot Mirror
How Do You Advocate Linux in 5 Minutes?
xtracto writes "I just returned from buying certain Linux magazine. While looking at the 'Computing' stand in the library, and right after I grabbed a copy of the Linux magazine, a guy asked me if I used Linux. After that, the man told me he had tried to use Linux, but he had found it difficult. I told him the first things that came to my mind: that it depended on the distribution (he tried Kubuntu). I recommended him to look for a Linux User Group near his hometown (he told me he didn't live near a city). What would you tell these kinds of people? Not so long ago, and to my surprise, a relative who is completely computer illiterate started talking about Linux, but the general thought is that 'it is harder than Windows'. How do you advocate Linux to people who are more comfortable using Windows?"
Maybe a way to brand people on the arm, something catchy like "www.ubuntu.com" with a little penguin logo.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
I shout "don't do it"
Linux is still not for everyone, and people need to come to terms with that. We need to stop trying to convert the masses - it's still too early. Build a truly better operating system and you won't have to spend so much time trying to sell people on a free product. Wait until "it just works" otherwise we're going to continue to turn people off.
Why linux is hard to sell is because (for most of its existence) it has been developed by highly technical people for highly technical people ...
...
Most people want something that is simple and easy to use and they have Windows which is simple enough, easy enough to use and is familiar. Linux is improving, and I would say it is almost as simple and easy to use as windows, but it hasn't gotten to the point where anyone can sit down in front of it and feel comfortable.
I admit, I could be wrong though
Best way to advocate for anything, really. "Try Linux and I'll give you oral sex!" works wonders. I haven't had anyone refuse to try Linux yet.
How do you advocate linux in 15 years?
The best way to advocate Linux is to ask some questions. What doesn't the guy like about Windows that's making him even consider Linux? What kinds of things does he do in Windows and what apps does he use? Why does he think Linux is harder than Windows?
When you know that, you know the selling points of Linux that you can spool out in 5 minutes. The biggest difficulty in evangelizing anything is when you talk at people instead of with them. If you ask questions, he'll provide you with all the talking points that will be most effective.
But it's worth mentioning... It all depends on the person's needs. Sometimes Windows will be the person's best option for a comfortable operating environment, because they have peripherals and software that Linux just doesn't have a good solution for supporting or replacing. If the guy's not ready for Linux or it's not ready for him, be honest. That way, when the situation changes, he's going to trust your advice and be ready to switch because of it.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
You can't really pull it off, accurately. Linux has no major technical advantages to desktop end-users, so to someone who is yet unaware of it- you're better off appealing to peoples' ideals.
Tell them it's free, community developed, and make some stuff up- like how it makes better use of your system's resources or something. People don't really know the difference.
It works really well if they're a primarily Gaelic speaking individual, because of all the obscure translations. Perhaps the person you're talking to is an Irish time traveler... or in the IRA.
Actually, just tell them it has no viruses or spyware- that's the hook. Then reel 'em in!
Just pretend you're a Jehova's witness, and Linux is your religion. That's how most people do it.
Unfortunately, in my experience, this is true. My attempts to install Ubuntu or Yellow Dog on an iMac G3 were a nightmare. My attempts to install Ubuntu/Kubuntu on my PC failed because I couldn't even get the installer running. Now I'm downloading Mandriva and Fedora for x86-64...we'll see how that goes.
I'm a lifelong computer geek, and I'm having a hard time installing Linux. My experiences could be bad luck, but this suggests to me that Linux isn't ready for Average User (on that note, what do you guys have to say about Linspire, or Freespire, or whateverthehell it's called?).
Seriously though, I mean don't do it like that. One of the reasons I've hear people claim they can't leave Windows is Office or Works. Most of the time all they do is do simple spreadsheets and documents. Tell them about OpenOffice. Tell them about other stuff like Amarok or whatever. And (if you're recommending Ubuntu, like you should) explain to them how Synaptic works. I've had people look at me funny when I tell them about all the software in there, as if it couldn't possibly be true.
Mostly people need replacements for what they do. They don't need to hear about how "cool" or "free" Linux is. If they're average Windows users, most Linux distros have replacements for everything. Concentrate on that.
Don't overdo it though... claiming that Linux is "inherently superior" to Windows and blabbing about how "evil" Microsoft is will do more harm than good the moment they have to deal with a problem that doesn't exist in Windows, like installing a font. Just make them aware of the learning curve and sell them on the real benefits.
Dunno if you can pull it off in 15 minutes... but asking them off the bat how they use their computer is always a good start. Usually "well, I surf the web and send email..." is good. Gamers are out. Granmas are usually in (and will normally benefit the most from moving off Windows).
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Tell them there's a free operating system that's better than Windows, that it's available for free, you can try it out on a cd before you install it "for real"- for free- and that it's extremely resistant to viruses and comes with a dizzying array of programs you can install- for free!
Then GIVE THEM an Ubuntu livedisc or install Debian/Fedora/Mandriva/whatever for them. No, don't tell them "go download it", that's not going to work.
Alternatively, you can send them to goodbye-microsoft.com by way of their "propaganda": http://goodbye-microsoft.com/propaganda.odt
Care about privacy? Read this!
If they tried it and didn't like it, why push it on them? People don't like being told what to do.
My blog
I think that it's going to differ between people who have tried it and those who tried it and had trouble. The people who had trouble are going to be harder to convince. Anything you'd counter with they'll just shoot down. At that point, I'd probably use the "things have improved since you tried it" argument, particularly if they had trouble installing it. You can always advocate that they use online forums and of course they can dual boot with Windows if they feel more comfortable with that.
If they've never tried it, I think it's a lot simpler.
1. No viruses, spyware, or adware.
2. Free upgrades under your control.
3. Highly customizable desktops
4. Excellent tools and great stability for system administration.
I'd push either 3 or 4 depending on what their needs are.
Linux is like a religion for people who really ought to be putting their intelligence to better use than a religion. Stop wasting time thinking of ways to get your neighbours to accept Linux as their personal saviour from malware, and start teaching yourself C++ and get to work improving things.
(Insert big "DUH" sound here.)
If someone is more comfortable with Windows after trying one of the most user-friendly distributions out there (Kubuntu) then maybe Linux isn't for them. Time to stop evangelizing.
Someone advocated Windows for a web server I was setting up, but I tried it and decided to go with FreeBSD instead. Windows as a server wasn't for me.
Linux doesn't need any more advocacy, because you are most probably annoying. Use it to solve your problems, and tell others plainly what you did when they ask. Otherwise, shut it.
Linux is not customer ready OS right now (like for grandpa or smth.). If it would it would be mainstream right now. But it isn't. The fact that it is not customer OS does not degrades its value. Linux (and other alternative free-as-in-speech unix OSes) has great value once you learn how to harvest it and make Linux to work for you.
;)
So with that in mind Linux is an OS for professionals and hobbyists/hackers.
For professionals right now it is I think mandatory to know Linux in *some* way. Even just in way to see that Windows works better for you. But it is essential to know Linux in way that lets you make clear decision of what to use. But anyway nobody ever got fired for buying MS - or was he?
For hobbyists Linux is a Must Have - if you are into computing and you like it you must try Linux since it may make nice things for you in some way or another. It does not mean that you need to dump Windows and go Linux exclusively - but it means that Linux has great potential and it is worth to use.
Linux advocacy has nothing to do with ease of use compared to Windows or whatever. If Windows is easier to use for you than go on - use it.
I don't think you do. Possibly you could ask him/her what motivated them to try Linux in the first place and build on that. Until someone is willing to climb the learning curve they're probably not going to be a Linux user.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
Linux advocates are lucky that one of the worlds leading technology companies has been busy creating software that shows the strengths of F/OSS. More details here
I know zilch about Linux and its various versions, but I'm curious about it. I'm sure there are many dedicated programmers working on Linux, but how many true interface designers are involved? The programmers contribute to the reliability and efficiency of the software underpinnings, but it is the interface which makes software easy or challenging to use.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Checking your dependencies and recompiling your kernel is just like emptying the deleted items folder in Outlook Express. Honest!
I usually refrain from directly telling people to switch to Linux. If I'm going to lecture, I usually sing the praises of Linux (it's free, its got a better security model than Windows, it's all open source + good philosophy, etc, and best for me is it helps a technical person work more efficiently - that last point isn't good for you, the novice). So basically, I explain the advantages without directly recommending it.
Of course you explain that it's getting there - it'll possibly be there by the end of the year. Things like WINE will help a lot. But it just isn't ready for the average Windows user to use - and even if it was, it isn't ready for the avg Windows user to set up!
And then if they agree with the open philosophy but find Linux is all too hard (which is true of most people), then get them to make less-drastic switches like Firefox and Open Office, if they haven't already. Is this more than 5 minutes?
Here's what I would tell such a person: get some help. Find a geeky friend or a co-worker who is willing to set it up for you in dual boot with your Windows system. The distribution choice, by the way, is largely irrelevant. If the system is fully set up (all the drivers are working and the Windows partition is visible) then Slackware is as easy to use as Kubuntu. I would still recommend a Debian-based system though, since its package management can handle a direct hit by a total noob.
Educating is mostly pointless, since these people are not asking to get educated. They just want to try it out, so let's just give them a fully working toy to play with. Educating comes naturally after some use. You will start getting questions like "why cannot my Windows see my Linux partition?" Well, gosh, because Windows is designed to be incompatible? Plenty, plenty of educational opportunities will be available later, for both technical and political topics. But for starters, just give the man a working OS!
Why would you want to advocate it? What does it matter to you what that guy uses? If he asks you how to use it, and you know how, sure it'd be nice to help him, but really, why should you care of Linux is used by 1,000,000 or 100 people? If it works for you, good for you. Whether or not other people use it has no impact on your use of it.
I don't respond to AC's.
See this first.
...hackers will not be inclined to create viruses and malicious code for Linux operating systems, providing Linux users with relative freedom from being annoyed by viruses or anything like that.
ive found that introducing people to alternatives to standard 'doze software has a better chance of getting people to look favourably on open source than prosletyzing linux.
firefox instead of IE, aMSN instead of MSN Messenger, Gimp instead of photoshop, VLC instead of WMP - once people have had a chance to see the quality of these, and see how easy (and secure) they are, THEN its possible that they could be persuaded to try a live cd.
see, people arent interesed in switching from something they know for something that has a reputation for being techy and geeky - even though they know its buggy seriously insecure, this is something that (mostly) works, and theyve become used to it - switching to something utterly different is obviously going to take far too long, so they wont do it.
but once they realise that they already know a lot of the programs that they may use on linux - well, suddenly theres a lot less to learn.
let them know that youre willing to show them how it works, let them come to you - and when the time comes, be ready - because the time WILL come that they want to know more.
How do you advocate Linux to people who are more comfortable using Windows?"
Point out that it's the change that's difficult, not Linux itself. Point out how difficult they would find reading a French book, despite millions of little children in France being able to do it.
This has two benefits: it dispels the myth that Linux is only for smart people and techies, and it doesn't give them unrealistic expectations like simply switching distributions will make the problem go away.
"You can't pirate Windows anymore. That windows package will cost you $200. This Ubuntu CD is free. You may still be able to use that copy of photoshop that you pirated in 1997 if you can get it working with wine."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The number one advantage of Linux to a home user is simply the free (as in beer) software that's integrated with the OS and installs cleanly.
For some people, this doesn't matter at all. They'll just buy software at the local Best Buy or target and be happy with it. You're not going to convince these people to switch to Linux, nor should they. If they're happy with the pay-software model, that's great.
For other people, free software that's a click away from being available is a miracle! They don't have to go hunt for it on some website, they don't have to run some installer, they don't have to worry that it's not going to work, or it will work and it's laden with spyware, they just read the description and try it. Cool.
The best distribution I've tried that emphasizes ability to try new software is Ubuntu. It's easy as hell to download and install packages created for Ubuntu, more so than any other distribution I've used.
AccountKiller
Just boot them into Knoppix, and while it's booting explain to them that their Windows install is unaffected while you show them this "live" evaluation CD, and give them a rundown of the security benefits Linux has over Windows (spyware etc) should they choose to run with it. Then, when Knoppix has finished booting, put in a thumb drive with just the most incredible demoscene software you can find. Next, boot their own Windows install with QEMU (DISABLE NETWORK PASSTHROUGH - DISABLE NETWORK PASSTHROUGH), explaining that they can use all their old files etc from inside that Window -- without ANY of the security vulnerabilities of actually running Windows natively (tell them the Wall Street Journal says that Windows should be run from inside of Linux whenever the total value of the files and personal data on the machine is worth more than $70) -- but that they should browse the Internet off of Firefox in Linux. Finally, put QEMU into full-screen and say: "Now this is what your Windows installation can do from inside Linux" and run the most ass-kicking demoscene software you can find. Trust me, these Demoscene kids make even old 386 scream with the most ass-kicking, hard-core 3D experience you can get without resorting to drugs, and they'll fit it into like 13 bytes. All the code will run at full frame-rate from the emulated machine. (Be sure to turn the speakers up too!)
The most common response I get is "How much do you want for this Linux CD?" and, if you say something reasonable, whether they can just keep it the way you've "set it up" for them.
It should be clear by now that 'free' aint good enough under any circumstances. Better? Not if your company runs Exchange. Makes more sense? Not if you dont have Linux geeks on staff.
Sadly, Linux is a religion, and no preacher can finish in 5 minutes.
Ask, "Do you enjoy fussing with computers?" If they say yes, tell them that Linux lets you fuss with everything to a degree they couldn't imagine. And if they say no, it's not something they'll like, so don't push it.
Please. Pushy evangelists really discredit you guys.
I think one main problem people have reached in promoting Linux is trying to fit it into the same category as the consumer operating systems. Honsetly, I think we can all agree that is not really what Linux is about. I don't think any of us really want a bunch of whiny Linux users who are dependent on us at all time to fix things whenever things don't work as they expect. What we actually want is an increase on the number of people who are taking control of the computer rather than merely using it, driving the machine instead of just going along for the ride. And if this is what we want, we need not to solve all the problems for people, but to show them how we would solve it, to teach them how to solve these difficulties themselves. This may require a bit more effort on our part, and a lot more patience, but I think the end result is much better for everyone, because we end up with not fans and users, but with teammates.
Send them to...
Linux Genuine Advantage
--
Windows: Why its file system still blows?.doc
Unix: README_JUST_AS_STUPID.DOC
Unix: readme_just_as_stupid.doc
I'm a big fan of Ubuntu and XUbuntu but I found again as I have with a lot of KDE based packages that the quality of KUbuntu is far lower. First up it occasionally doesn't boot from the installer cd and then the partition manager screwed up my system multiple times because it confused drives when it rescanned and formatted the wrong ones. I'm not sure what it is about the KDE community but that is the sort of area that should be flawless and solid, like with XUbuntu. They seem to make it pretty but not robust. Otherwise I'd be a massive KDE fan, because as a desktop it is quite attractive.
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
You are absolutely correct. Just last week, I was exchanging emails with someone who wanted to try Linux but could not find a suitable machine. I pointed him to the fact that the Ubuntu CDs can be run without installing. A short time later, he was enthusing to me about how well it worked (even his wireless card!)
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I don't advocate Linux. I'm using it exclusively, but making advertisements is stupid. Show them Linux in 5 minutes. Show why you use it. Show where it's faster/simpler. And let the person try it for another 5 minutes.
It must feel right. It's not about specs or words.
1: It comes on the machine.
2: It fills a perceived need.
You have to fill a real and perceived need. That might be security, that might be stability, that might be flexibility, it might be openness, it might be cost, it might be to fit in, it might even be social status. All of the above may well be real needs of the user but if they can't see them then you can't sell them an alternative. THAT's marketing.
You can get a look at perceived needs by looking at the adverts that are being run for Windows and Mac. What're they saying about the new systems? The big one is security just now. Phishing, viruses, spyware etc.
How do I sell Linux? "No popups, no spyware, no viruses, no spam, no crashes, it just works." but it hasn't gotten to the point where anyone can sit down in front of it and feel comfortable. Simply not true, Linux is as easy as windows these days, hell my aunt, a computer neophyte can use it.
Deleted
Gaming, special predifined requirements for software? -> Windows, some new preconfigured box - Dell, Shuttle, whatever(stay away from hardware building!)
Cheap, Laptop, Internet, Email, Wordprocessing, stadard productivity apps small 10-minute games? -> Linux (Ubuntu), have your local geek check for a printer that fits, join the mailinglist and get a n00b book on ubuntu. (Same applies here: Stay away from hardware building)
Desk, hassle free, Email, Internet, Wordprocessing, small games, neat games, design + nice OSS goodies? -> Mac OS X (Mac Mini / iMac)
Not that the above is the current state and can chance slightly every half year or so. (for instance if iBooks get cheaper than equivalent PC laptops again) or hushtech PCs become affordable.
The bottom line is unless the people have to really look out for costs right now a Mac is the best they can do. Only with super cheap laptops will they do better with Linux, as the iBook advantage has worn of lately.
Windows nowadays is only usefull for a newcomer if they're into gaming or special apps that require Windows. Example: a friend of mine is engineer and needs stuff that only runs on Windows. And in any of these cases you'll have to shed out some money to get a real advantage.
The legend that hardware is easyer to set up with Windows is exactly that: a legend. True to some extent two years ago, but not anymore. Of course the hardware in question should be able to run under Linux. But if so, it's not any more difficult to set it up with Ubuntu than it is with Windows. On the contrary.
Note that the above is the current state of things. The omnipresence of Windows distorts that quite some bit. People who have no business runnig a Windows computer buy one because 'their friend at work' uses one. And with PC hardware closing in on something like 15 concurrent different CPU sockets and the accompaning bunch of RAM types and the likes PCs aren't getting easyer to handle. Windows or not.
The barrier that prevents standard, non-gaming users from using Linux is nothing but a psychological one nowadays. At some time soon Linux/OSS will reach critical mass (probably when MS has pissed off enough customers) and then this will be a non-issue aswell. To me it's a tad ironic that now that I'm a full-time Mac OS X user (fedd up with hardware fiddling and kernelmod linking) that has real work that needs finishing, desktop Linux is finally close to going mainstream.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
After that, the man told me he had tried to use Linux, but he had found it difficult. I told him the first things that came to my mind: that it depended on the distribution (he tried Kubuntu).
I reply that I have had too many problems with Windows and have moved on. I give examples.
I had a photocopyer set up using a scanner and printer. I needed to edit a photo, which launched the 30 day trial software for the photo editor bundled with the machine. Now anytime I want to photocopy something, it launches the photo editor on top of the photocopier software when the scanner is used. I ask if he could fix it for me? It's too difficult for me to fix and is still broken after 6 months.
Both operating systems have things that need to be understood in order to maintain the system. I personaly find Linux easer to fix than fixing what's wrong in the Windows Registry which killed the photocopier. Uninstalling the photo editor did not fix the problem. Now Windows offers to search for the missing exe file when I attempt to photocopy something. I now photocopy on the Linux machine instead. I did not have to install any software or drivers to make it work.
At least in Linux, the programs are operational instead of trialware.
When I have visitors and they want to check their online mail, or want to check something online, I log them into a Ubuntu machine and show them the icon for Firefox. When they are done, I ask how they liked using Linux.
If a Windows user is getting a machine fixed, I offer to lend them a replacement while their machine is being fixed. I provide a machine and give them a password for one of the generic accounts. Seldom do I spend over 5 minutes in user support.
Here, log in like this, here is the menu, here is Firefox, here is Evolution, here is Open Office, here is your home directory, here is the shutdown button for logoff or shutdown. No there is not a C:\.
A properly configured loaner is good. A live CD most times will be a problme because it takes longer than 5 minutes to explain why it doesn't play MP3's and flash sites don't work. After they have used a properly configured loaner, be prepared to help a new user learn the basics from filesystem, printer, email, and network setup. After they understand it isn't Windows, then they will be ready for a live/install CD.
The truth shall set you free!
I have my computer rigged up to look nice with shadows and a theme based on e17 in gnome. The unfortunate thing is that the two people have remarked on my machine asked if it was the next version of Windows or thought it was Mac OS X. Now I think about it that is a great way to make people curious. At least until Vista is wide spread....
That sad thing is that the person who thought it was Mac OS X was in my computer science class. Arg.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Recently my parents wanted a computer to internet and MS Office on, and asked me for help. I gave them an old machine of mine...P3 800 with a Geforce 2 and 512MB RAM. I was getting ready to put XP on it when I realized I can't find my XP CD. After looking everywhere with no luck, I decided to conduct an experiment. I installed Ubuntu 6.10, Flash, Wine, Office, and VLC.
Initial impressions: My dad didn't care, he only goes to motorcycle forums and youtube, therefore the only thing he noticed is the icon for Firefox is in a different place. But my mom was like "This isn't Windows! I need to learn Windows! I need to learn Office!". I calmed her down and explained that she can do exactly what she needs with this setup, just the things she wants to click are in different places. After pointing out where Firefox was, how to save stuff to her home folder, how to find her USB memory stick, and what to click to open MSword, she was on her way. One day she said "This is fine but when I tell people at work I don't have Windows they keep saying I have a Mac and I'm pretty sure this isn't a Mac". I told her "Just say you run Linux, and see what their reaction is". I talked to her a few days later and she said their jaws dropped, and they were asking her a bunch of questions. I said "Congratulations mom, you are now l33t". A few months have passed since then and she still tells me how suprised she is that she doesn't use Windows, and everyone else does, yet she can still do what she needs to do. I even talked her through installing some stuff with apt-get over the phone. Incredible.
So yeah, in certain cases, I hereby certify Linux as "So easy your parents can use it". I never thought I would say that. I suppose in some way I may be doing more harm than good by stunting her Windows aptitude, but for what she does, it doesn't really matter. She just has to remember the icons she clicks and where she saves stuff are in different places.
So With a new machine I might try and open up a pdf off the internet But then I get the message that Adobe isnt installed. But I know that Acorobat is a piece of Garbage, so I download Foxit to view PDF's.. But Microsoft has made it bloody impossible to view a pdf mwith an alternative viewer through IE, so I still download Acrobat anyway, and set foxit to be the readed for offline documents. Because acrobat takes 15 seconds to open a big pdf, and is responds like a slug.
Then I want to click on some quicktime peice of junk.. so it forces me to download the latest version of quicktime. Quicktime likes to have some quickloaded hanging out in memory that seems to chew clock cycles at random.. And while I would like to turn it off, VLC doesnt do a nice job of playing in-webpage-window movies.
Then there are those pages that dont show an address bar, the f-11 doesnt seem to work and so then you cant easily find some jacked popup without going through the bizarre path of ctrl-n, f-11 and then you can see and copy the address bar. Which is a total joke, because a popup should never have that level of control over a window.
The kicker is that I can get into a brand new car and have it work as well as I want it to work in 5 minutes. With a computer it takes it days to get it to a point where its comfortable.
Storm
Tell them to install cygwin on their windows machine and play with a few bash tutorials until they're comfortable with it, which will probably happen in a few weeks or months of repeated readings, rather than overnight. Once that happens, switching to linux will be trivial.
Them: It's harder than Windows
...
You: You're right, it's only really the clever people that can use Linux. Try this Kubuntu.
[1 week later]
Them: Hey I thought you said it was hard to use Linux, I must be a genius.
---
I know he specifically mentioned a guy that thought Kubuntu was hard to use. Perhaps I've been using too long but I thought it was pretty easy. Course if you've got dodgy hardware
But they keep trying to make it work, and that is why the windows repair business is a multi billion dollar industry and still growing. And now they have had near 20 years of complete brainwashing of people that windows= "the computer" so that's what most people try, and fail at. Face reality, most people can't make windows work past the first day of getting it home from the store, they they start having problems and it goes downhill from there until the point the box is an unmanageable mess, they have had it "fixed" 5 times for a pretty penny, installed anti virus voodoo crap, and finally give up and buy yet another "new and improved and much mo bettah" windows box from the smiling vendors, and then lather rinse repeat.
Most people need to have someone else "fix" it for them when they screw up because windows is so screwed up. And the reason for that is broken windows is a HUGE cash cow for microsoft, the hardware industry, and all the legions of mom an pop fixit shops and the "computer security" industry. Hundreds of billions to push broken windows. It's a scam. People literally grow up with the scam so they believe it. then they get used to it. All their friends believe it like a religious cult, even though all of them go through the same repair hell all the time, but no one wants to look like a complete fool, so they keep pushing windows, because everyone else does. or some theory like that, it is INSANE.
Take a person who has never touched a computer, set them down with a fresh XP install and any of the latest major linux distros, then turn them loose, see what happens.
It's the SAME, the same amoung of problems and successes, no difference. What doesn't suck about this one, really sucks about that one. Big effin deal.
The biggest problems with having people switch from windows to linux is they have to unlearn all that horrid crap-they keep trying to do things the windows way on a non windows machine. They keep treating a computer like an old analog TV, which is what they really want, an internet appliance with enough oomph to actually work, but not so complex and stupidly designed that it gets hosed all the time or you need to be a near professional grade geek to "administer" it. People don't want to 'administer" their Tv or microwave, because that's stupid.
The REAL need for full fledged computers is really small, there is a HUGE need for an internet appliance that doesn't suck.
People don't need full fledged wide open computers-from MS OR linux land OR apple near as much as they need dedicated locked down with the key thrown away appliances that do a few things, surf, email, instant message, play some games primarily. And that could actually be handled by the computer industry, with a few prominent icons to click on the desktop, and THAT'S IT, but they would put themselves out of business in a short time frame because it wouldn't break or need "upgrading" as often, software or hardware,so you will *never* see it happen. And no, I don't mean those old toy internet appliances, I mean a real one, as powerfuul as any modern midrange desktop but DAMN LOCKED DOWN HARD and no more complex in interface than it takes to select one of maybe half a dozen selections.
The computer business for "the consumer desktop" is the biggest damn smoke and mirrors buzzword enhanced snakeoil business out there.
Beyond that you stick with the devil you know?
How is this insightful? That we gotta make linux more like Windows for some reason? If that is the price we have to pay, I'll say no thanks.
Do us all a favor, stick with Windows, and don't bother us, we won't bother you.
Microsoft assumes the user is retarded. Linux doesn't. If you can handle that, give it a shot.
Evolve, damn you!
I don't run around trying to convert people. When I hear people complaining about one thing or another, I can't resist saying "Oh, I don't have that problem with Linux." And if they ask for more information, I'm happy to oblige. I've given away more than one Ubuntu Shipit CD this way.
Most of the people I talk to about Linux are people who are already looking for a change. I try and make clear that there is a learning curve, and while Linux isn't necessarily harder to learn than Windows, it's definitely different, which means changing some habits. If people are looking for a free version of Windows, I don't waste my time. Switching to Linux isn't something that can be done half-heartedly. You have to make people really want to switch, which you can't do in 5 minutes.
(I'm amazed by the number of hard-core Linux programmers I've met who have never even heard of Freshmeat. They've simply never heard of anyone offering a listing of what software was out there - and Freshmeat barely scratches the surface in a lot of areas. They use the tools they know of, imagining those to be the only ones to exist.)
Want a GUI but don't want X? Fine, no problem. Some aren't maintained all that well, but that's not the point. The point is not what could be better, the point is what exists in the first place. Code improvements will happen, if critical mass is reached on the userbase, but critical mass is impossible to achieve if nobody ever hears about these efforts. Don't blame Linux for "only" having one archaic GUI, when it actually has closer to twenty, if anyone made the effort to look. (Those are actual GUIs, not libraries or desktops for X. X isn't needed for, or used by, any of them.)
Want to run binaries for another Intel-based OS under Linux? I only know of five ways to do that at the moment. That's less developed. Not Linux' fault if the distros either don't provide them or don't make them simple to use. Not Linux' fault if users don't know about them, or only know about one or two. So neither the distros nor the users have any business blaming Linux for their own faults and failures.
Want hard real-time multimedia? Now we're down to about four broad solutions, with two options (microsecond precision or nanosecond precision), so that's eight ways to achieve this. Not bad. How many does the typical hardcore Linux gamer or musician install? None? Then my sympathies lie more with the LKML folk. They have achieved near-miracles and it must bother them some to be told that stuff that's been out there for two or three years "doesn't exist".
So am I doing anything different? Yes. I'm fighting the ignorance as best as I can, although my efforts are necessarily limited. It's hard work and I get a great deal of flammage for doing nothing more than letting people know that solutions do exist. My impact has probably been insignificant, compared to that of most Linux advocates, as I'm less concerned with paving over the gigantic holes of obliviousness than I am with filling in the ruts of obscurity. However, how is anyone to know that the ruts needn't be there, if nobody takes the time to show the alternative?
All that I ask is that when anybody - whoever that is, whenever that is - takes the time to show you why Linux doesn't have the limitations it is ascribed as having, please just take the time to have some faith that the system you use, and perhaps like, may actually be better than you once thought. Doesn't it feel better to know that what you perceive as a limitation of a given setup is neither your imagination nor unfixable, and that indeed a fix likely already exists. All you have to do is apply it. Then, the limitation ceases to exist.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I would like to start by stating I am using Fedora 6, right now on a dual boot system with XP.
I find that 90% of what I do can be done under linux.
As many poster's here have stated, linux is not for everyone.
I would first start with having them try it as a dual both system, so they can test the water so to speak.
Here is a list of positive points about linux:
1. a free windowing operating system, with lot's of very well made applications.
2. No having to look for driver disk like under windows, for most main stream hardware
3. Desktop can be configured to work just like Microsoft windows, with same mouse interactions.
4. Very good web browsers and email clinet's
5. Office suite's that are comparible to Microsoft office but they are free.
Wise men speak because they have something to say, Fools because they have to say something!!!!
Seriously, I'm not trying to be a troll. I love Linux, but if you don't really know your way around a computer or have a buddy (or a LUG) around to help you, it's probably not the best option. Still.
Of course, Windows isn't really either, but at least the Dell folks in Dubai or wherever will suck up to you when something breaks.
Game... blouses.
How can you blame windows for having different versions of Vista when Linus has all kinds of distributions? Yeah Ill get trolled for that I know.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
It's too late for "Linux on the desktop". Now it has to be "Linux on the Laptop". With WiFi. And that just doesn't work very well.
Yes, there are resources for running Linux on laptops. And they're very funny.
This is no better than it was four years ago. Maybe worse. You can't even get the WalMart Linux laptop any more.
Linux on the server, sure. Linux on the desktop, maybe. Linux on the laptop, not ready for prime time.
"I didn't say it would be easy, I just said it would be worth it." :)
Well said! "So then think, gee, Linux is free and Windows and MacOS are hundreds of dollars, and they all offer exactly the same features ...There's something wrong with Linux." A good wake-up call for those too close to the front lines to see the big picture. I'll put in my two cents' worth of what I think is the matter.
No, it's not the command line; I disagree with you there. At least with my distribution, Kubuntu, you can install and run without even realizing that the command line exists. But that's the very distribution that the guy in the OP said he had difficulty using.
Think: Why is there so much disagreement on whether Linux is "ready for the desktop"? Because different people have different needs, and Linux appears differently to them. One guy needs it just to type letters and check email, and the other gal wants to play MMORPGs on her box. One user is happy if she can read the MS Word documents she gets, another needs to produce Word documents and have them come out exactly the same on his clients' computers. Which of these users do you think would complain that Linux is "difficult to use"?
We say that "Linux" --as in, "the GNU/Linux OS"-- is ready for the desktop. Agree. But on top of that, people use applications, and these apps are what make it or break it for users. Some apps run great --K3b and Amarok are shining examples of user-friendly software. Others are totally worthless when it comes to user-friendliness; the GIMP and mplayer come to mind[1] --you'll note that these are examples of really powerful programs, but there's no way for the average user to access that power.
As the parent poster observed, it's not just one or two things that's easily fixable, but many things that form an inertial trend that needs to be fought. These "things" are apps. Too many apps are just not ready for the desktop, and it's not going to be easy to correct. Heroic, altruistic programmers can get together to make a multitude of great apps --look at the KDE team, or the Ubuntu GNOME desktop-- but then you'll still have that half a dozen apps that were clearly authored by someone more enamoured with feature and powers than with usability. And these apps are what make Linux "difficult" for the Average Josephine.
One particular type of app bears special mention: the word processor. This is one thing that's essential on every desktop, and we don't have anything nearly as professional as MS Word. The closest is that plodding thing called OpenOffice.org[2] that takes about 30 seconds to open a document. AbiWord doesn't do tables well, and KWord continues to have refresh bugs. The reason I am hard-pressed to convert everyone to a Linux environment is because I can't honestly recommend any good word processors.
Good news: we are beginning to realize, slowly, so very slowly, that what makes Linux "ready for the desktop" is no longer Linux itself, or the last spit'n'polish of the KDE or GNOME desktop, but the apps themselves. I'm starting to see more awareness of the importance of usability and documentation. Linux distros now have more choices for user-friendly apps where previously it was just some command-line thing (thank you, Synaptic, Kynaptic and Adept; good riddance 'dselect'!).
Thus, the next thing we need to do to promote Linux is make apps usable. Oddly enough, here's where even non-coders can contribute: write documentation! User manuals, HOWTO's and web tutorials are within the purview of even the Average Joe who doesn't have the technical skill to contribute code --and perhaps he'd be an even *more* suitable instruction manual writer because of this very fact.
When will Linux be ready for *your* desktop? When *your* apps that *you* need are usable!
A final word: I want to point out the insight in the sibling post that the reason Windows is dominant over Linux is the very fact that it *is* dominant over Linux. With regard to what I said above, yes, there are a bunch of *Windows* apps that are not "ready f
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Whenever hardware comes with a Linux driver, it is a very bad sign. It usually means that the drivers are closed source binary files that has to be installed. It takes a lot of effort to make such drivers work well in an up to date Linux system. And the only only ones that can make updates are the hardware producers. I once bought a USB ISDN adapter. It claimed to include Linux drivers. And it actually did. But only for Linux kernel version 2.4.18. It has never been updated. Free Open Source drivers in Linux are generally included, and you don't have to install anything. It just works. Today and tomorrow and probably in ten years too. This is why a lot of people think Free and Open Source software is an important issue. It is a development model and a way of thinking that can make the world a lot simpler and more efficient, both for the end users, hardware and software producers. The flawed closed source development model is founded on the idea that you need to have total control over your customers if you want to be successful and make a lot of money. I hope and believe that this path will lead to a lot of dissatisfied customers and poverty.
"So you heard about Linux? Oh, but you're not into computing for computing's sake? Tell you what, if you want practically all the benefits of Linux but wrapped up in an easy-to-use UI and with mainstream applications, just buy a Mac. That's what I did. Heck, you can even dig into the command line if you ever feel the need. By the way, did you know that Mac OS X is cheaper than any version of Vista?"
Hey, that only takes 1 minute! Cool!
Or perhaps just don't "advocate" it at all. Tell the truth like "Linux IS harder to use than Windows, But..." (insert benefit here) Nobody likes a zealot.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Someone just asked me the other day why you might use Linux. I told them that in my experience you often see one of a few reasons.
1) You toasted your Windows and you don't have media or a valid license or time to hassle through that. I've seen this with quite a few college student notebooks at school. You dump Ubuntu on there, and while it might not work exactly the way your Windows did, at least your computer is doing useful work again without dumping a bunch of money down for a Retail Windows purchase.
2) You've bought into the "free as in freedom" idea. If you learn about free software, you'll find there's this whole philosophy of ideas behind it. Among the import ideas in the philosophy are that it's cool if you can share (legitimate) copies of the software you use. Sharing Linux isn't piracy, it's community. And some people love that.
3) You find something particularly appealing about the environment. Sometimes it is just subtle things that work differently than Windows, but you find they click. A lot of people who like programming have the potential to be drawn to Linux for some reason. Or people who enjoy tinkering with their computer. There is no limit to the amount of tinkering that is possible (if that is your interest) when you use Linux.
Personally, I tend to fall under categories 2) and 3).
Linux is not a Windows replacement. It is the same general kind of thing as Windows, but in many ways it's as different as a motorboat is from an SUV. If you're really into Windows and understand it well ... you should recognize that you've spent a lot of time and effort gaining that ability. Windows is not "intuitive", and neither is Linux; to get really good at it, you will need to acquire a different set of skills. However, you can do it; you learned one complex and funky system and you can learn another.
"Good" and "easy" and "functional" are not scalar values. There are things that are much easier to do in an open-source environment (be it Linux or just OpenOffice on Windows) ... like making PDFs, or browsing the Web safely. There are other things that are harder, like printing to cheap printers or playing commercial games.
The real long-term benefits will take a while to show up. The big one is that with Linux, nobody is deliberately trying to get in your way, to make you spend money, to take over your life. There is no DRM; there are no registration codes; there is no "genuine Windows verification". There is no spyware. You don't get out of having to do software upgrades ... but they're a lot less likely to hose you, and they will never be intended to hose you.
The biggest mistake I think people make is overstating what Linux can do. That just sets people up to be disappointed.
Linux is not the best at everything, and it's not necessarily for everyone. Linux is not a gaming platform, though it does have plenty of fun games (frozen-bubble, anyone?). Linux may be hard to install, and you sometimes have to be choosy when selecting hardware for a Linux, but it gets easier with time, and for me, it was worth it.
Everyone already knows that Linux is great for Linux fanatics. The main points you want to get across are as follows:
Your primary goal is to inspire curiosity.
http://outcampaign.org/
Waiting until it "just works" probably won't work. Macs "just work" yet they have a small market share. With the switch to Intels and because of Bootcamp, more are using Macs now but it still is playing catchup.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I threatened my dad to stop fixing his laptop unless he switch to Linux. A few weeks later, he's running Kubuntu Edgy. It's been 3 months now and he can maintain his machine by himself and his need for computer support is almost gone. When he tells his friends and collegue he runs Linux, it sounds much less like a geek thing than when I do. Same thing for me. When I tell people about my dad in the sixties who can use Linux, it sounds like anybody can do it. In conclusion: Threats, some training and support and let the user realize it by himself.
The most ridiculous item of the day
Linux is Free.
Linux is faster than windows.
Linux comes with all the applications you'll need.
Linux is safer.
Linux support is usually free from a LUG or forums or irc
Here is a free copy of a Linux cd that will boot from your CD/DVD drive and won't touch your hard drive.
Test it worry free.
Linux is easier to use than windows.
Linux will run off a USB thumb drive.
and now for the most ridiculous item of the day: windows is none of those things.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I'm with you. I used to try and get people to switch, but it's a waste of time. Most people can't stand to learn anything on their own and thus can't work with linux without someone holding their hand. Unless you're prepared to tutor someone permanently, there's no point in getting people to switch.
H320 was 20GB. Hence the "20" in the title. the H340 was their 40GB model, and is harder to find. They are on ebay still. One of the best around.
Waffles rock.
Show where it's faster/simpler.
Will you also tell/show them where it's not faster/simpler?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
That one fact alone means a whole lot to the average person. They want something they can get help with from people they know, the want something they can replace easily, they want the dominant operating system. Just like most people want the dominant movie format, and will wait to get it.
I don't think the average person wants the dominant OS, what they want to to get a computer with an OS already installed, most never install an OS. And because Windows is preinstalled in most PCs people buy a PC with Windows. If more OEMs offered PCs with Linux preinstalled, yes there are some as I bought one a few months ago, then more people would buy them and use Linux. Unfortunately there's also the public perception that Linux is for nerds and most who have heard of Linux don't believe it can be used to do the same things as Windows PCs can. I frequently hear the same thing stated about Macs, that it's not something that can used productively, or in another area, there's no games for Macs. I'm puzzled about this, if Macs can't be used for productive work and there's no games for them then what are they for? I know Macs can be just as productive as Windows PCs and while there aren't as many there are games for Macs.
Get 4 people to together to discuss OSes and you'll get 6 different opinions.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I tell them that Windows killed my mother and raped my father.
My 5 min Linux sales pitch:
Bored of your laptop "just working"? Try Linux. You'll find your masochist side awakens with inane challenges such as trying to find a way to control the screen brightness on a Sony Vaio (yes I found spicctrl, but it doens't work on my SLED 10 distro). Then try upgrading to Firefox 2.0 to discover your add-ons don't add on. (Sorry to spoil the fun for those pain-seekers, but you need to delete your ~/.mozilla/firefox/.../extensions.rdf file - <sarcasm>of course!</sarcasm>). Now let's set the pain level up a notch and start playing with your graphics driver to get those snazzy Xgl effects working. Do I hear someone whispering SaX2 to get that X display back up again? And now you're hooked...
If this short teaser has got your masochist taste buds watering, Linux is for you! Feel the pain!!
Zen tips: Pay attention. Don't take it personally. Believe nothing.
My mother is 85 years old and for years she's bugged me to get her a computer, but I always refused because I was NOT going to try to support a Windows system for her remotely - Then a few years ago I ran into Knoppix and the instructions on how to create your own distribution. I took an old P3-800 and ripped out the hard drive, installed 2 GB ram and created a live-cd with what I call MOM-OS.
Mom loves it. She has internet access, email, IM, and solitaire. She can browse to her heart's content, send me EMAILS IN ALL CAPS and play videos from YouTube - what else could she want? Her bookmarks are on mybookmarks.com, she uses Gmail, Google Calendar and Google Docs if she wants to write something - and I never have any support issues, because she CAN'T SCREW ANYTHING UP!!! When she reboots everything is back to the original install. The only issue I ever had was when she inserted the CD upside down (they are now all marked "THIS SIDE UP")
The trick was not to get her involved with bash and maintenance - just give her a mouse with links on her desktop, then 10 minutes of instruction before leaving her alone to explore.
"Straddling the sword of technology..."
...because we in the adult world pay a lot of taxes and buy a lot of things, and having windows installed infections all over the planet interacting in our lives costs us time, money and aggravation.
I don't run windows, yet I pay a windows tax with every purchase I make,and with every governmental tax I pay. I spend a buck, I guarantee you I could find where a certain percentage of that dollar winds up in Microsoft's bank account. Why? I don't want to "run" windows, yet I am forced to pay for it, and have, for years and years now. I don't get a gentle advocation to run windows, I am FORCED to run it by proxy and pay for that so called privelege.
It slows society down, keeps computing in the stone age, has driven up costs insanely, it is now a signifcant percentage of the actual hardware cost, adds needless markup to the costs of most everything else, results in millions of man hours of wasted time to society to keep it allegedly "fixed", and so on. It's an out of control abusive and completely parasitical monopoly now, even if someone doesn't run it on their personal desktop.
That is more than enough reason to advocate people to switch away from windows.
Time-Money-Aggravation.
By the cubic boatload. Enough. Bill Gates is rich enough. Steve Balmer is WAY past rich enough and needs to be locked up in a rubber walled room, he's a near psychopath. Microsoft has made enough money. Society has paid enough of a "windows tax", we don't *need* to anymore. We don't need to keep wasting valuable resources like human time and money and paying for the aggravation of that by using broken and defective by design "windows", no matter which new shiny version it is called. We don't need to devote huge amonts of precious natural resources to ugrade hardware that isn't broken, it is just so hoplessly bogged down with windows crap that people think it is broken so it winds up in a landfill. That climate deal is in all the papers, check it out. Toxic waste, by the millions of pounds, all because of bad windows software? Who pays for that?
And that is leaving out what totally crooked schnooks the top management has ALWAYS been at Microsoft. Criminals, get it? Crooks, liars, strong arm specialists, bribers, intimidators? Get it? Guys who have pushed crap using illegal tactics since day one? We should keep rewarding such behavior? Why, from inertia?
Is there any wonder they are so in bed with the MAFFIA extorters and their new defective by design "improvements" in Vista? Birds of a feather....
There's your answer. Think beyond just one single step. The world is a very interconnected complex place. Your food doesn't appear in replicators in the back room of the Deli. Automobiles don't grow in the back of the lot at the car dealers. Ever watch PBS? Great series they had for a long time that will get you up to speed on how things work, fascinating really, called "Connections". Maybe it is downloadable or they have it on their site or something. Give it a look, really, this is legit honest advice, helps put things into perpsective how totally unrelated -at first glance-actions and realities are, when they are really highly connected.
Windows permeates our society, but it has a tremendous negative cost associated to it now. A long time ago, no, I wasn't of that opinion, I used it up to 95 then had had enough thanks, and now, after all we know about their corporate "policies" and the completely verifiable and mostly dismal track record with windows products? It is a net energy and economic loss now, and totally unnecessary, all the way to actively harmful for human society to *keep* using it. It is so bad, entire foreign governments are actively considering total abandonment, because they see the connections and adverse and unnecessary costs associated with it, and don't have as much cash to deal with it, and don't want the aggravation any longer.
So yes, it does matter "what that other guy runs". And the next guy, and the next guy, and the next gu
What pain? NT 4.0 is the only version of Windows I have used I did not have crash, give me the BSOD, or freeze on me. Even XP froze on me the first tyme I used it, but NT 4 never has. Now I have had some pain with the PC NT is installed on, however that's not the fault of the OS. The problem is that the cpu is a DEC Alpha and I wasn't able to get much software installed on it.
Now, with XP, you need to ask daddy Bill permission to run your system if you changed something they think is crucial.
Yeap, both Activation and WGA/WPA are driving me away from MS Windows and to Linux and Macs. I recently got a PC with Linux preinstalled to replace my desktop and I plan on getting a Macbook Pro for my laptop. I'll not stay in hot water until I'm boiled.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This is actually a good argument.
on this blog Internet Freedom Disk. It explains Linux LiveCD's and why you need them, what they are, how they are used and where to get them. All tailored for a noobie. People do not realize it is not a matter of "Easier" it is a matter of "Safer"! But at least with the IFD they can move in a bit more slowly.
People don't switch to Linux because it's easier, at least not yet. In most areas, it isn't easier.
If someone is intelligent and enough of an abstract thinker to understand the benefit of FOSS even when they don't how to program, then they will want to use Linux, regardless of how much harder it is than Windows.
But there are few non-developers who can comprehend the value of FOSS (I am one of them.). All things being equal, people are resistant to change. There has to be a damn good reason for them to do it. If it is difficult, they simply won't.
The few times I have been asked about Linux, I've just told the person that it requires more work than Windows, but if you like working with computers, then it might be the thing for you.
Also, you have to remember that Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel. Rather than going into a long and drawn out explanation of this, I think it's best to just recommend the current most user-friendly distro out there. "It's not what I'm using, but it's good for a beginner."
Tell him/her the truth: Linux is a freely available system, with tens of thousands of pieces of Free/Open Source Software that run on it. It doesn't have the overall polish of commercial systems like Windows and Mac OS, but is "getting there" and getting better on the desktop everyday.
Raise the various issues that Linux and the F/OSS ecosystem truly addresses:
* Taking control of your computer, with full transparency as to how your operating system and your software works.
* Taking advantage of our existing gigahertz CPUs and gigabyte memory stores, instead of requiring us to upgrade our hardware to support bloated software from Redmond.
* Documentation driven by users and strong user-based support communities (rather than 1-800 numbers with a call center employee on the other line).
* Avoiding most malware due to the double-whammy of obscurity of a less popular operating system and a generally more secure design.
Linux as a desktop system is plagued by myths and misconceptions. One of them is certainly that "Everyone can use Linux." Linux isn't for everyone. Others of these misconceptions mostly stem from FUD and the bad state of certain parts of the software industry. For my opinions on this, you can read a recent post on my blog, called "Common Criticisms of Linux, parsed and analyzed."
Still needs support and transitioning to it can be a major expense
I think this is an invalid arugment against upgrading to Linux. Saying switching to Linux has costs involved without mentioning anything about the expense of upgradng from say Win2000 or even XP to Vista is FUD. All upgrades have expenses.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Mod me up people, am I right?
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
Then GIVE THEM an Ubuntu livedisc or install Debian/Fedora/Mandriva/whatever for them. No, don't tell them "go download it", that's not going to work.
That's true. M$ has made it very difficult to burn ISOs lately. The last time I tried was two years ago using a friend's Sony Viao laptop. All the burning program would do is make a "data CD", there was no ISO option and Google searches turned up about an hour of frustration and bullshit. This, with a premium laptop! Having a CD ready is much easier. Tell them it may not work for various easy to fix problems and that you can help them if they want.
Seeing is believing.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Once it's right, you don't need to advocate it. The big problem seems to be that there are 3 or 4 good distros, 20 other reasonable distros, infinity+1 live CDs/usb disks.
There is no real "linux" people can wrap their mind around. An expert at SUSE 10.2 probably isn't totally adept with FC6, Kubuntu, or even SUSE 9.x for that matter. File structures aren't the same, package managers are different... though that is getting better. Hell, you use KDE or gnome? x.org? xgl? compiz? beryl? I wish it was just different software stacks making different distros, but there are real differences and most people don't have time to give a rats ass.
People want to pay roughly $800 and get a thing that does all that crap they used to do plus some other stuff they need to do. They want that damn Quicken cash register they bought at SAMs for their small business to automagically fill out their 10-99s etc and have some sort of tie-in to their CRM/logistics and their "online business." Also, it should probably kick out pretty charts and crap for the loan officer/investors.
Forks are good and healthy but you have zealotry within linux, factions inside the userbase. Ask two linux users which distro is best and you'll get 2 answers. Narrow it down to "for desktops" or "for LAMP" you still get 2 answers each. Then some hoser says NetBSD to further the confusion. Or a debian "purist" advocates using yesterday's technology tomorrow.
Linux has a ton of things going for it, but there are far too many variations and forks to even jack with. Most people aren't retarded. They do want stability though, and they want off the shelf stuff. They want a thing they can see on the shelf at Best Buy, blow their money on, run a CD, plug it in and tear ass with it doing all the cool crap they saw in the commercial or on the box.
Long story short, make linux "just work." Funny how people keep saying that, then they create a new fork. Capitalist society, socialist OS.
"Tomorrow is more important than today".
:)
I don't remember what this is ACTUALLY from, but I've seen it recently in Fist of the North Star, and thought it quite fitting.
I'd tell 'em "stick with windows".
Seriously...I'm a fairly computer literate guy. I started off with DOS back in '91 on an 8086, and progressed from there. I can program fairly well in multiple languages, I run several LAMP servers, I can even dig through raw disc sectors and hex and generally achieve the result I want. Yet linux still aggravates the shit outta me. For some things it's awesome - I have a mini SLAX disc that I carry with me everywhere, and it's come in handy many times, and runs without problem on every computer I've ever tried it on. But EVERY time I try to install linux on my home machine, something goes wrong. And usually it's the stupidest things possible, which just aggrivates me more.
Take last night for example. I heard that Ubuntu was a stable and reliable distro, with lots of good software available, and a solid future. I prefer KDE to Gnome though, so I got Kubuntu. I go to install it, and find out that the build in partitioning tool isn't able to do what I need it to do in order to create a swap partition. Alright, not a huge problem, but I do need to boot into windows to fix it. So, half an hour later I'm doing the actual install. Everything copies over ok, I reboot, and it's good to go.
Well, the first thing I notice is that Kubuntu is taking longer to boot up than my Windows XP installation. Not a good thing to see after hearing about how much more efficient linux is. Anyway, after waiting a good 3 minutes to log in, I finally have my brand new desktop. Yay! Now to test it out....navigate to my MP3 directory...double click a song....what the hell?? What do you mean "Amarok cannot play MP3's"???? Who ever heard of an audio player that can't play MP3's??? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard of!
Alright, click the button to download new software. What's this? "Restricted Software"?? What the hell? Now it's asking for my password. Well...I guess I got nothing to lose. Type in my password. Oh. Now I have to restart Amarok. Ok, do that.
WHAT THE HELL?? What do you mean "Amarok cannot play MP3's"???? I JUST INSTALLED THE GOD-DAMN.......oh, forget it. Try again. Click download, type in password, restart Amarok, and....great. It crashed. Well aint that just peachy. How about instead of sending you a crash report I just reboot back into windows?
Now, I realize that "Amarok" isn't Linux any more than WMP is Windows. However, as I've said, every time I've tried to install linux, SOMETHING goes wrong either during the install process, or within the first 5 minutes of booting into the GUI. EVERY time I've installed Linux it's been nothing but crashes and incompatibilities which usually take hours to resolve. So now, the first problem I encounter usually has me giving up in disgust and booting into windows instead. Say what you want about MS products, but I NEVER have these kinds of issues with XP. And that's without even going into all the other advantages that windows has over linux, such as more software and more current drivers. Personally, the ONLY reason I keep trying Linux is because of all the "benefits" I keep hearing about from the loser fan-boys on here. So far it hasn't even come close to living up to the hype.
Why are you advocating in the first place? I'm so tired of people talking about Linux as if it's some sort of cause or crusade... So bored with that. Move on. It's not '95 or even '05 anymore... It's just a freaking tool, not a religion or political cause celebre...
you make a lot of good points here but here's what i found...
i wanted to try linux and the only one anyone mentioned to me was suse. and i went with suse 10.1. i wanted to try it because i'm a sys admin that has worked with windows nt then upgraded to XP and wanted to try something different. of course i heard a lot about linux and heard that the new versions are simple to use and easy to pick up. i found different.
the installation was a breeze but hooking up the wireless was BRUTAL. obviously, that was the only thing i wanted because being tethered is tough. after i finally got the wireless working i just wanted to do the things i do on my windows box...download and play some music, movies and install some programs.
the worst part is that you HAVE to know command lines to do some of the things that are just a double click in windodws. since there are so many different distributions it is really tough to find the exact answer to an exact problem and every time you serch for a simple answer you get a really complicated answer and no real explination WHY you had to do what you do to fix the problem.
linux people are really quick to call you an inexperienced noob but are unwilling to answer questions simply and informativly (if thats a word) in forums.
i really wanted to learn something new but i'm about 5 minutes from going back to XP.
i don't want to discourage anyone from linux but i have to give you a BIG good luck bro and i hope you have someone to actually sit down and teach you.
And don't get me started on the forums, I've seen plenty of them where if you didn't know, you were an idiot or a troll and were cast away..
I've noticed slashdot is getting more and more like this, if you show the slightest lack of knowledge on a subject people come out of the jungle to pounce and say you're a troll or are an ignorant fool who shouldn't be touching a computer. And I remember when hackers helped willingly without being snide. Then again, today "hackers" are only criminals, scammers, and vandals. At least to the mass media, and the public is swallowing what they say up.
FalconShould there be a Law?
He should of been president in 1988.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Here's a start: Linux needs to tuck the command line under the carpet" ... and loose that case sensitivity. It is the single most annoyance on the command line. What are we going to do when we start talking to computers. And it's gonna happen. How do you tell the difference between "Letter to mom" and "LETTER to Mom" when you speak it.
But the game that the kids are bugging him about and the financial applications for which the local bank offers support are not listed. Now what?
Five minutes of my time: Put in a debian-stable network installation CD into the little box which is supposed to be your small workgroup server. Let it boot until it runs the task selection. Select Unix Server, Print Server, Web Server (4Minutes...). press return, go away do some other stuff. Let the server run for years without breakdowns. 4 Years later (!Updates!) without noticable downtime and "upgrading issues" people will have learned that it is a good experience to have a linux server.....
Five minutes in total: I don't. Honestly.
I agree.
My Mom knows I work on computers all day, and that I use linux, and that I program them.
Then one day I was just browsing the web and she looked over and said "wait, that's linux?"
I think she finally realized it really wasn't that complicated. Just showing people linux working correctly does wonders.
Unfortunately, it takes some time. For example my Mom had already watched me build a computer and install linux on it for my little brother.
On second thought, maybe that's why she thought it was complicated...stupid CPU power not being plugged in on the mother board.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
Hand them a Ubuntu 6.10 cd, Tell them to download Automatix (to install libdvdcss and commercial apps) or Easy Ubuntu, and give them a years subscription to Cedega. I just wish Cyberlink would release Linux version of PowerDVD so Linux users have legal means of watching dvds.
TV commercial idea for Linux using Apple's commercial.
PC and Mac compare themselves. PC gets mad (Because gates expressed how much he hates the commercial.) and starts choking Mac. Mac defends himself and chokes PC. Linux walks in wearing white penguin tshirt and sees them fighting. Linux grabs back of PC and Mac's head and bangs them together with them both of them being knocked out and laying flat on their backs. Linux steps over them and camera pans on the Penguin logo.Penguin logo can be replaced with a distributions logo like the Ubuntu one.
Note: this is a pun of Apple and Bill Gates.
\
One of the problems that I run into with linux is that although it is widely availible, the apps one can use on it are limited. Granted one can emu windows or mac oses, however, this take a bit of patience and a bit of savvy that the average user doesn't have, and pobably, in all honesty, doesn't wish to ever possess. The sentiment that i have heard from many people is, "Why use linux when I can run MSWord on mac or pc without hassles? I could use open office, but i know the ms and mac suites, and, for the most part, they are far less finicky." Finding software for linux can be troubling, and most people want to go to an electronics store and pick up whatever it is they feel they need - the likelyhood of finding something compatible with a linux distro is fairly slim for the most part. Until linux becomes more mainstream, i think the point is somewhat moot - the person who says linux is too hard for him or her, or has been in the past, might do well to partition a hard drive and run two osses, but he or she is probably correct in his or her initial observation. Simply owing to the fact that oses tend to be so proprietary, the world simply isnt quite ready for a linux heavy computer community - that isn't to say it wont be, but i think some major work has to be done, and some of the bickering about distros needs to end, before this utopian os society is realized. Linux is good stuff, but as with all the best stuff, it simply isn't practicable for the uninitiated. Anyone can sing Mary had a Little Lamb with some ammount of proficiency, but only those with traning and years of practice can hope to surmount Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, and only the very best can sing the arias and solos therein.
In my view, these are the features of the mythical desktop-distro-for-the-masses:
1. It has to be available in stores. Joe Bloggs wants to just go and buy it. A net install would also be necessary of course. The installation must be as automatic as possible, it must ask the minimum number of questions as it can.
Joe Bloggs doesn't want to go into a store to buy a Linux distro, he wants to buy a computer with an OS already installed.
2. Remove choices. Yes. REMOVE choices. Have the distro setup so that it has one carefully selected instance of each software type you need, one word processor, one spreadsheet, one database, one graphics package... Everything is installed, there is no asking "do you want", it is there in your "start menu" from the get-go. When Joe decides one Sunday afternoon to make a movie... "Start > Movies > Movie Maker".
I'm not sure about removing choices but having an app for each use yes, and Linspire Linux, Debian based, does this. When you bootup it even looks kind of like Windows, and you click on "start", er "launch" button, as there's the menu for programs.
3. In the start menu it's not "GIMP" it's "Image Editor".
"Paint program" in Linspire.
In the software repository (Debian based naturally), again, remove choices. People don't want 20 different examples of a web browser, they want 1 which has been carefully chosen as "the best". And installing software from the repository should be seamless, I'd go so far as to make it as easy as selecting "Start > Games > Tetris" and it installs from the repository if it's not already there. Do away with package management interfaces,
Linspire has a software warehouse, CNR, which they ar in the process of offering to other Linux distros wherein a person can select programs to install then click on the install button after which they ar downloaded and installed without having to worry about dependencies or anything else. If the user doesn't like a program it's just anothe rclick to uninstall the program.
Joe Bloggs down the road doesn't WANT all that stuff. They want to do a job, they want the computer to just get out of the way and let him do the job, they want the computer to help him, not to make him jump through hoops to tell the computer exactly how to do such and such.
That's a bit of a contradiction isn't it? If Joe Bloggs doesn't want to jump through hoops then why is he using Windows which requires a bunch of jumps? And that's if he's lucky and it doesn't crapout on him. Tyme will only tell if Vista is good and stable.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How do you advocate Linux to people who are more comfortable using Windows?
Short answer, you don't. If they're more "comfortable using Windows", let them use Windows.
I think Linux has gotten to the point where it would be the best choice for a wolf-boy recently returned to civilization and learning to use a computer for the first time. He has no preconceived notions of how things should be. But someone "comfortable using Windows" is going to be uncomfortable using Linux. It's a different operating system, and even a different philosophy and mind set.
I suppose you could carry those complete bootable Linux systems like Knoppix around and hand them out, but don't expect a lot of converts. It isn't just a question of getting past the problem of installation. There is a learning curve that has to be taken on, regardless. Wolf-boy has to face that learning curve. The user "comfortable using Windows" doesn't.
That said, it may be possible to help those Windows users who are pissed off, had it up to here, looking for an alternative, and definitely not comfortable using Windows. That's how I came to Linux some years ago. To Windows users currently in the same boat I'll just say you won't have as easy a time as wolf-boy learning Linux, but it is worth the effort. Persevere. You'll be rewarded for your effort.
Loose lips lose spit.
Ubuntu won't install at all on my comp. Kubuntu has shitty wireless support and not much software. Mandriva so far has handled everything I throw at it. Wifi set up in...three clicks. Not a problem. Works on every comp I've tried it on. Comes with software to do EVERYTHING. And it is by far the easiest distro to use that I have found.
I think I'm gaining a pet-peeve of CLI-paranoia.
Are CLI-based programs inheirently difficult to use? Consider two command-line programs that do the same thing, fdisk and cfdisk. cfdisk is pretty simple to use if you understand the basics of partitioning/formatting a drive, I would argue that it is about as easy to use as gparted. But fdisk is a little tougher. Not by much, but you have to learn commands before you can use it, rather than just having to understand what's going on.
My opinion is that if a function is something that a good percentage of users want, and an even better percentage won't fuck up configuring, then it should use a GUI (though hiding a GUI probably isn't the worst idea). Otherwise, you probably have to read a manual anyway, and I define a technical user as one who can and will read manuals. Thus, I don't mind setting them loose on the command line.
Now before you argue, think about it, does OS X have a GUI method of configuring _everything_? How does OS X keep it's configuration programs simple and clean?
I'm becoming a grey beard before I can even grow a beard right, I think I need a drink.
The best way to advocate Linux to Windows people is to give them a faster, prettier drop-in replacement that works with 90% of the windows software AND LSB (Once it's around?) software that exists.
/., Wikipedia, digg, IMDB, Stock Quotes, Mininova, LeperKhanz.com. Send me the link when you're done, thanks.
That doesn't exist yet, though, so:
Why not just advocate some OTHER FOSS app?
I recommend Firefox, but frequently impress common non-techie types with GIMP, Open Office, UltraVNC, VLC, Thunderbird, and even ClamWin.
It takes me about 20 seconds to describe the benefits of Open Source:
1. No EULA.
2. It's Free.
3. No stupid DRM, if you buy hardware, this software "just works".
4. Make copies for all your devices!
5. Open Standards.
6. Speed.
7. Stability.
8. To legally own Photoshop costs about $500.
Expand these out for a minute if you want!
Then give them one piece of software, and show them the most apparent immediate benefits:
I choose Firefox, and then show them adblock, the bookmarks toolbar, how to make those bookmarks just the little icon (Right click, Backspace, click OK), Discuss whether Torbutton is a good idea for them, Ctrl+MouseWheel for text scaling, and sometimes even clean their Bookmarks Toolbar up for them.
Everyone I know uses Firefox now.
Everyone.
Make a Linux/Wine hybrid like that, and slipstream the most reliable softwares directly into the distro, and I can get them all on that, too. Hell, you can even put a few bookmarks in the toolbar FOR them:
rhY
PS Can you give it a cool 3d interface like the new one in Vista? I love scrollwheeling through the open windows.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Way to go, you just validated everything he said. I hope if there's a -7 mod, you get it. Thanks for helping out open source.
I use this all the time and it's the one thing (well there is more than one actually) I truly miss when having to go back to Windows. I mean come on how freaking hard would this be to implement in Explorer? I was working on a SLES box one day with a coworker and he was impressed that you could do that and he thoroughly detest Linux. It amazes me how many people in the IT industry still believe the FUD. It's been said before but the real thing that's holding Linux back from widespread adoption (in the home market at least) is commercial games.
There's no shame in being a pariah. -Marge Simpson
I use Linux all the time at home and at work. But I have 18 years of experience with *nix systems. When I have problems I know where to look. When I talk to casual users of Linux or people who are new to Linux, they have the same problems I have been having for the last 18 years. Do I tell them they just need to keep at it and perseverance will pay off? No, I tell them to use whatever works for them. If Windows is easier, use it. If Mac OSX is easier, use it. If DOS is easier, use it. But we don't need to create people like my brother who blames me because he can't get his wireless adapter working on his laptop with Ubuntu. How do I explain to him that his laptop might have a new custom PCI bridge that isn't supported by the stock Ubuntu kernel? Or maybe a flaky BIOS? I don't. I just let him get on with his life with something that doesn't take weeks worth of hunting the internet and rebuilding the kernel from source. The things I take for granted (familiarity breeds contempt here) are huge obstacles for people not familiar with the *nix way of accomplishing tasks. Just let them muddle through until Linux gets to the point where advocacy is no longer needed.
Simply put, there's no real advantage for a normal person to switch to a Linux Distro in a Windows based world. The EXEs are closed source, and precompiled generally for Windows. Wireless card drivers, being a prime example of this, have only been reverse engineered on a few chips.
;)
Another disadvantage is Linux CAN be slower than Windows. (Granted Linux doesn't check four times for a file when you try to delete it...) The reason for this is because it IS Open Source code. Generally having something work, and having something work with great efficiency are two varied, and distant things, and with great efficiency comes a great price only companies can afford.
As for the "Linux is too hard", and "Linux still uses a CLI so it's too hard", that's bull. Complete, and utter bull. Windows is no different from Linux in the "difficulty" of that department. Some of the people I've let use my PC, particularly to check their email, were suprised to find out they were in fact using Linux, and not Windows. For any "complicated" part of Linux, you can find an equally (Somehow, it just doesn't feel right saying this) "complex" part of Windoze.
I will agree, however, that Linux can have problems with installing drivers, where Windows has it almost perfected. It can take upwards of several days for a Linux newbie to debug a mouse which does not work corretly in Linux, where it would work in Windows with the snap of a finger.
To conclude, Linux is still a developer, and geek's platform. You could TRY to convert someone to use Linux, but then they'd run into so many problems in this world comprised of Windows, they would throw their arms up into the air, and simply give up. The problems aren't even usually caused by Linux, but the fact that few companies will stand behind Linux. Few companies want to say, "Oh, by the way. Here's the source code for the drivers in our newest Wireless card. Have fun guys," even if it would be advantageous to their product, as developers have a habit of making things better.
the general thought is that 'it is harder than Windows'. How do you advocate Linux to people who are more comfortable using Windows?
Well, you lie. Just tell them it's not harder than Windows.
Tell once they RTFM, they'll agree that it's not harder than
Windows.
I switched my mum to Ubuntu (I'm a Fedora user myself, but I find ubuntu to be easier for beginners) a few months ago and she's perfectly happy with it.
I gave her a ten minute training over the phone (I live in a different country) and she didn't require any further help.
She barely knew how to use windows so it wasn't difficult for her to try something different.
Last time I had her on the phone she was proud to have managed to rip* a cd and find "the Word thingy" to type her letters, all by herself.
* oh boy, I hope the RIAA won't go all the way to France to sue her ass now...
...especially because of my disagreement with what Vista is trying to do. But the software I use for 3d work does not not run on it. I work with video games, which unfortunately makes linux a highly unfavorable choice because I would have to use Wine to use DirectX -based games and apps, pray there are no glitches and that my video card drivers work right, and deal with extra slowdown in what is already a burden on system resources.
As a side note, the way the file system is organized and used is at first a complete mystery to windows users. I know I could figure it out eventually through reading and experience, but your average user is going to have a tough time.
I tried Fedora Core and was impressed with the installation, but it would not recognize the NIC built into my motherboard so I could not get online.
...show them the sidebar. Oh, wait....
I would suspect broken iso due to bad packets. They do happen the internet is not perfect.
Users are willing to go through a complete overhaul and relearning phase every time there is a new version of Windows. That is considered to be "worth it". But when these same people try Linux, they expect it to be exactly like what they have experience with, and otherwise it is too difficult.
Heck, even the API changes all the time in Windows. And every time a new version of visual studio comes out, programs break. And programmers accept that. Unix programs written in 1985 still run on Linux without change....
I totally understand why documentation is important, because I have to read it every day. No average user will EVER read it, regardless of it's existence. There should be no documentation necessary. I personally don't understand why Photoshop texts exist, if you click around enough you can figure out what you should do. But I digress, documentation is not the answer. The answer is MUCH BETTER driver support, better applications, zero flood of text across the screen at boot, INTEROPERABILITY!!!, all desktop class applications/configurations/system tools should have no connection to a command line ever. The kernel everyone loves is fine, the desktop will be broken for another 10 years at least.
-tyfighter
What a bunch of bullshit.
All you do is coat linux with sugar, no substance. It's not easier. Just ask my friend who takes about 5x longer than me to access a file on his unix ftp server compared to getting the same file added to my windows-based ftp server. Or my favorite is when he takes 10x longer than me resetting a password for my account on his unix-based box. And he's been doing this for a few years now. He flies on a Window$ box. I also love how this kind of unix fan boy junk gets modded up so high.
The fisrt thing I would do would be to ask how much time and effort did he spend on windows and how much time he was willing to give to Kubuntu. Second I would ask him to put things into perspective meaning that windows is not wihtout limitations, just he happen to have bought a system that was "built to be compatible with windows" and he is trying to use it with something else. Third I would ask, high level what he meant by "not working" as lots of other people have a different perception of it; Normally it will go down to hardware support or compatibility with office or his custom windows application he depends upon. 1) Harware: it means mostly video dirivers, suggest a cheap Nvidia card or a wifi card unsupported 2) Office Cxoffice or Vmware 3) custom application vmware if he sees this as complicated ask him to list the problems he has with windows, probably he has many and they are causing him lots of time wasted an worries. He has probably never put them all together so he does not realize how many he has. It helps to put the problems he is facing with linux into perpective.
Make written instructions understandable for children.
When I tell you to get help, this is precisely what I'm talking about. I'm not sure what's more rampant, your ego (third person, seriously?) or your paranoia, but I honestly believe you've crossed the line into mental illness.
Do you honestly believe, for one second, that Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar corporation with more than 70,000 employees in over 100 countries, has singled out you?? Out of all the open source forums in the world, of all the users on Slashdot, you're the one Microsoft thinks is a worthy target of a systematic disinformation campaign? That there's an entire botnet, and a legion of astroturfers and sock puppets, devoted to harassing you?
Or is it just a handful of your fellow Slashdotters, holding you accountable for your conduct?
This sig intentionally left blank.
Face it Linux zealots, Microsoft has the eye candy and you don't. I mean, look at Vista - "Wow" - kinda says it all huh? Millions of people are rushing out to replace their whole OS on the simple premise that the blue windows they use now will become transparent and can be shuffled like a rolodex. Don't get me wrong, i'm not encouraging you to get Vista .. and you all know why .. but Linux is not "cool" - where's the games? where's the music? where's the movie-making photo-sharing super-happy-fun-time experience the big commercial vendors are offering? I'll tell you where, not on Linux.
When Linux becomes "fun" the monkey boy will sing.
...is with a Windows box displaying a BSOD.
"But the camera I got from Christmas from Wal-Mart/Tescos says put in the CD ROM (must be Windows) first and then plug it in and it will work. I tried it on my computer you put that new program on and it won't work. Can you get my new camera to work?"
Me (on the telephone)"How do you mean doesn't work"
Them: "Well I put the disc in and nothing appears on the screen".
I'd expect that might be the next question I'd get, or maybe something about putting the disc in for the printer.
Mod parent who's teaching at an HE college up, well spotted. I think my retired Dad might be one of his students!
It took a couple of years before my dad got the difference between "being online" "being on the internet" "email" and "web browser". But that's ok because he's remarkably tolerant with what he feels is my appalling lack of ability to diagnose car problems from the sounds my old car makes (he's an engineer).
Linux is still too difficult for most of the population. The user interface still assumes expert computer user. I'm not blaming anybody, but I agree with all the other posters, long live the user interface designers, encourage them to join in!
There's a simple reason for Windows' dominance that hasn't been mentioned.
A correctly configured and installed Linux system is as simple to use as a Windows system.
A modern Linux distro is at least as easy to install and configure as Windows (anyone who disagrees has a limited experience of installing either from scratch, at least recently).
Software installs and updates on Linux are as easy as point and click on Synaptic.
But Windows is _still_ easier, because it's already installed on nearly every computer sold (blame Microsoft's licensing tactics). And to the average punter it still looks like it's free for the same reason.
And of course the very simple fact that Windows and the Mac are marketed, Linux isn't./p
It doesn't matter what operating system a "12 O'Clock Flasher" uses because they have absolutely no idea as to what they are doing in the first place! All they know is that they got themselves a computer, and they want to go on that intraweb thingy, and play games like poker with their friends. I speak from vast, vast experience because I used to do tech support for HP, and also Road Runner, and these people seriously don't have a clue! I don't blame them because there isn't an OS out there that is really user friendly...well, dumbed down enough so that these people don't have to think, and that isn't their fault. The only thing that they know is Microsoft as it's crammed down their throats. You can't suggest another OS to someone when you ask them to click on the "Start Button" on their computer, and instead they press on the "Star Button" on their phone! Seriously...would they know how to even put the disk in the drive? Answer: NO! The only way to move these people into the Linux world is to expose the younger generation to what Linux can do for them as the school system where I live has done. Starting someone who is interested in Linux, and has very limited computer skills is touchy, but starting them on the Live CD's is great, but also suggesting OS's like Linspire, etc is probably the best way to go. I actually have to say that Linspire is probably the only one that I would suggest to them. One other point that has to be brought up to these people who have only been exposed to Microsoft is that they will not be able to use the same programs. I actually know of a woman who, when exposed to Linux, suddenly became confused and said, "Why can't I use my programs? This makes no sense...I want my old programs!" Try explaining that in simple terms to them...good luck!
I can't really understand what's your point here. When you state "Now imagine putting Linux in front of these people with no direct support. apt-get? emerge? rpm?" one gets the impression that you are using that old Microsoft astroturfing tactic of mentioning very old and untrue factoids against Linux. But when you say "I have had more than a handful of students say they have lost several years of digital photos of their grandchildren because a friend formatted their computer and reinstalled Windows" it seems that you are pointing to one of the biggest selling points *for* Linux.
Installation of system and software is a point where Linux shows big advantages against Microsoft. With the standard Ubuntu install, all the human intervention that's needed is to type the user's name. With the standard XP install one has to reboot a dozen times until all the hardware is recognized.
Now try to install some newer hardware. First, after a long time, XP will inform you that no driver was found. You click the "from disk" button. Navigate from the default "My Computer" directory to the CD. Go through all the CD directories until you find one where a driver file appears in the dialog. Watch XP responding that "there are no valid drivers" in the disk. Go to Google, try to download a driver. Is that supposed to be easier than Linux?
The XP trick of letting the CD autorun and click "install" in the pop-up that appears seems easy at first, but in the long run that's the easiest way to make sure you'll need the format and reinstall fix. Any XP driver CD contains a lot of trash that's automatically installed unless you carefully unset a lot of options. research all the possible implications.
I know because that was *exactly* my experience with my Philips "Brilliance 200W" monitor. In Linux it took all of 30 seconds to get it working perfectly in its native 1680x1050 resolution. To this day, all I managed to get in XP was 1600x960. Oh, sure, I got a lot of nice stuff, very easy to install, in the CD that came with the monitor. Stuff like a brand new Acrobat Reader version 5.2 to read those nice PDF manuals. But no driver that XP will accept as valid to get the nominal resolution.
Call me stupid or ignorant if you wish, but this dumb brute had no problems in installing something in Linux, yet failed at doing it under XP.
Burn a copy of Ubuntu and ask them to just try it. I love it. Or, if they plan on buying a new computer, direct them to the nearest Apple Store.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
The 'interface' for a car is simple and can be grasped in a few hours. The bulk of the training you refer to involves other stuff such as reading signage, road markings, defensive driving etc.
The more people who use an operating system, the more applications which become available for it, the more support becomes available for it.
Deleted
On her PC. I helped her install it, just told her it's a free operating system, just as good as windows. She's been satisfied with it for about a year now. I didn't have to teach her a single thing, just set it up with localization. It didn't take five minutes but alot less than it would have to install windows for her. That's what I had to do. She's turning sixty this summer.
Stories like yours are why I decided to not go into the IT field. I like computers, and I like using them as tools, but people are beyond my ken. Are they stupid? No, they aren't--computers are just too complex to understand unless you are interested and want to learn, and even then a willingness to learn won't help you instantaneously fix a problem. And even so, I tell people all the time to backup their files, to be wary of what they download, to run spybot and virus software, but people largely ignore me until their college paper is eaten by MS Word, or their digital pics vanish, and then I can't help them. It's frustrating, because I know what would help them (in the future, not right now), but I'm not going to start yammering about external USB drives and LaTeX and Openoffice and Partimage and Knoppix and all the other seemingly (to me) obvious, easy things they could change to make their lives better computer-wise. Because their coming to me with a problem only means they want the problem fixed, not that they want to learn anything. Took me quite a while to learn that. But in your case they've already enrolled in a class, so maybe (hopefully) your experience is more positive.
I wonder who are the guys who uses Ubuntu..., I guess he will make ubuntu counter += 1;
:]]
Real people uses Slackware!
And send them here. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy really is your friend.
you had me at #!
1/ you ask more questions to find out what the problem is. Are they just expecting everything to work exactly like Windows? If so there is only one solution and that is taking a bit of time to learn.
2/ they have to take a bit of time to learn?
Well, limited with regard to what these people might want to do: play DVDs, play and encode MP3s, receive, edit and send back Word documents, play games that are not totally anachronistic, use children's programs, buy all kinds of multimedia software for the computer, file your tax returns, manage your doctor's practice, do some artistic painting and print it out in decent quality on a cheap ink printer, use your FAX/printer/scanner combo without limitations etc. etc.
... I have tried both and unfortunately, Ubuntu still does not live up to its perpetually repeated myth of "user friendliness and easiness for first-time users".
... there are many things that Linux does much better than other OS -- I have been using *NIX systems for this reason for more than 10 years now. Unfortunately, many things non-geek users, children or other family members want to do are not among the things that Linux does better :(
Some of these things are possible by severe hacking and ignoring laws. More things are not possible at all.
And by the way -- if you really want to recommend a Linux that is easy to install, runs on modern hardware and that makes it easy for the user to configure their monitors, graphic tablets etc. recommend OpenSuse10.2 rather than the current Ubuntu
Do not get me wrong
Well obviously twitter is a leviathan in the open source community and as such is worthy of incredible amounts of attention.
He's a member of a LUG, after all.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
10. The adults ask you to please log-out of your junior high school computer class because it's time for you to head back to PE and play dodgeball.
i've usually said something along these lines: - if you're interested, it's easy to try with with a live cd and with someone who knows linux. ubuntu is a distribution i can recommend. if you (or your friend who knows linux) can get it to work with your computer, chances are you will want to stick to it. the hardware compatibility is usually the trickiest part, the rest is easy.
Most people that I talk to that are the least bit computer savvy that are interested in linux, are often mislead and think that it's very very hard to use, and that they will have to abandon Windows all together into the land of the unknown that is Linux. What I usually advocate is that I can install Linux *inside* Windows for them, using VMwares free stuff. http://www.vmware.com/products/free_virtualization .html/ I've had a few people tell me this is an awesome way of experimenting, because they can turn it on and off whenever they feel like it, and if they have problems inside Linux they have Windows as their dominant OS running, which is their comfort zone for getting help from either you, or sites, etc.
The only problem with this is how well VM's work without 1gb of ram, but almost all PC's and laptop's i've seen in the last year have had at least 768mb of ram, which should be good enough to make it function without being too laggy.
#define true false
Don't you think it's time to close your windows?
sometimes, nothing.
I hear about Linux and many of the popular versions. I have tried a few and cant seem to even get the stable ones to do what i want them to do. It's not just non computer types that have a hard time switching. I use and understand both Windows and OSX 10 but Linux has eluded me for some time. I want to switch. I just cant seem to.
I'm one of the people you speak of.
I'm a fairly adept power user of MS products; I have no issues with digging around in the guts of anything from WinXP back all the way to DOS (I just showed some young tech support guy that you could pipe a text file to LPT1 on the command line, LOL).
However, I have trepidations about linux. I've run the standalone (knoppix) linuxen and found them pretty nice. However, since 9/10 of my games are WinX based and my corporation would never condone switching to openoffice, I'm stuck generally with Win products.
Now I'm building a stepmania system however, and this is a perfect application for linux - I can use somewhat leftover hardware (a 500MHz system). So it's installing over the weekend (SUSE, based on someone's recommendation that it's reasonably trouble free). But I'm still anxious that the install of stepmania is going to be tedious, buggy, or elsewise troublesome. USB drivers for the dance pad? Video drivers? Will the sound be decent?
All of these things are unknowns, and coupled with the learning curve, I can see why Linux is still marginalized. But some of us unconverted are TRYING, anyway.
-Styopa
Are a couple of very good reasons that you could mention. They've been extensively discussed in other posts, (as someone said, "vista is the gift that keeps on giving" - giving flamebait, that is). I've been using DOS and Win since the first PC came out, but the next box I build will have Linux. When Mr or Mrs 'average' realise that their expensive TV does link to their PS3/media centrer PC/DVD player, (this is happennig now), and that they can't properly view or transfer files that they legally purchased from one device to another, they might be willing to invest time in alternatives. Now, where's a distro with "Linux Media Center" anyone? If you can point me to one that 'just works' (supports IR, recording to disk or DVD, recognises TV-tuner cards that I can actually buy and also downloads program info from the Web then I'll have it! Fuck it, I'd even pay cash! But, no 'and then you just have to download this, recomplies and then do this @ the command line' bullshit, eh boys?
"Linux is not customer ready OS right now (like for grandpa or smth.)"
Nonsence, right now on this OpenSuse desktop I can browse, email, play multi-media and burn CDs. In fact most people don't know they are not using Windows.
Face it (Score:5, MS astroturf dept.)
davecb5620@gmail.com
"Linux is still not for everyone"
Nonsence, right now on this OpenSuse desktop I can browse, email, play multi-media and burn CDs. In fact most people don't know they are not using Windows.
"Wait until "it just works" otherwise we're going to continue to turn people off"
What exactly doesn't 'work' on a Linux Desktop.
was: You don't? (Score:5, MS astroturf dept.)
davecb5620@gmail.com
"You've hit the nail right there"
Nonsence, right now on this OpenSuse desktop I can browse, email, play multi-media and burn CDs. In fact most people don't know they are not using Windows.
was Re:You don't? (Score:5, I really like Linux and want it to be better)
davecb5620@gmail.com
People who have have played with a properly configured modern GNU/Linux desktop (either with Gnome or KDE) for an hour and still believe that Windows is better are stupid and deserve to be slaves of Microsoft for ever.
Some smart people dislike GNU/Linux when they see it for the first time, but this has to do with the fact that the system was not properly configured, or that they were trapped into using some particular software or hardware that only runs on Windows. This isn't Linux's fault: It's the hardware and some software companies that don't support GNU/Linux. The fact is, however, that the free software community has created good or even superior alternatives to many commercial software applications. There are still some areas that our software lacks some features or some drivers for particular hardware devices, but we are working on this.
GNU/Linux is better because it allows any user to influence the system as they like: You can ask the developers implement a feature, you can pay a developer to do it for you, or you can learn programming and code it by yourself. Try doing that with Microsoft.
By the way, no one told anyone that they should switch to a new OS overnight. They can dual-boot, or they can use a second PC with GNU/Linux on it, and gradually get acquainted with GNU/Linux. If they are smart, they will quickly learn it and use it for most of their needs, and only keep a Windows partition for a limited set of hardware and software that need Windows to run (if emulation doesn't work or they prefer not to use emulation, that is).
Windows today is useful only as a secondary OS for a limited number of compatibility purposes, and GNU/Linux becomes more and more popular every day. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows becomes history within 5 years. Such a counterproductive OS it is, it deserves it.
...not (just) a product. Based on that, I sell it like this:
I tell a windows users that it is not as easy to use as windows. Then I tell them that, if they feel a little adventurous, it really isn't all that difficult to learn. And, if they take a little the time to get used to it, I believe they'll really enjoy the result.
If they are still interested after that tidbit, I refer them to general sources of information to help them get started (live cd distros are a good start). Always point out that much of this information is provided by other users in their free time, so your mileage may vary. This leads to point that Linux is really a (growing) community and all are welcome to be a part of it.
This won't convert everyone. But, those who do try based on this are generally happy with the experience, even if they give up along the way.
Anybody who doubts the parent to this post: Take this dare: show a grade-school-aged child Linux. Just stand back and let them toy with it. Without your pre-conceived Microsoft brainwashing, the child will be unfettered by the expectation that a computer should work "just like Windows" and will figure it all out from scratch.
Just let the kid explore and then ask them to teach you!
I knew this already when our daughter had been using Linux for several years. We still dual-booted Windows and Linux on one machine for a while, but the Windows side went unused for half a year by everybody before we finally deleted it.
But it is recently brought home to me again when our son, (who has cerebral palsy, severe autism, and has not spoken a single word in his life, currently aged ten), has now been getting on the computers and messing around with them. He can actually launch programs from the menu and is starting to do things with them, and this kid (to our knowledge, anyway) so far can't *read*! We now have to be careful to log out the important machines so he doesn't mess them up in some way we can't fix - "the kid's machine" is his to use.
Linux has been ready for the desktop since the days of early Red Hat. It's the desktop market that isn't ready for it. No amount of programming or interface design would change that. If AT&T Unix had won the standards wars and become the monopoly and Bill Gates was forced to release DOS/Windows for free, we'd be having the exact same debate only with the systems reversed.
"I think that not everyone is ready to use linux"
Nonsence, right now on this OpenSuse desktop I can browse, email, play multi-media and burn CDs. In fact most people don't know they are not using Windows. Would you please give it a rest. We've got the msg, all right.
was Re:Easy (Score:5, modded up for no particular reason)
davecb5620@gmail.com
...another for the screaming to stop.
Five minutes. Done.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
"Now imagine putting Linux in front of these people with no direct support. apt-get? emerge? rpm? How is that easier that sticking in a disc, having it run and clicking next 3 times"
Personally I've never used apt-get or emerge. I picked SuSE precicly because of YaST, its graphical installer. Installing/updating consists of clicking on 'Online Update' and clicking on 'Install' in YaST. Similarly, if you buy a Linspire Desktop it arrives preconfigered for the click-and-run online update. But then again how many of your students could install Windows from scratch.
was Re:Easy (Score:4, astro mod this up as Insightful)
davecb5620@gmail.com
The simple fact is it IS harder then Windows. I like linux and use it for my hosting server but I use Windows XP for my desktop cause it does what I want, how I would expect it to be done. One obvious issue is programs, in Windows they are ALWAYS a piece of cake to install, in Linux that's not always the case with dependencies to track down, source code to build, text files to tweak. Windows? just double click the setup.exe file (or just pop in the CD in some cases), say yes a few times, maybe change the install directory if I so care too and bingo the icon is on my desktop each and every time. Every program knows where to find all the printers, every program knows how to cut and paste to every other program and every program knows how to use the graphics card to its max and most of all, there is NEVER any need to tweak a text file. All of these features are standard, I don't have to adjust anything to get Windows to work this way, it just does.
:)
I know things are changing and will get better but thems the breaks.
Oh and the biggest thing is games, gotta have my games. By that I mean MY games not just SOME games, MY games.
The GTK+ file dialog is one of the most controversial components of GNOME. Good and consistent interfaces is one thing that Windows excels at, and it's one thing that KDE clones well; the KDE file dialog is pretty much identical to that of Windows.
KDE is quite painless to use and has beautiful interfaces for most everything. You should give it a try.
"the apps one can use on it are limited"
What obscure feetures on what never heard of apps are missing from Linux land.
"Linux is good stuff, but as with all the best stuff, it simply isn't practicable for the uninitiated."
Nonsence, right now on this OpenSuse desktop I can browse, email, play multi-media and burn CDs. In fact most people don't know they are not using Windows.
Re:Easy, Furthermore (Score:5, sponcered by the MS astroturfing dept/slashdot division)
davecb5620@gmail.com
Both parents are right, there are a few things still lacking in linux, from an average end user perspective, AND there is the market share issue.
...
Parent said:
>> What's going to have to happen is for Microsoft to either adopt
>> Linux/open source or Linux is going to have to be so vastly superior
>> to Windows for the average person so as to make the 90% market
>> share "feature" irrelevant.
Ok, but in order to get in there, the near term focus should be on anything that could help a painless progressive switching, an yes, that means 100% windows interoperability. Without that, there's no chance IMO.
Unfortunately i am begining to be a little skeptics about that, it doesn't appear to me that there are enough people in the open source community really caring about that
but that's just my 2 cents
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
You can do his as long as there is a nerd in the background maintaining the thing. And still here are a lot of things that just do not seem tonwork as well as under windows...
Technically Linux is dfinately better, but as far as the desktop goes, it's just mot there. And I'm afraid it never will, otherwise it would have been here already...
Dream on dude...
In Soviet Russia, Linux advocates YOU!
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
5 minutes is too short a time, all you could really do is hand over a LiveCD and hope they know how to get it to boot.
... Why Bother?" and so on.
..." This happened the day I posted the "advertisement"!
... especially with the price of Vista!
I work in a Government office, where we have the opportunity to buy the "end of life" hardware that is no longer under warranty, and so replaced.
Because of the contract the state government has with MS, the hard discs are wiped clean. The software is NOT transferable.
Anytime I get one, I install Linux. But when my colleagues get one, they want to know where they can get their hands on a copy of Windows.
Recently a Public Folder was setup for "advertising" of items offered for private sale between staff. So, I had a brain-wave and put up an add, targeted at the winners of this "blank PC" lottery, asking "Wondering where you can get your hands on a copy of Windows? Wondering how much you'll have to pay?
I've had one taker, who walked up to me at my desk and dropped a dollar in my hand (CD replacement cost) and said "Funny you should mention Linux, I was just looking at a website
I'm hoping for some repeat trade, when the next "lottery" occurs
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
If their primary interest is cost, and for many looking at linux cost is the prime motivator, pick the easiest traditional linux you can find. As you've noticed, some distros are not entirely user friendly, and many have a very steep initial setup learning curve. (offering to get them installed and patched up to current can clear them of 90% of their concerns)
If they are willing to spend a little money, red hat or Mac OS X are good recommendations. Red Hat offers good support and still has the "feel" of unix. OS X's gui interface design and ease of use generally beats the stuffing out of anything else unix but comes with a cost. (drivers are also easier to come by) These two prevent the user from feeling like they are on their own, and I believe this is the main fear of people considering linux. Most people don't like having to maintain their computer, they want it to "just work", with the least possible startup hassel. If you can address either of these two concerns you will have a very good case in a short amount of time.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If you won't market it now, *WHEN* will you? In 1 year, 2 years, 5 years from now? When Microsoft releases a Vista successor? Or simply never?
Anyone who worked for a commercial place knows you need to release something at some point. You need returns for the investment before you can continue. What happened with "release early release often"?
Not everyone becomes a contributor for new code, that's not important. They likely have better communication skills. Being able to write better howto's, be more convincing then the local nerd around the block. Heck, I even received a translation file from a 50 year old Slovenian court member.
Last few months I get frequently asked about Linux. People like to learn about Linux now. They want to be there too when it has gains critical mass. So let's help them!
The best way to accelerate a windows server is by 9.81 m/s2
i have been using linux since rh4. i abandoned windows completely in 2000. i own my own business and sell computers and laptops that run linux exclusively. if someone comes in looking for a computer, but insists on windows as the o/s, i wish them well and send them to a colleague up the street.
i realize i'm coming to this thread a little late, but i've had the most success converting older people. how? because when they bring in their tired, 4- to 10-year old win98/win2000/winme/winxp machines and say, "it doesn't work anymore," and i investigate and discover it's because they've got 10 million viruses and spyware infections, i ask the following questions:
if they answer "surf the web, send email, keep in touch w/ my grandkids, manage my digital camera photos" to question (1), and "no" to question (2), then i tell them about the value of linux as an alternative to windows. about how it's pretty much immune to most virus and spyware problems. about how it will work with their digital camera and most likely their printer and scanner. then they take a test drive on a store demo machine, and discover it's almost the same type of interface, and most are sold on the idea.
one old guy called me, who's disabled, had his identity stolen via a trojan horse virus. he was sold on the virus angle almost immediately. this guy would typically be referred to as a 'luser' by most of the /. crowd, but after i installed ubuntu and showed him how to use it i heard from him only once - when he needed help mounting a floppy for his other digital camera (one he forgot about when i showed him how to use it).
some consult their kids, or grandkids, before getting back to me. there's always naysayers who advise them against it because it "won't work with windows." i again ask question (2) above, and when they tell me no (again), i let them know they don't need to worry because they don't have special windows software needs.
most can't believe the software is free. they become an informed user who's happy to hand me money to help troubleshoot a problem or find an open-source solution to their problem (scribus, to cite a recent example), but balk at going to the store and plunking down money for a shrink-wrapped cd.
they then tell their friends about the experience, and some of them start calling me, and the process repeats.
the biggest point to drive home is that if they answer "yes" to question (2), or have a lexmark boat-anchor and don't want to buy a new hp, you can't push it. wish them well and move on.
When you recognize love in another and realize how precious it is, everything else seems so insignificant.
When my neighbor's XP machine software screwed up (Internet stopped working) and they didn't have a recovery disk or an operating system CD, I gave them an Ubuntu live CD and showed them how it worked. The Internet happened to function under Unbuntu. The computer they have is rather modest, and admittedly the live CD ran as slow as molasses. I explained to the that it's running very slow because this is a special evaluation mode that doesn't save to your hard drive or erase Windows and that it will be super fast if you install it (replace Windows). I told them to give it a try for a while, and that their options were to 1) continue using the live CD in slow mode, 2) replace Windows by installing Ubuntu permanently, 3) spend a hundred dollars on a new XP CD, or 4) stop using the computer.
They got sick of slow mode and wanted to try it out at full speed. I installed it, set up some user accounts for the kids (which they loved the thought of), demonstrated the basic programs, e.g., OpenOffice and "the Internet" (Firefox). The amount of time I spent was setting up, etc. was substantial I believe - but the kids or the parents haven't managed to fck it up (yet)!
They're using Linux and they basically don't know the difference.
To summarize, here's what Linux advocates need to do:
1) Wait for neighbor's computer to screw up
2) Explain that they need to pay more money to get an XP CD (because their disk is damaged or whatever - it's okay to lie) and that there is a free alternative (they will be cheap, especially if they have kids)
3) Let them try out the Live CD
4) When they can't take it anymore, erase Windows from the face of their hard drive and laugh evilly.
I suppose the next step would be to go and spend some time teaching her kids the basics of shell programming and get them started writing programs. As our new generation of hackers grows under the auspices of Linux, we will achieve world domination.
Get down or lay down!
The omega point beckons; resistance is futile; just kidding.
Don't evangelize -- wait until specifically asked "Why do you use Linux?" Then, simply tell your 5-minute story in layman's terms. Here's my story.
:)
First, it's not really about Linux, its about Freedom to use my computer on my own terms rather than those of vendors. I simply could not afford to continually buy upgrades to software packages every few years just to access files created by friends and family. With Free Software this is not a problem as the software is often quickly updated to open these new files.
[If they are still interested at this point...]
At first I started to use Free Software on Windows, installing a free office package, photo organizer, music player and web browser. Sure there were a few glitches, but no more than most people are already used to with their existing software. Eventually my version of Windows became obsolete and I had to start thinking about which version to upgrade to. Being comfortable with Free Software at that point, I decided to try Linux before purchasing the upgraded version of Windows. I found many of the products I used on Windows actually ran better on Linux, were 10x easier to download and install, and there were thousands more packages available. At that point it became pretty difficult to justify going back to Windows. My kids also love all of the games and educational packages available on Linux.
Just about the only issue I had was that some of the early music download sites like ITunes were not compatible with Linux, but there was no reason I couldn't just continue to buy CDs from the local music store and rip them as I was used to doing on Windows, and Shoutcast worked just fine on Linux. Today there are many options with sites like Rhapsody, Last.fm, YouTube, etc. all running fine on Linux.
When my kids get older they may want to play some of the bigbox retail games that only run on Windows, but when that day comes there will be plenty of options to consider I'm sure. This may actually be a blessing in disguise considering most of that stuff is like junk food for the brain...
If it comes up I also recommend having a LiveCD on hand as it can be priceless if you find one day your computer won't start... This sort of thing happens to everybody at least once.
Since people don't know about Linux you need to talk in relation to something they do know. So talk about how Linux is better in relation and some of Windows shortcomings.
/interface/drive structure. I talk about how annoying the system is to use, and how much attention it needs to run properly. I also talk about how your windows system performance will degrade as the OS pollutes itself over time but Linux will be exactly the same every time until you make a change on your own.
With technical or logical people I talk about the bass ackwardsness of the a: b: c: d: drive structure as it does not provide information on what the drive actually is or where it is located and mention that its much more logical to have a
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I'm here!
... here. Yay. I think.
I have a copy of Dapper Drake installed with help a couple weeks ago. He got the basic music player working. After I managed to botch it, I snapped my beak, dug out the famed command line from behind the figurative desktop cupboard, worked out the command to restore the main menu, and put the command-line away again. I made basic color changes to the UI, adjusted some mozilla settings, and posted a couple of SlashDot replies. Converting app versions left for some other month. Not bad for my first weekend.
Now what? I am definitely an apps oriented person. Wandering around the OS itself makes me nervous. So here I am, in Linux Land... walnuts taste a little chewey, the grass is sorta greener when it isn't translucent...
Someone mentioned religion, and that type of thinking contains the mood of "my life is no fun now, but when I get to Paris/Afterlife/Linux, everything will be better!". The packaged suites do a pretty good job on some main line functions, but they ARE finite. I'm months away from the understandings needed to take something not on the approved path to modify it cross-version and so on. So right now, I'm just
The Linux world cannot remain this splintered forever. To the worst of the naysayers, I reply it will never "die off" because "the price is right", and things can hover in non-zero obscurity for a decade. But we do need to take a page from Apple's book about usability. Wrap it in the approved FOSS licenses, etc, but there should be some consolidation and unity. Much like Democrats and Third Parties splitting the Non-Republican vote, MS and Apple are *together* cleaning house while Linux struggles with both a lateral kernel-build array plus a vertical version control spread.
I'm absolutely your best target audience category. low-intermediate computer skills, very basic understanding of the OS mood shift, fiddled with a couple of optional settings... where do we go from here? I'm not a programmer, though I might be able to learn to submit competent testing results.
When all the smoke settles, comptuters are for doing work. I woul submit the biggest gain would be when the linux variants become unified enough that we can market the overall Linux name, and not constantly have to do version control checks to see if a particular application will work. Then the computing world will have three major OS players to contend with, and the OS's will all have to learn to "get along".
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Linux is not ready for the consumer desktop. Linux will be ready for the desktop if:
1) there is a single product called Linux and people can go and buy Linux from the stores. What's this thing I see on the stores called Red Hat, Ubuntu, Suse etc? I have no idea. I want to buy Linux, just like I go to the stores and buy Windows.
2) all my Windows data (emails, Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, Powerpoint presentations etc) can be managed seamlessly by Linux. This means Linux has a super-duper office suite.
3) installation does not require any attention by me except entering my regional information.
4) all the hardware works out of the box both at installation time and after that.
5) the desktop UI is clean, has nice fonts, has logical names for applications and not goofy names meaningful to programmers only, has nice spacing between widgets, the config screen is logically laid out and easily accessible.
6) multimedia and 3d graphics plays out of the box. I don't want to spend 3 days installing DVD playback because of licence issues. Work it out, I don't care, I just want my DVDs to play.
7) my language is cleanly supported by all applications.
Linux is ready for the computer wizard person, mainly programmers. It is a good O/S for servers, but there is still a long way to go for the consumer desktop.
I've come to despise Windows, I've been using it since 3.1 and hate how every new version takes a little bit more control away from me, tasks that I could perform quickly years ago now takes more effort. I hate how Windows has become newbie safe at the expense of people who actually know what they're doing.
I'd like to switch to Linux but haven't because although I'm pc competent I'm not a pro. I don't know what hardware is compatible with Linux, I don't know where I'd get drivers from, I don't know what options there are regarding stuff like browsers, media players, that sort of thing.
I'm not a gamer so that's no problem but I do use my computer extensively for playing media and playing games onilne (Neopets, Runescape, that sort of thing) and need to know that Linux will be capable of handling these things, without too much hassle.
So basically if someone asks for an opinion on Linux you need to tell them where they can get support, if you're their friend then great, you could help walk them through it. If however, it's just a random stranger they need to know that there are websites, tutorials, anything, to help them iron out their problems with it. Remember, Linux isn't exactly widespread yet and if I make the leap to Linux I'll be the only person I know who has done so...where do I go for help?
When looking into using Linux I see there are lots of different versions, to be honest, I don't know where to begin. Which is the most popular for someone with my needs and why? Which is the easiest one to make the transition from Windows to Linux?
It's easy, tell them they will be able to browse the web and write shell scripts, that their iPod will work but not seamlessly, and that all of the cool commercial games they want to play, well that they'll have to pass on them.
Come on, really? I like it, use it, and write a lot of code for servers on linux but for the average home user interested in gaming, browsing their online bill paying services, and just using their computer as an appliance, Linux isn't ready yet.
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
I have been using Ubuntu for like 3 months now and absoultly love it. I set it up all by myself with out prior experience. Once you get it installed there is the forums at www.ubuntuforums.org that help you with any problem and often you get replies to your threads within the hour. It is very nice.
Linux IS more difficult than Windows. Okay, Mr Schmartiepants, how do you install an application in Linux? Oh, well, it's easy. You just open a terminal window, type "aptget" and then the exact package name you want and then wait! Couldn't be more obvious! Right? Versus downloading and then double-clicking an installer application. Gee, that's so counter-intuitive that I can't even understand it, and I just typed it!
You people are FOOLS. If someone expresses a curiosity about Linux I ask what they'll be using it for. If it's for a home computer, I say, "Buy a Mac. You'll be happier in the long run because there's better support and there's zero confusion about stuff like software upgrades and installing new applications." If it's for a server that's different. But as a Windows replacement? Fuhgeddaboutdit. It's crap. And yes, that extends to the over-hyped Ubuntu.
I was thinking more of the case when your bank makes your account's data files available only in a proprietary format, which only Intuit brand Quicken brand software and Intuit brand QuickBooks brand software understand, and declines to add a format that GnuCash software understands.
How do you advocate Linux to people who are more comfortable using Windows?
Give them a live CD (or at least a link to one). It worked on me. If it doesn't work on them, you're wasting your time advocating, because it's not right for them anyway.
I so agree with number 3. All programs not in the repository need to compiled manually unless you can luckily find a binary for your Linux version (which may still not work). There are so many binary types and Ubuntu is messing with the Debian standards so that not all Debian apps can run on Ubuntu (other Linux distributions do this too to their base). Sometimes programs in the repository also don't run.
It will not be ready for the desktop until getting a binary off the internet is just that. Not compiling, not getting more parts from the repositories for your compiler so it can compile one program. If the Linux community can come up with one standard that will be most prevalent that would be good but that is also hard because there are so many distributions.
As far as me, I want Linux apps to install either by repository and work all the time or download from the internet with an installer similar to Windows. Why did Debian even make a Windows installer if Linux apps mostly do not even have these? The user will only be perplexed when he boot Linux and is like "why aren't other programs using wizards to install?".
I advocate Linux because I know free software is often better than commercial (Linux runs on old hardware no problem (try with Vista or XP), I do think that is good). I'm not any hippie.
All Linux distributions are absolute fucking garbage. The kernel is nothing more than one giant patch to never ending and perpetuating bugs, and the OSS software is pathetically thousands of times more buggier than the kernel if one could imagine that even being possible. I though Microsoft wrote shitty software, you people are clueless and obviously don't appreciate the level of absolute cosmic pollution linux really is. Global warming isn't caused by greenhouse gases, you dumb fucks! Its caused by the excess heat all of the worlds CPU generates by running billions of useless bloated buggy lines of codes of endless while loops, core dumps and kernel panics and reboots called linux. The UN should arrest anyone involved with linux.
The coders who create the Linux kernel and linux distributions, are no-ambition, under-paid, underachievers amateurs which probably should consider another career than coding.
People should be heavily paid to run this pathetic pack of bugs called the Linux "operating system".
Fedora, Red Hat, Mandriva, Ubuntu are probably the biggest example of what an operating system should not be. That is completely unstable and unreliable and a total waist of someone's time to run that colossal heap of shit.
Fuck all of you Linux advocates, fuck Linus especially fuck the OSS and Fuck RMS. Take Debian, fedora, suse and shove it up your fucking ass! And take the hurd kernel with you so it never sees the light of day, mother fuckers.
And fuck all of you Slashdot readers I hope you are forced to run that fucking operating system for the rest of your pathetic geeky lives.
...there will be no Linux adoption by the masses.
Who has got an interest in making Linux work for grandma? No one.
No business model... no mass market product.
Making a consumer usable OS product requires not just individual intelligence but a collection of folks led by a leader (or two), well paid to do nothing else, relentlessly refining a user interface and creating standards and evangelizing their way of doing things.
It requires a company like Apple. It requires the kind of coordination that only emerges in an organization, not in a loosely knit self coordinating group that focusses on technical issue after technical issue.
It requires vision. And vision, to be sustained requires money. And money to be sufficient to sustain vision probably requires investors. And investors require a return on their investment.
I'm going to replace my SUSE 9 install with Ubantu now... but when I have work to do I do it in XP or OSX, and I wouldn't recommend linux to any nongeek unless I particularly disliked them.
There are a lot of things on Linux that may be apealling for any user.
a) Easy, show them Amarok, search some music from your collection, fetch some CDs covers, use music brainz to complete an MP3 tags, they'll be amazed and will want it, along with Linux.
b) Help them recover some "infected" documents from a flash memory with OpenOffice on Linux, I did that with a friend that needed to print some documents but the flash memory was infected with virus and won't open because AV alerts.
c) Show them Xgl-AIGLX with Beryl/Compiz, the wooow factor will get them.
d) Boot a LiveCD and show them how it works out of the box.
e) etc, etc, etc.
f) Profit!
C-x C-c
I like GP's BBQ analogy.
... ...to
I use a charcoal BBQ and if you know anything about grilling, you know that petroleum products (starter fluid) screw up the food. What this means is that I more-or-less resort to rubbing two sticks together; specifically, I light a bunch of wads of newspaper and sit them under this charcoal-starter apparatus until the coals light.
Yum.
You prolly see where I'm going with this. Gas grills "just work". Most are self-lighting. They make it *very easy to
to SCREW UP your food!
To the guy with the gas grill, who's already got his USDA Standard Grade sirloins a-sizzlin' it looks like something is *wrong with my grill as I fuss with it. Little does he know.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
...after years of being a Unix user at work(albeit a well supported one), I tried Linux at home. I tried Suse, I tried Mandrake. I've tried Ubuntu.
Never got my wireless network working.
Never got a printer working.
Never got a decent dual monitor display.
Never got my 5.1 sound card working.
Access to multiple local UGs hasn't mitigated these things
I got work to do...even if I need to reboot it twice a day, Windows runs my hardware just fine.
I'd love to use Unix...but it has to make my hardware work. Until then, it's a hobbyists diversion.
trying not to use the words "tar", "command line", "binaries", "kernel" or any variation on the word "zip".
The only Windows progs I don't have are the industrial weaving machines plotting package and the oil field output analyzer, I could get 'em for free (as in dirt) too, but I'm not planning 2buy an oil well in the immediate future.
When I go 2 CompUSA 2look at the boxes (the only thing I don't have), I don't see a Linux department. There's only Win and Mac.
Start with the truth: Linux is harder. But then add: It's often worth it. Reliability. Speed. Customizability. Independence from a huge monolith.
Yes, Linux will not do everything yet. But for many things, it is most excellent. And there is no other way to make a completely general-purpose modern desktop out of nine-year-old hardware, because if we accept dependence upon the monolith, it denies us that privilege.
J.E.B.
Joshua Corps
Windows gave up letting consumers install their own OS a while back...think Me or so. Win2K had some options, but only Win98 had a real list of selectable or refuseable options. Most fools get windows because crooked lobbyists bribed crooked politicians to allow OS manufacturers like micro$$ to extort and threaten hardware manufacturers and retailers and wholesalers to take part in a mass 'bundling' plot that is the largest defrauding and monopolization of consumers in the history of the world. If a simple law was passed recognizing that the activities of Microsoft are in fact an illegal violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, when the dust settled it would become realized that Windows' market share was only because of market coercion. Nobody actually makes a conscious choice to really 'buy' windows. Look at the store shelves! Windows products gather dust or get beaten around. At Wal-Mart, I recently bought the last copy of 'upgrade' XP that was left on the shelf. I never intend to install this piece of DRM shit, but got it just in case so that I would have at least one independant actual install disk not connected to some bundled 'emergency disk set' that was never intended to be used on other than its target system. 'Emergency disks' have no options and if the original system 'breaks' they have no value whatsoever. That box had one of those three inch beeping pills installed on it with signode steel tape. The presence of the 'security device' meant that the product could not be displayed for sale properly and got batted around a lot. My XP box looked like it had gone through a war. No worries though as the product is an 'air box', 90 percent air with a disk and a comic book throuwn in for the nose picking butt scratching masses constituting micro$' target audience. ...install.....horrors...this digital abortion called windows. They would actually have to take part in their own digital castration when they sought to install 'Vista'. Vista grants views (vistas) of the computing world similar to the obscene statement by Nazis to their Jewish victims that the gas ovens meant to cook them were actually 'showers' to 'clean them up'. Now I'm told that new monitors for computers will start to sport the HDMI interface connections.....DRM in the hardware. In 'fairness' to the microsofties, part of the problem with the monopolization of the marketplace is the fault of consumers themselves. People WANT to be led around by the nose when buying a system that they are basically not intelligent enough to operate. Most computer owners in my community bought their machines only to use the internet. Most of their machines probably use less than a few gigabytes of capacity of about 20 to fifty gigabytes or so, and most of this is probably trash graphics and poorly written e-mails. Very few programs. Window's Office programs are not only wasted on them, but totally wasted. Most computer users could get along very well using only wordpad that comes standard on all the windows editions going back to win2.0....which copy I still have in the original box. Next to my copies of all of IBM's OS/2 and editions of Linux from Red Hat, Mandrake, and SuSE and even Caldera. I have machines that have six operating systems on them and boot them all. I built every one of my machines from parts simply because I had no money to buy complete systems. This is another problem. American consumers wasted their money simply because they could, and they made stupid buying decisions. They bought computers like they bought used cars. Women bought computers because they had the hots for glib salesmen in the days when 'Computerland' was a going concern. Guys were no better. Computerland is gone, but the stupidity of the masses will be ever with us.
My point is, again: only a dimly statistically insignifigant percentage of the public actually seeks out and really buys microsoft's OS products. If the bundling was made illegal, microsoft's products would drop out of sight like a lead balloon. People then would have to actually
For people that are totally computer illiterate (and 99% are) there should not be a need to run any computer at all neither at home nor at work. The ISP or IT department and should provide a SunRay environment for them. Especially in the aftermath of the recent environmental discussions in Paris, France, the idea of a solution requiring 4 Watts power consumption looks ideal.
Don't feed the penguins
I have found that there is no reason to push people away from Windows if they are happy with it.
I have a lot of success sharing Linux under the following conditions:
A Windows user asks me how they can "fix" their computer.
a) It has gotten slower and slower.
b) It has lots of popups.
c) It got a virus a while back and they paid somebody to "reinstall it" but it hasn't worked well since.
d) That Norton thing keeps stopping things from working.
e) etc.
If it just needs a tuneup, I suggest a tuneup.
But quite often, Windows users need to wipe their computer and reinstall. This is the perfect opening.
I show them an Ubuntu CD (Hint: It's one little CD! *cough* fedora *cough*)
I say, "As long as you are going to wipe the computer anyway, you have nothing to lose. Use this CD to install Ubuntu. Try it for a week or two. If you don't like it, wipe it and reinstall Windows."
The only risk is that you spend 2 weeks learning something different. If it doesn't excite you and keep you interested, switch back to Windows.
But I can guarantee less spyware, fewer viruses, no stupid Windows Genuine Advantage games, standards-compliant word processing and spreadsheet files you can share with anyone and they don't have to pay $400 to read them.
It runs Firefox, just like you use on Windows. It has free kids games. It comes with an office suite "built-in".
And the software get updates and improvements all the time. You don't have to wait 6 years between improvements.
Maybe there's not so much point switching to it if Windows is working well for you. But Windows isn't working for you is it?
You've had to pay somebody to fix it once or twice already. You are facing your third round. How long are you going to put up with that?
Try linux for 2 weeks and see if you have a better experience. It can't be any worse than you're up against right now.
And if you don't like it, then at least you can say, "I gave linux a shot". Next time try Mac or some other option. But don't just sit here and put up with the abuse you put up with right now. There's an old saying about the definition of insanity. It is insane to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result. If Windows isn't working out for you, experiment with other stuff.
I can advocate Linux in five seconds. Get out your stopwatch. Here we go.
Linux is free if your time is worth nothing.
There. Done.
When all the smoke settles, comptuters are for doing work.
;)
So what do you want to work on? Find something that itchs you hard and try to make it better.
Otherwise, I find firefox perfect for slashdotting all day and night....
Cheers
Ben
It's an interesting world out there in computer land right now.. and it's all a bit of a mystery for the average Joe-user
/dev/hda1 /mnt/windows -o silent,umask=0,locale=hu_HU.utf8" - I mean a C.S. graduate from Yale could figure that out.
A user today wants the equivalent to a car, he starts the car, there's a steering wheel, 2 pedals, and a automatic stick.. tools he uses to get from A to B, and right now a storebought PC with windows XP or a macintosh is the equivalent of that. you power it on, it has a few icons on the screen you can click on, and you're off emailing someone or watching crap on youtube.
A car is alot more complex than just a steering wheel, pedals and stick, but only enthusiasts would be interested in the rest of the crap. that's where linux is right now. Compared to a working car, linux is more of a barebones deal which has to be put together before it works properly, but given the time and dedication will work better than the normal user-car.
If linux is to really work as the average joe's OS, it needs to work fresh out of an install, you need to introduce layers of simplicity (as in introduce easier and simpler layers), and you need to create a simple and a powerful user-freedom experience.
That's why linux will never succeed, it's made by programmers, scripters and people with masters degree knowledge of computer science used to solve the problems they meet themselves.. People so self-involved that they can't get themselves to create a simpler interface to do stuff when they KNOW that all you need to do is write: "ntfs-3g
So, what have we learned? Anyone who knows linux knows that there are tools, programs, drivers and solutions out there which rivals windows. The problem is the layer of complexity between not having a solution on your box like you would want and having it working properly.
What the linux community needs to do is to add an extra step or two into their normal problem solving routine.
1) a problem discovered
2) problem solved
3) simplify solution
4) can a stupid user with the problem find and apply the solution? No? go back to step 3.
So introduce layers of simplicity if you really want linux to take off.
K.
I know this isn't the party line at Slashdot, but at this point in time, there's no right reason for a regular non-geek individual person to use Linux on their home computer.
If they have a binding reason to use Windows - like being very into Windows gaming, having killer apps that don't work otherwise, only having one person to work on thier computer and that person does ACTUALLY know Windows, or being unwilling to make any changes despite the problems - then they should stick with Windows.
If they don't, they should buy a Mac. The right time to make this conversion is whenever they were going to buy a new computer anyway, which they do.
Linux gains a normal user effectively no compatibility OS X won't have. And OS X has fewer headaches than either Windows or Linux.
Don't misunderstand me - I LIKE Linux. The majority of my systems are Linux. It runs on obscure things OS X couldn't dream of - and runs on all sorts of non OS X hardware, which is sometimes free. For servers it has no disadvantages to OS X and is cheaper, running on all sorts of hardware. If you're buying an IT department worth of computers, the multiplied savings can be substantial. (And if you're in support there WILL be headaches, no matter how good the OS, because users are often dumb.) And if you're DISTRIBUTING computers, Linux is awesome. Or if you're making computers for any specialized set of uses. If you WANT to tune your computers to do particular things, Linux gives you greater ways to tune it. Most users wouldn't dream of doing that.
But as an overall, general purpose, unsupported-user workstation Linux has almost zero advantages to OS X - and these days the costs between a new Mac and a new PC are basically negligible if you shop at all and care more about it running reliably than being a tad faster.
To be clear, many important advantages of OS X over Windows are shared with Linux or BSD. Not merely that they both have them, but they use the same codebase, which is shared and OSS. Despite the kernels being different, OS X and Linux and BSD are all brothers in the most important ways, and the most important improvements that come to one eventually come to all.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Why would you need to advocate linux in 5 minutes?
Please, just stop saving the world by converting people to linux. This isn't christianity. Linus didn't say "GOTO the people of all nations and make them my disciples". Linux isn't the best solution for everybody, no matter what the problem was. It's an operating system that is a good choice for some people, and a bad choice for others. People should be able to make their own choice.
No way should this be modded as Flamebait. Maybe he shouldn't have used the "Asshole" subject line, but this should have been modded as Informative, because that's what it is. He provides good experience on what it takes to get users going on Open Source. You people need to stop being so sensitive and start looking at the merits of the information given.
Slashdotters seem to be overly sensitive in general, especially about Trolls and Flamebait.
Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
Frankly given the number of shitty interfaces produced by commercial interfaces I find that reasoning specious - especially since the 'No business model... no mass market product.' argument equally works against spending money on UIs unless it is cost effective leading to the aforementioned plethora of shitty interfaces.
The simple fact is that user interfaces are HARD to do right. What is required is understanding and implementing best practices.
I see no evidence that this is reliant on a commercial model - indeed some of the best examples of the use of the principal of using best practices come from the Open Source world where doing so simply helps lubricate the process in the first place - especially the larger the projects are.
At Red Hat, everyone uses Linux. Even the secretaries. Several internet cafes use linux. My mom uses linux, and she's not computer savvy at all.
In all these cases, the "average user" doesn't have to administrate linux, just use it for normal tasks. What does my mom do with it? Web browsing -- firefox. Email -- kmail. Tetris and freecell. Recently she's started to use Openoffice. But it is all set up for her, and if she ever has a problem I can log in from 1000 miles away and investigate, even over her dialup modem. And typically there are problems every 2-3 months, and the problem is typically "I can't find a file I saved" or "I can't send email" (problem with the ISP's SMTP server).
I set her up with Linux because her Windows computer got infested with viruses and spyware. My mom doesn't have the expertise to fix that. I can't fix that remotely, and to my knowledge the only sure solution is "reformat and reinstall" anyway. Windows Reinstalls from media are very hard for the common user... you have to hunt down all the original disks and drivers. Some you can find on line (assuming Windows could find your method of internet connection), assuming that the company that made your Aureal Vortex sound card is still around. And if you're missing something -- because of the spring cleaning or move or divorce or "maybe it was thrown away" -- you're SOL, go buy another copy of Windows.
It's so hard for the average user to administrate Windows, there are entire studies of whether it's better to try and remove viruses, or just buy a new computer. There are corporate projects making huge amounts of money administrating windows machines for people -- look at how much the Fry's service center costs, or the "Geek Squad" at best buy.
Windows is probably easier on average to administrate than Linux. Mainly because it comes pre-installed and pre-configured so that everything works (hopefully) from the factory you got the machine from. If you have to add hardware, some of the difficulty most people would find with Linux is probably cancelled out by the difficulties with infections so many people have with Windows.
But going back to the main point, I think both a decently set up Linux -- say, booting into KDE -- and a decently set up Windows are of similar difficulty of use for the average person. The difficulties in both places tend to be administration, not use. And windows tends to have the advantage because it comes pre-installed.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
How do you advocate Linux to people who are more comfortable using Windows?
;-)
;-))
I would not advocate Linux to these people at all.
Rather, in my view, the target group for advocating should be people who are not so comfortable using Windows.
Focus your efforts on people who are already looking for alternatives, who are complaining about virus/worm/trojan hassles or instability with Windows, etc.
Don't put too much stress on the fact that Linux is free (as in beer) - most people think Windows were free (a.i.b.) as well.
Instead make sure they get the fact that Linux is free (as in speech) and being built upon a community (but not just a community of programmers).
Make sure that the "it's all about choice" part will be clearly received and understood.
Tell them that not _everything_ will work on their existing hardware out of the box and that, likewise, not everything will work exactly like it used to in Windows. Also, don't forget to tell them that there will be still icons, menus and a mouse pointer.
If you happen to have a grandfather who is happily typing, surfing, and mailing along under Linux, don't forget to mention him
Always have a Live CD of your favourite Linux distribution (that includes a GUI, of course) in your pocket when you are leaving home
hahaha! Nice troll, monkeyboy. Enjoy Vista - a nice view, until it's blocked.
That's not really a fair, apples to apples, comparison though. Linux works fine if you get a PC with Linux installed properly for you by a professional, with all hardware working correctly and so forth.
Compare this to Windows, also preinstalled. At this point, a "fair" starting point, I dare say that Linux is easier to use than Windows. My relatives use it fine, it doesn't break as easily, etc.
The "scary command line" is a myth. No noob opens the command line on their own for their own use - they only open it and essentially paste or enter specifically what's instructed and, possibly, report back the result to me on the fone or to a forum or linux website. In fact, it is FAR easier to have a noob enter a precise command into the command line, than it is to guide someone through a series of menus; as a tech, this has been my experience. I really WISH that Windows had a better shell sometimes...
I do realize that my apples to apples comaparison may not represent the real world, but we certainly can't blame this on linux. Most people use what they get on their PCs. Slashdot reported about tests where folks who were thrown into KDE had no real issue getting it to work with basic things that most basic users do.
It's NOT the OS, the dreaded command line, or how "hard" it is to install - noobs DO NOT install OSes! They either get a PC "ready" or the run their recovery CD.
My best guess is that linux will take over or gain significant market share as the notion of a "desktop" vanishes, when your console, tv, internet router, pda, etc., all talk to each other, perhaps even to a cpu in your house, and the notion of a special appliance for computing is out-dated.
Given that the most popular search engine runs on linux, we can honestly say with a straight face that most people already run linux in SOME fashion. People will probably do this more and more in the coming decade - it won't matter which OS they use or even what the heck an OS even IS.
Who has got an interest in making Linux work for grandma? No one.
No business model... no mass market product.
Yep...and we're not going to see that until either the FSF dies and/or someone can persuade the kernel people to adopt the BSD (or an equivalent) license.
The GPL is fine for IBM, Red Hat etc selling stuff to corporate buyers...but for the sort of business model that someone selling to residential users is going to want, it just doesn't cut it.
I don't care what anyone says...the GPL *was* specifically designed to be anticapitalist.
That is pretty much the average experience of the windows user: viruses, unexplainable crashes, lack of performance and general inflexibility.
I am sick and tired of friends and family asking me to fix their Windows computers while I am expiriencing an almost trouble free computing experience with Linux.
If you speak of the corporate world that is a different matter, companies spend gazillions of money to have poor sods patching, rebooting and patching again the Windows machines to keep them in a state of sanity.
Even then our Intranet has been brought to its kness several times by Windows nasties. Never so with any other OS (and lets spare the bullshit about popularity=vulnerability, by now Linux and Solaris are as well known as Windows, and I am pretty sure Black Hats our there would love to boast about 0wning a vast swathe of thes machines).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I work professionally in the field, WIndows machines are aberrations of nature.
They are so easy to own by crackers it is not even funny.
People say don't blame the OS, blame the baddies.
Heck, no. The OS is not designed to stand the baddies. That is the fault squarely of the designers that do not have the balls to throw away everything and do a proper job, from scratch or copying others if needed (MSLinux has a good ring to it).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... would like to thank you for calling her smart.
She had never used a computer before until I put a Linux desktop on her bedroom.
She finds it easy to use, lloves to see pictures there and to rip the odd CD since she prefers her old CD player to the computer.
When confronted with a Windows machines she says they are horribly difficult to use.
Draw your own concolussions of my little, true to life, anecdote.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
All modern distros, all the fucking lot of them, have graphic installers.
You can search applications by name or by the description text explaining what the application does.
And if somebody tells an elderly person "please type yum install chess" I think it is mightly patronizing of you to assume that old people, which in most cases worked in professional environments with typewriters or computers (yes, computers, they have been commonplace for almost 30 years you know) will not be able to do such a simple task. They don't even have to type it, cut and paste is not necessarily the highest of skills after all.
If my mum can do it, she who never used a computer on her life, any normal elderly person surely can.
Perhaps what puts elderly people off from Linux (and computing in general) is the condescending attitude of people with a modicum of technical knolewdge but lack of patience for their elders.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... it becomes the normal behaviour.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
People in the IT industry or interested in computers are notorious for their lack of social responsibility and awarness. This may be perhaps because the pursuit of knowledge on this field is a mostly lonely affair (/. jokes aside please).
The few people that care about important social issues related to computing and technology are labeled with all kind of idiotic monikers. The one you just used is one of them.
If you don't care about steering how computing, the most important technology invented during the XXth century, is going to influence our lives, all the power to you.
If you think proselitizing in favour of free computing options is a waste of time, great, to each one his own.
But frankly trying to paint people with some principles and ideals as religious zealots is childish and idiotic. Some of us have a political and social agenda, but this is not borne out of an state of inexplicable enlightment or troubled phsycology.
In most cases an strong commtment to a social cause is borne out of reflection and cold examination of a political or social situation. If the situation changes then the informed person may change his point of view or attitudes. THis constrasts strongly with how areligious zealot operates, they are normaly monolithic in relation to their beliefs.
So stop ejaculating such nonsense please, use arguments if you have any.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is Linux problem.
All the rest of what you say is complete, unadultered nonsense.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Neither may be Windows Vista.
Or MacOS or whatever is called.
But your obligation as a knowledgable computer person is to let people know that there are options out there.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I usually try to get a quick feel for what they use their computer for (are you a gamer? do you need to connect to a business network?) then I either recommend a distro - or don't. Linux isn't for everyone, regardless of my personal views on the matter. For those who's computer needs won't warrant endless amounts of tweaking to get basic functionality from the perspective of that specific user, I recommend a liveCD and normally offer my email address as a POC for any questions. It's amazing how people's attitudes change when they feel they have help. Additionally, this is a great introduction to linux as a "community". When they have questions, I work with them on finding solutions - easing them into the eclectic and often uncivil world of help forums, irc, and the like. Finally, for those prospective linux users who feel the learning curve may be too steep, I tell them they can expect to spend as much time learning linux as they did learning windows, but with the added benefit that something learned or tweaked stays that way and doesn't need to be reaccomplished with every forced update, security flaw, or patch. In other words, the learning curve is standard, but the maintenance curve rapidly approaches 0 as one's skills improve. To sum up, don't "sell" linux by explaining how "Windoze sucks" or how "you can manually configure the kernel". Sell linux by finding the customers needs, expectations, and problems and "fitting" the strengths of specific distros, wms, etc to that customer.
He who would be a man, must be a nonconformist. -- Emerson
Let's execpt the fact the most computer users will never install their own OS. Be it OS X, Windows, of Linux. I would suggest that the manjority of folks should simply purchase a computer with Linux pre-installed. Thankfully this is now an option. For example Linspire comes pre-installed on quite inexpensive systems and I have recently seen major vendors pre-installing SuSE (please no Novell bashing).
Advocating Linux to everyone you meet is like insisting that everyone on earth has the same kitchen equipment as Mario Batali. Not everyone is a chef.
You tell them about a cool computer with Linux pre-installed. (How do you think Apple sells their Unix-based MacOS?)
Seriously, most people have no desire to install an OS; it's easier to point them to a different brand for their NEXT computer.
No, I will not work for your startup
So who's thrown together an ultra-simplified distro with a super-simple interface (which can be later tweaked and/or replaced if necessary)?
I'm not talking about something that looks like Windows. I'm talking about something that looks like My First Computer. Super-fast boot times. Journalling file system. Big bright buttons or quarter-screen areas that read "Email" "Web sites on the internet" "Home Office (or "Documents")" "Everything else". Make each one a standard color.
The three biggies - email, web and office suite / file manager - will keep most newbies occupied 95% of the time. When they're ready to click "Everything else", they'll get a list of other things their computer can do, with a handful of second-tier popular options at the top, an alphabetical list below, and a friendly-ized search box. Maybe even have items in the list larger or more colorful depending on how often the userbase uses them.
i have friends who actually prefer linux-it's style, the ability to set it up the way you want, and the philosophy driving it. only problem--apps. one is an architect--no AUTOCAD, no LINUX. that's just the way it is. it is driving her crazy.
Just ignore them for a month or two, their computer will
be so full of viruses and running so slowly that they'll throw it in the dumpster and buy a new one.
You retrieve the discarded one, load a REAL os, and prosper....
I've found that the best way to convert people in less than five minutes to a *nix system is to replace their machine with one running icewm themed to look like windows 95 or XP (without the target's prior knowledge). Most don't even realize the difference until it is too late!
"The alternative is Microsoft."