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?"
Actually no. History is littered with times when something superior did not gain mass adoption and instead an inferior product did. There could be many individual reasons, but the big one is marketing. It doesn't matter what you make and how goddamn awesome it is, if you can't get it out there, its not going to gain popularity. While Linux is almost ready, and some would argue the only hold back at this point is getting software companies (like game developers) on board wholesale, where's the marketing? It costs money, and of course someone would have to be in charge of something like. Love or hate Microsoft then can market something to the unwashed masses. Same with Apple. The Ipod isn't the and wasn't the best damn mp3 player out there. I remember when it first came out a company (I think gateway, its been a few years now) had a superior and cheaper mp3 player. It had everything the Ipod had, support for more file types and an FM tuner and it came in at like $100 cheaper. Now you likely couldn't even find mention of it.
"Build it and they will come" is a great line for movies, not so much in real life.
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.
Why should a computer 'just work'? A car doesn't 'just work' - you need months of training to use one and aren't expected to be your own mechanic. A computer is far more complex than a car. Why is it reasonable to expect it to do more but more simply?
I'm using Ubuntu Edgy Eft
After five weeks, I still can't install the driver
on my multifunction printer, which I bought because it came with
a Linux driver; I had a friend who is an old Linux hand try his luck, and he
couldn't install the driver for the Samsung (scx-4200) printer either, despite hours of trying.
I still can't get sound in Thunderbird (though I now can play
dvds and mp3s after some effort),
or get it to use a European date, even though that's the system setting;
I still can't use Real Audio on the News sites I need it for, even though
it's installed.
This is all apart from the stuff that took me weeks to get going.
It should be all pretty basic stuff, nothing fancy, and I'm not a computer illiterate, being used to computers, xhtml etc.
So what do you do with with people like me, I wonder, who support open source and make the leap, only to find they have to waste days and nights of their life for weeks on end trying to do the simplest things. I was prepared to learn a new way of doing things, but it seems that Linux does the complicated things superbly well, but the simple things incredibly badly. And as for the terminal, which I though I'd left behind ten years ago, it's driving me bananas.
Here's hoping the Control Panel in the next version will make life simpler.
The difference is that when Linux doesn't work, it's really difficult to make it work, and it involves a command line, which scares everyone except us. ;-)
When windows doesn't work, you're still in Windows. When it really doesn't work, you just have to re-install Windows. That's actually less scary than a command line for 95% of computer users.
"!"
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!
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
Sorry but a BSOD is not "just normal Windows". There is something wrong either with this system or his hardware. If it is hardware then Linux (or any OS you run on the system) may also fail to work because of it. If it is Windows itself there is most likely a simple fix. Most likely is a buggy driver.
Windows is not perfect however stating it is "normal" for a complete system crash is not true these days.
Now back to your post I agree with you, Live CDs are great. I have given around 50-60 to people in the past 2 years or so. Almost everyone thinks it is impressive you can run it without needing to install it (those you don't do not understand what an operating system is). Sadly I do not think any of them stuck with Linux. The reasons are common (hardware support, applications, complexity). I have never tried to force anyone to use Linux. Use what you like IMHO. I try and support Linux as much as I can but it is very difficult when everything in Windows 'Just Works(tm)'.
A lot of people see computers as a tool to do something, like a drill or a BBQ. A drill makes holes, a BBQ cooks food, a computer surfs the internet and does word processing. They don't have to build the drill from small parts to drill a hole, they don't have to rub two sticks together to get fire for the BBQ and so they don't want to have to work on their computer to get it to surf the internet.
Where has this fallacy come from? I have rarely seen any install of windows where everything just works. For years I have assisted family and friends with various shop bought computers and they had problems with printers, video cards, sound cards, mice, and of course Windows based diseases. A couple of years ago I installed Mandrake to try reduce the number of viri occuring, and they had a problem with a printer. I was formally requested to re-install Windows 98 because "it just works."
I can't understand how people come under the impression Windows works when for years they have struggled with hardware problems despite having official drivers available
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
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.
First, everyone hates it when you use "M$". It's not cool or trendy, it's just annoying.
As for which Ubuntu to choose, try Xubuntu. I find that XFCE is much faster than KDE, and looks nicer than Gnome. But what it all comes down to is a personal preference. Just try the livecd's for each one before you decide. (you can also install the other desktop environments later if you get tired of whichever you choose)
Didn't the penguin on the printer box indicate the manufacturer supported the product in Linux environments? I wonder why you turned to your "friend who is an old Linux hand" instead of calling the toll-free number in the printer manual. The whole reason you buy a hardware device is because it is supported in your computing environment.
Linux users who do not purchase supported hardware solutions are strange, but your purchasing hardware support and not using that service is even stranger.
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