Slashdot Mirror
Is Linux Out of Touch With the Average User?
MrSmith writes "Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user? ZDNet examines five reasons that could explain why people are still willing to pay for (or pirate) an operating system when free alternatives exist. One of the reasons seems to be that despite what many Linux advocates claim, Windows users aren't on the whole dissatisfied with their OS: 'Despite what you read on websites and blogs, newspapers and magazines, people on the whole aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'"
But so are many commercial and opensource programs.
Apart from games, which the clueful use as an excuse to not convert at least one box to Linux, I'd wager Ignorance (capital I) is the leading cause of high Windows market share. There's legions of bot nets for a reason... If the average computer user is satisfied with windows, it follows that they are blissfully unaware of the pornspam spewing from their infected PC.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
yeah, I use windows. I love Linux, but some games don't work on it except with more tweaking that i can frankly handle. Other than gaming, Linux is pretty good, though.
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
I can't tell you how many times I've see a question like "What's the best linux for a newbie?" or "Will linux run on my laptop?" answered by a fair amount of mockery, and the advice to "Try it, and see what happens."
This is not reassuring to the average user.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
why people are still winning to pay for (or pirate) an operating system..
Ok, Windows doesn't really come with a spell checker. But Microsoft Office does, and people think that if they use Linux, they'll end up sounding like some hacker-type...
While I said it in jest, I think there's a point to be made. People tend to use the operating systems that best suit them (or from another perspective: that they deserve). Linux users and Windows users have different needs. Surprise, yawn.
It would be more constructive to talk about how Linux users can improve the experience for Windows users. I know of quite a few people who hate computers altogether because of their experience with Windows, and, tragically, because of this, are unwilling to try anything different because they fear it will be more of the same.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Thank you Captain Obvious! We'll take it from here.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -Fight Club
The average computer user doesn't know what Linux is.
If the "average user" is a Windows user!
Apart of jokes, there's still a long way, especially if you think about the number of different distributions with very little in common!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
And all of those people in "The Matrix" lead happy, contented lives, completely unaware that they were being used. Problem was, any one of them could be "Agent Smith'd" at any asvn;sc;' v./.........
Nothing to see here, citizen. Just move along.
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
Look, why does Linux have to take over the world? Can't you just use it and enjoy it? I understand being passionate about it, I promote it where it makes sense. But honestly, it isn't a replacement for Windows. And there is no need for it to be.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
A little sarcastic, but honestly I see the reason the average user isn't using Linux is either because they don't care or because, they really don't care.
Take my parents as an example. No problem with viruses, hacks, or whatnot. Why? Because I set them up right and told them what not to do. The rest of the relatives? All using Windows (one heretic uses a MAC - but she is a California girl so we let her). Kids, they want games, games run under Windows. Who cares if WINE can make their game run, thats one EXTRA step they aren't going to take.
So, basically unless Linux runs windows software seemlessly and comes preinstalled it ain't going to make a dent. People run Windows because it works. Regardless of the FUD you hear here it does what people need it to do. People don't care what makes it run, just that it does. If a virus takes them down they get their friends to fix it or some store.
Really, why would you expect them to take the extra STEPS to change something that is adequate for their need? what does Linux do that Windows can't? (and don't go on about security - they don't care)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
...that the majority of people have never heard of Linux before. They've lived in a world where Microsoft software is installed on a new computer by default, and about the only thing they know about this Linux thing is that it is just something their kids told them the kid down the street likes to play with. The bulk of the software on the market that people are exposed to is either Microsoft or created to only run on Microsoft operating systems.
The answer is to just do what we do best. Show people, educate them, and let them see what Linux is. Keep up the grassroots movement. It will take time, but as long as we keep educating people that they have a choice, Linux will catch on. Microsoft started in 1975 with some stolen code on paper tape, and they didn't become a household name overnight, either.
When my girlfriends XP laptop went to the big electronic place in the sky, she started using my computer (Ubuntu box). Took her about an hour to figure things out and she's not very computer savvy. Now I'm building her a computer and she requested I put "that Lenux thing" on it, because she liked how it just worked smoothly and didn't have freeze ups. To me that said a lot.
Especially now that Vista decorates the BSOD with lighting effects.
for whom windows works just fine. All of the software I run works in windows, and as a student, I can get upgrades at a reasonable price.
I recently decided that I have a moral responsability to give Linux a fair shake, So I've been running Ubuntu on the home computer. It's been fun, but is still unintuitive (and will remains so for a while, I suspect). I could see how someone less interested in change would rather pirate than switch.
"Better the devil one knows than the devil that one suspects"
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
In my experience, Microsoft has most users well-trained to accept shit, basically. They put up with ridiculously poor performance, astounding flakiness (I'm sorry, you wanted to copy a file? I can't let you do that, dave...), hostile we-own-your-soul-and-its-our-right-to-spy-on-you vendors (more a feature of the windows ecosystem as a whole than just microsoft) and just think it's normal. They're not dissatisfied with windows because they don't know any better, they mutely reinstall every 6 months to clear the crud, and are happy. Like a well-off illiterate irish peasant in the middle ages might be happy with his lot, considering himself fortunate with his 2 cabbages a day for his family and 1 day a week shared use of donkey.
It's why even if you don't give a crap about eye candy, having the gee-whiz beryl eye candy turned on your linux desktop can be a good thing - users get interested by the superior eye candy (even if they say they're not), try out linux for a while, and some proportion stay for the superior stability and system coherency (that is to say, everything on linux ultimately makes sense. Yes, it might be only loosely integrated sometimes - but it always does what it says it will, without simultaneously sending your credit card details to korea or something).
I'm willing to bet that most Linux, Mac, Unix, BeOS, BSD, and hell, even Windows users know that winning is not a suitable substitute for willing.
We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. - HST
It is good that it is out of touch with the average computer user.
Average computer users don't care about security. The attitude that average computer users take towards security is the reason why ISP's take it upon themselves to do security on behalf of the user. I don't want to have to search for a decent ISP who doesn't block ports or make security decisions for me. It should be my responsibility to secure my own machine and if I fail at than, then they have the right to boot me off the network.
Linux expects a certain level of proficiency, but it takes the correct approach in that it doesn't mandate it.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?
The question contains its own answer. Most people - even most technically adept people - are not interested in installing "the movement" on their PCs. They want an operating system. They aren't interested in making a statement, bringing Microsoft to its knees, or sacrificing their souls on the altar of RMS' inevitable apotheosis. They want an OPERATING SYSTEM.
Linux is a great operating system, with - IMHO - just a few minor hurdles that must be overcome before it can be seriously offered to an average person (most importantly, AAA games and hardware support - like USB 802.11x dongles). And those hurdles can be worked around if the average person knows someone with some knowledge of the OS (much like the hurdles of Windows can be worked around if they know someone with some knowledge of the OS).
But yes, "the movement" is out of touch with the average computer user. As long as it thinks of itself as "the movement," it always will be.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
The main reason is that under Linux your hardware won't work as well, more internet stuff won't work, and you can't play your games like Evercrack and WoW. People who use Linux generally are either really care about freedom, or are computer hobbyists who like messing around with their computer. Average users often just get frustrated and move back to windows if they were curious enough to switch anyways.
I think Linux would be better off targeting the computer hobbyists rather than prematurely going after average users. We are prematurely slapping an easy to use GUI on top of a system that you need to know about in order to maintain, translation: we are giving people enough rope to hang themselves before they know how to use rope safely. Once Linux has most of the computer people using it, the casual user will follow. This is how it worked in the world of DOS vs Mac
Many of the Windows users that would be disatisfied aren't because they have a friend of family member that takes care of things for them when the box goes to hell because of malware or other disfunctionality. I however, and I imagine much of the readership here, am getting tired of supporting these boxes. It's not bad when it's just routine preventive maintenance but when it becomes corrective maintenance and happens often- that's when I reach for the Ubuntu distro. If I were to cease their Window support and force them to either fend for themselves or almost as bad attempt to get support from the box vendor- I'd expect that their disastisfaction would become all too obvious. Of the users that I've converted (all non-technical but open to learning a new desktop), the only negative feedback that I've received is that they miss their iPod application. It's my understanding though that a little Wine fiddling addresses even this.
It's very simple, people are afraid of change! Especially with that which they don't fully understand.
Most people don't know how their computer works, it just does. If they click a button it does something. The moment it does something else they panic! Change the way the button looks and they won't click it anymore, because it can't possibly do the same thing as before: it looks different.
I notice this every day with people who have used a computer for many years every single day. I've been trying to get some to switch to Linux, but most people just freeze up completely. They can't accomplish even the simplest of tasks because it looks a little different. It's like because they have new shoes on, they have forgotten how to walk...
The current generation of these kind of users are lost to windows forever, it's the new generation(s) that other OS's must aim for.
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?
Of course it is. What we're really arguing is whether that's a bad thing. Remember when AOL users all piled on to the internet?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Is it too much to ask the someone literate post these things? Don't be so damned reliant on your spell checker!
And there's no need to RTFA since we know the answer - "no". The main reasons Windows is on most computers is because that's what OS is installed when you buy it. Duh! Most people would no more install an OS on their PC than they would on their phone. You and I are not normal. Normal people don't even know what an OS is or that they have an alternative. They blame Windows' shortcomings on themselves, "I'm too dumb to use a computer" and you, my fellow nerds, encourage this! YOU are the reason that Linux doesn't have more "market share".
And speaking of "market share", why in the hell should "market share" matter to a FREE anything? Capitalism has become the world's dominant religion. Most of the world's denizens worship the almighty dollar. A mammon worshiper is usually easy to spot, he wears Satan's leash, the necktie, symbol of wealth and power.
-mcgrew
"There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'"
Yes, and my bet is that many of them wonder why opening their web browser takes 5 mintues.
Q: Why are there so many windows and mac users campared with linux users?
A: Because MS Windows and Mac OS X both come pre-installed on cheap/pretty boxes that the customer doesn't need to think about. MS and Apple also both have large, highly visible marketing efforts behind their software to make people aware of the brand, and attract them to the product. There is also the fear of something different that I'm sure many windows/mac users feel towards linux, they don't understand it, and it looks different from what they've seen before.
I think that the most effective way to get linux out to the people would be a large, highly visible marketing effort. As well as an easy way for people to get a linux distro onto their box without them needing to think about it too much.
Quite frankly, i think the 3rd point was one of the biggest. I am rather good with computers, and networking, but getting my acer laptop to work with the wireless b/g card in it under any distro is more than i am willing to do. I can NDISwrapper the drivers, and have a card that will only work in b mode under linux, if i go in and mess about with the conf files. But even then there are seemingly random times where it will just stop working. And going between multiple networks without stopping and restarting the service is simply an exercise in futility, something windows doesn't have a problem with at all. I realize that without driver support from the manufacturers this will continue to be a problem, but non the less, it is a reason for the lack of market share, because if i don't fell like going through the hassle, i feel most users wouldn't even get far enough along to realize that all this work is far more than should be needed.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I am a pretty good technician in my own opinion and I have used Linux on occasion. There is nothing wrong with linux but it is not for the average user! Most people buy software that they find at a retail store and you can bet your butt that it won't support linux If my mother wants to install something she can do it without issue (well mostly)on windows and it will be integrated into her OS without her having to have a degree in CS.
- cannot generally see the drawbacks of the system: they assume that the quirks and problems are just an inevitable part of computing;
- do not want to learn something new.
In developing countries, if software piracy can be stamped out, there may be an economic incentive to use of Linux and other free (as in beer) products. In richer countries, the MS tax is not a serious issue (and, as implied above) users do not understand that the more serious economic effects of malware are a Windows only phenomenon.When _most_ users can distinguish between the box under their desk and an operating system.
This is not Linux's problem. Linux is a good tool whose value is not slavishly following Redmond's design decisions.
It's value is it offers something(s) that can not be had on Windows, and maybe even a Mac.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
I've always believed a big problem for desktop, mainstream linux adoption was the naming of popular applications.
Imagine using Linux for the first time.
Noob: What do I use to play CDs and MP3's?
Linux Teacher: XMMS
Noob: What do I use to edit photos?
Linux Teacher: Gimp
Noob: What do I use to play movies?
Linux Teacher: There's xine and VLC.
Noob: How about for IMs?
Linux Teacher: GAIM
Noob: Email?
Linux Teacher: Evolution
What the hell's an XMMS, Gimp, xine, VLC, or Gaim? Those names are awful, and they're often acronyms. If you ask any average Joe what a Gimp was, they'll tell you it's a guy who walks funny. How the hell are you supposed to know that that's an image editing application? Evolution's for email and not something to do with biology?
Photoshop. You have an idea what that's for. Internet Explorer. Same thing - I probably use it to explore the internet. Those are good names. If you're new to Windows, and you want to do something but can't remember the name of the program you're supposed to use, just look around in your Start menu or Programs directory. The names will probably clue you in.
Marketing and branding can definitely help - more and more people are hearing about Firefox, but that gained popularity first in Windows. Access and Excel aren't that descriptive, but they became household names because of marketing and bundling with Word, which is descriptive.
If people want to make Linux more "user friendly" developers should think a lot about the name they give their programs.
The average user doesn't understand about Linux:
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
The average user is out of touch with all the options. Many don't even know it exists.
Sometimes the purpose of your life is just to be a counter-example to others.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
MS uses marketing to their OS, what nearly doesn't exists in open sources OS based.
If we all grew up on Linux, like we all grew up on Windows, actually Windows would have looked like not user friendly with missing features.
It sometimes seems that Microsoft doesn't protect their OS to be hard to crack because they actually want the people who won't pay (pirated copies) to actually use their OS, why? because the exact people will use MS OS in their office/business where they have to pay for copies.
That's why MS are making relations with each country's education office to put MS software (with near to 10$ per office/windows) in each's country school's computer, TO MAKE PEOPLE USE WINDOWS AND TO NOT KNOW ANY OTHER OS so it will look harder to use Linux and these students will only get familiar with Windows.
Read and Comment at my BLOG
!!!
I was speaking to a guy last night. He uses a certain CAD program, so does his customers. But i just googled for it.. and solidworks has done a linux port. But i know what he'll say next.. "I can't play hi def dvds...."
For many people, if it's not what they train themselves with (I hesitate to say "learn") first, they'll never be comfortable using it. These people don't really learn how computers work, or how to work with computers. They learn which buttons to click when. Anything outside that comfort zone is too much for them to handle.
That said, Linux needs to make inroads in the education market. Many universities have computer labs with Windows sections and Mac sections...and there needs to be a Linux section too. Not as a segregated part that only the CS geeks enter, but as a regular student workstation.
If Linux wants to be in touch with the "average user", they need to be exposed to it early.
Constitutionally Correct
I'm a linux user and admin. By most peoples standards (ie in the developement department of a bank in which I work I'm a linux/unix expert).
My home laptop (which is my main computer) is dual boot XP/ubuntu.
What do I boot to 95% of the time?
XP.
Simply because its less hassel.
I've used wineX, cadega, etc. I've built it from cvs, submitted bugs and the occasional patch to it, I've contacted game devs and worked with them to get new games to run under it (and had screen shots from my PC posted on developement group walls after they were impressed about it running under linux)
I only have 1 game even installed under windows, morrowind, and I know for a fact I could get it running under linux.
Why don't I?
Time.
It would take me an hour or two of messing around to get it working under linux.
It would also take me that time or more to get my wireless networking working how I like it under linux (ie knowing the WPA key for several different areas and using whichever is available at the time).
I'm a very busy person and I just feel no need to do it, when its already working without the hassel on my windows partition. I'm not fond of windows, but cygwin covers me for most things I need to do, if its really desparate I'll boot to linux, but thats a pretty rare occurance.
My home file server runs linux, my firewall runs linux, my personal IMAP server runs linux - I dont have an issue setting these up.
But when someone like me tends to use windows as a desktop it points to the fact that there still needs to be moreease of use put into linux on the desktop.
Users are lazy, until its actually easier to run linux in 99% of cases then its not going to happen. (and I don't mean better, I'd argue in general linux would be better for almost all things I do, but it isn't easier)
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
The sheer arrogance displayed by the majority of us who want the world to take a look at Linux is miles beyond what is going on by those pushing Windows or even Macs. To most of the world, we come off as intemperate assholes who hate anyone dumb enough to not agree with us. Never mind that the world has managed to function pretty well in spite of Linux not running everything, we act as though all wisdom and knowledge reside strictly with us.
Hate Microsoft, hate Apple, but those organizations do not treat potential customers as primordial slime until they have evolved into dual booting at the very least. We talk down to our audience, we cringe at the thought of making adoption the slightest bit easier for noobs, and if you are a hardware vendor that balks at creating a driver for our benefit, well, we just might shoot your mama in the head.
Someday, our community may figure out that Marketing wins, period.
Nope, we wont, we have had enough time and evidence to know this, and we have rejected that argument.
Microsoft has another record quarter, while we just stay pissed off.
Take your best shot, I've got karma to burn, bitches.
How about the fact that for the average user Linux was all but unusable due to driver support / app support / features up until *maybe* a couple years ago? Give it time. It's absurd to ask the question "why isn't everyone using Linux??" when Linux is only just now becoming a viable desktop. There is a powerful inertia in OS usage due reasons including what's already installed, what people know, people simply not upgrading, etc. IMHO Linux still has a couple years to go before it is really mass-market friendly. Maybe then we will start to see some movement in its direction.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
If you have a hobby, you don't do it as a way of making money. You do it because you enjoy it. Same with Linux. Most of the community regard it as a hobby, that also allows them to more-or-less do work, or play games, or whatever. This however, is a side-effect.
It's only when you get commercial interests coming in and trying to make Linux into something it is not, i.e. a competitor to a commercial product, that you get criticisms like "out of touch". Since the developers are donating their work, they are free to donate whatever they like - and to ignore things they aren't interested in.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Linux is a blanket term describing tons of various Operating Systems, based on a specific core: Gnu/Linux.
Saying it's out of touch with the average user is ludicrous. Who is the average user anyway? How is it out of touch?
There are several great windows replacement distributions out now, I recommend Ubuntu, however some n00bs might prefer PCLinux or some other more windows looking distro.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
If Linux was marketed as aggressively as Windows, it would be a different story. As it is, Linux doesn't come pre-installed as THE default operating, nor does Linux have the Rolling Stones doing commercials for it, or countless articles about it in consumer friendly magazines. Linux does not have lobbyists or sales people pushing it like Microsoft has. It's really no surprise Linux is not that popular with the average person.
Kids love to think differently (or love to *think* they think differently) from their parents, and Linux would be a great way to "rebel" against the established guard. Unfortunately, many kids use PCs for gaming, and that's a hard nut to crack, since the whole gaming thing offers a means of separation all its own.
I've recently tried Feisty Fawn because I heard that it "just works" with wireless. I eventually got it to work, but it involved changing settings on my router (and I'm still not comfortable with having to broadcast my SSID), after doing research online (a Catch-22 when your network connection just isn't working).
If this is any indication of what "just works" means to the community, then yes, Linux is very much out of touch with the average user (as well as a few non-average users). At least I didn't need to modify text files, however.
I'm dissatisfied with Windows, because I work more like UNIX / Linux does. I could do without quite a bit of this desktop-oriented stuff. It just gets in my way, and it assumes I want a machine that works more like a Windows or Mac machine. No thanks. (And damn it, STOP STEALING MY KEYBOARD FOCUS! Sorry. Ahem.)
I see only a couple main benefits to me coming from Linux's recent desktop focus:
I'm not a big fan of many of the "usability" changes GNOME has made in the name of "desktop users." It seems that "desktop user" means "someone who just gets by in Windows." For instance, it always annoyed me that pop-ups stole keyboard focus in MS Windows. I finally found a way to disable them there. Why did GNOME (a) copy that crappy behavior, and (b) not give me a way to disable it? It'd be less annoying if GAIM and various package managers didn't pop up all these silly keyboard-focus-stealing dialog boxes whenever they're doing stuff automagically in the background. (Ok, as antidote to those who might say "Oh, that's fixed in x.yy!" Well, I'm on Ubuntu 6.06 LTS. LTS == Long Term Support. I am actually happy to upgrade less than once every 6 months. I guess I lean more towards UNIX than Linux on that point?)
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Most Linux fanboys are like audiophiles. They'll never understand why regular, "less powerful" products appeal to the masses. They'll dismiss them as simpletons with simple tastes. In reality, Windows works very well for many common tasks. Today, most of its problems are more of a function of bad third party software and user habits than the OS itself. If you coded Windows apps to use the same security model that is expected of Unix apps (nothing in the registry, all settings in the user's home folder or read-only in C:\Program Files) and made users run as a hybrid of admin and unprivileged user, Windows would actually be a very, very competitive platform. A lot of the dissatisfaction has been the result of the crap that has been attracted to it by external sources.
And I say this not as a Windows fanboy, but as someone who is counting down the months until I can afford and justify buying a new MacBook.
This will probably be modded troll or flamebait, and maybe it is (flamebait - I'm honestly not trolling), but it must be said. If the average user can't even be arsed to know the rudimentary basics of how to *operate* a computer, then we don't want them as users of Linux. Linux thrives on competition and contribution, and someone asking questions that have been answered a million times before is not contributing anything, they are in fact detracting. You say they are "winning" to pay for Windows? Then why aren't they willing to pay to have someone hold their hand for using Linux?
I don't want my software dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. I want it to be powerful, flexible, and above all, not insulting to my intelligence. I know some smart ass will say "well, software should just work." And Linux does! Because incompetents can't use something doesn't mean the thing is broken, it means the incompetents need training.
"But Linux wants to take over the world, and they can't do that if they snub users!" they say. I've got news for you: most people probably use Linux and don't even realize it. Ever used a Tivo? Or Google? Those are just two major examples. There are probably thousands of other places Linux is being used and people don't even know it.
Are there places Linux could be improved? Sure, and there always will be. I'm all for compassion and lending a helping hand and attempting to see it from someone else's point of view. But there's a huge difference between "usable" and "trying to fit an old and broken model (ie Windows)", which is what most people mean when they say "Linux isn't easy".
Is Linux out of touch with the average user? Does the average user misspell simple words such as "willing"? Then, yes, Linux is probably out of touch with them. And that's a good thing. What's that signature I've seen around here? "How come BSD is allowed to get away with expecting a modicum of intelligence from its users?" Answer me that.
Nathan's blog
Noob: Email?
Linux Teacher: Evolution
This "Evolution" thing will not be tolerated in great state of Kansas.
We demand "Intelligent E-mail" like Outlook!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
down to a relative lack of awareness and advertising.
From many conversations I have come down to the following conclusions:
a) The vast majority of non-techical PC users (read consumers in the street) still have not even heard of Linux or at least really know what it is. They generally still are not prepared to believe that professional grade software can be totally freely available with no hidden costs or other catches. You can thank Microsoft for hardwiring that expectation.
b) People are sheep and will follow the majority mindthink, which is largely determined by mass-media advertising. For example there are plenty of cheaper and technically better media players out there, but nearly everyone has, wants, or only thinks of an iPod. Microsoft spend billions on advertising. There are commercials for Vista all over the TV daily. I've never ever seen a TV advert for Linux.
c) Still the major reason that most people use Windows is that it was already on their PC when they bought it. Most non-technical types don't even realise that they could uninstall it and run something else. Jeez I know people who buy a new PC every year because their windows partition gets too bloated.
We need to get information about Linux and general PC OS awareness out there through advertising, not just hope people wake up to it one day on their own.
That ZDNet article by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is written like a true geek. The most important reason determining which OS people buy is marketing, not any of the technical/aesthetic reasons intrinsic to Linux.
People buy their OS by buying a PC with it installed. That means buying a Dell, with Windows preinstalled, or a cheaper brand, with Windows preinstalled. The beginnings of preinstalled Linux on mass-market PCs will help reverse the total Windows momentum. But no one even knows to ask - and they have to ask - for "Linux instead of Windows". People don't even know that it's a "PC", they think they're buying Windows from Dell with a PC included - which they are. No one ever heard of "Lindows", which just sounds like "Windows", anyway, so why bother mentioning it, or asking about it?
Other people get Windows because they have it on their office machine, or on their last machine, and they just want the easiest transfer of their apps and data. They don't know they can use their data on Linux, because they never heard of Linux, and the idea of transferring is totally unknown. Most don't even know there is an alternative.
And others get Windows because someone sold it to them, or that in combination with some or all of the above. OS'es don't sell themselves, and Linux is usually "sold" to new users by some Linux geek. Either facelessly in an online discussion as a solution to some Windows problem, or perhaps a friend (of a friend of an aunt...). Most of those people aren't salespeople, and many are socially unskilled, let alone persuasive. Meanwhile, everyone sees $million ad campaigns every day, everywhere, defining "computers" as "Windows". And the most $incented salespeople run by the most ruthless global $marketing org with every advantage.
Ubuntu could compete directly with Windows for marketshare. But it needs opportunities to sell, many of which are hampered by Microsoft's proven, manifold, and ever-increasing monopoly abuse. And it needs ad campaigns directing consumers to skilled and equipped armies of salespeople.
Given the real reasons people don't "buy" Linux instead of Windows, it's testament to the quality of Linux and its community that it competes at all. That is the basis, but far from the full extent, of a way to get people "in touch" with Linux enough to replace Windows with it.
--
make install -not war
When someone gets Windows, he installs it, starts it up and starts clicking around. Some things will work, some won't, but those that won't don't discourage him. After all, everyone says Windows is so easy to use, every dumbo can work it out. So they try. I mean, who wants to be dumber than... And they try. And putz around and finally (maybe after reinstalling, when they managed to click somewhere they really, really shouldn't) it works.
When someone gets Linux, he installs is, starts it up and starts clicking around. Some things will work, some won't, but those that won't discourage him. After all, everyone says Linux is a geeks-only system, nobody but a true blooded geek can figure it out. So they don't even try and toss it as "too complicated".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... GAMES!!!
Games make more money now than movies, can't you realize how important its become? I'm not prepared to give up that anytime soon.
Even if some distro has everything I need but games (and most have), I'm not going to boot under windows to play then boot a linux to browse the web. I'm just going to do everything on windows because its more convenient, and because it gives me the freedom to play if I want to, then switch back quickly to what I was doing.
What really saddles me is that I already use mostly OSS, so switching wouldnt be a problem. I'd love to. But I'm not going to if I dont have the choice of paying the games I like.
"Drop to a terminal window".
At this point you've already lost the 'average' user. On a desktop OS, you shouldn't HAVE to drop to the terminal for ANYTHING. Click and Run technology is going to be one of the biggest things to hit Linux, IF it's widely adopted. I understand that the ability is great to have all packages listed in a Yum repository or using apt-get, or whatever, but frankly... there's no simple way to download say, Firefox and install it off of the web. Trying to explain to a user how to uninstall the old version first, then making sure the main icon points to the NEW installation and not the old one is quite a task.
When Click and Run becomes a standard, and people follow the "double click --- next next next" mantra that makes Windows so easy to use, then will Linux start making inroads to the desktop. Until then, it's a nice OS with no real productive software that people know of (try explaining what Gimp is compared to Photoshop, or GAIM to their MSN). Beryl is another step to make inroads to the desktop.
Contrary to popular belief -- people LIKE pretty. User interface with Linux apps is sometimes an afterthought, because the community the produces the applications thinks of function over form. This is generally a good practice, but to the average user who likes pretty buttons and icons well... they will think it to be archaic.
A great example of this is using Lotus Notes compared to Outlook. It's like I welcomed myself back to 1975 when using it. I still get jealous when consultants come in and open their Outlook windows, and then I look at my archaic email and cringe.
Make it pretty, make it easy, they will come. Development on Linux isn't a lot more difficult than Windows, but the developer tools again, lack comparatively. The amount of free training Microsoft offers pales in comparison to what Linux offers. The Linux training is pricey, but very in depth. But nobody's going to send their employees to training for desktop application development in Linux, because it's useless.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
A lot of Linux supporters come off as either implying or outright saying that unless you use linux you are somehow a dumb slave. Most people don't like being called dumb slaves, and they really aren't even if they use a "non-free" OS as it were, but Linux users seem to think that it's their job to shove their, ahem, religion, down other people's throats.
Of course. Improvements have been made since I tried Linux as a home desktop OS, I'm sure, but I'm a professional sysadmin and I found it infuriating and time-sucking to constantly hack at my PC to get it to work. Sure, I'm a geek and I like a challenge, but I found Linux to be a wildly inappropriate choice of OS for home use. My XP box has functioned problem-free since I built it three years ago, and my last box ran since I was in college. It took me a month and a half of manually editing init files and constantly fighting to keep up with library requirements just to get my desktop ready to use. Then once I had all the hardware working, the GUI configured, and a full set of working applications, I found it no more speedy or reliable than 2K, not to mention the garage-ware-ness of some of the apps. *NIX/BSD makes a fantastic purpose-built machine or server, but as a desktop OS it's got a long way to go.
If people prefer Windows, that is fine.
What I object to is the exclusive licensing that Microsoft forces on vendors. Buyers should be able to choose the OS. Microsoft has done a good job of making Windows easy to use, and there are plenty of books & tutorials for n00bs. However, forcing people to pay for Windows when they will never use it is just wrong -- and the basis for Microsoft's monopoly.
This whole article is off. What does "Market" share mean for Linux. Linux has no market. Red Hat or Suse may have a market, but Linux isn't a company. "Less than impressive" to whom? The fact that a free operating system is challenging the largest companies in the business shows that something is out of whack in the "market" already. Perhaps the market is artificial, and in the long run economics will eventually dictate that people pay for where the value is - service, support and development effort, not for the product itself which has almost no marginal cost for a widely used software system. Economics is on the side of open source in the long run simply because marginal costs will be forced to near zero for standard programs over time. Linux doesn't need to worry about market share, even if only a few new people use it in any period, there is no time limit. As long as developers want to support it and crucially there is hardware to run it on, it will be around. If the interfaces to computers change radically such that linux is irrelevant, so be it, all the other current OS's would be likewise irrelevant.
Whenever market share is raised with free software in general, as opposed to a specific company, you know someone is trying to spin something. There are obviously a lot of Linux users currently, enough to keep a vibrant development community going. Worrying about some market penetration above that is counterproductive for free software users. Rather, worry about specific problems or needs with the free software, that is where effort has tangible results.
Spoken like a man who's never done tech support. Or worked in IT. Or noticed that there are hundreds of books on how to make Windows suck less.
Or, you know, used Windows.
-Peter
I hate to say it like that - but, yes, for the average user, it does everything they need.
I only use windows at work and, like I said - it works. I dont see the need for a change, and since this licence key for windows XP is probably around 4 years old, its (probably) been well worth what my employer paid for it.
And when I get home, I want to doink a couple people in the head with my M95 sniper rifle, so I click the power button on my PC, wait, then click the icon for BF2, and i'm in the game.
Again, gross generalisation, but with grounding in truth.
[truth] My bosses at work asked me if their computer was getting hacked, because they got the message "Other users are logged into this computer. Are you sure you want to shut down?" [/truth]
As amusing as this is, it raises a point. The computer may be the vertex of the pie-chart of life for many of us, but for others, people who don't have time to constantly watch over the electronic equivalent of an anemic baby with poor depth-perception (A computer is a lot like an anemic baby. Think about it...) all this stuff about webclick tracking cookies and google-pumping is an unnecessary hassle. It's the same reason some people buy Dell computers, while others put spinners on their CPUfans.
THUD~*
I read this article a few days ago. I blogged about it http://gymnasmata.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/point-c ounterpoint-understanding-the-linux-community/. I agree with some points that Mr. Hughes makes but I think his viewpoint is largely misguided. I'm a fairly technical Linux user but I am not a Linux zealot by any means.
Long answer yes...
People that are more than consumers of computer technology have different reasons for what they do. Tell me, have you ever listened to somebody talk about something like cars or a sport that you didn't really have more than a fleeting interest in? How many people could even open the hood of their car and name anything besides pointing out the engine? Do you watch a sport but not care about the politics or history of it? My wife could give a flip about what I went through to find a cardbus nic that I could use kismet with or why I find this to be a problem. She is a Mac user but I couldn't explain to her by I like the Mac better than Windows, she doesn't care, just like most people don't care about the details on things the like. Systems built for programmers have different expectations and UNIX/Linux/BSD are built for programmers.
Seriously, was there ever any doubt that the linux community is out of touch with the "average" user? We can spout all we want about how great it is, but the average user doesn't give a damn. They just want it to work, preferably the way that they are used to it working.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
I think you've pretty much identified why Linux is where it is, and will remain that way.
Most people see computers as appliances. They don't want to see the guts of the machine, they just want to see a browser, and software that will allow them to interoperate with other users.
For such people, MS Windows is the safe choice.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Do you like Japanese imports?
The moment the term "average user" is put into the sentence, you may as well stop discussion.
To the "average user" the computer is an overly complex appliance. He/she brought it home, plugged in way too many cables, or got a kid to do it for them, turned it on, and it came to life. Then the annoying stuff about Internet setup, again perhaps with the help of a kid, and the computer was ready to use. Of course the business user presumably has IT people to substitute for the kid, but it's the same thing.
Once that's done, well it's a computer, and what the computer does is the way computers are. Every now and then, computers get a virus, or have a BSOD and have to reboot. With time, computers tend to get slower, but that's just because the hardware is static and progress makes it obsolete. (Spyware, what's that?) When the computer gets to be too slow, it's time to get a new one. Those annoying confirmation popups are annoying, because you just click 'OK', but that's the way computers work, even if it is sometimes annoying.
Windows? Well that's just part of a computer, isn't it? Who's annoyed with Windows? I'm annoyed with the computer.
It's perhaps impolite/politically incorrect to refer to oneselves elite, but the Slashdot audience compared to the "average user" really is elite, even though one fraction thinks that the other fraction really isn't.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
There is only one thing "on the whole" that people are satisfied with and that is preparation H!
Seriously, who needs to say "on the whole" twice in a summary. Looks like bait.
What people want in a home or business computer is the ability to use the specialized software they need without having to mess with the computer's configuration much, if at all. They want it to just work.
They are tolerant of it being updated to "just work," and will switch to a pretty Macintosh if they perceive it "just works better," but the last thing they want is a system that requires them to devote more of their lives to it. Time for ourselves is in short supply, and the average person doesn't have the time or the desire to spent a lot of time learning about computers. They want to get good at what they do in their field, find the software that supports it, learn it and not change a thing until forced to by the market.
Where Windows falls down is where it requires them to interrupt the "just work" paradigm. From my experience, about half of this is poorly-designed third party software like the "helpful" wireless managers from Linksys and Intel that work less than Windows Zero Wireless configuration. The security mess over the past two years was a big falling-down for windows also.
Someone once told me that the average person buys a computer, and if after three years anything goes wrong, junks it and gets another. I think this is the case. When I want to show people Linux, I use the Knoppix boot CD I burned a year or so ago. It just works and shows them the "cool" stuff before the tedium.
If I had one wish for all operating systems, it's that they understood this principle better. I think Vista has some work to do in this regard, and the Macintosh OS X errs in a different way, where the user doesn't have to memorize technical details but a very "cute" interface.
I think one reason people get excited by a web-based OS is that they perceive it will have greater transparency than MacOS, WindOwS, or Linux.
(Disclaimer: I'm a proud Windows, Macintosh, Linux (RH) and FreeBSD user, because I'm a geek and... well, proud of it, even if my friends think I'm nuts.)
technical writing / development
I know of several film students at Ferris State university that use or pirate windows simply because all Video editing and DVD authoring apps under linux suck horribly and pirated versions of MAC software are hard to get.. (they prefer final cut)
Cinerella is unstable and not even 1/2 as usable as Adobe Premiere 4.0.. Apps like Sony Vegas, the current Premier, Canopus, and Avid Dv express kick the absolute living crap out of all the linux video eding apps all rolled together hands down.
DVD authoring also stinks under linux. It's not even at the par of the dirt cheap Dvd-Lab product out there without being a comand line expert.
Dont get me started with the effects and composting apps that simply do not exist under linux.
How about Engine tuning software? ALDL or ODB-II scan tool software? Electronics design software (Eagle Cad is the ONLY ONE and it's not that good) how about a Decent CAD package that is even 1/2 as useable as autocad was from 3 years ago?
It's the apps. People cant rip their DVD's easily (no anydvd for linux), they cant sync with their ipod without pulling teeth, they cant sync with their phone's contacts easily, installing non free and not in a RPM repository apps is something that even a seasoned linux user sighs at.
Linux is there, it's a rock solid OS. it just suffers from the same problem that OS2 and BeOS sufferd from. Nobody is making software that people want for it.
Hell I'd buy a decent video editing app for linux. It does not exist. Main Actor is utter crap and is the only commercial offering.
I'd pay for a native photoshop and Dreamweaver+flash suite for linux, and thousands of others would to.
It's the apps, plain and simple.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The question contains its own answer. Most people - even most technically adept people - are not interested in installing "the movement" on their PCs. They want an operating system.
Well said, but I'd go further than this. I'd say the majority of people don't want an operating system, they want to complete tasks. They want to write an email to their friends, buy an airplane ticket online, write a letter to their mother, upload the images of their kids from their digital camera so they can print them out and post them to their grandparents, play the latest fun computer game that everybody says is fantastic, share a work spreadsheet via email or a USB pen drive with one of their office colleagues.
If they can do these kind of tasks, I really don't think they care about what operating system they've got, let alone joining any movements. If their partner/ best friend / neighbour who knows a bit about computers says "yup, ComputerX that you can buy down ShopY will do those jobs" then that's as far as I think they want to engage with the issue.
Fair play, we all do this with tasks outside our domain expertise. I phone my dad if I have problems with my car, if he said "you need to try this kind of oil" I'd just go with what he recommended. Wouldn't give it a second thought, read review websites etc.
I don't think it's a case of Linux being in or out of touch with the average user, but that the average user probably doesn't even know there is such an alternative, and I'd estimate that even of those that have heard of Linux, few really know enough about it to make an informed decision either way. Of course, it doesn't help that Microsoft pretty much has the OEM market wrapped up. Not to mention spreads FUD at every opportunity. Linux unfortunately has a lot of catching-up to do to gain mind share.
The perception is that Linux doesn't really offer any added value to the average user. Most new computers come with Windows preinstalled, and to Joe Bloggs, it does the job just fine. It runs his games, his word processor, web browser, email, you name it. Plus it all works out of the box. Linux's biggest advantage is freedom, but Joe, not being a developer, really couldn't care less that he's able to modify and redistribute source code, so the whole free-as-in-speech thing is a non-starter. In fact, to most users, open source means nothing, and frankly, it shouldn't. Doesn't even matter that it's free-as-in-beer either - most free alternatives to commercial software are available for Windows too. So really, to the uninitiated, Linux really doesn't provide any major benefit over Windows, if your system already has Windows installed (and the overwhelming majority do). One thing Linux does have over Windows though is security. But is that alone enough to be Linux's unique selling point?
Another downside to Linux (and I realize this is probably a controversial point) is that the community just appears so fragmented. You have hundreds upon hundreds of distributions out there, many of which are aiming for the same goals. I can understand different distros appealing to different markets, but I can't for the life of me see how Ubuntu, OpenSuSE, and Fedora have vastly different goals.
What Linux needs is a coherent marketing campaign, and to start acting like a market leader. If you market yourself as an alternative to Windows, you'll forever be playing catch-up. In short, Linux needs to stop looking at Windows' ass, and focus on the finish line.
The last three words: "home and office." Those are quite different situations. Joe lunchbox buys and uses whatever he can get at Walmart. The computer is an appliance. He doesn't want to mess with it any more than he wants to replace his spark plugs. Joe's boss, on the other hand, can save a bunch of bucks by going with an open source solution. Joe's first taste of Linux will probably be at work. When Joe can buy an acceptable Linux computer for half the price of the Windows version, and he trusts it because that what he uses at work, then Joe will switch to Linux.
I'm not sure why we are so obsessed with home computers. Once Linux becomes pervasive in the workplace it is much more likely to end up at home. In any event, look at how many people have no computer in the home. Also consider how much use the computer gets in most homes that do have one. For a good chunk of the population the computer isn't required. You don't even need it for email any more.
My brother's one. I bought him a used 700MHz P3 for $100, and installed Win2K Pro and McAffee on it. Set him up with Firefox, showed him how to use Spybot and let him browse to his heart's content. After a year of Windows updates, and a subscription to McAffee (he did that on his own), it started to slow down. Instead of simply re-installing Win2K, I asked him what he was using the box for.
Firefox, he said.
That's it?
Yup, just browse and read my Hotmail.
So, I said, no spreadsheets, games, documents, nothing else?
Nope.
How about I bring over another hard drive (you'll still have your old Win2K system, unchanged) and we try Linux?
Same Firefox? I'm fine with that.
So, I installed Ubuntu, copied his Firefox profile over and let him have at it. His only comment was: it seems faster!
At least in this naive user's case, Linux and Firefox were cheaper (he has since cancelled his McAffee subscription) and faster. And for my brother, that's a win.
In my house I have a PC running Linux, a PC running Windows XP and a Mac running OS X. My wife and thirteen year old son almost always use the PC running Windows because it's what they're used to.
But here's where it gets strange. In an attempt to get them to use the Mac more, I got them both hooked on iTunes, and at first it seemed to be working. They would both log onto the Mac, start up iTunes, download some songs and maybe do some web browsing. After a few weeks though, they had both returned to using XP most of the time for all of their online activities. Admitting defeat, I installed iTunes on the Windows PC so they wouldn't have to keep going from computer to computer, but to my surprise, they still continue to log into the Mac to use iTunes. It's what they learned, it's what they're used to.
Another example of the "average user". My wife will tell my son to get off the Windows PC so that she can log on to check her email. Her email is a Yahoo Mail account and I tell her that she can check it from any of the computers. But since she learned how to set up and access her Yahoo Mail account using the Windows PC, that's how she thinks she is supposed to access it.
Lets face it, the average user is the last target any OS should be aiming for...
But as time goes by and more and more geeks and semi-geeks and small businesses, and even some big businesses start using Linux, ordinary people will start to switch. PC vendors that will sell and support Linux machines --- maybe for a few bucks less than Windows will help. It'll take a while. But as Windows becomes more and more bloated, more user hostile, harder to work on, and continues to be a security nightmare, folks will switch. Just give it time.
(Exactly how 'Intellectual Property' owners are going to get their tithes isn't real clear to me. Maybe they won't and will have to find real work ... Oh well ...)
Oh yeah. And get a Linux box up yourself even if you only use to to check Slashdot and a few other simple tasks. How can geeks expect others to flock to Linux if they themselves stick with Windows?
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
over Linux and now it enjoys more developers writing apps for it. Linux ends up playing catch up act. Unless Linux gets some 'killer end-user features' that are easy to use, not available in Windows, are simply disruptive in the PC market and vendors are compelled to sell it, it can't hope to surpass the popularity of Windows anytime soon in the PC market. This is understandable as Linux started off trying to emulate Unix which is a more geek-ish OS. It is good at webservers though.
I imagine pretty much every field has its share of elitists.
The simple fact is that most people aither know how to fix a zonked PC, or they know someone that can fix it for free. Therefore, they don't care much about the issues with Windows. It is only the highly technical crowd that gets annoyed with Windows' general shittyness.
People used to fall in love with the VW Beetle - hands down the worst car ever - but everybody knew how to fix it...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
One of the funniest comments I've heard regarding whatever vs. linux was "ask a linux person what time it is and they tell you how to build a clock." There's some truth to that, definitely.
I'd like to be a Linux user. I feel that computers are too important as business tools to be a controlled by a single manufacturer. Imagine if you could only buy a hammer from Stanley. They would charge you $200 for it and make you buy a new one every 5 years. So, I recently bought a new box and planned to put Linux on it. Ubuntu is suppose to be the most user-friendly desktop, so I gave it a try. Loading it was easy. I only had one problem, but it was classic Catch 22. The wireless network uses WPA for security. Ubuntu has a plug-in for WPA, but it's not on the CD. You have to download it from the Ubuntu website. My problem was that I couldn't get on the network to downloaded the plug-in I needed to get on the network. WHY ISN'T THE PLUG-IN ON THE CD? How stupid is this?
So, I loaded XP instead, which includes all the software to connect up with a WPA wireless network on the CD. The bottom line is that I'm still using Windows because it worked and Ubuntu didn't.
Linux was from the start an operating system for the "power" user, only recently has the focus changed to Joe Schmoe and his grandma. I've been using (and preffering) Linux over Windows for a long time and I like it the way it is. It's no knock on new linux users, but the real reason I use linux is because it gives me freedom to really customize our computer experience, something that was never possible on Windows. This kind of approach is never going to work for the average user, so in order to sell Linux to them you have to build a Windows clone. For all the flak Microsoft gets, they have done a really good job in making an OS that anyone can use. They lock it down tight and bury evrything under layers and layers of criptic menus to discourage any change. As the Linux makes the push for the average user, it will have to make the same changes Windows made over time, becoming more and more constrained.
There is this perception that Linux needs to compete with Windows, but I don't see why. In order to compete with it Linux would have to become Windows and in the end all you do is change the name of the OS, but the essence remains.
I see plenty of valid comments and guesses as to why people aren't switching to Linux. But above all else, I think it's really about the software. The lion's share of software available today is written for the Windows operating system. Most people using a computer today are using it pretty much like an appliance. They have a specific set of tasks in mind to do with it, plus expect the flexibility to run out to any local store to buy a new piece of software to load and run, at-will, on it.
What products are almost universally requested by "typical computer users"? Microsoft Office (at least Word and Excel, and increasingly, even Outlook for email), Quicken and TurboTax, a random sampling of games (anything from Half Life 2 to Civilization 4 to The Sims 2 or even Deer Hunter), and probably some kind of greeting card maker and/or photo editing package to use with their color inkjet printer. Oh, and quite often, they want "Internet Explorer" too, because they plan on using some college or business web site that says it requires IE.
These people have generally already learned enough Windows basics to understand how to click the START button, go to "Programs" and find their program to run, how to do some basic locating of their saved documents, how to print from all their programs, and so forth. If Linux could guarantee, tomorrow, that it would run 100% of Windows software just as well as Windows does (EG. Stick the CD in the drive and let it auto-run the installer package to load the app.), you'd see MUCH more adoption of Linux over time. (People would figure, hey - I save well over $100 by ditching Windows? Ok... I'll go for that.) But right now, the idea of having to hunt down less common/familiar alternatives for many of the programs they need, PLUS the idea of re-learning some things about how to get around in the OS means they see NO good reason to change.
The bolchevization of the United States will not succeed and it is its supporters who will face a catastrophe of untold magnitude.
10 types of people. Those who want choices and have the will to turn to something else and those who don't.
That's like asking if Lockheed-Martin is out of touch with the average automobile user.
Make no mistake, I have Ubuntu, I love it, and use it 99.99% of the time when I'm home. But even with the best Linux distros, one is still taking a roll of the dice when buying new hardware. I'm currently having a problem with a new tablet I was given as a gift. The only Linux driver available for it is two years old and made for my brand's previous model. Needless to say, it's been something of a nightmare to get it up and running properly. I'm willing to do it because, well, I'm a masochist, apparently. But most users won't.
"Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." - Mark Twain
"'Despite what you read on websites and blogs, newspapers and magazines, people on the whole aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'"
And that's only because 'people on the whole' not only have no clue what an operating system is, they don't recognize the OS is often the seat of their frustrations, nor are they aware there are alternatives. It's actually a refreshing to have a user not blame their own PC ignorance for the delicate nature of their work environment.
If I only had a nickel for the number of times I've had to explain that Word is not Window, not only doesn't come with the OS, but you have to buy it. That inevitably leads to the question, "What is an OS?". That leads to the explanation of what Linux is - because there IS a choice and they deserve to know about it.
So - my own empirical experience - Windows fragility and weaknesses are not only a motivator for the development of Linux, but a well used marketing channel as well.
Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
Ok so I have a few things to say here, first of all I'm not an 'average user', my PC at home is custom built by me, I work in IT as a tech support guy and I have done for many years. I do not use linux. Why? Well, couple of reasons. First off games, my home PC is a games machine I use it to play World of Warcraft, Command and Conquer and many other PC games, none of which run reliably on Linux. Or if the game does then the hardware I run isn't supported. Second is attitude. A few years ago when I had a spare machine (don't have it anymore, gave it to a friend who was going back to uni) I decided to have a look at Linux and see if it was any good, so I got myself a copy of SUSE Linux and went for the install. Wow, talk about unfriendly. But I fought through it and then encountered a load of problems configuring the thing and trying to get it to do stuff. So I posted up some questions to various forums and boards, the universal response I got was a bunch of elitist idiots posting up responses like "RTFM Noob" and "If you can't figure it out for yourself then you don't deserve a computer.". Seriously, that kind of attitude isn't going to help any. So what did I do, that's right I binned it and went back to XP Pro. You want to know something else, guess how many times my XP Pro machine has crashed in the last 12 months. None. Now I'm not exactly a big fan of the MS Business model but why would I want to get rid of an OS that runs well and with stability, supports my hardware and allows me to play all the latest games? I wouldn't really would I. Until Linux can compete on that level it will never become a viable home OS.
In addition to that, nowadays we need to learn a new UI everytime we get a new digital TV box, PDA, mobile phone, console, TV, etc etc. We all learn new UIs all the time and its not that hard because they all essentially do the same thing and have an area for "settings". Linux is [almost] at the point where it can be used effectively without the command line. That is why it poses such a threat to Microsoft - its getting closer and closer to being easily set up and administered.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Remember, a normal user never wants to deal with the OS. They don't care about it at all--they just want to either play or get their work done so they can go play.
On the computer normal users want to:
Watch their videos and listen to their music -- Linux distros have to get rid of the silly refusal to include "restricted" drivers and codices in the standard install. I refer here to products provided without charge but with copyright or patent restrictions like Flash and Adobe Acrobat. (And yes, having to check something to install them after your install is silly and ludicrous and too much for a normal user.) Let the geeks go out and find the special unrestricted install, since they are the ones capable of doing that.
They want to surf the internet and check their email and edit files. Make Firefox the standard browser in the normal install--other browsers have too many restrictions and normal people just want to surf. They are _not_ interested in playing with the OS or changing their settings. They want to surf immediately without blockage, just like in Windows.
Change the default file browser behavior to bring up editors, displayer programs independent of the file browser. The embedded behavior is not usable by normal users weaned on Macs and Windows.
No command lines, no compiling, just make it work! Remember, the user doesn't care about the OS or why or how it works and their goal is not to mess with the OS or the program but to do something else entirely.
Go to an update utility like Ubuntu that just shows the user updates to what they already have installed instead of presenting the user with literally hundreds of little packages to choose from. Normal users, if they update at all, are just going to press the "update all" button and get on with their lives--which _don't_ concern computers.
People do not want to run a 'word processor'.
They want to run Word.
They do not want to run image processing software.
They want to run photoshop.
They dont want to run a spreadsheet.
They want to run Excel.
It does not matter how pretty the GUI is, nor how blindingly simple pointy clicky it may be.
It does not matter if it has direct replacements for all the apps they normally use,
nor even if those replacements do a better job than what they are used to.
If its not THE application they want, then they dont want the O/S.
"Oh, well then, I cant use that. I have to have WORD..."
Movies, MP3s, and games.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
____
nico
Nico-Live
I first installed Slackware on my 486 computer in 1995. I've used various distributions on and off over the years. I use Linux all day at work since 1999.
Guess what? I prefer Windows to Linux for any non-development task. NT 4.0, Windows 2000, and Windows XP have all been rock solid and great operating systems for home and business use. The only blue-screens I've ever seen have been when I used crappy hardware with a crappy driver probably written by a Taiwanese teenager. Use good hardware/drivers and Windows is very stable.
The Windows GUI is responsive and snappy. I don't have problems with security/spyware. There is tons of shareware/freeware available. I love Photoshop. Firefox even seems to work better on Windows. Audio/video playback never skips on me. I haven't tried Vista yet, but I will very soon. My brother and sister bought new PCs and they say Vista works fine and "looks cool".
Of course I prefer Linux for work-related engineering and for some server stuff. But I'm relieved to use an OS designed for the consumer when doing consumer-oriented things. I've also tried OS/X...also very nice and clean, but it wasn't enough for me to buy a Mac.
Windows is a lot like McDonalds or other low end fast food joint. The food is comfortable, easy to get, and can be found anywhere. Most people would be quick to point out that they don't particularly like that style of fast food, but it it better than nothing.
:-D
There are much better Hamburger joints around, and we all know where we can find a nice burger, but it usually is out of our way, and probably doesn't offer drive through.
And so it is with McWindows (You've heard it here first!). Linux is much like making a burger yourself. All the parts are easily available and assembly doesn't take rocket science, and it usually tastes better than anything you can find at the fast food places, but may not be convenient nor worth the effort to many people to make yourself a hamburger.
I personally think that LINUX is poised to have a huge impact for the first time in the next year or two. Windows isn't going anywhere anytime soon, however LINUX will be seen in more places. If I were in the Media (Hollywood, TV etc), I'd try to get Linux broader exposure in movies and tv.
In fact, I'd "Remake" one of the worst "computer" movies, TRON, but use LINUX/MICROSOFT as the battle.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Look at windows, most software you use is bloated with spyware in it as it is. Why would a user want to pay for a OS that has big security holes and needs patched every week and hide known security holes from the user's because they have not patch it yet and lie about it. Next look at DRM who want's DRM in their system. There's a lot of reasons not to use Windows, and just saying user's are having issues picking between Vista Home, Pro, and all that who cares... Vista Sucks IMO they had VIDEO cards being labeled Vista Compatible and they wouldn't work with vista, that don't sound too great... Linux has it's strong points, and is NOT a alt to windows, people will want to use Linux because it is a Great OS overall, and the community is very helpful to new, or geeky users who need help!
...and be done with it?
This is nothing but the same cut-and-paste anti-Linux troll we've been seeing for a decade, fed through an article-spinner. Too many distros, CLI sucks, blah blah blah.
The straw man here is the false goal being set up for us, that Linux is supposed to replace Mickeysoft. If we wanted a stupid toy, we would have built one. The people who only want a computer to be a TV set that plays games are welcome to stay on Windows until they rot. The rest of us need tools so we can get some work done.
Yeah, just convince all UI programmers to put in place a moratorium on new features until copy&paste works between all applications, all the time, with all commonly used kinds of data. Once that's done (2030 or so), world domination will become reality on short notice.
1. Lack of compatibility with MS Office (I know, not Linux's fault, but end-user doesn't care)
2. Lack of Photoshop (and no, GIMP doesn't do without 16-bit color and color-managed workflow)
Well.
Anyone who claims that the Linux distros are as easy or even easier to use than Windows have completely missed something... it's just not true. I use Linux about 90 % of the time and I can say the Windows experience just is that much easier that I will not recommend any Linux distro to any of my relatives or friends, if they are not computer geeks like I am. If I did so I would only be asking for trouble and quite a workload for myself, which I do not want.
The people who say "average people are idiots" are complete idiots by themselfs. Try to look a bit further than your own nose! Not everyone wants to fight with a damn computer as a number one hobby. Not everyone wants to learn all the secrets of Linux administration. And it is perfectly fine. For many people the computer is not "The Thing", they just want to accomplish some useful practical goals instead of going uber-geeky. This behaviour is the exact problem with open-source developers: they fail to see how most people see their computers and computer programs: as tools to do something and not as "The Thing".
I've discussed for example user interfaces with some of these uber-geeks who claim that "average people are idiots": if you need to have 5 buttons in an interface, and they put them into the interface so that the result is far from convenient, easy-to-use, pleasing to the eye. Then when I go to complain about it to them, the reply is "we will not design it for idiots". I mean come on, now think what you are doing! User interfaces do not need to be complicated and difficult to use even if it is a "professional" program. Somehow many programmers/designers seem to think they need to be, or just don't know how to create an easy-to-use interface thus failing miserably and at the same time rejecting any useful user feedback. You don't need to hinder efficiency, in fact an easy to use user interface is more than likely to IMPROVE efficiency. Again, these uber-geeks fail miserably in seeing this point.
Based only on the people I know, there are 3 big reasons why they don't use Linux instead of Windows.
1) People are resistant to change. They've been using Windows for as long as they can remember and they think (whether right or wrong) that they won't be able to learn something new.
2) I have no idea why, but people trust "The world's richest company over a bunch of 14-year-old kids who just want to hack your machine" to write their OS. (No joke; that's a quote from my boss.)
3) It's what their computer came with.
Look people, I'm a 15 year old male who has been using a computer half my life, and if the likes of myself couldn't wrap my head around Ubuntu, what are the chances the sheep majority will? Not to troll or anything, but Linux is nowhere near whats it's cracked up to be. At the risk of sounding n00bish to some of you, I could not even get programs that had been made specifically for Linux to run at all. Simplicity is the way to go, because it will appeal to more people, and with a bigger following, an OS will have more software made for it, and will become more popular. Windows ain't going anywhere soon.
It's simple.
... can only be programmed with a Windows system
... many rig control and memory managers are only written for Windows.
... only possible with Windows
You basically *have* to keep Windows around somewhere.
Examples
Firmware updater for A/V receiver...only made to run on Windows
Logitech Harmony remote
Ham Radio software
GPS firmware updates
The equipment manufacturers close their protocols and only distribute precompiled utilities that require you to have Windows to use them.
I mostly get stuck with keeping a Windows box around for doing firmware and other software updates for the various toys I have around.
I don't use the install for anything else, but it still has to stick around sucking up disk space as there is no other way to accomplish the above tasks.
I know I'm repeating a lot of what has been said here all ready (and I'm happy to repeat myself until I'm blue in the mouth), but computers have become a commodity, and as such the average user doesn't want to have to do anything but point and click. Many users will barely understand Windows, let alone Windows against Linux. As far as they're concerned as long as they can surf (it's the blue 'e' isn't it?), check their email (I got a Hotmail account because it offered me one when I clicked on the blue 'e') and perhaps write letters (that's the blue W) they don't want to know. Linux, on the other hand, still has to be an active decision, from choosing what hardware works to the options for desktop and applications. Ubuntu is making good inroads in resolving some of the magic, but for Linux to be truly attractive, it is going to have to take a leaf from OS X's book and provide an experience that is totally accessible from the desktop, yet powerful enough to provide command line and filesystem access for power users. The problem is that we as power users can't see anything wrong with the hoops we have to jump through, and therefore find it difficult to empathise with the guy who has just bought his first $600 laptop from Walmart and wants to know where the pr0n is.
Most users buy the computer for the applications they can run on it. Pick some of the major interest areas. What choice of applications for that interest area are available on Windows? On Mac? On Linux? I would wager that nearly all of the available end-user oriented apps for a given interest area will run on Windows, but very few will run on Linux. Consequently, it's a no brainer-- unless you're an OS geek who cares about such things, Windows gives you far more choices WRT what you can run on your computer. The choice is very easy. Even the Mac does far better than Linux in this area, many many significant applications run on either Windows or Mac platforms.
The question you have to ask yourself is not what do end users think about Linux (they don't think about it), but what to commercial developers think about it? Why aren't they porting their apps to Linux as well as Mac and Windows? When you answer *that* question, you may have some idea as to why Linux isn't ready for end-users...
Among "Average Users" - from people I know, and opinions I read on the internet, what I'm hearing is that, while people may be overall, deciding to "stick" with windows, it's mostly because they feel "stuck" with it. Either by fiat of their employer's IT policy, or through special software requirements.
I wouldn't say that the average user is still happy with Windows. The dissatisfaction declined somewhat with XP; it's much more stable and useful than ME was, and that was far, far better than 98 or 95 (given that "average users" were priced out of being able to use 2000 pro). But the general buzz out there is that windows users are, almost unanimously, unhappy with Vista. The plan for most people is to just put up with it, with a smaller portion "sticking to XP" - and the next smaller portion (including my brother, of all people!) switching to Mac. I reckon that anyone who was going to switch to Linux, was already there before Vista came out.
Now; that's "Average User".
For developers and integrators - I'm seeing a STAMPEDE away from Vista. We're fleeing in terror. Either to Apple, or Linux. That's what I'm seeing. At least in my niche of the IT industry.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I tell you why.
People thinks that the penguin is a female character, people thinks in linux as a "FREE" woman which does not have cost,
and they like cost, they like to pay somehow, and that's were windows will always win
people thinks that a free woman does not need any effort to getit. as they think about linux. A thing that does not worth an effor to get it is a thing without price, useless, usable and foremost descartable.
They don't see woman "FREE" as in freedom,. they se "FREE" as low cost.
They don't understand the term "free as beer" because mostly they don't take beer just because
free beer they think it's something about communism, and not "fun all the night".
Linux is free as a free woman, and that's what they most hate. the woman's freedom.
Because a free woman can have a static cost of "Nothing" and an infinite cost at the same
And they prefer to pay a single "FEE" to MS than to be forever worrying about what could be the cost of freedom.
Freedom is never costless, and that's what they know, because they fight to enslave people more than to free people.
That's were the most of the MS vs Penguin dilema stands
What do i like??
I like my beer back. piss off
?
However now a good number of DVDs, Consoles and other AV stuff either have an option to change the clock on the main menu or even when you turn it on. Most stuff also has a battery or capacitor so that this time doesn't reset to 12:00 if you unplug it. Heck Sky+ (and I imagine most DVR) boxes don't even require users to know to bother with times of programs, you can just select a program from an EPG and record it or even record the whole series with the press of a single button.
It's an example Linux needs to follow if it wants to be competitive. Command line interfaces (my largest pet peeve that stops me converting), although powerful, are a dinosaur and GUIs have progressed to the point where they're simply not needed. I can't remember the time I've needed to use command line stuff in windows, the only times I think even advanced users need to use it is for third party software that insists on command line or if their doing system repairs and booting to the command prompt (which isn't actually windows)
"'Despite what you read on websites and blogs, newspapers and magazines, people on the whole aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'"
For the uninitiated, this is why BSOD jokes don't get the big yucks they used to.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Those are the three I can see When I talk to people about the greatness of Linux those are the things that make it hard to explain or hard to support.
Setup - Yes it's easier but as some have stated not all necessary drivers are readily available either that or there is no easy definitive shopping list of 'good hardware' to get before you install (most notably wi-fi and video cards). The second problem is if you make a mistake some things are more pain to fix then to re-install, such as borking your video drivers, there is no video safe mode where you can test and reconfigure your video card.
Applications while the list of applications are growing there are some gaps that remain.
And while there are some GREAT applications there is a lack of good documentation (many times when I select help on KDE I usually get credits or nothing, either they aren't installing on the base system (or with the related apps). I have been looking for some good books and once in a while I get lucky (got one on GIMP this last weekend) but I hope publishers see the light and put out some more books on GNU/Linux Apps (hear that Peachpit press we need more Visual Quickstart Guides for OOo, Scribus or Inkscape.)
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
... and not just in Soviet Russia.
IMHO, it's not that Linux is "too hard" or any such hogwash. It's not that users are stupid. I think it's just that the average user is out of touch with his needs. Oh, it's fine if you don't do much with a computer to begin with - Windows is good enough for most for that reason. It was good enough for me for a very long time, and I grew up with MS-DOS.
But as I used my computer more and more, I started hitting brick walls - there came a point where Windows wasn't good enough any more, and I became increasingly frustrated with it. As Windows got "easier to use," it became less and less useful - especially as applications started to dumb down, too. Now, when I'm forced to use Windows XP, I can't perform even the simplest tasks without access to a good command shell (read: Bash). I've grown up. I've come to terms with my needs. I use Linux, and it meets virtually all of my needs.
IMO, people that still use Windows are still riding their little bike with its cute little tassels and training wheels, and need to grow up so they can get on their hopped-up Harley.
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
Reminds me of why I stopped checking them.
If all the reasons require that people even know what Linux is, and most people don't know what Linux is, the reasons aren't worth mentioning.
The average user is so frustrated Windows, they can't understand that computing could be easier.
The writer didn't at all mention how Ubuntu's install system is geeky. How can a system capable of automatically, and non-interactively update your entire machine be more geeky than Windows update... the update system that happily installs updates to remove functionality.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
> Is Linux Out of Touch With the Average User? Of course not. Now let's run the COMMAND LINE CONSOLE so I can fix the thing!
No sig for now.
I never quite understood why people get so religious about their operating systems. I support assisting new users and trying to make Linux as user friendly as possible. However, as long as there is a large amount of hardware that is supported by linux, I don't personally care how much market share Linux has compared to Windows. Each OS has different strengths and weaknesses. There really is no silver bullet.
What the average Linux user doesn't seem to understand -
I use my PC to support my JOB and my LIFE. To that end, it must do the things I NEED it to do:
1. Run a CASE tool. See any out here for Linux? Oops, didn't think so. This is how I make my living, and which tool I use is specified!
2. Run my blood meter software. This is Life support software. It has to be certified by the FDA to run correctly. Oops, no Linux versions...
3. Dive computer software. Gee, we finally see one for the MAC, but still nothing for Linux....
4. Yes, computer games too
5. I can support Windows over the phone for my non tech savy relatives for most things.
As for your list above:
1. Yes, I run Anti-virus software, so what?
2. Annual re-load of the OS? What are you smoking? I have had my current XP machine for 28 months. Only time I had to "re-load" the OS was after a HARDWARE failure. I had to rebuild the disk from scratch. Linux would have had to be re-loaded at the same time.
3. I have 3 drives on this machine that mount and unmount with no issues at all. Maybe you are looking at the cheap crap I don't buy?
4. Pop ups? Gee, I think that is a choice of the browser and the websites you go to, not the OS. I never have seen a lot of popups.
5. Easier to use? Hm, well I do use multiple monitors at times, copy and paste with a single mouseclick, why would I want that? Command completion, DOS used to have that, dang nusence if you ask me.
Look, I have used a lot of different OSes over the years (GECOS, OS/8, MVS, VM, UNIX, DOS, OS/2, Windows) and Linux just doesn't offer anything for me.
Oh, and in case you ask, I am capable of loading linux, if I needed it, but why would I want to?
Let the flames begin, but until you Linux geeks start to understand what is above, you will always be in the minority.
Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?
No. Linux is a living dinosaur. But don't feel bad. So are a bunch of other OSes such as Windows, MAC OS, Unix, etc... Linux does not have an impressive market because who needs yet another me-too operating system? And it does not really matter that it is free either. What the market needs is a revolutionary new OS based on a software model that solves a really nasty problem in the computer industry. The biggest problem in the industry is unreliability. Software unreliability imposes an upper limit on the complexity of our computer systems. For example, we could conceivably be riding in self-driving vehicles right now but concerns over reliability and safety will not allow it. In addition, the cost of software development rises exponentially with complexity. As a result, over 40,000 people die in traffic accidents every year in the US alone. The free software community should put Linux on the back burner and work on a software model that will solve the reliability problem. That will be the true Windows killer and that's what Project COSA is about.
Let's face it, most everyone out there learned to use a computer on a Windows box, bought their computer from a retail store or online shop that only sells Windows boxes, and has friends and family who all use Windows. How would these people know that Windows sucks?
Yesterday I gave a presentation where we needed "loaner" laptops for some folks who were coming in for training. So eight Windows laptops that weren't currently in use were brought to the meeting room. The IT guy arrived two hours early and was still working to get the software end of the laptops' network connections up when I arrived. I plugged my PowerBook in to the hub and was on the network immediately. After the training, I went to help a lady who had her personal Dell laptop with Vista installed. I saw the "cancel or allow" dialog three times in four minutes. "That's normal" she said.
Users are frustrated with things like network setup (though that's a one-time thing for most users) and viruses, updates, etc. but they've learned to accept those hassles as part of the computing experience. Everybody knows you have to reboot computers regularly to keep them from getting screwed up, right? Everybody knows that viruses, trojans, and worms affect all computers, right? It's a well-known fact that if you want a secure computer, any time you open an application you should have to click "Cancel or Allow" isn't it?
I used to think that way myself, long about 1995. I really enjoyed having my computer as a hobby--I built them myself from components, fiddled with the OS and applications to make it "just right" for my uses, and generally liked dabbling. I wrote simple programs, set up my own home network, and jumped on the Internet when you had to pay for Netscape Navigator. But along the way, a lot of the fun went out of it: having to resolve the same problems in a painfully manual way again and again, having updates wipe out preferences, having applications bluescreen the OS, losing work to application crashes--it just wasn't worth it. So a couple years ago, I bought a Mac mini (all I could afford at the time) and had my eyes opened. I haven't touched a "setting" (except to enter the WiFi password) in the last two years--which leaves a lot more time for the things that got me interested in computers in the first place.
I'd be much more interested to see the results of a survey given to people who are aware of the alternatives and perhaps even some familiarity with them. Asking "Does Windows work OK for you?" isn't really useful--if people understood the options, I suspect there would be a significantly different outcome.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I don't believe his first point "On the whole, users aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows" is true. I am in tech support and I always hear the average users complaining about how slow their home PC is. I am constantly being asked if I do tech support out of the office because these people would like to have someone come and fix it. Probably a better first point would include: The average user (non-techie) does not like change, does not know where to look for technical alternatives, would not feel comfortable trying to install alternatives thereby risking the chance of totally breaking their existing system (even if they are not happy with it).
Does this question even need to be asked?
If I imagine my Mom or someone using this I can guarantee that the second you have to go command line to do anything... they are lost. Period. Except that many pro-Linux people (I'm one of them) often respond to confused users by saying "oh that's easy to do... just run this command..." Nope. That's not going to cut it. Until you can do everything and anything including updates, backups, installs, etc all from some nice, well designed and well documented UI windows then you haven't made an OS for the average (non-techie) user. Read my lips. No command line necessary. Period. And there has to be help documentation for every damn thing.
That being said... it's getting close. Maybe Dell can help push it the last few steps.
[Side note... when will websites stop breaking up articles into "pages"?? That's what scrolling is for! Grrr.. at least some have a print friendly version.]
given it's popularity for web servers, most www users are in touch with linux. but of course, ordinary users do not run linux themselves. i can't imagine why they'd want to.
in short, yes....
linux just isn't ready for prime time for a number of reasons....but it all boils down to 2 main areas where linux fails(it's getting better though)....compatibility and support
the average user wants guarantees that linux just can't provide. they want their hardware to work without having to scour the net for a driver that may or may not exist. i recently installed fiesty fawn on my laptop and everything went increadably smooth up until i tried to connect to the net (wirelessly). and guess what? it didn't work. that to me was a bummer. that to Joe Average is unacceptable and a deal breaker.
the average user wants to be able to play $NEW_POPULAR_FPS or $NEW_POPULAR_RPG on his new computer. unfortunately, without windows this is rarely an option. again, to me, bummer i gotta reboot to windows or run through emulation. to Joe Average, unacceptable and a deal breaker.
the average user wants all websites and the content they host to be viewable at all times. again, without IE, wmv/asp support in the default browser, this is not an option. again, Joe Average won't have it.
the average user wants to be "safe" and up to date with software that auto updates. to me, i know how to stay current, with the exception of the Sony/BMG rootkit, i haven't had an infection since 1998. Joe Average doesn't want to be bothered installing patches, compiling kernels and what not. he just wants it to fix itself. windows update, the illusion of safety maybe, but it's a good illusion.
the average user wants to know someone is there to help if they need it. and no, i'm not talking about some nerd like you or i on an internet forum. Joe Average wants 24/7/365 tech/app support. he wants someone to slowly walk him through solving the issue. i understand red hat and a few others offer support, but it costs $ and that detracts from the allure of free software and most apps that would be installed on the box would not include any support.
and there is no driver for Windows XP. Works fine under Win9x. Doesn't work AT ALL under Windows XP.
Tried everything.
It doesn't even work with Linux unless I compile the driver and configure by hand. But it DOES work.
So windows XP is worthless because my old "b" network card won't work with it.
My linux distro ships with a buggy e1000 driver, which leads to 50% packet loss and huge latency in LAN. I don't understand a heck of installing new drivers from source or rebuilding a linux kernel.
I love my Mac.
Yes, it and we are out of touch. It boils down to this ego/bravado/whatever attitude and approach. I have been a Linux user since 1995, and in that time I have learned to all but give up on Linux going mainstream. I hate to say it, but it is an ugly reality.
The projects that have gained popularity all have something in common, they are easy to get working, easy to use, and focus on simplifying and completing key features. Ubuntu, open office, red hat, etc.
Instead of 400 half-completed distros, and 200 half-completed or abandoned apps of the same kind, maybe there needs to be some coming together and focus on a lesser number of key areas. Let's focus on getting a super clean and robust core system together AND THEN let Tommy and Susie go about making a better mousetrap that never gets completed.
I'm hoping a movement like Ubuntu forces this issue, because the average Linux user sees this as a loss of freedom and sure as shit doesn't want to have to work ona team but alone or with a small group of friends.
The other problem is attitude, the attitude of Linux users has always been the same and it is a detriment. Apple users go out of their way to say how easy it is to use a Mac, and it is, and it just works. Somehow this is seen as lame or newbish... but in reality it is not. It is what we all want. It's funny how so many people say how they LOVE their CLI and how they love to edit device drivers and work in binary... but in reality they love simple easy to use and run apps and cool things like Beryl.
It is the whole attitude and structure (lack thereof) that is hamstringing Linux. Always has always will. I sure hope I'm wrong someday though.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Many people today state "insufficient hardware support" as a major disadvantage of linux.
While I don't quite agree with them on internal hardware (where, as opposed to windows, things usually "just work"), let's for the sake of discussion say that that's so.
This is not the linux developers' fault. indeed, they have done a great deal of work to get hardware working where microsoft would just say "install the drivers from the included CD"
Windows has the major market share, so most hardware companies will only spend money on creating windows drivers.
Windows does not have superior hardware support. It has superior popularity. This will hopefully change in time, but until then, the best thing to do is to get more linux people and write/RE drivers.
ZDNET does not get it. Linux is in touch with the Linux User. This mentality goes back to our problems in the school. The "no
child left behind law is a joke!" Why? Why should one hold the class back, move the child into a slower class and let him ride on the short yellow bus. On the same note, why should the world of technically challenged computer users hold us back? And the beauty
of Linux is that if someone thinks that a distribution should be so easy that a "cave man" can use it, then they can create one!
I prefer to have distributions like Gentoo and Debian... at least you need to understand some. And for the rest, well.. RTFM!
Instead of giving me a 12 to n step HOWTO, write a robust installer.
Because your average user is not capable of building their own white box PC and installing linux or Windows for that matter. If you buy a pre-manufactured PC your choices for an OS are Windows or ... Windows. Go figure.
Correction, the PC HARDWARE market is extremely cut-throat. The cost of proprietary software is outrageously expensive especially when you compare the manufacturing costs of hardware versus software.
One word, games. Windows is a gaming OS, the majority of the games are for Windows, I suspect a majority of the pirated Windows installs are running games.
Actually the Mac is in the same boat as linux, small market share and competing with a monopolist for the desktop market. If you focus "most people" on servers you find that linux has a significant portion of the market based on IDG world wide server market reports. Why is that, because Microsoft has not been able to achieve a monopolist position in the market.
Every family member with a Windows PC has called multiple times with problems related to Windows insecurity. Often times it results in breaking down and reinstalling because recovery is virtually impossible. The only calls I get from family members I've given linux to is when they can't get a Windows game to run under wine. If there is no dissatisfaction its because users have been beaten into submission and accepted their fate of using a sub par OS.
Hardly, I suppose consumers are also shell shocked by the overwhelming number of hardware and software options for the Windows PC and so they end up never buying, right. When major PC distributors start selling pre installed linux desktops the choice will be made, or as is my case I help make the decision because I provide support.
Absolutely, and its hit and miss with Windows versions even when the box says it works. But as with Windows you will have a great machine if you choose the right hardware and software. It is also important to keep in mind that linux is not Windows so while there are obvious software alternatives in linux like Open Office or Firefox the more obscure solutions are there but will take some research to find. The open source projects don't have the massive marketing waste that proprietary solutions have but they still have solid solutions.
So don't use, but what kind of idiot would propose that the most powerful user interface be dumped in the name of making clueless mouse jockeys happy. And comparing the DOS command line to linux or any *nix shows the ignorance of the writer. I have to laugh anytime I watch the Windows IT guys doing something as simple as comparing two ini files by opening them in notepad and doing a manual line by line comparison, how lame and archaic is that.
As if the average user understands the inner workings of Wi
The next time a newbie asks what's the best Linux, there's the answer.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
It may be the case the the average computer user is an idiot, but, more importantly to this disucssion, the average computer user is an ignoramus. I think it is not a streatch to say that most computer users are ignorant of how or why their computer works, that they are ignorant of alternative operating systems and alternative ways of acomplishing tasks, and that they are ignorant of the effect of marketing on their little minds.
Linux has always appealed to the tech savvy and all its marketing efforts have been directed at people who could really understand why it was a viable or better alternative than what they were already using. If people want Linux to have market-share, they need to spend lots of money blasging out ubiquitous but meaningless messages like "Linux rox! Windoze sux!"
But these messages can't be just here on slashdot where the unwashed ignoramuses dare not tread. These messages must be in magazines, on television, and on bulletin boards.
The average driver doesnt look under the hood, & they let jiffy lube change their oil.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I would say that the common Windows user does not know how to reinstall their operating system, which is basically the same principle when installing Linux on a dual boot computer. Not to mention that Windows doesn't usually play nice with other operating systems messing with its boot loader. If the common user was smart enough to reinstall their own operating system, then I think that same user could install Linux and do just fine with it.
.Net books, and learn how to program for all platforms and not just 1 in particular. Also, its cheaper by nature to program in open source or in a cross platform environment, because you don't have to spend too much (if any) money on proprietary IDE's, costly books published by MS, and the proprietary operating system itself. All those costs add up, and by the time you release a product to the market, you have to sell it for over $100 in order to break even.
I think what Windows has done is made computer users less intelligent, less intuitive, and MS likes them this way. Ignorant computer users will stick to what they know, they have brand loyalty whether its a good product or not, and they have learned all sorts of little tricks and quirks along the way so that when something breaks, they might be able to fix it.
Back in the day, you used to have to have some pretty extensive knowledge to operate a computer, and this could even be true for Windows 98, though it would boot into the GUI automatically, it was still running on top of DOS, and if something happened to your autoexec.bat file, you might have to mess around in DOS again to get it working.
If the common user spent more time learning about all the modern advances in computing, I'm sure many of them would at the very least have a dual boot system. Its true though, Linux is not 100% capable of replacing the common users desktop for the simple fact that they wouldn't know how to install software no matter how easy you made it. Modern Linux distro's are getting there when it comes to software distribution and system upgrades, but sometimes you do have to get your hands a little dirty in the terminal... as you once did in DOS.
I installed Ubuntu Linux 7.04 on my parents computer and turned it into a dual boot machine. I then rebooted into Ubuntu, and made sure that everything was up to date, and the applications they would need for their limited use would function. They were already familiar with the Firefox icon, so they knew they could check their email. They were also familiar with the concept of a "Desktop" so they could easily save email attachments to it, and then open them with whatever application loaded on the screen when they double clicked it. They Knew they were not in Windows while using it, but they didn't complain, and they actually said that they liked the ease of use, and the "smoothness" of whatever they were using.
That was all the proof I needed that Linux could be quite useful for the common user... especially if you consider that the common user only really uses a computer for word processing, solitaire, web browsing, and web based email services.
Some gamers previously posted the issues they've had while trying to use Wine to play their Windows games, which is a true downside to running Linux as your sole operating system. However, if the market share were large enough, it would be just as easy for the programmers to develop cross platform games which could then even open up the Mac world to even more video games as well.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? In order for Linux to stand a chance on the common users desktop, we must first have consistent and simple methods for the user to install and run programs. Not to mention that programmers need to also take an initiative, throw out those god forsaken C# and
Linux, like Mac OS X, will not be replacing all Windows installations... but I think more users will be willing to take the plunge and delve a bit into Linux or Mac OS X. People have been asking me what a good laptop purchas
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
Your reply while partly true, has absolutely nothing to do with market share. Microsoft as a brand has been around since `81, Linux has been around since `92. Windows has been a household name for around 26 years, Linux is only begining to gain relevent mindshare.
Windows has definately not been a household name for 26 years. 2007-1981 = 26, but your problem is that Microsoft didn't launch Windows in 1981. It had DOS in 1981, and that "brand" is all but dead. If you want to compare Windows as a brand to Linux (created in 1991), then they are at best the same age. And that is if you are comparing pre 1995 versions of Windows to Linux, such as Windows 3.0. However, the first Windows most people would associate with the "Windows Brand" would be Windows 95. When people think of Windows as a brand, they think of the Start button, the flag, and all the other branding that first started with Windows 95. Thus, if you are going to do a realistic brand vs. brand comparison between Windows and Linux, Windows is 4 years younger than Linux.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
I was given an old USB 802.11b device without any documentation or even a means of identifying the device (it was a dabs value item destined for the skip - no model number or anything).
Plugged it into XP and got nowhere. No drivers, no means of finding out what drivers I needed. Couldnt even get it to tell me what chipset it used. Remembered WHY I haven't personally used XP in years.
XP...its just a pain in the ass.
[/tongue in cheek]
Plugged it into my Ubuntu box and it worked first time, no configuration needed. Amazing how easy it is when you have drivers.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
Linux is the Classical Music of the computer world. Windows is popular music.
Linux/Classical requires a certain etiquette of its users/listeners. They should thoroughly educate themselves about the OS/music before sitting down and giving it a go. It is quite sophistocated. If someone sits down and starts screaming loudly in front of a Linux box/at a classical concert, they are sharply chastised by other people in the Linux/concert-going community for being such ignorant dolts. If someone does not understand something about linux/classical music or finds it too complicated, it is most certainly their fault for being stupid and uncultured, not Linux/classical music's fault for being a steep-learning-curve beast.
Linux/Classical music advocates constantly bemoan the fact that their OS/music is heavily marginalized in favor of Windows/popular music, despite the fact that Linux/classical has a significant, highly educated user/listener base. Rather than putting forward their OS/music for what it is, welcoming new users/listeners with open, helpful arms, and being thankful for the attention their OS/music is getting, they decry the fall of civilization and the crime against humanity that their obviously superior OS/music is almost completely ignored by the mainstream culture.
Linux users/classical listeners CLAIM to extend open arms to the world at large, wanting everyone to use their OS/listen to their music. Then, the moment someone publicly complains about installing the wrong version of apache/calls Schoenberg unlistenable, the community at large jumps on them like a pack of wolves on a wounded sheep, labeling them a smacktard guilty of the heinous crimes of not reading 5 books and 38 articles on the topic before trying their hand at using/listening to the OS/music.
Not to mention the hassle involved in choosing a distro/finding the box office's bizarro hours.
The user/listener says "well, screw you all!" and returns to the low-hassle world of Windows/popular music. It may be more prone to spyware/destroying your eardrums, it may have Windows Tax/Ticketmaster charges, but you can just show up with no knowledge of it whatsoever and use/listen to it.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
That Linux is out of touch with the average user is, IMHO, a GOOD thing. I don't want to be using a system that is tailored for the average user. Those are the same people that screwed up the internet. Why let them screw up yet another OS?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If it was true that 'despite what you read on websites and blogs, newspapers and magazines, people on the whole aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.' you would think that I had met some of them, considering that I am responsible for the PCs of a 150 user department and in addition know a good deal of Windows users from other areas, privately. I have never met one who didn't have real problems working with her/his PC, or bitched about Windows in some way.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
This is true, and rarely ever mentioned.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
drivers
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Why would anyone rip a board using a crosscut blade?
Why would anyone use a right handed jigsaw when they're left handed?
Why would anyone try to weld thinwall tube with HarborFreight regulators?
Why would anyone try to do anything with the $5 toolkits that WalMart sells?
Either, because the purveyors of real tools don't have the resources to force enough education for those who don't really give a damn so that they will give a damn. Once Dell starts selling Linux pre-installed, and people realize that Microsoft's lack of robust engineering is the reason that they aren't able to do anything with their computers, they will care enough to educate themselves.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Most of them don't know when they have difficulty...many people think random rebooting to fix errors is how all computers work.
They don't know better.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is certainly true, but it's also misleading. I, for example, run Windows on my gaming box without "any real difficulty" but that's because I've tweaked the living hell out of it, turned off all the annoying reminders and pop-up helper crap, organized my start menu so it's not three columns wide (actually it's almost the same as Gnome's "Applications" now), on and on. There are no extraneous services or applications loading on boot, no adware or spyware or other garbage, and so everything runs extremely smoothly... as smooth as Windows can get, anyway.
But that's my personal definition of "without any real difficulty".
For the average user, "without any real difficulty" means that yes, they can check their Outlook email and open their Word documents and screw around on the web, and things don't explode. That does not mean they aren't having difficulty. It means two other things:
1. They're blind to the problems. They have no idea that their computer could be a lot faster if they didn't have so much crap loading into memory for no reason, they have no idea that their machine is a gaping security hole waiting to be owned, and they have no idea that they could, say, delete useless start menu items if they wanted to. They just don't know any better.
2. They're accustomed to it. When things do go wrong, they sometimes complain about the computer being "slow", roll their eyes, sigh and call tech support, gripe about how they aren't "computer people" and these things are so complicated. But they're used to this, and they think it's just part of the experience of using computers. After a while, they're just happy that things work at all, and they count that as a "working computer, no problems". But when they do express frustration, they'll complain about "computers", when really what they're annoyed with is Windows -- they simply don't know that there's a distinction.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Linux fanboys are modding you down using the "Overrated" modifier. They do this because such mods don't appear in meta-moderation. That's right, after all these years, CmdrTaco STILL hasn't fixed that massive hole in the moderation system that allows mouth-breathing morons to censor everything they can't handle.
Some of the reasons Linux is not and will not be a popular success:
The average computer user wants something that is easy to use and "just works". That does not describe Linux, especially in the minds of the average computer user.
And before everyone blows in with how it is great for them, you are not average computer users. You are on
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Just wait until she wants to hook up a new scanner or printer from Wal-mart. Linux nerds always cite these cases where a machine they already spent the time setting up works great for someone. Yeah, of course--because you spent all the time setting it up for them, and you'll have to keep returning every time they need to do something technical with it. On a Mac, for instance, you just plug the printer in. No driver CD, no popup telling you it's installing drivers. Just plug it into the USB port, and the printer will be there in the list when you go to File->Print.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I used to have some gripes with Windows back in the Win95 days. Then I looked around, tried OS/2, BeOS, and about a dozen versions of Linux, which I check up on every few years.
Trying other OSes has led me to actually like Windows. It has its flaws, but they ALL have their fair share of flaws. Windows is by far the most USEFUL OS I have tried. I can run a massive amount of the software I want to run, and perform common tasks like driver installations very easily. These days, it isn't even a question to me. The biggest FUD I hear is about the horrible security in Windows (and everyone knows it has a steady stream of exploits released for it)... I had the SubSeven trojan about 10 years ago. That was my last security incident. Now I'm behind a simple household router, and rarely even face a threat. The last time I saw a BSOD was when I had a bad stick of ram in my Win2k3 box a few years ago.
For me, Linux is starting to look viable in certain distributions, but there is absolutely no reason to use it. If you like it, then have fun.
I run Linux on my router, my ipod, my desktop and my laptop. But I am STILL in Windows a decent amount of the time and the fact is I can't live without it. #1 Reason is software support. I need AutoCAD, OrCAD, Matlab (now its available for linux but not for free through college like the windows version). #2 Reason is games. Yes Wine works well, but its still has a long way to go for some stuff, and ventrilo doesn't work at all. Windows XP is a _fast_ operating system. Its just not at all secure. It boots fast, it shuts down fast, and runs games and software fast, mostly comparable to linux. Probably because of the great hardware drivers it has rather than all these open source projects that aren't directly from the hardware vendors. Who knows. Fact is for those 2 reasons, I cannot use Linux for everything.
There is one feature that Linux does NOT have, that many teenagers want, which they can get by using Windows. That feature is tha bility to boast truthfully they they have pirated their OS, to their friends.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
There are exactly two reasons I'm running Windows:
1) WoW (or most any other new game) doesn't run on windows
2) The office email application is Outlook (despite that we have VERY strong ties to the Linux community. And, yeah, the IT folks - although they promised Evolution would work for email - are apparently wrong.)
Don't give me the 'Ooooh! WoW runs under Wine!' Wine is a hack - until real application developers can give a thumbs up to it, it'll still be a problem.
Barry Schwartz argues in his book "The Paradox of Choice" that one of the reasons that people are sometimes less happy with choice rather than without choice, is that they can blame somebody else if something goes wrong. This could also apply to software. There seems to be an almost universal agreement about Windows being crap. So if something breaks, Windows and Microsoft can be blamed, even if the user himself did something stupid. Most of the malware out there is certainly not Microsoft's fault.
So maybe Linux should be advertised as free but crapy. Openoffice is in fact free but crapy, so there you go.
Your average user is not a computer geek and so does not have the interest to do the research required to figure out which linux distro is best for them, how to use it, or what apps they will need to change and how to use those apps.
I wouldn't call that the Linux community being out of touch with regular users. I call that human nature. It's much related to the same reason I drive a relatively new, bone stock, car which needs minimal repairs rather than an older, cooler, car which may need more frequent repairs and has a bunch of aftermarket modifications to make it faster. It's the reason why I do not have a beautifully manicured lawn and garden. Those communities are not out of touch with me in a bad way, I just don't have other things that I would prefer to put my time into learning and researching which does not leave me with the time and inclination for those.
...then yes.
The OS is completely irrelevant to most people. They all have window controls, file systems, and the basic stuff you need to make your computer turn on and do something.
The average person doesn't care how the OS works, they care about what they DO with their computers - can they write e-mail, browse the web, open the spreadsheet they sent home to work on over the weekend, etc.
The average person is not interested in the technology. They will use what most of their peers use, because it means they can more easily get help, share programs, exchange documents, etc. with the least amount of issues. They will use what is the easiest to obtain, and the most widely supported.
Grandma may be more than happy with Linux if she's just writing e-mails and such, but the minute her friend shows her a cool little program that lets her design her own cross-stitch patterns, Grandma will wonder why she can't run it too...and no amount of Linux evangelism will make her happy when she realizes she can't just do what she wants to do.
I like technology, I like to tinker, and I usually have some Linux distro or another on one of my boxes to play with, but I use Windows day to day because I invariably run into a need for an application that Linux has no equivalent for. (Here's one example of something I got a lot of use out of recently: http://www.punchsoftware.com/index.htm. )
I have yet to have the opposite experience.
Windows is that path of least resistance for the vast majority who see the computer as merely a tool to facilitate their work or leisure, rather than the thing itself.
Years ago I worked in a small computer shop that sold both Windows boxes and Macs. I was rarely asked to compare them on the merits of the operating system, but was constantly asked "will it run X Y or Z". If the answer was "no", or anything less than an unequivocal "yes", they would not buy that system. Period.
1) Windows security ain't so bad... if you have a firewall :)
So far, my windows xp (sp2) firewall has kept my machine free from viruses. That, and I don't download shady software from entertainment websites. I scan regularly my machine with Ad-Aware, Clamwin and once in a while Hijack this, or a rootkit finder, just to be sure. So far I haven't found any evil zombifying my PC, and I've been using it for years.
2) The problem with Linux is that the learning curve is too steep (or actually too shallow?) for Windows users. It's not that things are hard, just VERY DIFFERENT.
The problem is when Linux zealots or megalomaniac linux programmers refuse to accept the fact that many users DON'T WANT or DON'T HAVE TIME to relearn things.
For example: When selecting text, if you press shift and move the arrows, you select text. And if you press ctrl+shift+arrows, you select whole words. In Linux i try this and end up typing numbers. WTF?
Another example: For dialogs, OK is at the left and Cancel is at the right. But on some window managers (or whatever they're called), OK is at the right and Cancel is at the left, and there's no way to change that. Cutting and pasting in a shell window is so different from using a DOS prompt. And where the heck is Control panel?
In short, I want something that looks and feels IDENTICAL to Windows. Having to learn a different way to do what I was accustomed to do is so much annoying, and I don't have time for that. Hey! Haven't you heard the phrase "the customer is always right?" I'm sick tired of Linux brainiac overlords telling me how I should do things, instead of helping me do things MY WAY. If you want ME to use YOUR operating system, just stop lecturing me, k? And if I ever hear the phrase "RTFM" or "program it yourself" again, then screw you. It's not my obligation to use Linux. If *YOU* complain that *I* don't use it, that's *YOUR* problem. Capicci?
3) But the most important factor to consider is software that is Windows-only. I love winamp. I've grown accustomed to like its interface (the classic 2.0, not the new one), and I like the plugins to play other formats, for example, amiga mod files.
I tried XMMS and other alternatives. Sometimes I couldn't play at all (I know, i used an old distro, but anyway, it didn't "just work".
Another windows-only program I love is Irfanview. And virtualdub, and the list goes on and on. I have a full set of software that I've grown to like and feel comfortable with for doing my daily tasks. If I switch, it's starting all over again, and sometimes there isn't an equivalent software at all (For virtualdub, there's AVIDemux, but the last time i tried to use it, it crashed on me).
How to solve this? Cross-platform programs is IMO the best of both worlds. If I like a program, I can be 100% sure that when I switch, I can use it again and keep working on it. But it's so frustrating to find that some apps are Linux-only, or cross-platform attempts are done so bad that they mess up the whole interface (in my experience the best cross-platform apps are made with wxWidgets. They feel so natural on windows...)
So, why don't they make the apps cross-platform? Until I find myself comfortable enough, I won't be able to use them. And I really don't want to reboot every time i want to do something specific (If I have to reboot, what's the point of having a multitasking OS?). And I don't want to reformat my hard drive to use FAT32 because the Linux distro can't read NTFS drives.
And where the heck can I find a Gambas for Windows? So far I've seen NO open source alternatives to Visual Basic for Windows. No, I _HAVE_ to switch to Linux before GETTING STARTED with them! Nice move, eh?
My conclusion is that when Linux programmers are open-minded enough so that they build cross-pla
"Is Linux out of Touch With the Average User?"
No; it's the other way around:
It's because the avarage user is out of touch with linux, in the logical sense. At least in Soviet Russia.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
How many times have you logged into a Linux machine and found the backspace key doesn't work.
Sometimes control-h becomes backspace, but not always.
Why are keymappings all so retarded?
About seven years ago I switched to linux. I locked myself up in my room and forced myself to RTFMs. It was new, hard and exciting to me.
I used to be a slackware user. At some point, about four years ago, I decided to use debian and debian-based distributions.
I hated it and it felt stupid. Lot's of things I was used to worked differently. I kept trying and a few weeks later I had it sorta under control.
Now, I can really understand that somebody who is not geek, sees no reason to learn things that they know again on another platform. People like to do what they are good at. People don't like to feel stupid. You only learn new stuff when you find it important, interesting or need it to reach a higher goal.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
Yes apt-get/aptitude works amazing. And I'm sure Fedora has its own thing. But another major issue with linux is WHY after over a decade of distros can they not UNIFY a package management system.
Here is an example. Pidgin came out, I have Kubuntu installed on my laptop, I goto download... CAN'T. I goto compile it (I haven't compiled something in years, since I was a die hard Slackware user) and NOTHING is preinstall. Do I wanna install a couple hundred mbs of compilers just to compile an IM client? Not really. So I gotta download a 3rd party deb package for it.
Yes I know thats Ubuntu's fault, and they won't add a package to their repositories but still. If linux had a UNIFIED packaging system it would be amazing. You just goto a site and download either the Windows or Linux version, and your done. Instead of seeing rpms, debs, and those gentoo things.
It really is stupid. And should have been delt with years ago.
I am an experienced IT professional with nearly 17 years in the industry. I have managed Novell networks, phone switches, voicemail, mail servers, cabling, terminal servers, helpdesk, PC's (beginning with 8088 cpus), and for the past several years have "specialized" in *NIX system administration. I have built hundreds of AIX and linux servers. What do I run on my home PC and laptop? Windows XP. Why? Because it works well enough. It is compatible with the verious apps I use in my job. Sure, I've built "hobby" systems using linux for home, but have neither the time, the patience, or the desire to try to build/run/maintain linux systems for my personal use. I have the know-how to do it, I just choose not to. After dealing with computers and computer-related issues day in and day out for all these years, the last thing I want is to introduce an unnecessary (and unwanted) level of complication into my daily life.
Excessive drinking is fine...in moderation.
Ignoring wine (it's unreliable, unstable, doesn't support enough software and just too painful to bother with), my list is:
1) Too many distributions, too many choices
2) No Quicken/Microsoft Money/QuickTax/QuickBooks (I said ignore Wine!)
3) OpenOffice isn't there yet)
4) Games (What did I say earlier!?)
5) Still can require technical knowledge (add repository how? Edit xorg.conf?? How do I partition and mount?)
6) Confusing package management - where's my EXE I run? How do I uninstall it?
I think OSX is what Linux has been trying to be....
Everytime I load up a new Linux live CD or install one to a spare hard drive, I want to make the switch but I am always reminded of these things:
- I cannot (with only a few exceptions) play PC games from past and present.
- I cannot use Nero Recode 2, which produces the best results I have come across.
- The software I want is not available therefore this OS cannot do what I want.
I don't want to run two operating systems either eg. browsing the internet on Linux and doing the rest on Windows.
The day Linux poses a threat to Windows is the day mainstream software developers release software for it. However if the open-source community that develops Linux refuses to let this happen (or is strongly opposed to it) then it will only be a curiosity for everyone who wants to do more with their PC than the basics (internet, work with documents, edit images).
Tried Knoppmyth but it was worse than Windows Media Centre, neither supported my digital TV card.
I'm sure it's been said, but the OS matters so much less than it used to...
:-P
if you get used to Firefox and most of your important apps are web-based
(or something agnostic, like an ssh window) then your platform is almost an afterthought.
That said, using Linux on my desktop at work w/ Gnome, it seems obvious to me that Linux trails XP in terms of attention to UI detail. And I don't just mean the ways Windows has warped my expectations... there are specific things that Windows does better (especially in terms of keyboard support) that Gnome doesn't, at least w/o a lot of tweaking.
And OSX doesn't have irfanview
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Non-geeks don't know jack diddly squat about the differences between Windows, Linux, OSX, etc.
The people I know don't use Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Safari. They use "the Internet." They don't know or care what program they run to access the Internet. They just know where they need to click.
The people I know don't use Word, Works, Writer, Pages 2, or any other particular word processor. They just write letters or, if they're advanced enough, "edit documents."
For balancing checkbooks, people use spreadsheets. Most don't particularly know what software package they're using, though.
Oddly enough, the people I know don't create "presentations." They create "powerpoints" regardless of whether they're actually using PowerPoint or not.
One of the biggest differentiators, at least in the minds of the mere mortals (a.k.a. normal end users) that I interact with, is that they want to be able to go to the store near them and buy software that will do the things they want their computer to do. If they live near an Apple store, and don't mind paying high prices, that's where they shop, and they're happy. Most other people head down to Target, Staples, Circuit City, or Best Buy. And they can find software that promises to do what they want. Or they just buy whatever they come aross online. It really doesn't matter, other than to say they can easily and conveniently find software to do what they want to do. That's still not always easy with Macintoshes, and it sure as hell isn't easy with Linux.
Why do most computer users run Windows, and why do most have no desire to switch? Because they can make it do what they need it to do with a minimal amount of time and effort on their part.
If the Linux world wants people to want to switch, the most important missing piece is a way to acquire software that's as easy as going to Target. Sift through Google search results looking for open source applications? Slog through SourceForge and Freshmeat? Those aren't things we can expect non-geeks to do.
Linux distros don't necessarily need to put time and effort into marketing, but application publishers, however, do. They need to get copies of their software into boxes and onto shelves. Oh, wait. That would be commercial activity, and it takes money. Charging money for software is somehow bad.
Wake up, nerd boys, and join the real world. It takes money to get market share, not just a pile of software and an elitist attitude.
Here's the quick and dirty version of my entire post.
1. Refine the OS and add some eye candy.
2. Build a solid integrated multi-media application suite (think ilife). Uniform Interface.
3. Hide package managers and make things seamless.
4. Develop a single universal wiki guide for all linux distro's and oss applications. It should have well written guides, reviews, bug reports, etc etc. Sections for business, IT, and graphic application suite replacements etc.
5. Communities need to unify more. leaders elected - resumes posted (membership required).
Linux is not refined enough for the Average Joe.
Yes, it's true Linux is good and stable and I can use it, but it's not going to replace OS X or Windows XP/Vista any time soon.
Each distro seems to have a reasonable amount of desktop conformity. So the problem doesn't fall on that, but it's sure not refined. It's just not pretty enough. Looks like Windows 95. I know you can update it, but who wants to bother. "Oh, but that's what linux is about, customization." Well Joe doesn't even know where to begin and doesn't want to bother. OS X and Windows come with a pretty nice GUI out of the box. OS X can't be customized and I've seen few people customize Windows. It's just not important, but eye candy is, so make it sharp and pretty.
Package managers - new user nightmare. It's easy enough to understand when you take the time - which most people don't have - but it's still a pain in the ass. The average Joe doesn't need to see this and it should be hidden for the most part.
Applications - Confusing. There's too many reasons. First the feature set and interface are subjective, but nonetheless you want something pretty much standard. There are so many different applications that do the same thing. Even with Ubuntu, when you add software there's quite a large list and you're not sure what to choose. So you try a one or two and either the interface is clunky, the feature set is lacking, or it crashes.
I know this will piss a lot of people off, but iLife should be a perfect example of how to build an application suite. It's not everything to all people, but it's robust enough and easy enough to use for the average Joe. If the community could put together a robust package like that, that was easy to use, uniform and worked seamlessly with each other, then you'd have one hell of a package. Problem is, it's not the case and probably never will be. I think product managers, project manager and interface designers should be an integral part of the development cycle. Too often it seems they'll have one of those, but they usually come from a development background and don't relate well to joe.
Community - Sure there are communities and lots of them. So many that it makes you feel nearly overwhelmed with choice. But that doesn't get at the problem with one opensource community brow-beating the other. Then you really see the ugly side of OSS.
Questions. Don't ask them. Well ask them if they're super technical and intrigue the community, but don't ask them if they're stupid or you're stupid. Then they will be like the Roman's and unleash hell. It'll make your sphincter tighten up so much you'll be pooping through your penis. It hits on one of the biggest complaints I hear from IT people or computer savvy people. The average user is stupid and have stupid problems and ask stupid questions. IT professionals for the most part have to be somewhat polite in an office environment, but once you stop into online forums in the OSSC you soon find out where you stand.
I could go on and on and on. I want Linux on the desktop to succeed. Yes, I've been told to become part of the community, but it's been too difficult to get any sort of involvement. So I do my share by donating money to the projects I like. I have no problem getting a distro to work, but it's been nothing but a nightmare for the friends and family members that give it a go. I try to support them, but it's just too loose and confusing for them. They want everything thing in place and to be intuitive. The reality it's not. Not when you have a gazillion applications that start with K or whatever clever yet meaningless name someone comes up with.
I bet you're one of those guys that sell botnets to spammers.
I mean, how anybody can say that it is good that users don't care about security unless he/she benefits from it?
You sir, are part of the scum of the Internet.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Had this been a week ago, I may have posted a very heartfelt message about how good my windows experience has been, and how bad my linux experience has been.
:)
I'm a fairly experienced user, programmer, and network admin. I've used Windows for my entire career, with only a smattering of linux here and there. Until just recently. I've been trying to switch to Linux. I've *wanted* to switch to Linux, but until just this past weekend, I've never been able to get a Linux distro to work on my computer "Out-of-the-box" so to speak.
Of course, I knew this would eventually not be the case. This past weekend, I installed Ubuntu 7.04 on my home PC, and I plan to keep it this time. It took me about 1.5 hours, and that included moving files off a spare partition to use for it. On the whole, I'm impressed. I was left with a fully functional Linux install that had just about everything I needed to do basic day-to-day functions. I'm happy with it, and so I would have to say... No. Linux has finally caught up to what the basic user wants. An operating system that just *works*. In fact, I can honestly say that Ubuntu took me *less* time to setup and update than Windows XP would take.
Now, if I could just find a good frame-level mpeg 2 editor, and a good DVD authoring package, I would be happier than anything.
Thomas A. Knight
Author of The Time Weaver
The fact that some people do not *care* to become informed about computers, does not necessarily make them idiots. You are painting with a pretty broad brush when you say anyone who does not know the difference between IE and the Internet is an idiot. Hate to break it to you, but there are people who are not that interested in computers that are very intelligent. They just happened to focus their knowledge/skills in other areas. I am a computer geek and my brother builds muscle cars and custom motorcycles. I am amazed at his talents and he makes more money than I do. He owns one computer that is used for his paint matching database and mix calculator. Do you know the difference between a shovel head and a pan head? How do you create candy apple red? Don't know...you must be an idiot.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
I've been using computers for around 25 years and professionally for 15. I'm not an average user, but here's my latest experience with Linux (Ubuntu).
About 6 months ago I wiped out my Dell Inspiron 2200 and installed Ubuntu Edgy. The install went cleanly but it took me many hours over the course of several days to track down just the right information to get the wireless working (Broadcom 4318 chipset). The wireless ability of the laptop is the one thing I couldn't live without so that alone was almost enough to make me go back to XP. After a few days of researching to find replacement apps for the things I did under XP, things settled down and I started enjoying Ubuntu. I did manage to find suitable replacements for most of my software. The laptop mainly gets used for browsing, email, web development, and music. All of those apps are readily available.
A few months went by and Feisty comes out talking about improved wireless support so I upgrade. The upgrade process went cleanly, but wireless once again goes bye-bye. In frustration I wipe the machine and install Feisty from CD. Still no wireless and again I need to track down the information needed to get it working again. A little frustrating but I'm a geek so I manage. I get the apps I had found before re-installed and again everything is fine.
So, last week I decide it's time to dual boot my main desktop PC with XP and Ubuntu. Again, the install goes well but the grub installation blows up. Apparently it was having a hard time with the MBR. My XP install is still working OK at this point, so I have time to track down how to manually install grub. Well, at some point I manage to totally screw up the MBR and so I say screw it and wipe the machine and install Ubuntu clean (again, not an average user as I have everything backed up, so no loss). The install goes great and everything works out of the box. Because of what I learned with the laptop, I'm able to quickly get things installed and going. However, I use my desktop as a home studio and video editing. These apps, as I have now learned, are a little more lacking. I'm currently looking at UbuntoStudio to see what apps they are using and see if they will work for my needs (and then install them on Feisty).
Anyway, the gist of my post is that to use Linux, even now, requires some know-how and determination. Not what most average users want to deal with. They just want things "to work".
Over the years, I've tried Slackware, Redhat, SuSe, etc. and Ubuntu has been, by far, the best Linux experience to date. The others all got wiped and replaced again with Windows after a short time. This time, however, I feel confident that I may finally be able to stick with Linux. Only time will tell for sure but I'm going to try my best to make it stick.
Jason
Aych tea tea pea colon slash slash slash dot dot org slash
Why did Adrian Kingsley-Hughes write such a lame article? :)
1) Most people don't think about "buying" Windows. They bought a computer, Windows is on it, therefore, Windows came for free. (I know, I know. All I'm saying is most people don't buy the OS separate from the PC and don't consider it an extra cost.)
/. anecdotal evidence among other things...)
2) Everyone that says "users are stupid" guess what -- they all think you're stupid too. Mostly because you spend your time worrying about things like Linux and Firefly when there's actual things to get done in life like fix the sprinkler system or take the kids to soccer practice. Which leads me to...
3) Most people don't want to mess with their computers all day. They want them to work. Yes, I know -- you're going to say "Windows doesn't work" but most people don't have a Slashdot user at their beck and call to gibe them Linux training. They won't have someone to tell them what Linux distro to use or how to get this stupid computer to play a DVD when their old computer just played it, and why don't my game CD work now?
4) It seems to me that the Linux community has this weird attitude about general acceptance: they want Linux to kill Windows (oh, sorry -- "Windoze") but have no tolerance toward the absolute newcomer because of course you should know Unix already, what's with you n00b? Yeah, everyone will respond with how they put Ubuntu on Aunt Tillie's computer and everything is great, but you were going to have to support her computer anyway, weren't you?
5) Oh, phooey. I'm done for now but I could go on. (Especially how it seems that Linux users have owned the most trouble-ridden PC's in the world according to most
I use Mac, Linux, and Windows on a regular basis. I have to say that I agreed with about 90% of what the author said. The only point I felt he was WAY off base on was the first one. "On the whole, users aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows". It seems to me that more and more I run into people that are completely dissatisfied with Windows, the only problem is that most of them don't even realize you can install the OS of your choice on your computer. They think that Windows _IS_ the computer. To them it's like buying a PDA, it comes with an OS installed on it, and that's all you get, so they don't even look for an alternative. Then if they do look for an alternative, that's when the author's number 2 problem comes in to play: "Too many distros". Most people don't want to spend that much time trying different distros to find the one they want and spend hours reconfiguring the distro to their taste. Linux does have some issues with it on the whole, but the catch 22 is that some of those "problems" are what makes Linux great. Yes there are too many distros to choose from, but that fosters and environment that leads to rapid development of features.
I think the Windows killer will come from the Linux side of things, but I don't think it's going to be Linux in the form that it is currently in. I think it's going to be something like Linspire where someone gets the right combination of Linux features, and hardware support to make the end user happy and manages to work deals to get them preloaded on desktops from the store. $10 says if I gave my mother a computer with Linux preinstalled on it and told her it was the new version of Windows it would be years before she figured it out. I've already pulled that one off with some creative use of skins in Firefox. She still thinks it's IE!
My software never has bugs.
It just develops random features.
I don't even see the relevance of this point. Linux has a subset of a subset of the total market share. So claiming the lower 50% of people are "too stupid" to appreciate Linux has exactly the same weight as saying the upper 50% is "too smart" to use Linux.
What really amazes me is how some tech support people get this concept that knowing how to use an OS makes you smart. I've worked with doctors, lawyers, and all manners of highly intelligent professionals. When it comes to using a computer, sometimes they do what a skilled person would consider boneheaded things. But you know what? That's what IT staff is there for. You are being paid to be good at what you do, while other people do what they are good at. I've seen so many IT people deluding themselves that they are getting paid to play computer games, maintain their haughty superiority complex, and complain about people daring to call them for support.
Anyway, the simple reason Linux is not capturing hearts and minds is because it spends zero time seeing what the average user wants out of OS, whereas Microsoft spends hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-hours finding this stuff out. Is it any wonder why Linux will always be chasing Microsoft's tail lights, when Linux spends no time even considering at the road ahead?
Linux's strength- easy customization- is also it's biggest weakness. If someone has the technical knowhow, they can easily throw in a feature they would like to see. But the problem is that someone who can accomplish that is nowhere near being an average user. Linux is, was, and always will be a niche product servicing a niche market. It's a subset of a subset of a subset.
There isn't anything wrong with being a niche product. You don't hear the BSD users whining about Microsoft somehow stealing a marketshare which somehow should be theirs. Linux should stop chasing Windows 95's tail lights, and just focus on being the best niche product it can possibly be.
Your average user just wants choice. They want to go to a store, buy a box, install the contents of that box on their computer, and have it just work. They don't want to compile source codes, recompile their kernel, manually move around files and change config settings in order to get their applications working, etc. In almost every area, from the view of a mainstream consumer, Linux still can't even compete with Windows 95.
I want Linux to be a system that's nice for me. I think the idea of the "average" user is a bit of a fallacy - a very useful simplification, I'm sure, and very effective in practice. Most people, probably, actually do fit the profile or are content with that style of working. But I feel that some people are bound to benefit from something a bit different - maybe they feel like too much hand-holding just slows them down, maybe they want a bit more hands-on control of what's going on, whatever. Usually it doesn't pay to cater to these kinds of users, but there's no reason why, if we write a system for ourselves, that we need to write it with the "average" user in mind. I don't need or want Linux to be another Microsoft Windows.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
1: Most Windows users never consciously chose, they just used whatever the box came with (some of these are even surprised to learn Word is not part of Windows) 2: Microsoft software is very good at allowing beginners to quickly accomplish a simple task, the problem with this is that most of these beginners never learn to properly use their software (including their OS) which leads to security problems, badly designed software and misformatted documents. 3: those poorly authored documents (you know the kind, with text boxes floating all over the place etc.) condemn the recipients of these documents to either use Windows, become a computer geek or miss business opportunities / fail courses. Real document interoperability is Microsofts worst nightmare. (don't take my word for it, just look at the amount of effort they invest in sabotaging ODF) 3: A large part of the Windows users depend on their geek friends/relatives to keep their windows box going / repair their mistakes. This means there is a huge informal support network for this operating system, i expect this network to grow smaller as Microsoft alienates its customers. 4: Microsoft effectively has a monopoly in the OS and office suite department, we have allowed our governments to stand by and watch the free market die.
Look, its really very simple. Windows is popular, almost entirely, because it is popular.
The number one thing people want out of an OS isn't security, a nice UI, a wide array of good files sytems.
Its the ability to run whatever application programs they want without worrying about it.
Since Windows (and DOS before it) established their dominance in the PC market—i.e., from the dawn of the PC market—the lion's share of the applications people know they might want to run are developed primarily for the current MS platforms.
Linux apps exist, and linux will run a lot of windows apps via Wine, but the visibility of linux apps and the visibility of Wine and confidence in Wine aren't enough to to overcome Windows primary advantage for anyone thinking of buying a PC—the fact that it is already dominant in the market, and therefore the target of most development.
Overcoming Windows inherent popular-therefore-popular advantage, even without MS illegally leveraging its monopoly, is a monumental task, and is going to take something that has some way of getting enormous attention with some selling point that Windows doesn't have, and unless Microsoft really fumbles in its efforts to finely slice and dice the market and target different segments, "price" won't be it (though it doesn't hurt).
Popular mechanics has been printing articles for at least 75 years detailing all sorts of "do-it-yourself" alternatives to popular products. They've detailed plans for building your own home, a small car, your furniture, and the list goes on and on. So why are consumers still paying for these commodities when "free" alternatives exist?
I think the answer is obvious. We are a "branded" society. We draw identity and confidence from the brand-names we wear, eat, consume, work with, play with, and drive. We enjoy our brand-names even though cheaper (and oftentimes identical) alternatives exist. We have confidence in our brands, and in the corporations that back them. Plus, in America we unabashedly admire (some would say worship) success. Coming out on top of cutthroat corporate America is an accomplishment without peer in our culture. Upsetting the status quo of a major corporation and then eating your opponents lunch while racking up billions of dollars is like winning the Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, World Cup, and NBA Championship all rolled into one. America doesn't look down on Bill Gates, many Americans wish they'd had the brains, determination, business savvy, and cojones to pull off what he did.
Americans would love it now if Microsoft was upset and thrown off as the king of OS's, but they're not just going to hand over the title because Linux asked nicely. Linux will have to prove to America that it has the guts, determination, branding, and star power to knock Microsoft down and then proceed to eat Microsoft's lunch. Only then will America go crazy and pursue Linux as the rockstar superstar OS that it's backers hope it will one day be.
In other words, Linux has to stop showing us they are "as good as" Microsoft and show us why they are better than Microsoft. They can't be the "Microsoft alternative", they have to become the obvious choice.
And Yes. I don't care if this is redundant, so is the multitude of Linux distros. The dev teams need to join forces, or co-develop a version of Linux that can non-technical people can use. Linux is great - don't get me wrong - but if we keep having to ask about if the Linux community is out of touch with average (read:most) users then there is a problem with the strategy the Linux community is taking.
-binomial
Someone should mod your sorry-ass down for offtopic.
Posting your own thread as a reply to the first post, even if the first post was contentless isn't worthy of insightful moderation.
Geeze, this guy has to be a shill because it is impossible to be that clueless and still operating a computer keyboard. Let me lay it out for this clown the real top 6 reasons that people continue to pay for windows: 1) It came preinstalled on their computer.
2) They want to run some program that only runs on Windows
3) People send them documents in formats that can only be read on Windows.
4) They never had the option to not pay for it. Unlike every other component on their machine, they can not configure a system without Windows and have the price deducted.
5) If they had any 'computer training' the only thing they were taught is how to use Microsoft Office.
6) Did I mention that it came pre-installed and they had to pay for it whether they wanted it or not?
Computers are fabulously complex things, and to the user, the operating system is the most complex part of all. Sure, hardware and CPUs are plenty complex, but the user never has to experience this. That is why users can swap out different pieces of hardware, and vendors can be cut-throat when it comes to hardware pricing and configuration.
The user does not want to make their computer experience more complex then it needs to be. Thus, when it comes to operating systems, the "if it works, don't mess with it" line of thinking pervades. Even switching to something as user-friendly as OSX can mean an increase in complexity when the OS is different from what their office or computer-savvy friends (whom they turn to for advice) use.
I've always been of the opinion that Linux, OSX, and other boutique operating systems are for people who really *care* a lot about their OS. Everybody else is just happy with something that works, and don't want to mess with it.
They can get pretty dissatisfied when they find out the shocking truth that viruses and spyware are not a normal part of personal computing -- that it is a situation that is pretty much unique to their single virus-friendly platform.
But that's not so much a Linux strength, as it is a Windows weakness; it isn't a reason to switch to Linux, it's a reason to switch to anything else. But hey, Linux is part of "anything else." :-)
Most people don't know that before they're exposed to greener pastures, or talk to someone who has been there.
That's a reason for switching from Windows to MacOS. Granted, it is a reason that Linux isn't doing well. But having software "just work" is pretty far from most Windows users' experience.
This is not relevant. Author earlier complains about "too many distros" but distro variety is exactly why millions of people could start using Linux today, without ever having to see a command line.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
While I agree with you naming probably isn't the road block your naming example really does illuminate how much more clear decent names can make applications (each of those program names is like a word puzzle with the answer clearly part of the name, cue's like that make it easier to *remember* the name and when you hear it provides the cue as to what it does).
Quack, quack.
Linux fanboys are using the "Overrated" modifier to censor you because such mods don't show up in meta-moderation. These fascists can't handle dissenting thought.
"And going between multiple networks without stopping and restarting the service is simply an exercise in futility, something windows doesn't have a problem with at all."
You must be lucky. My work supplied, corporate supported Windows XP laptop cannot handle moving between multiple networks (within the same company - I work in two different offices) at all well:
- on one site I have to go through this little dance of starting and stopping the card, but *only* through "Device Manager", the apparently-the-same procedure launched from "Network Connections" doesn't work.
- on the other site I then have to reinitialize the setup (via "Network Connections" this time) to get things going.
And before you ask, yes I do know what I'm doing - I've been working with networks for nearly 20 years and work with a major networking company (you've more than heard of us, a large number of you probably own and use our products). Everyone else I work with has the same problems and noone can't sort it out.
Except for those using their own *n_x based machines. They don't seem to have any problems at all.
In addition to a lot of the other comments about some of the barriers to adoption that Linux still has and basic apathy towards the security concerns with Windows, I'll give my own reason for staying proficient with Windows: businesses still run Windows (at least on the desktops).
When I was in school they had Apple computers and software and we learned how to operate them because that's the exposure we had. Near graduation I started figuring out that a lot of the want ads had requirements for knowing Windows and MS Office instead of the Apple/Mac computers that I was used to. When I got to college, they had Unix servers but they had Windows on the desktops, so I switched. My experience so far in the business world has been in a predominantly Windows environment, and I'm still seeing more want ads requiring familiarity with MS Outlook and Office vs Open Office and Thunderbird. If I wanted to get the types of jobs that I wanted (making enough money to keep a roof over the head and food on the table for the family), I needed to be familiar with Windows because that's what the office would provide for me to work with.
I view it as adapting to the environment, much the same as learning the local language. The difference in dialects and terms between the USA west coast and USA east coast style of talking is like the difference between Windows Home and Pro - they're primarily the same and you can still get the point across while learning the local dialect. I imagine that switching back to Macs would be like moving to England. The basic words are the same, but the dialect is substantially different and some words are used in entirely different ways. Yeah, I could probably get around without killing myself, but there would probably be a few awkward social gaffes in the process. Switching to Linux used to be like trying to learn Chinese or Japanese without a tutor, but it has become easier - like switching from English to Spanish. Spanish may be arguably simpler and more structured than English with fewer exceptions to the exceptions to the rules, but it is still going to take a while to become fluent even if you are lucky enough to have a tutor. Linux is much the same way. It may be simpler in some ways and fewer security holes, but it still requires a substantial knowledge of all aspects of computers.
It just didn't make much sense to speak one "language" at work and a totally different one at home, at least as the primary languages. Around my area there has been an influx of Spanish-speaking imigrants and a corresponding shift in the community towards valuing those people who are bilingual in English/Spanish. In essence, Spanish is gaining in "market share", and it makes sense to learn it as a secondary language. I keep Linux installed on a computer at home and I've tried a few different distros and even set up an Apache/PHP/MySQL server to "learn the language". But until Linux gains an equal market share with Windows and businesses become "bilingual" in terms of desktop OS's, I'm not going to suggest that anyone else in the household needs to learn it.Our local university has thousands of PCs freely available. They run XP/IE/MS Office exclusively for desktops. The systems are "locked down".
/. would indicate that maintaining such a network would be hell but that apparently is not so. IOW I believe that the perception (of many Linux users et al) that Windows/IE is impossible to maintain must therefore be mistaken .
/.'ers?
My readings on
Now I don't want to admit that, I don't like to admit that but the fact was staring me in the face yesterday as I once again stood in the university library and watched hundreds surfing the web apparently untroubled. When I ask technical support people at the university if they have ever have serious problems (with worms, viruses, etc.) they respond in the negative.
Is there any other way to resolve the disparity between what I see at the universities in this area and what I hear from Linux users and
Herein lies one of things that is so insidious about a monopoly. Once it takes hold, it's difficult to dislodge. Not because it is better, but because it is what people are used to.
I think you can really make an argument that Linux/GNU could be simpler. Sure, with a good distro and standard hardware, it can be a very easy install. If then you just use it with OpenOffice and Firefox you going to have a very easy time of it. How ever, all Linux users know of the pain of leaving the well trodden path. Before you know it there are many ways of setting the same thing, and often you end up just editing a text configuration file because the dialogs don't agree! I'm ok with that, give me text files over a registry any day. I like that I can read what the options and set them directly. BUT Now I'm no MS fan boy (I'm a RiscOS refugee), but I think that is a bit much to ask for of the average user. They don't care how it works and how pretty the guts are, they don't want to see guts, they are squeamish. Windows is easier to use. I've never used MaxOS-X but I have used MacOS and that was easy, so making it Unix too can only make it better. (And of course RiscOS had many good interface ideas ahead of it's time! ;-) )
The thing that would make Linux easier is standardization. Too much duplicated effort and different takes on the same thing. That's great for us geeks and maybe the product evolution, but very scary for the average user.
Another big problem is interface design.
Each thing should have a clean simple interface with the most common used options. All the extra advanced stuff should be hidden away under an "advanced" rollout or something. Most Linux settings tools just give you everything because it was by advanced users for advanced users.
What i want, to make me switch permanently is this:
That's mostly it. If you pick hardware carefully you can generally get a fully functioning system these days; sometimes even with less hassle than Windows.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Something I read comes to mind. Linux has to be perfect 120%. It has to do all things and more flawlessly with no efford, yet if things go wrong with windows, those same people who ask for a flwless Linux before even trying it say "Well, that is just computers. These things happen."
Ask the average user what he wants and most of them could be working with Linux right away, because all their demands are met (and then some)
However what people do is look at what they have and then ask for the same, not look at the need
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It's no surprise that half of the comments here boil down to "Users are idiots, especially Windows users."
As some people note though, the bottom line is that Windows works fine for most people, is familiar, and probably most important runs all of the programs that they want to use.
Would I love to break away from Microsoft? Sure. That's why I bought a Mac. Is Apple the alternative that I wanted? Unfortunately not. Ugly details here.
Is Linux the alternative? Not even close. If the out of the box (or off the torrent) install won't play DVDs or MP3s, it's not ready for public consumption. An out of the box Windows install generally*** just works without searching the web and downloading obscure codecs and media players.
*** "Generally" means "most of the time, for most people." Don't waste my time telling me about the time when it didn't work for your specific situation. You are an exception, OK?
Three Squirrels
1) Driver support. Hardware manufacturers need to start either giving up drivers (like nVidia does, I'm not RMS, I don't care whether they are binary, they have to Just Work (tm), good enough that it doesn't crash the system every 10 seconds (ATi))
2) Application support. Although it is quite simple to us to run things in Wine or VMWare or find a native/alternative application (I don't have any problem with any of my Windows applications), sometimes the process is not simple enough or intimidating to people that don't want to learn new things which brings us to the next point:
3) User perception. The perception currently is that Linux == hard and good and cheap; Windows == easy and bad and expensive; Mac == easy and good and expensive. But that's the user's perception. I still know people that say that Mac is bad because they saw an implementation of OS7 or 8 that didn't work that great (when Jobs was gone, Mac was sometimes a hell), I still know people that say Mac is expensive but don't compare feature by feature, just look at the initial pricing. There is also the user perception that Linux == Unix and Unix == solely for someone that understands why their login is "sysadmin" or "root" and not just lastnamefirstname. The FUD from Microsoft doesn't help very much either, although anyone with a brain can easily see through it.
4) User capabilities. Users are dumb and don't want to learn. Linux is written by a bunch of geeks like me that UNDERSTAND what happens when they click somewhere. Most users don't and don't want to understand, they just know if they click on position 5,15 on their screen a certain pop-up box will appear. Really, change for an instance the resolution (by either replacing their CRT's with LCD's or so) and you'll notice about 25% of your users will come and complain because they can't find something (true, I've had it happen). Give us geeks any type of interface, be it Commodore 64's BASIC ROM, KDE or Windows Vista, and we'll find our way. Any other user will just call you up and ask you why you changed and didn't teach them. I have implemented large changes in a lot of organizations and you even have to teach people how to use the new interface on their intranet. It's a freakin' website, get over it, Hotmail changes their interface and nobody has a problem, you change the tools they have to use for work and they lose all insight.
5) Pre-seated computers. Windows wasn't going to be this big if they hadn't have it pre-installed on everybody's computer (and gotten away with it). People think that Dell Utilities and Yahoo toolbar comes with their computer. Give them a new computer at work, and they'll wonder why they can't find it. If something comes with their leisure computer, people are going to start exploring the possibilities and now everybody knows how to use Windows. Pre-install Ubuntu with all they need (media player, internet browser, e-mail program and some games) and people will within 1-2 years start getting the idea that Ubuntu is the program that came with their computer although no-one is going to know it is called Ubuntu, just as no-one knows that Windows is the operating system they are running on their computer. The limits of MP3's are even going to be circumvented somehow. People just aren't going to accept MP3's and start asking for OGG and AAC, same response you would get when you sent that user an OGG or AAC when they are using Windows.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
There are patent restrictions on MP3 and the patents are actively licensed. However for home/personal use there is no restrictions on decoding.
The reason I don't use MP3 is that there are restrictions on encoding. I make music, and I'm not going to use some patented format and have to pay royalties for distribution.
I think we might both work for the same company
:)
In my building, it's not at all unusual to see people walking around with their laptops open, cradled in the crook of their elbows, because of poor hand-offs between access points. Recent updates to OS X seem to have fixed the problem for Macs (most of us in engineering in my section have Macs), although most Mac users still carry open out of habit. The Windows users also all carry their notebooks around open. I'm one of the few people who actually closes his notebook when carrying it around the building.
Jumping topics to the original one of whether people are dissatisfied with Windows or not, I think the question isn't framed correctly. Many people are dissatisfied with Windows, all you have to do is talk to people to hear this. The question, then, should be "Are they dissatisfied enough to switch to a different software and/or hardware platform, with the attendant expense in either dollars or effort, plus the learning curve?" The answer seems to be "No." If that were not the case, dissatisfied Windows users with money would be buying Macs by the pallet, and ones who couldn't or wouldn't buy a new machine to get away from Windows would be installing Linux by the pallet.
Of course, there's also the question of education. If most dissatisfied Windows users actually knew from experience how much better a Mac is than Windows, or how much better Linux is than Windows in most respects, there'd be a lot more switching. I can tell you this much: the Mac I'm typing this on is my first Mac, and it's so much better than Windows that I'd never go back. It came from the IT dept. with XP in Parallels, but I never use it. Haven't booted it in something like two months. I do run Linux in Parallels for those areas where the Mac falls short of Linux (it doesn't fall short of Windows anywhere, at least for my needs), and it would be really nice if Parallels would get Parallels Tools for Linux out the door to enable file system and clipboard sharing.
Of course, when they do I might use the Linux VM for everything and only use the Mac as a host platform
Yes they are. They just don't know the "operating system" or "Windows" is to blame. It's all "the computer" to them. "Computers" are too much work. "Computers" have too many problems. "Computers" don't do what they want. Tell someone that you can make the "computer" faster, simpler, safer, cheaper, and no longer need to virus scan, defrag, etc., and they'll be quite interested.
Wintel's 90%+ market share has made it such that people don't know there is anything else. They don't know what the hell Linux is, other than perhaps that it's something about a computer.
Does someone put a menu of distros in-front of Windows users and tell them they must pick on they're going to use for the rest of their life? No? I sure don't. I don't tell someone to download a distro, I tell them to download Ubuntu and try it out. No complex choices necessary.
You won't get that with Windows anyhow. Buggy drivers and a buggy operating system cause things to go incredibly wrong. It tries to install the wrong driver... It can't see one card unless you remove all others... It can't detect that you have new hardware, etc.
I know my digital camera works infinitely better with GPhoto than the Windows software... It's buggy crap, that requires un-plugging and re-plugging the USB cable before it detects there's something there, and then still might cut off suddenly, or just have absolutely puzzling difficulties communicating with it.
And? You shouldn't need it for anything these days. Back in the RedHat 6 days, the GUI configuration software was incomplete and buggy, but everything should be working provided you don't have very special needs.
No explanation of what this even means. No real examples. etc.
IMHO, Windows is still too tall and lumpy, all over the place. Microsoft should use their software until they find all the lumps.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
But not just installing Linux, installing Windows is a pain also. The vast majority of people will just use whatever is on their computers when they purchase them and currently that's Microsoft Windows. If the situation were reversed, we would be talking about how Windows is out of touch with the average user.
but NT is based on the DEC OS whose name I forget.
VAX-VMS, wasn't it?
There's no real reason to post these articles. Just post a heading which says: "Linux vs. Windows Flamewar!" People won't bother to read the article anyhow, so dispense with the pretense that informed discussion will follow. What's even better is that no one will actually read any of the comments in this thread either. They will briefly scan to see if the comment affirms or contradicts their views, then post a 'me too' or a 'you are an idiot' response. An Eliza bot would undoubtedly produce a more informative discussion that what appears here.
Although it is getting better.
...etc.
Part of the problem is a common affliction of the software developers, engineers and the like to design stuff from there point of view. This makes sense but only from there position. To the user it can be confusing and difficult to use. Stop relying so much on the devoted parts of the community to tell you if it's a good design, or if it works well. These parts of the community have been at it a long time, they know a lot, and particular how to hack and work around a problem. In fact there is a kind of status from being smart enough to be able to problem solve some of the OS short comings. To a laymen it means nothing, but hours of frustration trying to find or figure out how to do something.
Usability has been the key. I have had to test out many different Linux distributions for work and home. It depends largely on what you are using it for and the level of familiarity. At my job they decided to use Linspire, because of its ease of install and use. The users are just using it for normal stuff like email, word processing,
Other distributions you have to hunt around and guess how to do something or worse for someone that is not Linux savvy you have to hack something to get it to work.
One of the biggest pluses is how to install and update software. The process is crystal clear.
As for some other distributions tested Ubuntu was nice install, but frankly its just plain ugly. It's not always clear what it is doing or were to go to get what. I liked SUSE, but it is not smooth such as the recent fiasco with the ZNetwork, Yast, YOU, RUG stuff. It had many people pulling there hair out. And even though SUSE is getting better you still have to get into the OS to get it to behave.
A plus and lesson from SUSE is what they did before there last release. They literally for the Enterprise Desktop 10 went out to the streets, and asked people who had none or little experience on computers to come to there labs and test the level of ease of use and design of there OS. Some of the question they wanted to know was:
Did it make sense?
Was it easy to find stuff?
Could you figure out quickly what to do?
They set up cameras during the testing phases and watched peoples reaction, movements and how easy it was to navigate the OS.
I think why many just stick with windows is because you plug it in and it just goes.
>>1. On the whole, users aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows
There are many developers who have recognized there are too many flaws in DOS/Windows still to this day even after having existed for roughly 26 years. Some users after not having their constructive criticisms taken under consideration have resorted to approaching some developers willing to listen and develop something different. In fact, the Linux community is so willing to listen they even provide the capacity to any user to provide patches for any changes in any program for Linux applications because they have access to the source code for mostly every application in Linux. This is something Microsoft Windows has never permitted to happen. As result, the opportunity for Linux grew from the fact dissatisfied Windows users wanted more input into what their computer and applications should be able to do. Microsoft as I interpret it is saying: "We have new improvements we have made that fall in line with our business interests and not necessarily your interests. As an example we have added DRM features which constrain you from sticking it to the Movie and Music Industry. In this release we also did not show you how we built all this stuff because we don't want you to change our stuff. We will force you to update your computer and your software and ultimately pay for this. Take it or leave it. As an added bonus, if you leave your computer unattended doing disk backup to another computer, we will interrupt that and go download and install any new updates/constraints we want you to have and reboot your machine without asking you if it's ok to stop doing your backup." Rebooting a machine without the owning user's intervention is bad design in my opinion. At some point it is important to have a human in the decision loop when important events happen and interfere with the owning user's expected results.
Linux has got the human in the decision loop.
>>2. Too many distros
Both Windows and Linux are alike here. Your argument does not stand on this point.
>>3. People want certainty that hardware and software will work
If more people supported the Linux community by asking for Linux drivers for every piece of PC hardware they bought, this would no longer become an issue. Only buy hardware that support Linux up-front.
>>4. As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
Both Windows and Linux have command line. In windows, just go to Program Files->Accessories->Command Prompt.
In Linux just run a terminal application of your choice and there are many.
Any advanced user on any OS will eventually want to know more about the command prompt/terminal/batch files/shell scripts. Essentially there are many ways to skin a cat and automate your human tasks in windows and linux. Batch Files/Shell Scripts are one respectable alternative of many.
You are most assuredly misinformed here. You have not done your homework in my opinion because from what I can observe you don't seem to have advanced user status to support the importance for the existence of batch files/command prompts.
>>5. Linux is still too geeky
It's only as geeky as the user wants it to be. It's ready for prime time on the desktop given the right choice of Linux Supported Hardware.
One thing is certain. Whatever you can do in Vista, I could probably manage to do in Linux...on much older hardware. Give me newer hardware, I could probably manage do it faster than in Vista or Windows XP.
If Linux is too geeky, explain to me why the most popular applications on the planet, the Peer to Peer file sharing applications like Azureus, Frostwire, Bittorrent, Limewire, Skype all run on Linux as well as windows. It is because the real developers realize the up-and-coming importance of Linux, that's why. They realize the Linux User Interface has attained a certain level of maturity that merits exposure to first-time computer users.
Install any recent flavor of
Actually, it's neither of those. The masses out there never "chose" Windows. They went out to a big box store and bought a computer. It just happened to come with Windows on it. Then they cruised up and down the software aisles and bought nice slick boxes with pretty pictures on them. They gradually learned to install and use that stuff (called "applications"), dragging along boatloads of spyware and viruses as they went. They would never consider installing Linux today because it doesn't come in a big shiny box that sits on a shelf in the software aisle.
If someone was actually *marketing* Linux, then it might have a significant *market* share.
Consider the experience I gave my wife recently when I bought her a pre-installed Linux laptop from System76 for her birthday:
Sure, you can't do all the things on a Linux box that you can do on a Windows box. And you can't do all the things on a Windows box that you can do on a Linux box! Sure, you can't run all your windows apps on Linux. And why would you? There are so many great Linux apps that you can run instead! Some are better. Some are worse. They're different!
It's been about a year since I made the big leap from Windows to Linux. I'm loving it now and I wouldn't dream of going back.
In other news, research proves that most beer users are plenty satisfied with Budweiser.
No matter how true it is, or how forcefully you say it's what people prefer, Budweiser is still a suck-ass beer. Popularity is not a good indicator of worth.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I've been installing Linux since Red Hat 6.2.
I remember the days when getting the Linux to recognize your video settings and bring X was like winning the lottery. It was that hard.
Last week I got a brand new PC System with the Asus P5L-VM1394, Pentium D. That's it! No funky hardware.
I loaded Fedora Core 6 thinking:
I have a pretty good feeling the all my hardware will be loaded smoothly, I just had that experience happening 2 or 3 times with different combinations.
NO CAN DO!
The 2.6.18 Kernel does not carry the Attansic Gigabit net driver atl1.ko so my net chip doesn't work.
This is a brand new spanking box! With brand new spanking hardware! The least I would expect is for the OS to cover my hardware.
I had two choices then:
1. Zap the drive and install Vista.
2. Do the rounds on the net looking for those crusaders who patch drives and post them on the web for little people like me.
The Asus board had the Linux drivers on a CD but they wouldn't build. I had some sort of error:
Well, do you expect the average user to understand simple concepts like kernel headers and global replacements in the make file?
Well?
Anybody?
After 2 hours researching on the web I found out that
the Makefile was looking for a deprecated file named config.h (I find a kind soul posted the info on the web). I renamed autoconf.h and my atl1.ko was built. I installed and the network started running. The upgrade program, yum, asked me if I wanted to upgrade my packages, I said yes. Why not?
I let it rip through the night and next morning all modules were updated. I rebooted and my network was gone again!
WTF!?
yum went ahead and upgraded my kernel from 2.6.18 to 2.6.20, thank you very much, and now the atl1.ko driver doesn't work with the new kernel. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED! Sorry buddy, better luck next time.
I was pissed and dumbfounded.
Some powerful chakra let my brain and my body depleted for the next two hours.
I went to play in my mac for a while.
Anger gone, I went ahead again and downloaded the Attansic net drivers for the 2.6.20 kernel.
Another post said that the drivers are now part of Linux 2.6.21..whoopee.
This time the drivers built on the first try and modprobe took care of the rest.
I was so ready to ship the damn box back and get a DELLVISTA box. But I digress.
But right now FC6 is humming along. The stand by or any power saving mode doesn't work. But sound and video really rock.
Michael and Bill are not getting my money and I don't have to sign any effing EULA contract. Not today.
My Vanilla Linux box is a keeper.
Maybe I should have started with FC7. I don't like odd numbers in my revisions of anything.
But one fact remains true:
Linux Distros will never compete with the home PC commercial domain,
until the hardware manufacturers commit to support it.
If anybody knows how to configure the acpid for an Asus P5L-VM1394 board, I'll be in my room.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Is Linux Out of Touch With the Average User?
I'd have to say yes.
I got Ubuntu 7.04 running on my new box with spanky new parts only because I had Linux knowledge and a second machine to look up problems on. Unknown to me, there was an issue with the nvidia 8800 series of cards and some driver incompatibility. Upon installing the nvidia driver shipped with Ubuntu my x-server crashed and could get nothing but a command line. Luckily I knew what to search for and had a second machine to do it on and I was working in no time. The average user isn't even going to know what might be wrong, let alone what to look for or how to fix it. The also will most likely not have a second machine to help.
To top it off, once Ubuntu was up and running I got to see a few games crash when trying to run in WINE. After that my only statement was "OK, now what?" then I went back to my windows OS side of the dual boot and commenced to play Half Life 2 for a while.
yes, Linux will surf and I can do email and general office tasks. It won't play my games easily, that's the deal breaker right there.
I'd say that releases like Ubuntu are equivalent to early windows 95 at this point. If Linux had been at this level when windows 95 was the peak of MS's game, then there might be some competition today.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Yes.
We have tried running Red Hat or Ubuntu as dual-boot, or in VMWare Player. It is nice, but there really is no big reason to boot Linux, when we can do everything we want using Windows.
My son has a dual-boot Ubuntu with some fancy desktop thing where he can make his windows jiggle. That is really neat, but when he wants to play, it's back to Windows....
The key is the gamers. Microsoft works very hard on Direct 3D for a reason... I heard that the newest Direct 3D will only be for Vista. Now I wonder why that is? Hmmm.... Could it be they aren't stupid? -Jenny Z
give me a break, Linux developers have about as much in common and understand the "typical user" about as much as MS understands open source developers.
"Out of touch" sums it up quite perfectly.
Not to sound like a Mac fanboy, but there's no denying that, so let's get that out of the way...
:P
I can envision putting anyone who isn't quite technically oriented right onto Linux, despite the amazing progress the installation, desktop, hardware support has made through Ubuntu's efforts and such. However, after switching to OS X (legally, via a MacBook), I can imagine helping less technical people switch over to that. That's the first step in breaking the MS stronghold. Once someone has gotten over the MS dependence, having their eyes opened to Linux (wow, it's free and it runs on dirt cheap hardware!) is far more likely.
Even things like using Parallels to get at the odd Windows app is far easier than hoping a VMWare install might actually install or successfully build the right kernel modules for it to work. But once someone is enlightened as to the power of virtualization for breaking off suckling at the MS teat, the possibility of them exploring VMWare on Linux someday is *greatly* increased (or helping promote such a solution at their work, or with friends, or such.)
Apple has done such a great job at consumerizing a unix-like beast, and Linux is coming along, but not quite there. So I see OS X as a great stepping stone for moving people in the right direction.
(Don's flame retardant pants.) Okay, people flame away at the Mac fanboy
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
'Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?'
Where can the average user get Linux preinstalled in the high street computer shop. How many Windows users have to install and configure the OS?
davecb5620@gmail.com
1) Driver support. Hardware manufacturers need to start either giving up drivers (like nVidia does, I'm not RMS, I don't care whether they are binary, they have to Just Work (tm), good enough that it doesn't crash the system every 10 seconds (ATi))
Why does everybody bash ATI drivers in linux? in my experience ATI drivers were somewhat bad years ago when i first bought my radeon 9200....but the windows drivers were as bad or WORSE. even now for that card half of the updated/upgrade software simply hangs on launching windows installer for that card. my laptop has no problems with the 200M-EXPRESS card. My main desktop did have an issue with my X1600 pro... but that was a bios settings issue. simply set the bios AGP_APERTURE size to the correct size for the card and there are no problems.
I have actually had the reverse experiance, I had problems with a GeForce4 card from NVidia, i had to wait 2-3 revisions before the problem was solved.
Maybe you had problems with ATI that I didn't, or maybe you never tried ATI products under linux and just go by what other people say about them.... doesn't really matter to me which one it is, I use whatever works whether it is NVidia or ATI or even Intels chipsets.
I must say though that since AMD took over ATI that the drivers have improved performance wise. within the last 3-4 versions i have picked up 30-40 FPS in fgl_glxgears when running fullscreen, it doesn't really matter since videos played smooth at even much lower framerates but for someone who wants to play GL games it could be nice to get those extra frames.
P.S. does NVidia come with any testing programs ( like ATI fgl_glxgears) ?
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
1 - On the whole, users aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows
.. :)
..
If you really want to know just how dissatisfied people really are listen in on to the phone calls received in the average Windows call center. There's a number floating round the web. If you work in tech support the average day is spent in getting bawled out by some irate PHB.
2 - Too many distros
You can only use the one distro at a time. How do people manage to drive with all those different models on the road. It must be very confusing for them.
3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
Vista
4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
Any current distro provides full functionality from the GUI. Browsing, email, wordprocessing, CD burning, Media player etc
5 - Linux is still too geeky
Doesn't even deserve a response.
Why is zdnet.com posting this out of date FUD?
davecb5620@gmail.com
VAX = Hardware
VMS = OS
NT is "based on" VMS to the extent that the team developing NT was the same team that was developing VAX. The NT code is original despite its similarities to the VMS system.
An urban legend is that Windows NT got its name because WNT is one letter rotated from VMS. As amusing as the supposition is, it's just as much of a coincidence as the HAL = IBM - 1 legend.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
As a confirmed uber-geek what are the difficulty in the average users using the GUI? Please be specific?
..'
'Anyone who claims that the Linux distros are as easy or even easier to use than Windows have completely missed something... it's just not true
I put people down in front of this dual boot box and show them Forefox and Open Office. They can't tell the difference. 'Oh look it's just like Windows'.
UBER-GEEKS at it again... (Score:5, Interesting)
davecb5620@gmail.com
No, they don't WANT an operating system. Most users don't even know what an OS is!
- Oh, so you are using Linux?
A what?
Operating System?
Is that something like another Word?
- err... never mind...
The whole premise for this is that usability actually matters. Yes, Windows is easier to use in some cases, but quite generally, people use Windows because everyone else does. It does not matter if it is frustrating or difficult. It just has to be frustrating and difficult in the same way as everyone else's is. Windows is not supported by Microsoft. It is supported by your next door neighbor. In fact, if it were not for Slashdot, I would not have even known that Microsoft offered "support" for its "products" at all.
Apple's poor marketshare is proof of this. The Mac has been easier to use than Windows for years, but its share of the market has remained relatively constant. Your neighbor does not have one, so he cannot help you when you have a problem with your Mac. If you have a Windows box, however, you can even choose a neighbor you like to help you out.
The other reason for low Linux adoption is that Microsoft controls all the hardware manufacturers. Walk into any store and try to buy a Linux laptop -- I dare you. They will laugh in your face. Ask if you can just buy the laptop with no OS. They will laugh again. Given that people rarely even update -- much less replace -- the operating system that came with their computer, how can Linux be compared with Microsoft for average users? If they cannot get it even when they want it, how are they going to make a choice? These unauthorized copies of Windows are not being installed at home. They are being installed at the store or by a compotent friend. Most users would not know what to do with a bootable disk if they were given one. I knew one user that could not understand the difference between a "program" and a "web browser" thinking the web browser was the same thing as the OS. After hours of explanation, this user's new understanding was forgotten within 24 hours.
People like this need to have a computer put in front of them. It does not really matter if it is Linux, Windows, BeOS, or Symbian. They have to be told it is a computer and told a little about how to do what they want to do. It is never going to matter to them what the software is called. Try it. Give a first time user a Linux box, and see if they have any problems a newbie Windows user does not. In fact, they will probably think it is "Windows", anyway.
Ignorant people do not make choices.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
And just how many times have we all heard that?
Computers & cars both take maintenance time. I know a woman who goes through cars every 18 months, I have yet to see her take one of them in for an oil change. In the time I've known her, she'd gone through 3 & is about due for the 4th - and she bitches like hell when they die, but she's of the firm opinion that "the car tells me when it needs oil and radiator fluid". The desire to 'not know' is very strong, and the desire to 'not know about more work' is even stronger.
'When someone gets Windows, he installs it ..'
..
When was the last time you could get a computer without Windows preinstalled, without going to an obscure website and jumping through hoops to get a refund. When someone gets Linux, he installs it
Where can someone get Linux preinstalled in the high street computer shop.
The reason is user attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
davecb5620@gmail.com
...and I'll say it again. The "average user" is neurotypical. The "average Linux user," for good or ill, most certainly isn't. The "average user" also doesn't have a fanatical aversion to capitalism.
The main two gaps between at least the most vocal minority of Linux users and mainstream, normal, above ground society are neurological and ideological. It doesn't really have a lot to do with the user interface of the OS in a strictly technical sense at all. Joe Sixpack can tolerate a CLI; DOS proved that. He may not like it, but he can be corralled into using it.
Most people don't want to be members of Stallman's cult. Most people see capitalism as a fundamentally good thing, and if they find something valuable and of use to them, are willing to pay for it. The things that are holding Linux back in a mainstream sense aren't actually about Linux itself at all, for the most part; they're about the fact that Stallman tried to create an ideological/socioeconomic profile for his followers, and then attached that to Linux. People can reply to this and call me a troll or whatever else they like as much as they want; that doesn't change anything, and it's not going to change my opinion or get me to be quiet. If you want to achieve my silence, you're going to have to try something else.
Improvements to Linux's hardware drivers and GUI aren't the things that are going to enable Linux's truly universal acceptance. The only thing that will enable that is the abolition of the Free Software Foundation and its' informal fan club. People can talk about world domination as much as they want, but as long as the FSF continues to exist and hold serious influence, Linux will continue, to a greater or lesser extent, to be fringe. If you want Linux to come out of the basement and the server room, dump the FSF. It's as simple as that.
Average user out of touch with Linux.
P.S. Fuck Bush
It seems to me that people are far too concerned with how other people should use their computers. I for one advocate the use of Linux in business and government situations, but don't really feel that average desktop users should take the plunge. Why? Well I don't know. I'd love to see Windows binned, I find that it spends more time trying to tell you what to do than just letting you do whatever you need to, and I find even the simplest thing that I'd be able to do on my Linux box a complete pain in the arse on Windows, however, the complete reverse is true for a user who just doesn't give a crap about the power that UNIX and/or GNU tools can yield if you just dedicate some time to learning about them. I'd never recommend vim to your average user who just wants to open an ini file and change a key=value pair (oh wait, that's an advanced windows user ), I'd just tell them to use notepad, I'm not going to spend my life trying to teach someone how to do something like that. I'll give them the quickest option to get what they need. If someone wants to play the latest games, use the latest IE centric websites, pay loads of money to AV vendors for a false sense of security, then Windows will basically give them what they want.
However, on the other side of the fence, I believe that government and infrastructure should be centred around open source, in fact, I believe that there's a moral argument for this as well. I don't want my personal details stored and accessed using the Microsoft operating system, despite MSSQL being pretty solid. If globalism is really happening, then infrastructure should really be about the human race cooperating, not how much a particular vendor donates to the government etc etc (thinking MS brownnosing the UK govt. here, and vice versa).I want openness and honesty from the governments of the world who should be here serving the people, but it seems that they're too busy serving large multinational corporations and hiding everything they do in the interests of 'national security'.
I don't disagree with paying money for software, not in the least. There's a lot of time and money going in to creating software (yes that means linux based software too (yes. money... real money!) and I don't see why businesses and individuals shouldn't receive appropriate monetary renumeration for their time
At the end of the day, MS started off being all about PC's. Single user operating systems, simple enough just to let the user run their programs. UNIX started life for business machines, and was always designed to be multi user.
Anyhow, this is more like a few things that should be discussed rather than a complete synopsis of my angle on things. At the end of the day, I still don't know what to think, but that's because _I_ don't know what's best for everyone, and I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that I have all the answers.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov
Once upon a time, I used to work phone support for that game (amongst others), and for just one glimmering moment, I thought my experience might come in handy on Slashdot. Then I quickly realized that your problem falls completely outside the bounds of anything we ever would've bothered to support. In fact, most of the tech support department would've been left scratching their heads, asking "WTF is a linux?"
So yeah... Wish I could offer you any advice. If it's any consolation, there were actually plenty of windows systems that the game had difficulty running on as well. Also, I don't know why you'd try dosbox. HOMM3 was Windows native. I wonder if might be relying on some quirky, outdated parts of DirectX 5/6 that haven't been reverse engineered by the WINE folks yet. After all, the New World Computing guys were, IMO, some fairly quirky programmers.
You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
"none of the people who excel at any of the above tasks have ever once called me an idiot."
If you were trying to fly an airplane, though, or stitch up a wound, they would, in all likelihood, call you an idiot - or at least think it. You would be trying to do something you don't know how to do - and in those cases, those who do know how to do those things will likely be unimpressed.
At the same time, holding the view that everyone but yourself is an idiot is inherently destructive, and a useless point of view. The real difficulty is that they don't know something (such as how to fly an airplane), and if that something is something you're emotionally invested in, or their ignorance is causing you an issue (such as all major OSes being clunky for you, with your developed operational reflexes), then you're going to feel put out. Blaming it on other people is about the most useless point of view you can take, though.
Really, I think that it's facile to say that society is built on the lowest common denominator. I've not actually been able to identify a common denominator in society to begin with, so the whole phrase is absurd. Society is built on a series of works that are good enough to satisfy a sufficient market to support them. Despite being able to envision better, rarely do we find it worth our while to realize such works. In short, I'm dubious of anyone who claims the problem is with someone other than themselves.
[Ego]out
Exactly. Head on.
Same with drag & drop.
I always thought little of drag&drop. Then I switched to OSX about a year ago. Ever since I realized just how important and great drag&drop is, because on the Mac it works. From everywhere to everywhere, with everything. On both Linux and windos, it's a hack and a game of luck - you never know if it's going to work this time or not, so you don't rely on it.
Get the stuff working that people actually use a hundred times every day, without noticing them much, and you've made a lot more progress than all the fancy flashy crap that gets used twice a year.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
...the "average" luser really knew what he was doing then 70% of Windows security issues wouldn't be critical.
Joe Luser don't know how to use his fucking Windows... he just think he know.
Try to learn a average Windows user how to use his Windows safely and you will learn what the problem is... "it's fucking too complicated" is the first remark. I have run Windows for 7+ years without reinstallation... show me a Joe Luser with a Windows that has run anything near that without problems.
Yes, and thank fucking god for that.
Back away you pedesrian scum.
> Hate Microsoft, hate Apple, but those organizations do not treat potential customers as primordial slime
I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Most people who use Linux don't do so because they hate Microsoft and Apple.
Hate is not a motivation to do anything. Hate is a motivation to *not* do something or to tear it down. You could be perfectly happy hating both Microsoft and Apple if you're a Blackberry user or a BeOS user or a BSD user or a Solaris user.
Quite simply, Most people who use Linux use Linux because they love Linux. Period.
And unless you've been sleeping, a great deal of work in making Linux more user friendly. It's the whole mission of some distros (e.g. Ubuntu).
BTW, I don't know where you got the idea that people think Microsoft and Apple treats potential customers as primordial slime. Microsoft treats people as a revenue source and the more money they can extract, the better, even if it means treating your customers like criminals (witness the DRM), getting people to buy the same things ever and over again even if they don't need it (e.g. planned obsolescence) , and even if it means trapping them through intentional vendor lock in. Apple is a bit different. They're in it for the money too (after all, it's a free market), but they have a bit of the Oracle arrogance that they're better than anyone else and if you don't like "the Apple way" you've been brainwashed and need re-education. It's not just about the money.
Both Microsoft and Apple do satisfy they're customers to some extent (otherwise they'd be bankrupt), but if you're tired of the "you are a criminal but you're trapped with us so pay up whenever we want" attitude from the post-Bill Gates Microsoft and you just don't like "the Apple way", you have to find a home *somewhere*.
If you're one of these OS refuges, and like openness, being treated as an equal partner in the development process, and don't want to have to deal with planned obsolescence or vendor lock in nightmares, Linux is a good place to go. If Linux isn't good enough for you, and the other alternatives aren't either, you have some hard choices to make.
Now getting back to the article, here's my comments:
> 1 - On the whole, users aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows
Not quite. There's quite a bit of disatisfaction, but most people don't
know of any alternatives other than the Mac, but unless they're surrounded
by Mac users and/or use a Mac at work, chances are they wouldn't go through
the pain of switching. And let's face it, people are busy with *real life*.
People are lazy and would rather go to the beach than do their taxes and
investigate alternatives. The only difference between these two options is
that the government forces you to do one but not the other. If the highly
publicized Mac has problems cracking the market, Linux would doubly so.
> 2 - Too many distros
Nope. Most of those distros are special case distros that only geeks know about.
When it comes down to it, most non-geeks who know about Linux have only heard
of RedHat or Novell or maybe Ubuntu (thanks mostly to Dell and free Ubuntu giveaways).
Most users would try one of these three distros and assume that all the others
are the same and either switch to Linux based on this one experience or balk at Linux,
possibly forever.
> 3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
Linux works for most hardware out there *out of the box*, often better than Windows XP.
This is especially true with Ubuntu. Granted, there are some areas where (mostly newer)
hardware isn't as well supported, but the same can be said for Vista. The key difference
between Vista and a distro like Ubuntu is that the Vista hardware is preselected and
preinstalled whereas the user needs to install Ubuntu and hope (unless they've done
their research) that everything works (it likely will, but no guarentees). Thanks to
Dell and a few other computer makers, th
And before you say, "but if people had to install Windows ...": well, they don't.
Why is it that 'installing' the software gets so much coverage? Most installers are designed to be flexible enough to cover pretty much any custom setup in a one-shot pass, and as a result becomes difficult for new users. And you do it once. Once that's behind you, there's still a battleground for application quality and user experience for the other 700 or so days of the life of that system you spent maybe up to a week installing the software on.
I think Linspire has at least this part right, as they make an effort to sell the consumer O/S preinstalled on systems. This skips this whole one-time morass and moves on to the jungle of the quality and variety of apps and the day-to-day end-user experience. I'd be happy if reviews never again mentioned the initial install of an O/S because 1) Comparing a pre-installed Windows system vs. the installer on Linux systems on the basis of ease of installation, Linux will always lose for the general consumer, 2) You only install it once.
Let me start off by saying I'm not a complete stranger to Linux or BSD. I have used them at work quite frequently and also at home years ago.
About 10 years ago I installed linux for the first time at home and dual booted between it and windows. I was in love with the text interface (nostalgia from dos) but I found it incredibly difficult to get even basic components on my PC to work properly. I never did get my soundblaster card to play sounds. I didn't have every flipping specification for my monitor, so when setting up XFree86 and being prompted for the vertical refresh rate and horizontal refresh rates and all that garbage just about stopped me in my tracks. It took many hours of man hunting and asking friends familiar with linux to get my ethernet card to work. My video card was not supported so I had to use ugly 256 color 800x600 display mode. I was pretty disgusted with the whole ordeal and just went back to windows98se.
A couple years later I tried a few different distros to see how far Linux had come. It was a whole new experience. I popped a CD in and booted from it, partitioned my drive, selected what programs I wanted to install from a graphical menu with pretty colors and let it fly. Then booted it up and got on the web. All without configuring squat. I was amazed. But after a few hours the novelty wore off. The interface did not feel right, and trying to make adjustments in the control panel produced nothing but frustration and headaches.
The tools that come with it always seem to be cheaper knock-offs of mainstream programs. After hearing GIMP's praises I decided to give it a try, since I was working a photography retouch artist, I thought the more experience I have with different tools the better I'll be at my job. I was wrong. GIMP was a complete piece of disorganized window vomit. It was touted as Photoshop for Linux but it doesn't do half the things Photoshop can do, and it's confusing as hell trying to manage the different windows for any/every action you want to perform. So I gave up on that and thanked god for photoshop.
I'm not a hardcore gamer by any means, but I do enjoy playing them quite often. I decided to see what Linux could do for me in that respect and was very disappointed. There were 'emulators' that could pretend to be windows so you _might_ be able to play an old game or two, but the performance hit that came with it was horrid and there always seemed to be glitches in the graphics, or the games would just suddenly crash out of nowhere. Not to mention just trying to get them running in the first place took nearly all my patience.
In the past year I've again installed Linux just to see where it's at and where it looks like it's going and it's fun to play with, but I can't use it for anything serious. I've become so accustomed to the little things in Windows such as uniform keyboard shortcuts from program to program that Linux becomes a pain in my neck after long. And still most of what I want to do, I can't do in Linux, or at least not with the same efficiency and speed.
However, if I were to ever run servers for ANYTHING Linux or BSD would definitely be my first choice. I managed DNS, pop3 and smtp on a couple BSD servers at my last job and found it simply amazing what you can do with shell scripting. Windows has some sort of scripting language of its own, but it's not something you can just read a few man pages on and pick up like the shell scripting in Linux/BSD.
All in all I'm going to stick to Windows until: A) I can run my main programs and games on Linux or B) Windows will cost me an arm and a leg with no way around it and/or C) MS really implements their Paladin idea of old (which it appears they're still working towards).
You're nothing; like me.
Windows user:
- Google for the problem
- Modify registry according to some forum posting
- Download some tool that promises to fix the problem
- Install the tool (along with tons of malware)
- Ask friend
- Friend reinstalls Windows
- User is happy
Linux user:
- Read man pages
- Google for the problem
- Read forums/wikis
- Analyze problem and find exact cause
- Edit some text files
- User is happy
Linx users require different problem solving skills. These skills are comparatively "high" like engineering skills. Not something the average user is likely to have.
Also if a "switcher" tries the Windows problem solving algorithm with Linux it won't work.
Microsoft may force you to upgrade for their own reasons - mainly to force you to upgrade.
But Firefox doesn't force you to upgrade unless they have to. Maybe FF 2.0 won't work on win98, I don't know. But all prior versions did. I used all FF's up to 1.5 on Win95 before I got a new box.
And FF 2.0 could probably work fine on any Linux distro. But the distros, for various reasons, can't easily support it. I think Mandriva 2007 had some GNOME dependencies on FF 1 stuff, so there was never an FF 2 upgrade path there.
And that is a real world issue. We Linux'ers don't mind installing a new distro version 2 or 3 times a year (and don't talk to me about apt-get distro version upgrades - I sure wouldn't trust that, so why should a non technical user do it). The one thing (other than monopoly lock-in and all the 3rd party apps) that Windows has in its favor is it's infrequent upgrade schedule. They apparently have enough functionality in their system that XP can live from 2001 to 2007 and nobody complains too much. That's a good thing.
Linux is still changing APIs (at least at the desktop level) every 6 months or so. And it's not going to catch on in a big way on the desktop until that shakes out. Why should it? I use Linux as my primary desktop OS at home, but I wouldn't recommend it for others - except other tech savvy folks that can appreciate what's been accomplished. Desktop Linux is really impressive these days, but it's not finished, and it seems unfinished *by design*. It's time to at least consider what would constitute a finished desktop Linux. Stable API's, standard sound libraries and packaging. That kind of thing.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
"There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty." Did anybody seriously believe otherwise?
Certainly, to an extent, it's possible to make everybody happy. But at some point, say, when you're writing a large application, you have to decide who you're writing it for, and make sure it suits them. Do you base your text editor on the assumption of a lot of mouse use and so follow today's typical GUI guidelines, or do you tailor it to a higher degree of keyboard usage, and maybe come up with something Emacs-ish?
You could have two text editors, naturally - but one of the requirements for being friendly to the "average user" - or to anybody at all, for that matter, is a certain degree of consistency. Wildly disparate user interfaces don't serve anybody - so the software world is (necessarily?) divided into camps - within each camp you can get your consistent, interoperable software experience, but cross the borders and things get messy. There are multiple "camps" on Linux - and that is fine, but each one basically defines its own operating platform.
When I say "I want Linux to be a system for me", I mean that I'm not interested in writing code to run on Linux that is specifically targeted to the "average user". I believe in the idea of creating a system - a well-designed system, mind you, not a big pile of hacks - which is particularly suited to adept users. Adept users do benefit from many of the same things "average users" need - a well-written and contextual help system, a certain degree of consistency between various UI apps, and so on - but there is a significant difference: adept users don't scare as easily at the sight of complicated concepts. You can make your GUI app's search field expect regexps and adept users won't be bothered. "Average users" generally hate ideas like that, despite the power that kind of thing can give you. Adept users can deal with software that's poorly designed or not specifically written to help people learn to use it - stuff written quickly or without much attention given to things other than the basic goal of functionality - but that's not the ideal situation, either. You don't want your entire system to be built up out of marginally faulty shell scripts. To really serve these users, the system's core tools, at least, ought to be very reliable and sensible. Linux is a system built upon a lot of tradition, so consistency isn't one of its strong points.
The problem with trying to satisfy everybody is that there's a finite capacity for quality software development in the free software world, as in anywhere. KDE and Gnome projects have been working for years to create good-quality, modern GUI systems on top of Unix - mostly oriented toward the "average" - and they've been successful but it's taken a lot of work. Starting another project on par with one of those two would be a massive undertaking. As a result, it's tough for anyone other than those two projects to establish clear leadership on what a Linux operating environment should be like. My goal and the goal of catering to the "average user" are not mutually exclusive - but it takes more energy to pursue both goals than to pursue one.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
By the same stupid Microsoft shill - even if his name is different than the last one.
Every one of the five points is wrong.
It's the same old, same old: "command line", "too geeky", "no drivers", blah, blah, blah.
This crap isn't news any more, guys. And it's becoming less relevant with every new distro release.
Linux has its problems, sure. ALL software has problems. Windows has as many or more than Linux. Windows may have been significantly easier to use back in 2000, but it's 2007 now and things have changed.
I say it once again.
Windows is CRAP.
Linux is ALSO CRAP.
BUT Linux is FREE crap.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
FTA:
"3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
Name me five bits of hardware that lists Linux as a supported system on the box. I've just had a look around the office and I can't find a single thing that lists Linux explicitly (I think I got a USB key some time ago that mentioned Linux but I can't be sure). Until we see hardware vendors shipping Linux drivers for hardware as standard, this will remain a nightmare for anyone who doesn't have a sense of adventure."
Umm, okay. So you want VENDORS to make linux drivers? I think we've had this discussion for years... And guess what?
I popped in an Ubuntu CD, and my laptop works with more of the extra functions OFF THE BAT than windows did after a fresh install. Hmm, let me go through step by step:
1: pop in Ubuntu CD at boot
2: boot
3: click install
4: go through 5 steps where it asks for information
5: reboot onto the hard drive and enjoy everything working.
Now, same deal with Windows:
1: pop in Windows disk
2: reboot because I missed that 5 second delay to choose which to boot because I wasn't paying attention, and it defaults to the blank hard drive.
3: do the partitioning in ugly blue and gray DOS looking interface
4: copy setup files to the hard drive
5: reboot
6: give windows basic information in a huge number of steps (close to 15 if you count the number of "Next" buttons)
7: reboot
8: install antivirus/firewall/spy-ad ware remover
9: reboot
10: install drivers for one piece of hardware
11: reboot
etc. ad infinitum until you have it all working. And god forbid if you have an old piece of hardware designed for 98 that XP can't recognize, you're screwed! Yes Linux reverse-engineers the drivers, but often they work just as well, and sometimes better than the default drivers. Ever heard of a person who couldn't get on the 'net with a linux machine? Wireless, sure, but ethernet/dial-up is pretty much well covered! Even usb modems don't require extra steps... Get the point now?
"It's worse for software. Anyone making the leap from Windows to Linux has to start from scratch with regards to applications. That's a much bigger undertaking than the Linux community gives credit for. Having to come up with an alternative for every application you use is a big job."
Ok, but how big of an undertaking is it, really? My mom can't tell the difference between word and openoffice... Firefox and opera are the same on all platforms... OH, and if you're really into IE, there's a nice little program that's called "ies4linux" that install Internet Explorer using wine for you. And all the steps are written down clearly. Sure you've got to find new applications, but if you like simple written down solutions, then you'll find what you need, because the Linux community has been MUCH better about writing documentations and "howto"s than their counterparts.
"Even with Dell's plan to ship PCs with Linux pre-installed, it's likely that the only people who will buy these will be people with enough experience using Linux to know what will work and what won't (or who will know where to find the answers). I'm also left wondering how many people will buy an Ubuntu-powered Dell only to find out that there's more to running a Linux distro than getting an OS for nothing. And how many will eventually give up and install Windows onto them? "
Umm, ok, so instead of having to deal with Windows Update, Norton/McAfee AV updates, Firewall updates and constantly trying to rid yourself of spyware you're going to have to think about the Ubuntu update manager which only reminds you if you ask for it, and then figure out how to deal with hard drive space. Your argument really stands up... My parents are not exactly young, my mom was computer illiterate until 3 years ago. She uses XP and a KDE desktop interchangeably, using a thumbdrive to store her data. She's happy with both, which kind of contends your point, but Windows has become such a hassle that she's liking her Linux alternative a lot better. She didn't setup her linux stuff, but if she was trying to install XP or Vista, she wouldn't be much better off. So how's that for an average user?
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
People don't use Linux because Linux Sucks.
I don't know why 800 replies were necessary before the truth came out.
Even if someone grows annoyed enough with Windows to start looking for a replacement, in all probability the only way they are actually going to see a computer running Linux is if they have a friend who is using it. Most people do not have friends using Linux. Most people don't have friends who have heard of Linux.
Linux has a lot of buzz among the cognoscenti who represent a tiny fraction of the market. It has zero buzz, and essentially zero name recognition, among the rest of the population.
Linux has no visibility to those folks. It isn't in the retail chain and it isn't sitting on store shelves. Until it is, Linux will not be seen by mainstream computer users as an alternative to Windows. In fact, it wont be seen at all.
Consider: I live in a techie area. Red Hat headquarters is 10 miles from me. Linux is not available in any retail store in the area. Apple has shops in two local malls.
The fact that Linux is available as a free download from a zillion servers is not that much of a selling point unless you are a starving student. It certainly doesn't count for much with people who are spending $100 every time they fill up the SUV.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
they were "in touch" at some point? :) j/k
And by that I mean: if you think of the vast majority of people as idiots, then the vast majority of customers for consumer electronics and computing are idiots, and therefore, to be successful, the products must be designed for idiots.
Plus everyone is an idiot about something. I really have no interest in the science of household cleaning supplies. I just want things to be clean.
If you design your product for the interested elite, you'd better hope they are willing to pay an exorbitant price, otherwise your business model is not going to work.
--- JurassicPizza
To call Linux "user friendly" is bad comedy. I haven't tried whatever the current flavor of the month, but can you operate and expand a Linux system without EVER having to go to the command line? If you can't, stop the comparison right there.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I've been there, very recently. It *is* stressful to have to many choices. Even in something as basic as KDE versus Gnome the choice is intimidating to a newb, and the massive amount of purely subjective conflicting opinions on the web adds to that.
Is Slashdot out of touch with the average user? Yes.
Is Slashdot out of touch with Linux? YES.
Slow Linux adoption has nothing to do with your grandma installing mp3 codecs and DVD rippers. Your grandma has naught to do with it. I find it astounding how many +5 comments here GROSSLY misrepresent actual Linux desktop use. Do you guys actually use Linux? Oh wait, no, most of you are Windows power users, and directing this question at Slashdot is like asking a car to manage your stock portfolio.
Linux adoption is slow for exactly two reasons at this point.
- Computer companies that sell Linux computers are few and far between, and few people know they even exist. Most people don't install an OS themselves, so if Linux is to appeal to the masses, it must actually come on the computer they buy. But what company will offer computers if no one is currently buying the ones that are out?
- Because there are few users, there are also few SUPPORTED games and professional grade applications. Like Photoshop, and Cubase. Of course, how do we get the software without the users?
No, it's not compiling software (I do this on rare occasion and for kicks only), human interface guidelines (Gnome and KDE are both more consistent than Windows and, IMHO, OS X), or copy and paste (I haven't had issues with this in a long time). Even drag and drop work great for me under Linux. It's not the diversity of software. I find it mind boggling that half of you fault Linux for lacking software and half of you fault it for having TOO MUCH.By the way, if Linux does actually take over the desktop, the masses (95% of users) will probably all use the same apps on the same distro, and the computing ecosystem will probably look just about exactly like it does now. Why can't you just sit back and see what happens? Who cares!
"I'm not religious, but at the same time I don't get why science always has to have something to prove."
I spend several hundred dollars on software every year. In addition, I buy various Linux distros. Yet, if I didn't have Windows licenses anyway, I would pirate Windows. Why? I use Windows to run the occasional game or the occasional poorly written firmware updater. But, in the end, I have no interest in running it, and if push came to shove, I'd just do without it. Windows simply isn't worth paying for.
>>> "i don't know how to rebuild an engine. i don't know anything about tax law. i can't separate waste from water to make it drinkable again. i can't start or fly a commercial airplane. i wouldn't know the first thing about properly laying a brick sidewalk. i am completely incapable of stitching up a wound..."
... then they'd definitely call you a g**dam-f**k**g-idiot.
But if you tried to rebuild an engine, submit a companies tax forms, recycle water, fly an airliner, brick a pavement or stitch a wound and failed to do it successfully and they had to bail you out
let's say I'm Joe PC User, and I decide I want to ditch Windows and go with Linux. I do a Google search on "how to install linux", and the first hit is http://www.linux.org/docs/beginner/install.html. Cool. The first link is the Linux Pre-Installation Check List. Cool again; I'm on my way. The checklist is actually kinda verbose, but about halfway down, the actual checklist starts. First thing under assumptions: "You are interested in installing Linux on a PC (386 upwards)." Joe PC User says, what does 386 upwards mean? Well, I'll ignore it and move on. Assumption #3: "You have at least one 3½" floppy diskette drive on your system." Joe PC User says WTF? Do I really need that? Haven't seen one in years. Then there are several "You have downloaded, printed and read the latest version of...", and Joe PC User is beginning to think ugh, is this worth it?
I understand what you mean, but I cannot agree. Especially:
or
You don't talk about Linux, you talk about programs.
The system is no good without the programs. The existence of the system is meaningless without the programs. The system exists only to provide a way to run the programs. The programs people run effectively are the system, from a user perspective, and how they interact with them defines their interaction with the system.
Right, if I had to choose, whether it is code for me or someone else, I would be egoistical, too. But this choice is not necessary.
I don't get what you're saying here. If you're saying it's egotistical to regard myself as an "adept" and the "average user" as something less sophisticated than myself - well, yeah. I don't mean to be a judgmental prick about it, it just seems the most convenient way to explain the situation - rather than saying "that which I regard as common, or perceive as the lowest common denominator, but in fact refers to the large majority of people who are not interested in computers for their own sake" I just say "average user", as was said in the article. Rather than saying "people like myself, who are interested in technology for its own sake, often programmers who carry programmers' sensibilities to their interactions with the system", I say "adept". It is judgmental but it's just meant to be convenient terminology.
Or are you saying that to code with one's own sensibilities in mind is egotistical? I see no reason why this should be the case. As programmers we can make things work how we like. This gives us the potential to explore new or different ideas as we see fit. That kind of exploration isn't always the most productive thing to do from a practical standpoint, as a lot of effort goes into making any kind of real, useful application and it's kind of a shame to slap useful code with a UI that's so quirky as to be useless...
Yeah, in a way you are right. In this example it is easy to create a search field, which allows simple searches and regexp searches.
There are all kinds of problems with that idea - at least according to accepted GUI dogma. Basically, unless you bury that feature deep (and maybe, even if you do) then all users need to be educated about it.
Let's suppose Regexp mode kicks in when your search starts with a slash character. If a non-regexp-savvy user types in a search that happens to start with a slash, they'll wonder why it didn't work.
Let's suppose you have a pop-up list next to the search field that tells the user what search mode they're in. Non-savvy users might wonder what it does, or might just ignore it - and then if they someday wound up in regexp mode by accident they might not know why their searches are failing to produce the results they expect.
Finally, suppose you buried the option deep in your config dialogs - now non-savvy users are safe, adept users are annoy
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
yes, it was in 2000...
but times have changed... look at [k+x]ubuntu - perfect for the average user
the problems for linux adaption are
a) people don't even know it exists
b) it isn't preinstalled
c) people are scared away by MS FUD...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Bah. From the Gnome menu: What is "Text Editor"? What is "Image Editor"? What is "Image Viewer"? What is "Mail"? What is "Web Browser"? What is "Word Processor"? What is "Movie Player"? Damn, that's hard! Granted, you have a point, but it's not as if people aren't working with this. I find it more "intuitive" to click "Multimedia -> CD Writer" than to have an application menu full of nonsensical corporation names to go by.
There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty
OR
There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs with all the difficulties we know but they take them as "normal computer experience" and don't even think it could be any different.
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
Seriously guys come on. "Joe average user" isn't simply some idiot who knows absolutely nothing about computers. Three years ago I didn't know if there was a GUI for Linux, today I write my own bash scripts. Yes, there are some people out there who don't know a hard drive from a CD rom, but those people are NOT what is holding Linux back. Maybe 30% of users are THAT computer illiterate, but that is no reason why Linux could not absorb the remaining 70%, or 40% or 10% or whatever. Fact is you don't have to know how to program to use Linux. You don't have to be a CS major to use Linux. At the end of the day the limiting factor is simply that to use Linux you have to make an effort, and the majority of users will use whatever is handed to them. Yes, this includes "smart" people. Take my dad as an example. He has a PHD in physics, has been doing "programing" back since when it was down to punching holes into paper cards, and he knows multiple programing languages and still use them in his research. Surely such a computer literate person would be using a *nix box? Not quite. I doubt he would even know how to use "ls". It clearly isn't because he isn't smart enough, its just that:
a) It requires effort to learn something new
b) Every machine he has ever bought came with Windows
c) He is ignorant about the advantages of Linux
That is all there is to it. You give "joe average", or in the above case a Physics PHD, a computer with Windows, Mac OS, BSD Unix, Linux, Solaris, whatever, he will use it because it is what he has. The vast majority of users won't bother switching operating system because it takes effort. I sincerely believe Linux is as good, if not better, than windows, but that is unfortunately not enough. If people are to switch at a rapid rate it needs to be a HUGE incentive to do so. You need to overcome people's laziness of learning new things. This is not achieved by being "just as good". It is achieved by being revolutionary and orders of magnitude superior. Linux is getting there, and people are switching. The myth that 99% of PC users are made out of "joe average" who is barely able to breathe on his own is just not accurate. I'd say that very many, if not a majority, of windows users could easily learn to use Linux. They just don't know about it, can't be arsed to switch, or are required to use Windows due to software they don't want to be without ( games being a big one ).
This post compares interfaces, at some point "Gnome Vs. KDE" has to turn into a real discussion because there IS a problem.
My personal opinion is that currently Ubuntu with Gnome is the "Face" of Linux on the desktop, and it is very lacking for a lot of users. When people see problems with Ubuntu it reflects badly on Linux, in some cases because of Gnome itself, and sometimes because of things Ubuntu did. This is not an attack on Ubuntu, I like Ubuntu and the project is a good thing for Linux, I have used each Ubuntu release extensively and I am very familiar with them, but there are other distributions, and there are absolutely other desktop environments that are more useful for most users.
There is a huge difference in functionality and capability between Gnome and KDE. In some cases Gnome drops below the bare minimum especially with system management, while KDE is disorganized and complicated but offers more functionality and configuration options, both in the interface and the system itself.
One thing that I do know, Ubuntu has created virtually separate distributions with Ubuntu and Kubuntu. And even though the backend repository is the same, there are 2 different CDs with redundant packages, this is definitely a big problem.
As an example of what would be preferable, the OpenSuSE system offers a choice during the installation and describes each desktop environment. There is also a good opportunity with Dell, they could offer both of them on first boot since there is no space premium.
People's computers already have Windows, why would they bother changing it?
Out of all the "regular" users I know, they pretty much use all the software they got on their computer when they bought it, and never install anything else. When their computer eventually grinds to a halt (from either a bloated registry or tons of spyware), they'll either buy a new computer, or pay for a $500 "upgrade" to fix it.
As far as most people know, this is just how computers work. They've heard of Linux, but really aren't interested in it because what they have now (e.g. the Windows that came with the computer) is good enough for them.
Electronics design software (Eagle Cad is the ONLY ONE and it's not that good)
Their recent position on DRM makes Cadsoft unacceptable.
Mentor Graphics offers E-CAD for Linux
Stuart Brorson et al will be so disappointed that all his work has gone unnoticed.
I'm sure Jean-Pierre Charras et al will be dejected as well.
Neither of these suites has a stratospheric price tag. (Both are, in fact, gratis and libre.)
gewg_
Ask your computer using (non-techie) Mother/sister/brother what's important:
2 1033.aspx, and Toolkit 5.x http://www.iclub.com/products/tk5.asp
1) No hassle
2) Use **exactly** the same apps as everyone else, pre-installed
3) Cost - under $200 every 3 years
4) Quicken!!!! (the current version, not a 5 yro version)
5) Ms-Office (Open Office doesn't support all the XLS macros)
6) All the apps I want aren't pre-installed.
Seriously, users don't want to be bothered with loading apps and hunting for an app that is the same as what everyone else uses. I guess wine is a good step, but even I with 20+ years C/C++, networking, and architecture - find having Windows is just **easier**. My laptop is windows. My desktops are not.
Notice that security wasn't in the list? Virus, spyware, firewalls aren't mentioned. Picture their face - "why does it have to be so hard?" they ask.
My list of apps mandatory apps: Quicken http://quicken.intuit.com/, Visio http://office.microsoft.com/visio, XLS http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/FX1004876
Besides firefox, thunderbird, VLC http://www.videolan.org/vlc/, videoredo http://www.videoredo.com/, MovieManager http://freshmeat.net/projects/xmm/, Putty http://freshmeat.net/projects/putty/
the real reason lies here. http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
I find I can do just about everything I need to do on a Windows machine easily and without problems. Does Windows crash more often than it should? Sure. I appreciate the fact that Linux is far more malleable and stable than Windows, and can be tailored to the users' exact needs on demand. I've used the Ubuntu and Knoppix Live CD's, and even installed them under VMware, and have been pleasantly surprised...at first. After the initial "gee whiz, this thing does a lot" phase, I find I can re-use my old adage about full-function SLR cameras: "the more you can do, the more you have to do. I found myself at points completely baffled as to how to proceed with a procedure, and searched online for answers. I often found that solutions entailed invoking the terminal to input (to me) extremely cryptic command strings without understanding what they were or what they did. I'd really rather not have to wade through a book the shape of a cinder block to figure this out.
I understand that this is a normal migration issue, but with Linux of whatever flavor, it seems more onerous than Windows. I do sometimes have to open a CMD session in Windows, but very, very infrequently. Nearly everything can be done in the GUI. I think the one thing that keeps me from migrating is the reliance on the terminal to perform many functions (yes, I realize that this is one of the things that also makes Linux extremely powerful and flexible). I wish there would be more of an effort to transcribe more terminal functions, more intuitively, to GUI. That, more than anything, would help me migrate to Linux.
NT was in development in the mid 80s -- I remember MS developers talking on BIX (in very general terms) about what they were doing with it in the mid 80s. 85 or 86 I think, it could have been 87 but definitely no later. That was the first time I ever saw the name "NT".
If you want to point to 91 as when Linux got started (beginning of development) then you'll have to point to the beginning of development of NT as the analogous timeframe. Also keep in mind that NT/OS2 was built upon DOS, they weren't starting from scratch. Linux did start from scratch (at least the kernel did.) Linus had APIs he had to match, and methodology, but no code. Other parts of a Linux "system" are in fact older.
In Ubuntu, Synaptic package manager is a fine way to install programs. It has a list that updates automatically, and is chocked full of apps that are all free and at your fingertips. The trouble comes when you need something thats not on the "list". Why will synaptic package manager not handle manually downloaded packages properly? I am not a Linux n00b. I am very comfortable with the command line. I understand repositories. I don't see why an application called package manager cannot consistently work with manually downloaded applications, or not work because of some obscure dependency or need of something from a particular repository. I won't get into the fact that Linux has no click and install scheme like .exe.
Crisis is the rule, not the exception.
Dell is supposed to start selling PCs with Ubuntu preinstalled. I've been installing Linux on systems since the days of Redhat 8 (Ubuntu, Linspire, Mandrake, SUSE), and never had an problems recognizing hardware. The only PITA was getting 3d video to work, but that has often been a PITA in Windows too.
My old SUSE box fried, and I need a new one. Dell is supposed to start selling Ubuntu PCs tomorrow and I plan to get one.
All you slashdotters that are planning to get a new Linux PC soon, get a Dell. Even if you don't plan to run the installed Ubuntu distro, you'll know the hardware will work with your favorite. Dell is very serious about this. I have talked with their sales and tech support. An employee posted AC on the article yesterday, saying they needed to sell 20,000 units to consider it viable (actualy 19,999 after I place my order). If they are successful, you will find a lot of hardware manufacturers will listen and release "Tux compatible" hardware and drivers (or open source specs).
I have had 3 Dell systems over the last 4 years and haven't had a single h/w problem with any of them. Meanwhile, my whitebox fried after less than 2 years.
"Dell recommends Ubuntu Feisty Fawn"
"Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
Auto package for happy pinguin ....
http://autopackage.org/
The fact is that installing from source is a really bad thing. Not that it don't work or it's difficult. But but having file spreaded everywhere is not a good thing. So then package is really great...
One of the thing that would be great is... having the source archive and open it with let say synaptic. then synaptic would find the needed dependencies so it should work and make the sources in a temp directory.
Then when it's done, synpatic do something like make install to install the file in a directory so he would be able to create a package for it. and install it cleanly. And finally putting every sources to trash except the archive.
Then you have something that in drag and drop would build/install a package from source
and having autopackage file for commercial binaries is a damn great idea. It's better than using the ugly .sh script....
Linux has too many choices. Redhat, fedora, ubuntu, Gentoo, slackware, debian, knoppix, etc. As if that wasn't enough, there's desktop, server, development, office profiles for installation. The list goes on. Same applies to the software and the packages.
./configure options, an average user would be very easily put off by the enormous flexibility and power given to the user by the Linux distros. Not everyone can become a successful CEO. Similarly, not everyone can make use of this power and flexibility. Most don't even *want* such power. Most users wouldn't wanna go through all this pain to install Linux just to be able to login to Gmail or post messages on Orkut and listen to MP3s.
Too many choices often lead to confusion and people would rather stay away from it.
Also, if I want to install some software on Linux, there's just too many places I can get it from. Then it has to match with my version of the libraries. Then my installation must have its dozen odd dependencies or installation fails. Don't even get me started on "oh, its simple, just compile your own version". With the zillion
These are now the ONLY reasons I don't run 100% Linux boxes...
Gotta get my game on with BF2, CoH and the like.
We need developers writing games for Linux... Heck we have just as high market penetration as the Mac!!!
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
The corporate desktop market will go the way of the home market, primarily because that is what everyone will be familiar with. The home market goes the way of the power user, because home users form a circle around a power user/early adopter in the same way that everyone knows an auto mechanic. Power Users go for GAMES. Their is a limit on what people will pay for necessities, but they will spend a lot more on entertainment and luxuries.
I am forgoing the use of my moderator points on this topic because I want to express again that the dominant factor driving home desktop adoption are GAMES!!! A spreadsheet is a spreadsheet; a word processor is a word processor - if you can get passionate about excel or word - you are fucking pathetic. Getting passionate about golf, football or wow (and of course music) - that is something real people do.
Here we go again.
People install linux for one of two reasons:
a) to really learn how a computer works, inside and out. and
b) to have a reliable headless server that you can whip like a mule and it still keeps running.
Many people start at (a) and graduate to (b) (myself included). Some start at (a), get interested, go to school for computer science, and get good jobs. Others start at (b) and wonder what they missed.
The fact is, neither (a) nor (b) have anything at all to do with (c), which is "to have a user friendly operating system". People pay for user friendly systems that have gone through thousands of hours of q/a in thousands of different environments in thousands of different use cases. If you ain't paying for it, you just don't get it. Not free as in beer, remember people?
Therefore, anyone who isn't willing to pay for linux (usually in the form of time), will not use it. My linux server runs like a champ, on free hardware, using gratuit software, but I certainly pay for it every single time I run apt-get. Simple as that.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
I may have missed your reasoning on this, but why the avoidance of non-Ubuntu-sanctioned software?
All it really means is that the Ubuntu teams haven't cleared FireFox 2.0 as “fully integrated” for Ubuntu distro's.
Does that mean it's unavailable? No.
Running Kubuntu Feisty with FireFox 2.0.0.3. I guess it's available, and I guess it's working.
If there's an argument to make, it's for the refinement of package delivery and interoperability of inter-distro packaging schemes. Just because it's a non-Ubuntu package doesn't mean it doesn't run on Ubuntu. (That's just sooo Windows-boxed thinking!)
Seriously... snap out of it.
When you're using Windows, you wouldn't go out and buy non-Windows software... 'coz it won't work. We all know that.
If you're using Ubuntu, you're using Linux. If you're using Mandriva, you're using Linux. If you're using Red Hat, you're using Linux.
If any given program offers a Linux package, there's probably a way to install and use it on your type of Linux.
If you're stuck on how to do it, keep asking and you will receive an answer.
Besides, Dapper is sooo 2005. Get Feisty!
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
So, when Vista came out, I decided to try out Linux again, just for that eventuality that the only supported OS over in Windows-land was too crappy to bother with. I'd tried Linux before, and while I really like certain things about it, there were just enough annoyances that using it was just not worth it. Now, I will say this: it's gotten much better. In fact, after a bit of tweaking, I've actually gotten it to the point where I can use it and only occasionally complain - and having a full-on, nicely-supported cli is really, really cool. Nonetheless, here are just a few things I've had to deal with:
1. Figuring out where, scattered throughout the OS, various settings I really wanted to set were. Yes, the OS is amazingly configurable, but most of that possibility is hidden in plain view, until you know exactly what you're looking for, and what to do with it. 2. Keys on the keyboard that aren't mapped to anything, without a fair amount of work. Or, keys such as the start menu key, that are mapped, but require a bit of jiggling to do anything useful. Or, like
3. Support for things like wireless cards. Well-known fact, linux doesn't know what to do with them most of the time.
4. The fact that if you ask for help, you're frustrated by the issue that each distro does things just a bit differently. So someone'll say, well, you'll need to fix [x], maybe. There might be a config file here, or here, or maybe over there... or it might be called something different. You might want to do this to it, or maybe that instead.
And of course, then there's all the programs (say... any game ever) that people will want to run, that don't. Of course, that's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, since if a large number of people do start using linux, more ports will be made. And I recognize that a lot of the problems are just at the window manager level, that linux *itself* is fully complete, not buggy at all, and really quite powerful. But people, even geeks like myself, like having a gui sometimes, and like it intuitive and not buggy.
And yes - I am, in fact, posting from linux right now. It's still good to get in the habit of using it.
I tried a Ubuntu live CD (both 6.06 and 7.03) on my (aging) laptop some time ago. After the splash screen, just showed an undeline cursor, nothing else. That's not usefull.
As a start tu use Linux on my desktop, I installed and tried OpenOffice. I converted one for the Excel spreadsheets I had. This took 2 hours and the resulting savefile was several 100's MB large. The Excelfile is just 100 kB. That's not usefull. Starting this spreadsheet from scratch (with all formula's and graphs) is a big task, especially since OpenOffice has a learning curve.
On top of that, I play games that use DirectX. And I believe a) that's not available on Linux and b) these games aren't even available for Linux so the have to be run in Wine. I doubt that will work.
So Linux just doen't cut it for me. I'm very happy with other FOSS like Firefox and Thunderbird (to name the obvious), but not as an OS.
Maybe I'm out of touch with the world, but it looks like the average computer user lacks a basic formation that was very common some time ago.
I remember my first classes about PC's in 1991 (ms-dos and stuff) and along me, were housewives, children, etc. they didn't have much of a trouble to understand some basic concepts and some (complex?) tasks like wiriting their own batch scripts. Today the average user I find strugles in the edge of understanding the concept of filesystem tree or directories.
A lot of progress has been made on interfaces and abstractions, but these abstractions have taken away the oportunity for the average user to understand what I still believe are basic concepts in operating ANY computer with ANY operating system or at least the most common ones.
Linux as any other unixes just happens to have a design and work phylosophy very close to these basic concepts, Should every OS evolve into a MAC OS? into a windows? just because average joe can't read? or use his computer as if it was his home stereo or his toaster? I don't think so.
Basically the OS market is one that is incredibly difficult to survive in. Microsoft pretty much owns the whole show and has entrenched itself in. Apple for a long time was the chosen token competitor but I doubt that they would survive if they hadn't built their niche Before Windows 95 came around and had not really cornered the DTP industry very early on. They are doing OK at the moment but I can remember a time when they were all but dead.
Apart from Apple there are no proprietory compeditors to Microsoft in the desktop operating system market. That in itself speaks volumes. Linux survives because for a long time Linux developers *were* the users - quite simply Linux did not and still does not need Support from Hardware Manufacturers, ISP and regular users. If it did it would be dead by now. It does however need them to grow beyond a certain point and find mainstream acceptance...
This becomes a chicken and egg problem - Hardware manufacturers and ISPs are not going to want to support linux until there are a critical mass of users and the users are not going to want linux until it works on their hardware perfectly and all their favourite applications are available.
No, An Idiot has a below "average" IQ, you have no idea what you are talking about. It is quantified, as is an Imbecile, Moron, but obsolete. http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassificat
Frankly, I can claim you are an idiot for not being able to see things as I see them.
Yes you CAN claim that, just as I can claim you are a Jolly Green Giant, what is your point? Your claim would be wrong, see above link!
I'm an IT manager. People are constantly assuming I think they are idiots (as most IT guys seem to) because they don't know or understand "X." ("X" does not refer to the window environment, it's a variable meaning whatever we're talking about at the time.) Once in a while, I have to break it down the way I'm breaking it down now:
As an competent IT Manager, a role that you seemed to need to share, you would noy have used "X", and then qualify it. Why not use "var" or "foo" or "bar"? Are you assuming they are assumming (you use the word "seem")?
Idiocy is a relatative term and a matter of perspective.
Not again with this, see the link.
I know my areas pretty well though I readily admit there are areas I have yet to study and understand.
Is there any one person in the world that knows every area "pretty well"?
The people I work with seem to know their own areas pretty well. But since I don't attempt to dabble in their realm quite so much, I don't run afowl of being "an idiot" in their view.
Even on
Yes. The average person is "an idiot." Yes.
Then WHAT IS AVERAGE!! Again with this, go directly to link, do not pass go, do not collect 200 daollars.
A large group of people's VCRs blick "12:00." But I find that people have been conditioned to believe the knowledge and understanding is a burden and so people go well out of their way to avoid learning or experiencing anything that might lead to learning something. (I think this somehow goes back to our experiences with public education...)
Oh I am confuddled with this one. Are you tring to say that public education is responsible for the start time programmed into a "large group of VCRs"
But to include OSX into the discussion as you have, that is precisely why Apple has the reputation it has. "Happy Stupid People" is the image of the Mac user for good reason. "The For Dummies" series of books is so wildly successful because of the same fact. Knowledge is indimidating. If somehow a person can retain his "stupidity" while learning something new, then you have your hook. "Easy" means stupid people can use it.
Are you trying to say that Knowledge is indimidating, or learning is indimidating?
And it's not so much that Linux doesn't mean easy... there is much distance for Linux to travel before we even get to that point in the discussion. Right now, "MSWindows" and "Computer" are essentially the same thing to people because of the monopoly Microsoft maintains. Once people see alternatives as viable, then we can talk about "Easy to use." In my mind, the best path for Linux adoption by the masses, you must first promote Apple and Mac OSX. Then, when people see and use a single viable alternative, then they will also be open to recognizing a third. But at the moment, seeing even one alternative is a strain on their feeble minds.
Feeble minds? What happened to perspective?
I have been building PC's for Ordinary People since the first 286's without HDD's and with memory measured in Kilobytes, I have installed many different operating systems and done a little programing, but I do not claim to be Guru or even one of the sharpest tools in the box, I use a dual boot with Suse 10.1 and XP. I have been using Linux & Windows through many reincarnations & I love the philosophy behind Linux and would prefer to use only Linux, but as has been pointed out by many other folks here, it's just not practical or possible, because I simply don't have the time, energy or required level of technical expertise to struggle with Linux, and sadly most ordinary (non Geek) folks who form the vast majority of the general public are the same. They either use computers at work; in which case they often don't want to know about computers at home, or like the majority of my customers; they use their machines for leisure purposes, including Video, Photography, Music, Games, Writing letters or doing their Family Trees and other more personalised tasks. The problem is not one of these people (except myself) in all of the years I have been building and looking after them (Software too) has ever had any interest whatsoever in the Operating System or how it works, they just want to Print their Birthday cards & play Mahjong or Patience (sigh) and not have to even think about whether they have the correct Dynamic Library Link files installed, let alone struggling with dependencies! I also agree with many other posters here about the obscurity of Names in Linux but by far the worst problem is the muddy waters of the Linux OS, I have dished out lots of free Live CD's for Ubuntu, Mepis, Suse and numerous others to try and persuade people to at least take a look but only one person (aged 67) has so far gone as far as installing a Dual and he often spends hours on the telephone simply trying to find out how to install "Google Earth" for example; I suspect most people reading this will be muttering 'That is so simple, you just ....' but for a huge portion of the population it's not simple, or at least not as simple as 'click Install.exe'. Linux users tend to be elitist and obscure with advice to Newbies, responses ranging from pained condescending tolerance to open hostility, and oh dear ; the in fighting and flame wars! Linux users are very passionate about their OS's and will fight to the death over who has the best package manager ! whereas any of my Windoze users just don't know or even remotely care for that matter; 'which version of Explorer' or anything else they are using, so long as it works and doesn't bother them with anything.
I have Suse 10.1 on an Athlon 64 machine with a Rad X850XT card and recently ran into the, No Flash 64bit Driver Plugin problem, (no sound on youtube etc) my system was in a mess with some 32bit libraries, some 64 and many patches and fixes to make things work (not very well), so I decided to forgo the advantages of 64bit for the usability of 32 and reinstall my OS in pure 32bit, I had an awful lot of problems with Suse package managment and was highly suspicious of this new Faustian agreement between Novel and M$, so I had a look around and liked the aura of Debian (Apt in particular), so I aquired the latest stable Etch Distro and proceeded to install, I arrived at the final stage of the install, the PC re-started, failed to recognise my Graphics Card correctly or even which port it was using, and defaulted to the Command Prompt, I spent about four hours trying to find out whether anyone else had hit this problem then decided to file a bug report, but the procedure would have taken up another hour or two and there were no guarantees I would find any answers, so I reluctantly cleaned Debian off and re-installed Suse! I simply can not afford the down time to try and sort it out. The question is what would your average Joe have done ? Answer, realised they were in too deep at the first error, and flew back to the welcoming arms of M$.
Another problem with the Distro's
Yes, it is true. The most people are willing the friendly OS. That is something Linux is suffering so many years. This is the thumb rule of windows and average user expect from Linux at least the Windows friendliness. The IT users are BIG exception of what hey are looking from an OS. So, Windows is prepared for dummies as a rule, and was moved to professional and servers business. Linux is moving against that way - from server business to mass end user market. http://inews.110mb.com/
For all of my living memory (I am 30), when people have solicited my opinion as to why Linux and Apple OSes have failed to capture a majority market share in spite of their alleged superiority, I have given one answer: games. Dads don't install Linux, because Junior won't shut up about how he needs Windows to play games. Most people would not choose an OS based on technical strengths, because how it can be used is what really counts.
Absolutely, but all examples and all problems you mentioned here are in no way specific for Linux. They are not even specific for free or open source software in general.
I'm talking about how Linux as an operating platform - so I must include the software that's available for and commonly used on Linux as part of the definition of the "Platform". After all, Linux itself is not and never will be "in touch with the average user". It's a technical tool with a very specific set of jobs to perform. So when we talk about "Linux" being made friendly to "average users" what we're really talking about is packaging and bundled software.
This comes a bit closer of what I meant. Of course I did not mean programs your or me write for ourselves, but it could be seen as a bit egoistical to demand that others write programs for us advanced (or adept) users and ignoring the rest.
Well, the theory is that technically-minded people are writing all the software out there, and some of them may see it my way - and we can effectively choose to write software for ourselves, as a collective group, rather than writing the software for other people to use in an effort to advocate Linux. It's true that different development groups could pursue both goals simultaneously - but that isn't happening at present.
I really cannot agree to you pessimistic view. I am with Linux since some 0.9.x kernel and still I don't think something has taken away from me.
That's not the point. Nothing's been taken away but in some sense neither has much been added. There's been lots of kernel development, of course, and new programming languages, better libraries and daemons, and so on - but not a lot of thought put into making all that work nicely together. And simultaneously, most of the GUI development is being done as a kind of veneer over this layer - not really an extension of the system that it runs on, but a mechanism that serves to hide the underlying system, or provide abstractions that aren't applicable outside of the GUI.
I have seen that Linux becomes more and more end-user friendly, but I have yet to see that this has any negative effect for me as tech-geek.
Not the point. The point is not that development in that direction harms adept users - just that I feel like we're missing out on some potential. We could be designing this system for ourselves, and coming up with something really beautiful as a result. Instead all serious UI work on Linux is geared toward "average users".
I am not 100% sure if this is not a contradiction to your previous statements. A consensus how things should work is IMHO only for noobs necessary. For your adept user I see it more as a hindrance. An adept user should be able to experiment with a wide field of concepts and ideas. I do write software for myself. Some of my GUIs are 100% adapted to my personal needs and might be a bit peculiar to anyone else. I like my software the way it is and I give a **** how others might think it should work.
I wouldn't say it's a contradiction, but I certainly don't regard it as a trivial problem either. I see the creation of operating environments for self-proclaimed adept users as a largely unexplored field, and these kinds of users also tend to have eccentric or very particular tastes. How do you boil that down to some common conventions without tramping on all that? That is a problem, but I think exploring that is a lot more interesting than catering to t
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Someone I know thinks an internet search engine and internet explorer are one and the same. It took a while for me to explain he could use any search engine through IE.
How do you think he will cope with linux kernels, configuring modelines so he can get a decent resolution or even using synaptic?
So usually I don't go to those forums. I find other, nicer ones, because I understand that it is just a small percent of the population who are that small-minded and mean. The rest are just probably having a bad day.
THUD~*