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.'"
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.
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
Idiocy is a matter of perspective.
Frankly, I can claim you are an idiot for not being able to see things as I see them. 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:
Idiocy is a relatative term and a matter of perspective. I know my areas pretty well though I readily admit there are areas I have yet to study and understand. 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.
Yes. The average person is "an idiot." Yes. 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...)
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.
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.
I can't refute that 'the linux project' has no human interface designers. Now Linux distros and projects that need human interface designers employ them.
No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I could go on and on about how modern distros like Ubuntu 'just work.'
When my wife installed our new scanner on her computer, she didn't plug in a scanner, put a CD in and click next, next... She just plugged it in, and *poof* it just worked. All necessary software and drivers were already installed by default. Let me know when Windows can do that, k?
When my wife installed her new digital camera on her computer, she didn't plug install any software, any drivers, nothin'. She just plugged it in and up came the pictures. *poof*. It just worked
My wife wanted Inkscape. She just installed it via 'Add/Remove Programs'. She didn't go to a web site and try to figure out what to do with 'setup.zip'.
What have I done to fix her computer since installing Ubuntu 6.06 about a year ago? Nothing.
Mod parent troll.
My blog
Undeservedly. My non-geek wife gets by on Linux just fine without much help from me at all.
...": well, they don't. You, the geek who doesn't understand why people won't switch to Software Freedom, are asking them to switch FROM Windows TO a Linux distro. So it is entirely understandable to expect that the switchover process be easy, even if the current dominant market participant doesn't make it easy to switch to them.
Sure. If someone had gone through all the work of setting up Ubuntu for me, I'd probably be a happy user right now. Unfortunately, I didn't have that luxury. While someone else will be along shortly to link you to my story, here's the car analogy of what happened.
And before you say, "but if people had to install Windows
[interface designers] On the kernel? No. Kernels need human interface designers like Alaskan Eskimos need air conditioners. On GNOME and KDE? Yes, there are several professional human interface designers working on GNOME and KDE.
Unfortunately, there is more to the interface than the OS GUI, and on that, the GP was entirely correct: there is ZERO thought on interface design. On my Ubuntu install, if I -- someone with no professional training in user interfaced design (UID) -- had tested the install process once before release, I would have been able to recommend significant changes. When I tried to install Ubuntu, my first bootup led to a GRUB error that locked me out of all OSes. I know you're going to try to blame that on GRUB, but it was completely avoidable.
First, a UIDer should have thought for ten seconds and said, "wait, if GRUB errors can lock someone out of the OS, how can we mitigate this failure mode?" Since it (based on my experience in the Ubuntu forums) suddenly made the Live CD absolutely necessary, then the website should have been changed to classify the Live CD as being a "necessary download", since you NEED it for troubleshooting if anything goes wrong. Second, a UIDer should have noted that GRUB is not the only way to go, and some users would be okay with loading Ubuntu simply by telling the computer to boot from a CD so at least they can still load Windows. Users should be informed of this at the bootloader setup stage rather than being told, outright, that GRUB is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Third, since my problem (it later turned out) stemmed from using too large a harddrive, and Ubuntu had to know the size of my goddamn harddrive, there should have been some kind of flag -- either tell the user not to install, or use a bootloader that can handle that size. All of those things are under control of the Ubuntu interface designers, so no, you can't just pin this on GRUB.
Remember, being locked out of all OSes is REALLY SERIOUS. It means that the user can't then access the "massive Linux community" or burn new CDs without going far out of his way. The design process reveals an utter failure to recognize failure modes and adequately mitigate them.
And, based on experience, some wiseass is going to pointout how now, finally, they do require Live CD download with the install CD. But the point is that the design process at some point was such that it let such an abysmal failure through. A failure that kept me, a reasonably computer savvy user from switching. Remember, I did my due diligence: I read the download site. I set aside a large block of time for the install. I checked that the CD was burned properly. I evaluated alternate distros. I even bought a third hard drive so the Linux partition could be isolated. And STILL I got ****ed by piss-poor design.
So I tell Linux fans: a) You can put serious effort into making Linux accessible to newbies, and complain when they don't switch, or b) You can resign Linux to being a geek's OS but understand why its market share sucks for home users. But you can't have it both ways
Apology to Ubuntu forum.