Slashdot Mirror


Living Free With Linux, Round 2

bsk_cw writes "About a month ago, in Living free with Linux: 2 weeks without Windows, Preston Gralla wrote about what life was like for a long-time Windows user trying to live with Linux. His main problems came when he tried to install or update software. Loads of people responded with advice — so he went back and tried again. Here's what he learned, and what did and didn't work for him."

20 of 936 comments (clear)

  1. Lol by Nursie · · Score: 5, Funny

    (I won't cover apt in this piece, because it's simply too confusing for newbies; even many experienced Linux experts stay away from it.)

    Lol wat?

    apt-cache search

    apt-get install

    Yup, my head just exploded from the complexity.

    1. Re:Lol by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, pretty bizarre that a two word command causes so much vexation. Most people can handle a command line interface to, for instance, their dog. "Rover, fetch" "Rover, sit" etc. Is "apt-get install" really that much different?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Lol by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "That's exactly what Linux needs."

      I disagree. What it needs is people who can write for clueless users. NOT people who are actually totally clueless writing about it.

      We seem to have the latter here.

    3. Re:Lol by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A beginner also doesn't know what to do when setup.exe pops up a dialog box saying 'Installshield Error: -51'. Actually, most advanced users don't either, come to think of it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Lol by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But not everyone WANTS to learn how to use apt. Most people want to turn it on, click an icon, and have something install. Not have to add a repository, update the package listings, install it, etc.

      Writing for a clueless user and telling them how to do that only works for non-lazy clueless users. Which are somewhat rare. Most clueless people are clueless from laziness.

    5. Re:Lol by Captain+Spam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that a better comparison is if you named your dog "Farciot-Shake", "Sadi-RollOver", "Satyendra-Heel", or, in general, some combination of a name completely outside of your native culture and a verb which sounds like a command you've already given the dog.

      (note: obviously, I'm assuming an American English culture; substitute names alien to your culture to fill in the gaps if need be)

      Forget Debian/Ubuntu/etc. Then, ask yourself what an "apt" is. And why it has anything to do with installing programs. Then, still remembering that you're forgetting you know Debian/Ubuntu, ask why you need "install" at the end of "apt-get", which sounds like you're already asking the system to get the program you're asking for. Non-geeks don't care about the difference between "get" and "install", and the redundancy throws a wrench in their understanding.

      Same goes with "yum" (same situation as apt, minus the redundant verb). Same with "emerge" (which is on a system with far more baffling points for a non-geek). Same with "ports" or "portmanager" (while "manager" helps, the "ports" part of it can cause non-BSD geeks to puzzle over the new meaning). It's the sometimes strange, it-made-sense-at-the-time command line names that, at times, drive the laypersons away from the command line.

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    6. Re:Lol by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, if he's trying to review from a 'clueless user' perspective, he's certainly on track.

      You don't get it, do you?

      Adding a user through GST's "Users and Groups" is also the same thing as editing /etc/passwd, /etc/group and /etc/shadow. Guess which one a newbie end-user migrating from Windows is going to understand?

      Vim and Gedit also do the same thing (more or less). Guess which editor newbies have an easier time understanding?

      In fact, Brasero and cdrtools do the same thing. Brasero even calls cdrtools to do it's thing. How many newbie users migrating from windows are going to type 'man cdrecord'?

      Big hint: if the answer to all of these questions is not obvious to you, my friend, then you are decidedly not helping 2009 -- or any other year -- be the Year of Linux on the Desktop.

    7. Re:Lol by Sfing_ter · · Score: 5, Funny

      i proclaim the name of the new debian package manager - FUCK
      fuck this
      fuck install
      fuck remove
      fuck search

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
    8. Re:Lol by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try sitting someone inexperienced with computers in front of Synaptic, and sit someone else in front of the Apple App Store. Don't help them. See who figures out how to install a program first.

      There's an absolute night-and-day difference between a package manager, written by and for people who don't ever think outside the *nix box, and an App Store, written by design experts for people who have never installed a software program before. Claiming that a package manager is "more powerful" is utterly missing the point.

      You don't have to be a mechanic to put gas in your car. You don't have to be an electrician to plug in a lamp. You shouldn't have to be a CS major to install a program.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    9. Re:Lol by nschubach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm negating my moderation to reply to this...

      Command lines lack language intuitiveness. (If there is such a thing...) I deal with this with my designers when I write up an API for their work. If I want them to add content to the screen, do I have them type Screen.Load('mycontent.file') or Screen.Add(new File('myContent.file')? There are so many different ways to "say" something to a computer to make it do what you want. If it's in the GUI, the user can visually determine what button to click because the button is given to them. They don't have to guess to type "Yes", "Okay", "Continue", "Cancel", "Stop", "Abort" or several other verbs to describe how the program should proceed. They only have the choices available on the screen.

      when I go to the command line and I want to add a user, do I type:
      ADDUSER nschubach
      ADD USER nschubach
      ADD ID nschubach
      ADD LOGIN nschubach
      LOGIN ADD nschubach
      LOGINID ADD nschubach
      USER ADD nschubach
      USERADD nschubach

      If it was in the GUI, there would simply be a text field and a button. They likely wouldn't have to guess if it was called a Login ID, User ID, Active Directory ID, or any other. They would know that it was the field you enter the user id into. With a GUI you can group content to make it more intuitive as well. If you have a field called Client, is it the client ID or the client name? If you group that with Address, you can figure out that it's the client's name. If you had that in a command line, you'd have to first know to use "client" instead of "customer" or "user" and you'd have to use it in a way that the executable understands it.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    10. Re:Lol by Nursie · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. Download software you want to install.
            2. Drag said software to a main "Applications" folder marked with a big fat distinctive icon.
            3. Enjoy.

      or the linux way:
      1. Find the software you want to install
      2. apt-get (or GUI) install it
      3. enjoy

      Why put up with repositories, RPM files, dependency hell, etc..

      Spoken like someone that hasn't used linux in 5 years or more.

      Sacrilegious as it may be of me to say this Windows install packages are often less complicated to use than Linux RPM packages can be.

      When was the last time anyone using a recent distro and recent software touched an rpm? I played with an rpm recently because I Wanted to install a piece of software that hadn't been updated in a decade.

      What Linux needs, and this has been pointed out by more people than me, is a simple well thought out installation mechanism that is used by all Linux distributions.

      Why? The whole point of FOSS is that there isn't one "true" path. And which clueless home users are going to be installing software across multiple distributions anyway? In all liklihood they'll have Ubuntu, Fedora or one other distro and to them that will be linux. Or even "the computer".

      For GUI apps, which is what most of your "clueless and lazy" consumers are installing anyway, it is hard to beat the OS X concept of a drag-and-drop application-bundle for ease of use.

      It's already been beaten. Start up your software installer GUI, select a piece of software, click install. I believe in Apple terms that would be an "App Store" except they're all free.

      Seriously, get your knowledge up to date.

    11. Re:Lol by jshackney · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's a reason that Geek Squad and countless local techs are in business...

      So, I guess we need the Gnerd Hurd.

    12. Re:Lol by Deagol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, and I'd like a full-service gas station at every fracking corner so I'm not required to learn how to pump gas.

      The the hell is wrong with people?!? Not everyone in the 80's with PCs were early-adopter whiz-kids. You remember the 80s, right? The pre-GUI-centric days of the PC where people had to actually type in commands to get shit done? Where the hottest programs of the day were Lotus 123 and Wordstar and Wordperfect that required byzantine key combinations to do half the interesting stuff? If Granny could figure out Word Perfect 20 years ago while being a secretary at the local elementary school she sure as hell can deal with popping open an xterm and typing a few "apt-get" commands today.

      We see phrases today about people being more "technology savvy"? Give me a break. Pressing "Play" on the Blu-Ray player, being addicted to WoW, or running around like a pompous ass with a bluetooth phone dongle hanging from your ear at the 7-11 does not make people "savvy" at anything, except knowing how to fashionably piss away their money.

      An "apt-get" or "portage" one-liner or two typed into a command prompt is no more effort than going to a web site, finding the downloads page, clicking a button, and then running the installer with all its options to choose from and EULA to read. In fact, the typical command line package manager is LESS work for the end user.

      I've had it, man. I'm totally fed up. I've been rooting for the Linux underdog since the late 90s. No more. Linux just is what it is, which is a kick-ass operating system for the PC and various other devices. Chasing the "Year of the Desktop" is a fool's errand for Linux and other open source efforts. Come *ON* people, quit making excuses for the users. If Linux were the the only OS in the mass market, people would be doing wonderfully, just like in the 80s when MS-DOS was king. The truth is, people don't want it. Period. They like what they have (Windows mostly, with some OS-X sprinkled around), and fear change. At least Linux is gaining traction in the netbook market, where at least some people will inevitably cut their teeth on the OS and become set in their ways.

      There is simply no point in these articles, as all they do is highlight not only how lazy the end user has become, but how tech-oriented people not only expect, but condone, such laziness. It's really sad when you think about it. To hell with the lowest common denominator. Let them sink or swim on their own. They truly don't deserve the fruits of open source developers' labors unless they're willing to roll up their sleeves once in a while.

  2. One size fits all by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find these reviews of "converting to linux" a bit pointless really; they're only ever one persons' perspective on what a conversion is, of which I often find I can't relate to much of what they go through.

    I'd suggest if someone wants to do a "Linux conversion log" type write-up, they consider a target audience. In particular, i'd like to see:

    - The web-user; email, web, and IM (99% of reviews fall into this category)
    - The business user; Exchange, blackberry, important Office data (spreadsheet, word), Wifi, power-saving management, enterprise facilities
    - The multimedia user: MP3, iPod sync, games, DVD, video editing.

    That in my opinion makes up most computer users, and in particular most MacOS/Windows users...the target audience. Take a person from each category and see how they survive 2 weeks on Linux; that I'd be truly interested in.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
  3. Re:People don't run OSes, they run applications by Ninnle+Labs,+LLC · · Score: 5, Informative

    It will probably be the case this guy doesn't WANT to change from Photoshop to Gimp, from IE to FireFox, from AIM to Pidgin, to run Wine for WoW.

    No need to do so, just use CrossOver Linux and CrossOver Games.

  4. I did RTFA... by gillbates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And have to say that it is rather well balanced. But it also reminds me of something: I've been using Linux for more than a decade, and things to which I'm accustomed - like using the command line - are not at all intuitive to the Windows user.

    There is this tendency among Linux evangelists to try to "fix" a neophyte's problems rather than listening to what he's saying. While Linux has made large inroads in the desktop arena, at its heart it is UNIX, not Windows. One of the larger issues of Linux adoption is that Windows users have a mental model of computers which is Windows-specific:

    1. Typing is for documents, not the command line.
    2. Reading is for web pages, not system configuration.
    3. Configuration is about making choices, not thinking, and certainly not about knowing what hardware is installed in the machine.
    4. If it can't be installed with a few mouse clicks, it doesn't work. End of story.

    Making Linux ubiquitous on the desktop will be a matter of coming up with a simpler, more accessible mental model of a computer for the end user. It will not come about by fixing a particular problem with a particular distribution.

    The average computer user is an expert in something *other* than computers. They're not interested in learning the vagaries of hardware configuration or knowing about kernel dumps and command lines. They use a computer as a tool to *do something other than programming*. They want something easy to use, secure, and reliable. Windows comes through on the first part. Linux on the latter parts. However, security and reliability are a moot point if you can't use the computer in the first place. Hence, Windows gets chosen time and again, in spite of its flaws.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  5. The bitter irony by steveha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing he found hardest, the thing he singled out for special mention as the worst problem, was: installing new software.

    Eeek.

    That's what Linux distros, particularly Debian-based ones, do best! The package management is the best single feature of Debian and Ubuntu, light-years ahead of the situation in Windows.

    Now, he's not a troll and he's not an idiot. Which means that he has just helpfully identified something we should work on.

    His basic problem is that he is used to Windows, where things are done differently. Either Microsoft Office is installed or it isn't; and the only pieces of Office that you can see are large chunks like Word, Excel, etc. It was surprising and alarming to him when there were hundreds and hundreds of little packages with odd names. For example, the updater told him it would update "anachron -- cron-like program that doesn't go by time" and he didn't know what to make of that.

    In his Part 2 article, he recommends that you never update any package you don't understand. Eeek, again! What if there is a critical security update to DNS or something? He is unlikely to know what it is, so he will decline it. And he will be working very hard to go through the list and uncheck the update box for the vast majority of his packages.

    The correct policy is to have the updater pull from a trusted source, and just let it update. Trust the system.

    In all fairness, Windows has its share of similarly weird stuff. But they have done a much better job of wrapping it up to present to the user.

    When you run Windows Update, it won't give you anything called "anachron", but it will give you things like "hotfix 967363: A Windows Server 2008-based DHCP server does not register DNS records for earlier version DHCP clients that do not send option 81 to the DHCP server". But this will be labeled as a "critical" patch that you really need to take.

    Perhaps Ubuntu should have a popup on the update manager that gives newbies a quick overview of package management on Linux? Things are much better than the mess in Windows, so we need to make sure that newbies understand what's going on. When new users are confused, that should be treated as a bug, and fixed.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  6. Why the GUI? by macraig · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, it's more complicated than merely attracting "clueless" users: what about people like me who are anything but clueless but who have incredibly poor memories for certain things? It's a well understood fact that one of the values - if not THE value - of GUIs is the dramatic reduction in memorization and rote learning required to use such a system versus a CLI. I've been-there-done-that with CLIs, but for less than constant use I'm now forced to use cheat sheets and reference books, and that's a time-wasting pain.

    I first used Linux back in 1991/92 in a job capacity, so I was an early adopter. However, I have neurological issues that result in a very unreliable memory; as a result I've been obsessed my entire adult life with retaining "reference" materials. I also suspect that poor memory caused me to develop a compensatory advanced reasoning IQ: I am often able to reason things out on-the-fly when others are dependent upon memory and rote learning. Consequently I've also been obsessed with understanding how things tick, because the better I understand the system the better I can handle unexpected situations and reconstruct things I've forgotten.

    This is the primary reason why a Linux distro with a GUI and menu-item equivalents for CLI commands is important. GUIs are all about reducing the rote learning requirement. Why is rote learning so tightly bound to our perception of elite-ness? I suck at rote learning, but I can reason my way out of a black box when others dependent on memory will remain stuck inside. I shouldn't be penalized for that by my operating system.

    Gimme my GUI!

    1. Re:Why the GUI? by macraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why exactly does the GUI exist as a visual tool, then? What is the benefit of it that makes it so compelling for so many people? Perhaps you need to put away your man pages and THINK about it.

      There's another corollary benefit to GUIs beside what I mentioned above: they can tie visual memory to other symbolic memory. The two can be very separate and distinct. For instance, I will routinely forget the details of something I've read, but if I read it in a book I'll remember which opposing page contained it and even which column or paragraph it was in. In other words (no pun), I'll forget the words but remember its spatial location.

      A properly implemented GUI can use visual memory and reasoning to enhance other forms of memory. It's not all-or-nothing.

  7. Re:What is wrong with the Linux GUIs? by rantingkitten · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, I don't get it.

    In Windows, you want to install something? First you have to search the web for it, come up with dozens of results that may or may not be what you want. Of the ones that will do what you want, half of them are crippleware with only half the features, or come bundled with spyware, or is some kind of trial-only nonsense, or you have to pay for it.

    Once you find something that fits your needs, you download a completely untrusted executable from god-knows-where, and run it. Windows is all too happy to let even the most simple program install things in half a dozen different folders it has no business touching or creating. Then it'll clutter up your setup -- create new start menu folders that have nothing to do with anything (Start > Programs > Manufactuer > Developer > Program Name > Run program.exe ? WTF IS THAT?), a quicklaunch icon, a desktop shortcut, and helpfully installs yet another systray party favor to start on boot and hog memory for no reason.

    When all is said and done you have the program but unless you're really on top of things, your computer slows down under the weight of all the extraneous garbage and malware that comes from doing things this way. Which is why salespeople are always whining about how slow their 2ghz dual core setups are.

    Oh yeah, and each program will insist on having its own little update system, so pretty soon you've got forty seven different applications all bitching that they want to update individually.

    Woo! That's easy and convenient!

    Let's look at the complicated Linux way using Synaptic and Gnome. First, click "Add Programs". Type in a keyword or two to search the repository. Results come back with names and descriptions. Put a checkbox next to the one you want, click "install", and a few seconds later it's on your system, in a sane folder under "Applications", and didn't leave any horsebull behind afterwards. Full featured, no registration, no nagging. For free.

    Oh, and it'll update from a central update panel, along with everything else. One click to update everything at once.

    Man, that's so hard. Only a true IT God could ever master this process!

    --
    mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.