Slashdot Mirror
"What is Linux Missing?"
three55ml writes "This is an editorial I wrote noting a few points about what Linux has to do before it moves totally mainstream. It talks about both the small and the large issues currently slowing the widespread use of Linux."
The lad hasn't said anything new, but it's stuff that needs to be said again and agin until we get it right.
I'd like to take the complaint over font handling a step further. I agree that TrueType support should be part of the standard fontserver. Mandrake already does this, replacing xfs with xfstt, and unless there are license conflicts, other distros should follow suit.
But further hobbling things is the horror of installing and managing fonts under Linux, and under Unix in general.
More fonts, Postscript and TrueType alike, with their accompanying config file additions, should be packaged as relocatable noarch RPMs.
There should also be simple command-line tools and GNOME and KDE frontends for installing and inspecting not just these font RPMs, but also for one-step, jargonless, click-and-drool installation of arbitray Windows and (binhexed) Macintosh fonts and font bundles. Such tools should transparently perform all of the steps necessary to install such fonts under *nix, perhaps even creating the aforementioned font RPMs as an interim stage. Added bonus points if the same fonts were automatically made available to TeX, not because I think TeX is going to supplant word processors, but because it should be pushed hard as a Free Software answer to the Crystal Reports layout engine.
The article is pretty close to the point on many facets. I agree that Linux software needs to be "mainstreamed" I saw a copy of corel wordperfect 8 for linux at my local Best Buy (I bought it too even though I have the free version). but the biggest thing is not just software...
Hardware... almost everything on the shelves is Linux compatable except for the cheap junk.(Win products) but is there a linux sticker anywhere? no way! We hear of these companies saying they support linux, but they refuse to put a works with linux sticker on the box (Creative Labs... get that sticker on every box you dummies!)
But then linux isn't made for the general computer user. windows9x is great for the clueless... it's great for the un-knowing... it's geared for the person that has very little in their heads or very little desire/time to do more than push a button. Linux didnt become popular because it was effortless, it became popular with us because it is hard. ls -al is dang difficult to the windows user. they cannot understand keyboard commands (before you win-lovers start flaming... I support windows95/NT for 120 users at my office... they cannot understand anything that is more difficult than a doorknob. yes there are a few that have a clue but it is very few) Unix has been around for eon's longer than wondows/dos even was a fleeting idea. Unix was "shunned" for being complex. Dos came around... it too was "shunned" for being complex! Only the geeks had 8088 or a 80286 (-rich geeks) computer at home, and everyone else said "oh god no! no pc for me! I cant even set my new-fangled clock on the VCR!"
well now it's 1999... and these same sheep cant set their VCR clock, but they think they need a computer!
I dont want them using linux. Actually, the best thing for linux is to stay "fringe" or in the "power user" domain.. it will become de-facto in business (It's replaced most of my servers) because it can be made to easily run what the sales dept., accounting, etc... needs and will keep the "I know something about computers" people from screwing it up! A linux box properly configured for business is 100% bullitproof, idiot proof, and makes an admin's job almost trivial.
So please linux, dont go mainstream... stay in the realm of power hobbiests, and business users.
Leave the fodder of the "home user" to Microsoft.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I don't understand all these arguments for more applications. If anything, Linux has too many applications! For example:
Doing a search for a Linux ICQ client on Freshmeat produces (get ready) 30 matches! That's right, there are 30 seperate ICQ clients for Linux. They are all open-source, and many have all the usefull features, but people, DO WE REALLY NEED 30 OF THEM?
The linux kernel programming community is a pretty loosely knit bazaar--a lot of programmers, but at least they have a single focus. There aren't 30 versions of the kernel!
Although the application programming community also has alot of programmers, they are all duplicating each other's work!
We don't need more applications... We need better applications. Instead of saying, "I want to write my own web browser," why not contribute to Mozilla instead? Instead of writing "Yet Another MP3 Player," contribute code to one of the more established ones.
________________________________
The real difference between the Windows wrap-the-user-in-a-warm-fuzzy-GUI paradigm and the Linux I-can-do-it-myself-thank-you paradigm is quite simple when you examine it. It is the tension between two different sets of design criteria. On the one hand, Windows is designed to be appealing to new and occasional users. It is the even-grandma-can-use-it principle. It is not a bad idea.
On the other hand, Linux and open source in general is designed to be an environment that empowers programmers. We are the ultimate power users. We want control of everything we can see. And we have the training and skills to see a lot and know what we could do with it. Open source exposes the interfaces to any programmer or user who wants to see them. Communication protocols and file formats are documented and often come from standards. Those standards and documentation are usually available for free. That is how open source attracts programmer/users who may be potential contributers. It is not something we can abandon, or want to.
As an example, there is nothing that frustrates me more when using a piece of software than when a common task requires a a lengthy sequence of mouse clicks, and there is nothing I can do to put it on the keyboard or shorten it. I don't care how obvious the icons and menu items are when I have to click six times to accomplish something that I do a hundred time a day.
The reason for this difference in preferences and usage styles is a difference in usage patterns. Programmers tend to be deep users of a few tools. We know their features completely. And we want to tailor them to our exact needs. What could be better than open source for that. It is a paradigm that can let us find even a couple dozen people scattered around the globe who want some very low demand feature. And it allows us to collaborate to build it.
Does my mother want to be able to optimize her usage this way? No. She wants to finish placing an order at an e-commerce web site so that she can go play golf. She doesn't use any given piece of software often enough to make a long learning curve worthwhile to her.
Most of the Windows vs. Linux flaming over the years has boiled down to "Your interface sucks and if you try to make me switch you're an idiot." It leaves out the most important phrase: "for my usage pattern". The real fight should be to reach a point where those of use whose productivity profits from using Linux can use it, at home, at work, with any server on the net we want to reach, period. Windows and the software under it doesn't give me what I need to make my computing experience pleasant and productive because it limits the control I can exercise with the considerable knowledge I bring to it. On the other hand, Linux is limiting to people who don't have the knowledge to leverage and never want to spend the time to acquire it.
Can one environment satisfy both camps? Can you simultaneously expose interfaces to ann potential developers and programmer/power users while hiding those interfaces from Grandma? I think it can be done, but only if the importance of both user communities is balanced. If we ever bury the interfaces so deep that new geeks can never get to them, we will lose the open source collaboration and the software will stagnate. If we don't make it possible to use the system without seeing them, we are limited in the potential audience. We can do both, but it must be intensional, or at least one of the two goals will fail.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
I definitely agree with the author about what a hassle configuring Xwindows can be. I know RedHat 6.1 has made some improvements to their X configurator, but still with most systems I've installed it on I ended up having to do it manually anyway.
:) For me Linux already works great...I'd just like to see it be more available to my friends that don't have as much experience. Of course, a well-configured (and PRE-CONFIGURED) Linux system would be great for a newbie.
OK, disk partitioning is sort of a problem. I really don't like disk druid. It picks the name and order of partitions for me which would be nice for a new user, but it's not cool when they force it on you. Fortunately for me fdisk suits my needs just fine for partitioning--however disk druid would probably be the way to go for a new user. It's good that RedHat provides both. However, disk druid needs some work.
I recently installed Debian 2.1r4--liked that a lot despite some wierd problems, but it would still be a little much to ask a newbie. I don't think newbies are Debian's target audience anyway.
There are little nits here and there with Gnome and Enlightenment, but nothing that won't be fixed soon I'm sure.
Newbie documentation. Linux distributions include tons of in depth documentation about the operating system and all things related. If you bought Windows, you'd have to spend $50-$100 on books after buying the operating system and you'd still have nowhere near as much depth of technical information. The X/Gnome/E help systems available for apps look great also--however a lot of the apps don't use them. There is a good reason for this. So much of this software is still being developed and improved--documenting works in progress for newbies would take away from the time that could be put into the apps themselves.
I'm pretty sure these things are being worked on as we complain
ObWinDis: Installing any Windows operating system on a machine that didn't come with it is no joy either. In comparison to installing Linux, it's a long convoluted process that takes several reboots. In fact, installing RedHat 6.1 on a system that does not already have Windows on it, and has fully supported hardware, would probably be easier for a newbie than installing Windows. It would certainly take less time.
numb
First things first, I'm a frustrated wannabe-Linux user still using Windows98 yet probably for the reasons that could easily answer this question.
I use Windows 98, even though i know its got dismal hardware efficiency, in that the equivalent machine on a RedHat installation could work alot better than on Windows. I use Windows knowing full well (and being disgusted with) the marketing practices of Microsoft. I use Windows knowing that my love of tweaking how my machine looks, works and runs could be fulfilled much easier on a linux box. I use Windows knowing that my data is about as secure on a WinBox than my personal possesions if I were to have the lock on my backdoor installed by a thief.
The single reason I personally use Windows and don't use my set of four RedHat v6 disks sitting right here is becuase one thing, Gloss.
It's shallow i know, but im an average user, im a student, i don't study IT, im more interested in the social context of the internet, it's effects upon communication psychology, but im the user that Linux needs to convert to have any hope of ever fighting back against the "Windows on every desk" mantra.
I use Windows becuase it's easy to install a program, becuase it's easy to see what im doing, where im going and how to get there. I use it because when i want an mp3 dbasing util, i can download a single package, and install it with a mouse click. I don't need to hunt for an obscure library file, i don't need to make sure that it will run with the Window Manager i want to use, i don't need to decode version numbers of updates to work out what i need and don't need. This may sound lazy, but i don't have the time to do this, i don't have the energy to do this, i don't have the knowledge to do this. Most of the market that Linux needs to reach out and grab is like me, the computer techs are sold, the geeks and nerds are sold, the average user ? not yet, they will, but not yet.
Please don't get me wrong, i love the concept of linux, open-sourced, free, community built and driven, and i would switch back in minutes given the chance, but linux really needs that single element that MS still has, Gloss and simplicity.
<? include ('signature.inc'); ?>
I think this is a "yes, and no" answer. OT1H new users would *rather* have to learn *one* UI once and for all. OTOH, experienced users do NOT want to be stuck with a "standard UI" that they cannot configure.
I think we need something of a compromise. Perhaps have a standard default UI that is uniform across all distros or something, but leave it configurable. The newbie who just bought his Linux pre-installed PC will get the "standard default" UI which is the same as the one every other newbie on his block has. The advanced user, or just the picky user, can always change the default during/after installation. There is no reason/need for imposing a "standard" that everybody has to stick to, because... there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all. There is only such a thing as one-size-fits-few.
Remember, one of the best things about Linux is configurability, and I would add IMHO, the lack of presumptiousness. One of my favorite peeves with MS crapware is that they are extremely presumptious. Ever tried MS Word and have it completely screw up a paragraph that begins with a number? Apparently some people actually like that. Well, the whole idea behind Linux is that you should be able to opt for things like this if you wanted, but it certainly should not be forced down your throat. And if it comes as a default, it must certainly be easy to change (not buried somewhere deep in some esoteric menu or worse, unknown config file).
So, in short, we need a default UI that the majority of users can grok, but all the other options must not be eliminated. Users must be given the full power to choose. If some people wants to be spoon-fed, fine, they can choose it that way. But don't assume that there aren't people who don't want to be spoonfed. We do not need Linux apps that won't work unless you have a particular flavor of UI active.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.