Linux's desktop is pretty good. The problem is, it's unfamiliar. Windows wins not because its desktop is any better, but because people know it. "Better the devil you know."
I couldn't disagree more with this. No offense, but this statement is yet another example of just how out of touch the Linux techie community is with the average end user and their objectives.
Lots of people claim that it's a familiarity issue, but IMO and experience, the 'familiarity problem' is only about 10% of the picture, at the most.
Honestly, you have common features like the taskbar, 'start menu', desktop and 'explorer' style directory browsers like Nautilus and Konqueror.
These things are easy to find in Linux, relatively easy to learn compared to Windows, but yet users still don't stick around.
There's a whole heck of a lot more going on here than just basic 'familiarity', and I also believe that any user that is that skittish up front with change, would not bother with Linux in the first place.
I've been ping-ponging in and out of Linux distros for 10 years now. Why haven't I stuck with it? Because it's not ready for the desktop! No matter what the techie hype says!
Problem, after problem, after problem, after problem......tweak, after hack, after CLI madness, after incomprehensible MAN pages (which, btw, are really just hacker reference manuals.......not actual end user help), after 20 billion different wiki's and undated web guides written for a zillion versions of a zillion distros, after yet another slap in the face on the forums, or worse, just plain being ignored, etc, etc.
I love the idea of Linux and desperately want to see it succeed, but the community just doesn't 'get it', and the capital isn't there to drive the innovation. MS carved their OS with billions of greenbacks. Linux is attempting to carve theirs with blood, sweat, tears, and an ego the size of BattleStar Gallactica.
One thing is for darn sure: The current 'plan' ain't gonna cut it.
One final note. Even the author of the article, who is defending the end user, still makes two classic techie mistakes:
1) "Now at this point, a wise user will hit Google and find instructions on how to fix their problems."
His statement unfortunately reinforces the idea that it is the end user's job to play volunteer techie-janitor for the "I have fallen and I _won't_ get up" corporations!
The wise user would first and foremost reconsider whether they bought a viable product. If a user has to stumble around the net for 'solutions' for their BRAND NEW COMPUTER, then something is _wrong with the product_! (This goes for all hardware and software)
For those downloading the OS for free, our complaints don't carry as much weight, but they are still valid.
2) "This isn't due to superior software. Far from it. This is quite simply because the software side of things is more familiar."
While he is referring to netbooks here, this is still the all too common theme that, "Linux is just as good, you just have to learn the new buttons!", which of course, is just bogus, as any burned Linux user can attest to.
I mean really, how many Linux newbies have actually gone back to Windows because they couldn't find the web browser or their 'Music' folder?
And ftr, I personally don't consider poorly designed application UI's and half baked features to be a 'familiarity' issue. If a user thinks that Rythembox 'sucks' compared to WMP, then I think we ought to listen to them.
Hi all, first post here. (these comments move fast as lightning here..)
I'm sure it's all been said after 700 posts, but here's my two cents.
Obviously the GPL blows the lid off of any dreams of confinement, one way or the other. You can do whatever you want, so the question of "should it be", is really moot, is it not?
In practice, pure open source has not been able to cut the mustard for most user's desktops. If it could, then we'd all switch! The philosophy of open source is great, but it's still going through quite a few growing pains.
Bottom line: When a pure open source desktop is ready for the masses, then the masses will happily use it. The numbers speak for themselves. In the day to day grind, computing is about pragmatism, not philosophy.
I am also in the camp that says we need to make a few compromises to expand the user base. The pure system is going to have to come along at its' own pace. In the mean time, the rest of us have things to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux's desktop is pretty good. The problem is, it's unfamiliar. Windows wins not because its desktop is any better, but because people know it. "Better the devil you know."
I couldn't disagree more with this. No offense, but this statement is yet another example of just how out of touch the Linux techie community is with the average end user and their objectives.
Lots of people claim that it's a familiarity issue, but IMO and experience, the 'familiarity problem' is only about 10% of the picture, at the most.
Honestly, you have common features like the taskbar, 'start menu', desktop and 'explorer' style directory browsers like Nautilus and Konqueror.
These things are easy to find in Linux, relatively easy to learn compared to Windows, but yet users still don't stick around.
There's a whole heck of a lot more going on here than just basic 'familiarity', and I also believe that any user that is that skittish up front with change, would not bother with Linux in the first place.
I've been ping-ponging in and out of Linux distros for 10 years now. Why haven't I stuck with it? Because it's not ready for the desktop! No matter what the techie hype says!
Problem, after problem, after problem, after problem......tweak, after hack, after CLI madness, after incomprehensible MAN pages (which, btw, are really just hacker reference manuals.......not actual end user help), after 20 billion different wiki's and undated web guides written for a zillion versions of a zillion distros, after yet another slap in the face on the forums, or worse, just plain being ignored, etc, etc.
I love the idea of Linux and desperately want to see it succeed, but the community just doesn't 'get it', and the capital isn't there to drive the innovation. MS carved their OS with billions of greenbacks. Linux is attempting to carve theirs with blood, sweat, tears, and an ego the size of BattleStar Gallactica.
One thing is for darn sure: The current 'plan' ain't gonna cut it.
One final note. Even the author of the article, who is defending the end user, still makes two classic techie mistakes:
1) "Now at this point, a wise user will hit Google and find instructions on how to fix their problems."
His statement unfortunately reinforces the idea that it is the end user's job to play volunteer techie-janitor for the "I have fallen and I _won't_ get up" corporations!
The wise user would first and foremost reconsider whether they bought a viable product. If a user has to stumble around the net for 'solutions' for their BRAND NEW COMPUTER, then something is _wrong with the product_! (This goes for all hardware and software)
For those downloading the OS for free, our complaints don't carry as much weight, but they are still valid.
2) "This isn't due to superior software. Far from it. This is quite simply because the software side of things is more familiar."
While he is referring to netbooks here, this is still the all too common theme that, "Linux is just as good, you just have to learn the new buttons!", which of course, is just bogus, as any burned Linux user can attest to.
I mean really, how many Linux newbies have actually gone back to Windows because they couldn't find the web browser or their 'Music' folder?
And ftr, I personally don't consider poorly designed application UI's and half baked features to be a 'familiarity' issue. If a user thinks that Rythembox 'sucks' compared to WMP, then I think we ought to listen to them.
Hi all, first post here. (these comments move fast as lightning here..)
I'm sure it's all been said after 700 posts, but here's my two cents.
Obviously the GPL blows the lid off of any dreams of confinement, one way or the other. You can do whatever you want, so the question of "should it be", is really moot, is it not?
In practice, pure open source has not been able to cut the mustard for most user's desktops. If it could, then we'd all switch! The philosophy of open source is great, but it's still going through quite a few growing pains.
Bottom line: When a pure open source desktop is ready for the masses, then the masses will happily use it. The numbers speak for themselves. In the day to day grind, computing is about pragmatism, not philosophy.
I am also in the camp that says we need to make a few compromises to expand the user base. The pure system is going to have to come along at its' own pace. In the mean time, the rest of us have things to do.