Why the World Is Not Ready For Linux

eldavojohn writes "While many users reading Slashdot embrace Linux, ZDNet is running an article on why the rest of the world isn't ready. One note for Linux developers: 'Stop assuming that everyone using Linux (or who wants to use Linux) is a Linux expert.' While a lot of these topics have been brought up as both stories and comments on Slashdot, this article pretty much sums up why Vista could be absolutely terrible, and people would still believe there is no other option." From the article: "The one area of Linux ownership and use where it becomes apparent that there's an assumption that everyone who uses Linux is an expert is hardware support. Your average user doesn't have the time, the energy or the inclination to deal with uncertainty. Also, they usually only have the one PC to play with. Hardware just has to work. There's a very good reason why Microsoft spends a lot of time on hardware compatibility — it's what people want."

I believe in people

[suso (153703)]

I believe in people. Sometimes it is hard to, but for the most part I believe that people can be smart or become smart. They are just not given the oppurtunity to be. Companies like Microsoft usually don't try to allow people be smart, in fact its usually the case that these companies develop a business model based around people being ignorant and lazy. You can tell by how they word their agreements, marketing material and by what they leave out.

The unix way (besides do one thing and do it well) however is to allow beginners and experts in, and help them leverage themselves so that they can be intelligent and productive in how they work. I don't care if everyone adopts Linux, but I do care if the people who want to work intelligently and are willing to be intelligent are shut out of it. I encounter people all the time who want to learn Linux for the sake of learning it. These are open minded people who want to be smart. Maybe they are smart, maybe they aren't. But honestly that doesn't matter, if they have the will, then Linux will probably work fine for them.

This comment is not meant to "save the world" or anything so grandious. It is only meant as a retort to jackass e-zine writers who don't have the desire to give it a try and have no faith in the concept of community.

Re:

[Bob Loblaw (545027)]

in fact its usually the case that these companies develop a business model based around people being ignorant and lazy

No one ever went out of business by assuming people are inherently ignorant and lazy.

Re:I believe in people

[IDontAgreeWithYou (829067)]

You might want to step down from the high horse. There is a big difference between someone being lazy, ignorant and downright stupid and having a different set of priorities. Most people want to be able to check their email, surf the web and play a game or two on their computer. Why should they have to put themselves through anymore trouble than they have to? They buy a computer with Windows preinstalled. They buy some readily available Windows software and install it by dropping in the CD and clicking "yes" a couple times. It's easy. Now, for no real reason, you want them to go out and make that process more difficult (whether that difficulty is real or simply perceived). Most people would consider that to be stupid.

Re:I believe in people

[DaveAtFraud (460127)]

A guy who used to work for me described it this way: people want a computing appliance. That is, they want their computer to work like their toaster or, at worst, their microwave oven. They really don't know nor do they care what goes on "inside." They just want to play a game, toast a bagle or nuke some left-overs.

Every interest has a small subset of people who find the internals fascinating. I usually pick on the example of cars. Most people really don't care about how all of the internals work. They just want to put the key in the ignition, turn it on, and drive. Is it within most people's ability to do a significant amount of their own maintenance? Yes. Do they? No. They have other things to do with their time. The Linux community needs to understand this. Unfortunately, all too many Linux folks would rather engage in a protracted flae-war over some nuanced difference between KDE and Gnome, Red Hat and SuSE and Gentoo and Ubuntu and, .. ad infinitum, Debian and any commercial distribution, etc.

Oh yeah, I've been using Linux since Red Hat 5.0 in 1998. Its great. I just installed Fedora Core 6 on three different systems (including one laptop) and the installs all went flawlessly. I only had to resort to the command line for some "under the hood" changes that a typical user wouldn't do. Its getting there. It would help if there wasn't so much noise about how terrible such a default installation is from all the bit twiddlers.

Cheers,
Dave

Different kinds of people

[MS-06FZ (832329)]

I didn't say that the computer was an appliance; I said that's what people want it to be. Turn it on; compute; turn it off. Turn it on; play a game; turn it off. Why do you think game consoles are so popular? None of the hassles of maintaining a computer. Turn it on; play a game; turn it off. The console may be a computer internally but it doesn't expose any of its internals unless you work really hard at cracking it.

"people" want it to be... Which people? Not everyone, not me. Personally I hope to see L

Re:I believe in people

[Odin_Tiger (585113)]

"oh noes how do I set my VCR clock" syndrome

Your entire post misses one of the main facts that Linux zealots regularly overlook: [Typical User]: "I do not have the time, nor the inclination, to figure out how to set the clock on my VCR. I don't care. What I do care about is watching this movie. That's it. I just want to watch a goddamned movie. Why do I have to (set my clock / install and configure WINE / use the console / download dependencies / switch to root) in order to (watch my movie / play my video game / change the way a program behaves when it starts / get this stupid thing to execute at all / look at the files in directory XYZ)."
You're right, it -is- a matter of laziness, but most of the time, it is -not- on the part of the user. There are ways of solving these problems in Linux. I've seen it done. But *nix geeks don't want to solve them; they want to continue to lazily assume that everybody is a Linux expert so that they can say that the usability failures in their software are the user's fault.

Re:

[drsquare (530038)]

Why do you think you're more intelligent because you spend more time and effort to achieve the same tasks?

Or perhaps only the super-intelligent understand the need to spend all day configuring devices before using them. Us 'dumb' people think of machines and tools merely as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

Re:

[AsbestosRush (111196)]

mmmmmmmm.. tasty tasty flamebait.

Jerk.

Re:

[NDPTAL85 (260093)]

Man you still just don't get it. As someone in an earlier reply to you has already said most people just want their computer to be like every other machine in their house, an appliance. Most don't care how it works or even want to know how it works. They just want it TO work. As long as Linux requires a higher level of thinking to use than Windows its appeal will remain limited.

Re:

[gfxguy (98788)]

Hmmm... I do care about "beating" Microsoft, because Microsoft's proprietary formats are too common, and their extension into gaming and other computer gadgets (like Zune) will make the proprietary and DRM'ed formats more ubiquitous. I know we're not going to win, but I also don't stop trying (I know the libertarian candidate isn't going to win the governship in my state, but I'm still voting for him).

But more importantly, what you've described has been done before, and maybe we should just go back to our

Re:

[jimstapleton (999106)]

it's not a matter of weather or not they can, it's a matter of weather or not they want to, and most people do not see the learning curve as "worth it", and you cannot change most of their minds on the matter.

Re:I believe in people

[Wavicle (181176)]

2. Fully support NTFS so I can dual boot and not only be able to work with my linux files from linux and my windows files from windows. At least have full read-write support on NTFS so I can really be able to use it in linux.

Just to be clear here... The problem with NTFS hasn't been a religious or ideaological hurdle. Nearly all Linux advocates agree that full NTFS support would be a boon to getting more people to use Linux. Microsoft knows this. Microsoft has not made the NTFS spec freely available because it could easily undermine their dominance on the desktop.

People volunteering their time have had to painstakingly reverse-engineer the NTFS file format. This is hard. How much confidence must you have in an NTFS driver before using it? A buggy driver could wipe out not only your Linux files, but all of your windows files as well.

Progress is being made. These folks [linux-ntfs.org] seem to have a fairly well tested set of tools for NTFS access in Linux. But I would guesstimate that Linux is at least 1 year away from solid NTFS support.

Re:I believe in people

[Turn-X Alphonse (789240)]

you assume people have the time to be smart. Which is exactly what most people refuse to give these days.

People have been brought up to expect everything NOW. If they have to take time to learn it then obviously it's not worth it. That's what us Manics are for. They learn just what they need and then we save the day when they need more.

Re:I believe in people

[fyngyrz (762201)]

Simply look at the IQ gaussian. No matter if it disturbs your politically correct sense or not, or if you have a quibble with what the "center" means, it still lays out the performance curve of human beings faced with task completion. The more complex the task, the further out to the right you go, and the fewer people you find able to get the job done. And this tells you, straight to your face, that you're not going to get everyone even in the center and upper half into your "tent" until, or unless, you deal with:

1. Linux isn't linux. Desktops vary, UI's vary, what works varies, features vary
2. Linux isn't friendly to major commercial apps users want — wrong mindset / licensing
3. Linux has no standard GUI layer in the OS. Look and feel, consequently, is a mashup
4. No, everyone is not willing to compile applications. Even if it is "easy."
5. No, people will not type "apt-get" and deal with whatever happens (or doesn't.)
6. It has to work with their printer, their camera, their favorite website
7. Laptops are everywhere. No wifi? Bye bye!
8. Linux has to support popular trends, such as iTunes. Can't play DRM'd tunes? No sale.
9. Linux needs games. But games are commercial apps... see point #2
10. Linux needs documentation that works for non-technical users. Badly!
11. Oh, and Linux needs software that works for non-technical users, even more so.
12. My favorite poster child for crazy and zot-worthy UI, RH9/CUPS. I just want to add a printer!
13. Update: I upgraded CUPS. The RH9 UI no longer works. Yeah, that'll draw customers.
14. Lacks critical mass: My friends / work-mates know how this works and can help me. Right?
15. Only works with... The holy cr*p factor: I need to recompile the kernel?? What????
16. Photoshop. Photoshop. Photoshop. The GIMP... no. Seriously. Just no. Photoshop.
17. If you can't get Outlook, then you need ALL of its functionality. No way around it.
18. If you can't get Word, then you need ALL of its functionality. OO isn't there.

Taken together, I think that most of those points are a direct or secondary consequence of the mindset that pervades linux; without a sea change in that mindset, linux isn't going very far outside its technical user base. IMHO.

From the point of view of my company, we (I, more to the point, since I run the company) am interested in a linux release of our software but the user base is small, there is no core GUI (we are not going to be stuck debugging people's desktops, widget libraries, etc.) and the licensing terms (GPL and others) are basically a minefield for our IP. We've been "doing" windows since the Windows 3.1, we even did all the windows RISC versions (MIPS, PPC, Alpha) we did the Amiga, we're seriously considering releasing our Mac version. Linux? No. I keep my eye on it in the hopes that a GUI will become a standardized part of the OS (whether or not it obsoletes xwindows and pendant technologies isn't an issue.) That'd probably be enough to get a pilot release out. Mind you, I'm not talking about linux's interest in my product. I think my product can stand on its own — all the better for us if linux users are technical. Our product is many times more complex to use than, for instance, Photoshop. No, I'm talking about my interest in linux. Until or unless linux can look and feel to me like support for it won't be more effort intensive than Windows support, it's a non-starter. A consistent GUI is where that all starts. IMHO. :)

I am guessing that the thought process at, for instance, Adobe, is similar. Linux does everything it can, it seems to me, to not court commercial developers of heavy GUI applications. But desktops elsewhere (Apple, Windows) are going to more and more GUI. Look at Omni Outliner. Delicious Library. Photoshop. Word. You may not like these apps, but they literally se

Re:

[Thansal (999464)]

See, there is the difference. You say that some one has to be "smart", or "willing to be intelligent" to use linux. that is not the case. People have to be relatively intelligent AND have the time to spend on linux. I know many highely intelligen people who just don't have the time/energy to spend teaching themselfs how to setup and use a linux solution. And for these people, there is Windows/MacOS. And that is exactly what the article was getting at, most poeple just don't have the time to spend tech

Re:

[jridley (9305)]

You know, maybe people don't WANT to become OS experts. Obviously they don't HAVE to. If you enjoy screwing with an OS, knock yourself out. But the vast majority of people want an appliance that runs apps without having to do anything more than shove the disc in and click "install".

Are they lazy and ignorant? OK, I guess it's hard to argue that they're not ignorant.

Are people who don't want to rebuild the transmission on their car just lazy and ignorant? They could do it. Most people could do it, if t

Re:

[Dun Malg (230075)]

The unix way (besides do one thing and do it well) however is to allow beginners and experts in, and help them leverage themselves so that they can be intelligent and productive in how they work.

Unfortunately, the way linux/unix helps people "leverage themselves" is by being utterly generic at its core and infinitely and endlessly configurable for anything beyond that. What this means is that there is an unavoidably steep learning curve right up front that bars entry to anyone without the time and/or desir

even the linux experts get tired.

[yagu (721525)]

I've been installing, troubleshooting, setting up Linux boxes since the days of the 75+ floppy disk installs. Back then it was fun, how cool to get a FREE version of Unix on my PC!

I have probably installed hundreds of Linuxes. In the beginning it was cool, it was fun, and the end result was always worth the effort. Today, while a fully functional Linux box is almost always worth the effort, the blood, sweat, and tears of an install-troubleshoot doesn't come as easily. I've found other Linux "experts" who agree... it's time Linux works out of the box.

That said, I might disagree a bit with the thesis Linux doesn't work out of the box... I've found especially with distros like Ubuntu Linux has come far to "just working". As I've posted before, on a raw machine I've actually had better installation success with a cold install of Linux over XP.

But the main point is valid, and I think it extends to the Linux experts. Not only is troubleshooting geek-cool only to geeks, it doesn't bring warm fuzzies to people for whom you introduce to Linux. There's nothing more scary to the general users than seeing gibberish bootup messages complaining about missing or incompatible drivers and hardware when what they want to see is a shiny new GUI with applications they can use right away.

Linux experts can and still do slough through the pain of perfect Linux installs but the rest of the world isn't impressed. Give them something they can use that works well with everything else. Ultimately it looks like Linux is getting there and may even have a chance of becoming a major desktop... I'm not as pessimistic as the article seems to be.

In the meantime, good points from the article to win favor for Linux and its future:

• evangelize, but don't be religious (there's a difference).
• educate
• give good support...
• (mine) don't give Linux to someone for whom it isn't going to make any sense... that's a disservice to your "client" and Linux

Re:

[WhiteWolf666 (145211)]

The issue with Linux is that there just isn't a good, up-to-date hardware database.

Distributors should try really hard to build an online, wiki-style database of ALL the hardware that a given version of their distribution supports. This should not just be by "chipset" (Atheros, ACX100), but rather, should be by actual box packaged versions of the hardware (D-Link so and so version 2, Linksys so and so versions 3-5, Logitech QuickCam Pro, etc. . .).

There's nothing wrong with supporting fewer hardware configu

Re:

[jimicus (737525)]

This should not just be by "chipset" (Atheros, ACX100), but rather, should be by actual box packaged versions of the hardware (D-Link so and so version 2, Linksys so and so versions 3-5, Logitech QuickCam Pro, etc. . .).

Except the whole problem is that there's thousands of parts. It's simply not practical to catalogue them all, or even just the ones that work - hence why it has to be a "suck it and see".

To compound this problem, it is not unknown (indeed, it's relatively common) for two products which do t

Re:

[Shadowmist (57488)]

It's probably why I've had an easier time with Linux than most. The bulk of my Linux time has been spent with YellowDogLinux which is the dominant PowerPC distro put out by Terrasoft. It works on a variety of Power PC platforms but it's original target and probably still the bulk of it's user base was PowerPC Macintosh hardware. Was it as easy as point and click OS X installation? Not quite but pretty close. And it worked for me out of the box practically on every install.

Re:

[truthsearch (249536)]

My experience has been similar to yours. I found Mandrake and Suse much faster and easier to install than any version of Windows, ever. There are less reboots and fewer questions to answer. On slighly old Dells I've never once had any issues.

But Linux won't go more mainstream until a major desktop vendor puts together a nice pre-installed distro and has the computers displayed next to the Windows machines at CompUSA and Best Buy. Linux can work perfectly well with most hardware if vendors make distros s

Re:even the linux experts get tired.

[Johnny Mnemonic (176043)]

But Linux won't go more mainstream until a major desktop vendor puts together a nice pre-installed distro and has the computers displayed next to the Windows machines at CompUSA and Best Buy.

They did that; it's called "Apple".

Re:even the linux experts get tired.

[ajs (35943)]

But the main point is valid, and I think it extends to the Linux experts.

I don't think the main point is valid. Installing and tweeking Windows sucks just as hard as Linux. The thing is, you don't do that. You get it pre-installed on your box by an OEM who did all the work. Then your graphics card comes with drivers that the card manufacturer and the OS company have worked together on to make sure the OS gets the most out of the card. Then, you might download some piece of software, and the vendor of that software has worked with the OS vendor to make sure that it installs cleanly and uses all of the features of the OS.

Linux is hurting on the desktop side, not becuase it is hard to use, but because there isn't an army of companies working with any OS vendor to make sure that you don't really have to "use" it at all. The situation is improving, though. The number of people who run the most popular games under Wine or Cedega and use Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice natively on Linux is climbing, and as that happens, more and more vendors will be pushing major commercial vendors to provide hooks for the smooth installation and use of their software across platforms. OEMs were more common for Linux desktops in the early 2000s, but they died quickly. That trend will rise again as the user-base begins to grow.

Oracle and Microsoft's recent moves to compete with Red Hat have lit up the industry, and while most of the action is on the server-side right now, it's going to spill over onto the desktop.

Re:

[computational super (740265)]

Installing and tweeking Windows sucks just as hard as Linux.

It's actually worse. Let me share a personal anecdote/epiphany:

Last week, I finally got around to upgrading from Linux kernel 2.4 to 2.6. After the install, I rebooted, everything came up ok, but the network card wasn't working. I did a little digging, and found out that the name of the driver module had changed from "bcm" to "tg3", so I insmod'ed tg3, network came up, everything was fine. Until I tried to launch an application, that is. If I

Re:

[ajs (35943)]

You must be using a version of XP that I'm not familiar with. Even if you are building a system from scratch running XP, it is generally as easy as installing XP from the CD, and putting a CD with drivers into the CDROM drive that came with the motherboard.

After that, if updates are turned on, XP grabs patches and service packs, and getting Nvidia or ATI drivers updated is straightforward.

Yep, you just re-stated my case. The smoothness of the installation and support are directly connected with how well you

Re:

[petabyte (238821)]

I'd have to agree with that. I have been running Linux since I was 16-17ish (I'm now 24) and frankly I'm pretty exhausted with it. I've used Slackware, Debian, Suse, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Ubunutu and while Ubunutu is pretty close to just "install and go", I still have to jump through hoops and pray that my hardware is supported. When I built my last computer a year and half ago, I seriously considered a MacMini. It probably would have cost as much, offered me all of the opensource applications I

"But where is Photoshop?" : my Ubuntu story...

[drgonzo59 (747139)]

I use Ubuntu too. I think as far as hardware just working -- Ubuntu succeeds in that.

The problem is with the software, as soon as the user needs anything more than browse,read email and write letters they hit the wall with Linux.

I have a photographer friend who uses Photoshop extensively. When fixing her Windows machine that kept freezing, I decided to make a it a double boot with Ubuntu as the second OS. I added all her bookmarks from Firefox, I made sure she could access her documents, her expensive

Hardware just has to work!

[hullabalucination (886901)]

Hardware just has to work.

I love it.

http://slashdot.org/~hullabalucination/journal/142 227 [slashdot.org]

* * * * *

A man's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink.
--W.C. Fields

So what?

[Eideewt (603267)]

To a certain extent, I don't care if Linux is warm and fuzzy or not. It's not currently that difficult to set up a Linux system on most hardware. Even compiling and installing a driver or two isn't rocket science. Most distros have helpful communities ready to give new users a hand with their troubleshooting. Is all that work that most people want to do? Hardly. But maybe its better if people have to really want it before they get involved with Linux.

Re:

[abe ferlman (205607)]

Most people don't know what compiling is, nor do they know what drivers are. You might as well tell them to flerb their blerfs and it will be just as useful.

The real issue is that Microsoft comes preinstalled on nearly every machine in the world because of their monopoly, and hardware vendors try to be compatible because of their monopoly (and sometimes even avoid compatibility with free/open software *because* of the Micropoly.)

Re:

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

It's not currently that difficult to set up a Linux system on most hardware.

If anything, it's easier than setting up Windows. Ubuntu takes 1/2 at most to install and comes with office software (OpenOffice) along with lots of other productivity stuff. Not many questions asked during install and no licensing, entry of keys, Web validation or any of that sort of crapola. For the most part, it Just Works.

-b.

Re:So what?

[uradu (10768)]

> Even compiling and installing a driver or two isn't rocket science.

Holy cow, are you even hearing yourself saying this? Most of the people I know that are not in the computer biz have a hard time just wrapping their mind around the concept of a directory hierarchy and the difference between a file and a folder. And then tell these people to cd into folder x and type "make", and then insmod the compiled module? Or explaining to them why some drivers are in the kernel, while others are installable modules, right after explaining what a kernel is and what it's good for? This attitude is exactly what the original article is addressing.

It's all about pre-installed.

[khasim (1285)]

Until Linux is pre-installed, it won't matter to the majority of home users.

That's because the majority of home users do NOT upgrade their OS. They use whatever was installed by the OEM. They use the drivers provided by the OEM. They won't even install and update anti-virus software.

MICROSOFT spends a lot of time on HW Compat?

[drinkypoo (153816)]

There's a very good reason why Microsoft spends a lot of time on hardware compatibility - it's what people want.

Uh, there's a very good reason Microsoft doesn't have to spend a lot of time on hardware compatibility - they used anticompetitive products to gain a virtual monopoly and now the hardware vendors worry about supporting Windows.

And just to put this idea of "a lot of time" into perspective, just how much time do you think the open source community has spent on developing, testing, and debugging ha

Even XP doesn't support all current hardware

[HappyHead (11389)]

If Microsoft puts so much effort into hardware compatibility, then why do my nice new HP scanner and laser printer work well with Linux, but not at all in XP Pro? HP's official story is "we can't get drivers to work on the 64 bit version of XP". Linux uses the same drivers for 32 bit and 64, just re-compiled, and they work with an out-of-the-box install of Fedora Core 6.

That doesn't look like "just works" to me.

On the plus side, this means that my parents now use Linux pretty much exclusively, because tha

Why The World is Not Ready for Windows

[Anthony Liguori (820979)]

"While many users reading Slashdot embrace Windows, ZDNet is running an article on why the rest of the world isn't ready. One note for Windows developers: 'Stop assuming that everyone using Windows (or who wants to use Windows) is a Windows expert.' While a lot of these topics have been brought up as both stories and comments on Slashdot, this article pretty much sums up why Fedora Core 6 could be absolutely terrible, and people would still believe there is no other option."

If you are a Windows user (like t

Maybe not the stupidest thing I've heard this week

[drew_kime (303965)]

But it's close.

The one area of Linux ownership and use where it becomes apparent that there's an assumption that everyone who uses Linux is an expert is hardware support.

Absolutely. Bad hardware support is entirely because the people writing code for Linux don't think they should bother with device drivers. It has nothing at all to do with the fact that hardware manufacturers won't give up enough information to do it correctly.

Yup, just a bunch of 1337 haxx05z who don't want the unwashed masses using thei

Nice FUD piece the article is.

[Lumpy (12016)]

I love the tirades in it about "just work" and "Your average user doesn't have the time, the energy or the inclination to deal with uncertainty"... Yeah, like Microsoft products eliminate all that.

I make a huge amount of money on the side because of things in Windows that has lots of uncertainty and that they don't work. Example from today.... Customer calls in a panic, they uninstalled Roxio myDVD and now they are missing all their dvd drives in their computer, they dont show up, reboots dont help. I ha

ironic title...

[jimstapleton (999106)]

given that it is trying to state reasons why the average user can't use Linux, and the problems are thigns that can be more easily changed in Linux (and I believe, will be changed; allthough not all the way there, Ubuntu is a good example of the cutting edge of the trend). So, shouldn't it be "Why Linux is not yet read for the world"? The way it's progressed, I give Linux 5 to 10 years, unless people decide to migrate to BSD (yeah right)

If they had to install(!) Windows ...

[richieb (3277)]

If "the people" had to install Windows from scratch, there would be no Windows. Last X-mas I built a machine with my son. It was an AMD based machine, with a new SATA drives. When we booted from the Windows XP install CD no hard drives were detected. After checking and double checking all the connections I booted from Fedora install CD.

Fedora had no problems detecting the hardware. So, after some googling we discovered that there were separate Windows drivers for the SATA drives that came with the motherboard. We had to create a floppy (!!!!) with the drivers that had to be inserted at a specific step during the windows install. Luckily my son insisted on getting a floppy drive, otherwise we would not be able to install windows.

Fedora Core 4 installed with no problems..

Re:

[Pastis (145655)]

Easy to compare hardware suport in XP (October 2001) with FC 4 (June 2005)...

Try booting Debian woody (July 2002) on that machine and let's see what goes on!

And this thread will prove why.....

[LibertineR (591918)]

Because no matter how great Linux is for us, we have failed to make the REAL case.

The very first thing I learned at Microsoft is was the 80/20 rule. This is the thing that most Linux advocate will simply never understand. Many of us hate Windows because it is inferior, but we refuse to address the fact that for a HUGE majority of people, it is GOOD ENOUGH!

Instead of taking that premise and working from it, we just call Windows advocates stupid, lazy bums who just dont get it. Yeah, that's how you build

That about sums it up

[Programmer_In_Traini (566499)]

That about sums up why i haven't switched to linux yet.

I tried ubuntu and two other variations that were supposed to be easy too but in the end i dont have the time to learn it all.

There used to be a time where i enjoyed spending hours just playing around with something, not being afraid to mess it up but that's not the case anymore.

I got a day job where we use windows then i come back home where i spend time with my girlfriend, i game a little and do some "real" manual work like fixing the car or stop tha

Tired of shoring up a failing structure

[JoeWalsh (32530)]

I left Windows because I was tired of always having to fix something or other every other weekend. Either my girlfriend's computer would have a problem or mine would. I didn't want to fix computers all weekend - I wanted to have a life! So I ditched Windows and tried out this new thing called Linux that was supposed to be super-stable, no crashes, etc.

That worked OK, but all of a sudden buying new hardware became a monumental task. Will it work with Linux, or is it Windows-only? What hoops do I have to jump through? And when something *did* occasionally go wrong, it didn't usually mean spending a weekend fixing it. Usually, it meant spending a week fixing it.

That's why, when Mac OS X became stable (version 10.1), I took the plunge and bought a Mac. I haven't spent time worrying about or tinkering with my computer or my wife's computer since. Everything just works. I have my life back.

And I much prefer it this way.

As a new user of Linux, I have to say... it sucks.

[Asmor (775910)]

I've just recently installed Linux on my home system and really tried to figure out. And I've gotta say, the whole thing sucks. I've tried Fedora and Ubuntu. Fedora installed much easier than Ubuntu, although that's partially because Ubuntu was installed to replace Fedora. Fedora, however, had an option to automatically remove all Linux partitions and install there, while Ubuntu's only analog (and default even if there's plenty of unpartitioned space) is to delete the entire drive! Not something I'd want to do when I'm dual booting.

From there, things just got worse. I spent a long time researching how to mount an NTFS partition in Fedora, finally found some good links for Ubuntu (hence the change). I managed to mount the NTFS partition and listen to the music stored thereon, but I really only had a vague idea of what I was doing. Some of the stuff was reasonably obvious. For example, the fstab file is obviously supposed to be default mountings when you boot up. However, the syntax used inside of it is all gibberish to me, as was most of the commands I used during the process of installing everything I needed for this project. I basically just copy-pasted everything, filling in specific information like /dev/hdb1 when neccessary. I don't know what the -l in fdisk -l means. Hell, if it weren't for using it in DOS I wouldn't even know what fdisk was. I don't understand the commands that I used to grab the software from the internet.

And every single tutorial is exactly the same. They either assume you know something, or they tell you what to do without explaining why you're doing it. It'd be nice if there were some tutorials that actually took the time to tell you, for example, "fdisk -l" invokes the fdisk program with the -l switch. Fdisk is used for viewing and editing partitions and the -l switch makes it (I assume) list the current partitions.

I installed Linux so that I could learn how to use it, but all I've learned is how many arcane commands with even more arcane syntaxes (syntaces) it has.

Keep in mind, also, that I'm the exception. I'm a Windows user with no practical interest in Linux, who's only doing it for the learning experience. I'm actually willing to go out and look stuff up, to some extent. As I said, though, Linux is just a curiosity to me. I'm not going to spend all day figuring out how to exit the "help" given by the man command (seriously, how do you exit it? Aside from closing the terminal, I mean? I know I can prest shift+zz because someone told me that, but how the hell would anyone ever guess that?).

Linux, even the best distributions, have a long, long, long way to go before they're anywhere near as usable as Windows.

Re:As a new user of Linux, I have to say... it suc

[ciw42 (820892)]

Have you tried doing the things you're asking of Linux in Windows?

Have you tried to gain access to the data on a Linux partition from within Windows? It's actually pretty difficult.

When people install GNU/Linux on a Windows box they expect it to automatically set up a dual boot option and configure itself so the two continue to work perfectly and in harmony. Have you tried installing Windows on a machine which already has Linux on it? It just zaps things so you have a job getting access to your GNU/Linux in

Absolutely Right

[Sean0michael (923458)]

Right on the money. As a novice Linux user, I've found my biggest hurdle to using it for more tasks has been simply not knowing how to do what I want to do (I use Ubuntu 6.0.6). For example, when I install a program and want to run it, it it isn't in the Applications menu (using Gnome), I only have the first idea of what to do --use the terminal. But I don't know what to do from there. If there isn't an option listed somewhere in those menus, I have to search forums to try and find solutions.

It's not that I'm ignorant, certainly. I use Firefox, OpenOffice, Gaim, and other open-source software regularly. I've learned some Java, SQL, HTML, C++, and consider myself "computer savvy." But because I am not familiar with the language of the Linux OS (like the CHAR(3) names for the folders on the \ or the keywords for taking advantage of the terminal), I am extremely limited in what I can do. I tried to install FF2.0 the other day, but after I extracted the tar.gz, I didn't know what to do. I tried a HOWTO I found on Ubuntu's community site, tried apt-get, but neither didn't work for some reason. So I'm stuck with FF1.5 for now. It's probably a simple fix, but that all the more profoundly demonstrates how difficult it can be to use even one of the most user-friendly distros available.

Don't get me wrong; I love the idea behind OSS and want to learn to use Linux better--I wouldn't be trying it out if I didn't. But I simply cannot use it for anything more than simple tasks like web surfing and office utilities because there is a high knowledge barrier that will just take time to overcome. If Linux can adapt like Nintendo and find a way to make Linux more accessible and bring those who can only handle Windows well into the Linux world, then we've got something. Until then, I'm afraid the author is right.

Spot on.

[pcx (72024)]

I recently stopped playing World of Warcraft and no longer had a reason to stay on the windows platform. I use open office, media player classic, and Firefox and that's pretty much it. So I thought I'd try Ubuntu out since I'd heard so many good things about it.

I burned the disk, backed up my data and took the plunge.

The problem was immediate. I have a lcd monitor, a top of the line NEC monitor that is smart enough to whine, moan and complain when the resolution isn't 1280x1024. Ubuntu however gave my top resolution options as 1024x768. I thought Ubuntu probably needed the NVidia drivers so I headed over and discovered that installing NVidia's Linux drivers made the US tax code read like a harry potter novel by comparison.

Needless to say, this ended my experiment with Linux. (And yes I know there's a command line to reconfigure the graphics shell but any time you need to send anyone to the command line to get an install working you've pretty much admitted failure.)

But wait! It doesn't end there! A few days later on Digg there was a thread about Linux being ready for the desktop! I relayed my casual user experience almost exactly the way I have here. Two hours later my user experience had been burried down to negative numbers as had all the other "negative testimonials". Yep, the Linux fan bois had run roughshod over anyone who actually had the nerve to explain why they still thought Linux wasn't ready for the desktop and there were legions of them.

So the problem is two fold really. Linux still doesn't nail the "out of box installs" anywhere near as well as Windows does and there is a sizable portion of the community that would kill the messengers rather than address the problem.

I Just Got a LINUX CAR!

[CheeseburgerBrown (553703)]

The best thing about my new car is that it's free, which really jibed well with my bank account status.

The first bad news came when I tried to actually get in the car and drive; I received an error message on the dashboard that said, "No tires detected."

I got out and checked, and there were tires on the car, so I got back in and punched the steering wheel a few times. After a few hours of poring over the manual I discovered that I had to tell the car about what kind of tires I had, so, after some digging, I found the button to initiate tire declarations (for some reason it was called INI RUBBER-BASED ROAD INTERFACE LIB EZ). I pushed it and a little sign lit up saying, "If your Linux car is a 2006 model or better you may need to install a rubber-based road interface synchronizer before attempting to declare tire status to the vehicle."

I went to the hardware store and bought one, but it was the wrong size so I had to go back again. The instructions were in German but I still managed to wedge it in there. I pushed the button and went on with my tire type declarations, after which the car decided to recognize my tires.

Great, I thought -- now where's the gear-shift?

After hours of searching I gave up and called up a friend who's a real car expert. He chuckled. "Dude, only idiots use gear-shifts. Linux drivers use gear modulating paddles located on the sides of the driverseat. Don't you know anything about cars? Jeez."

I made fun of him for being a virgin and then returned to my car. Indeed, the gear modulation paddles were conveniently hidden under the edges of my seat.

I decided to take the car for a spin, so I pulled out of my driveway and the car stalled. A message on the dashboard said, "Before initializing for road driving, please specify your exact model of Linux car."

It then gave me a list of four hundred vehicle types, each with just a slight difference in model number. I was eventually obliged to take apart a substantial part of the engine in order to see the little model number on the side of the block. Satisfied, I inputted this number into the dashboard once I'd put the engine back together and started off on my first Sunday drive with my brand new Linux car.

Then I found out my car wasn't compatible with my iPod so I put the fucking thing up on cinderblocks in my front yard and took the bus.

The bus sucks, true, but you know what? It's a no-brainer.