Slashdot Log In
Living Free With Linux, Round 2
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:36 AM
from the once-you-go-apt dept.
from the once-you-go-apt dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Lol (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.
Re:Lol (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what's really funny? People used to balk at package managers, yet now everybody is scrambling to use these "App Stores" that are weak versions of the exact same thing. I could have told you that the Apple App Store would be easy to use because the jailbroken installers were easy to use. And I could have told you those would be easy to use because they're based on apt.
As a Linux user for 12 years, I would like to congratulate the rest of the computer world on discovering the convenience of package management systems. Just one suggestion though. You can't put all software in a package management system, so please don't go giving up the ability to install software in other ways. You'll regret it someday if you do.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:4, Interesting)
Just one suggestion though. You can't put all software in a package management system, so please don't go giving up the ability to install software in other ways. You'll regret it someday if you do.
Not one repository, but I don't see why you couldn't have one package management system. Having to deal with the kazillions of different auto-updaters on windows is quite frankly annoying, I wish they'd just register with some apt-get like utility for updates. I've got several repos where I'm only pulling a single applicatino like WINE, and payware could be exactly the same with a little license key management on top. Except they'd probably roll it into some sort of horrible DRM nightmare instead of a convienient update center.
Parent
Re:Lol (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.
Parent
Re:Lol (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?
Parent
Re:Lol (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.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)
i proclaim the name of the new debian package manager - FUCK
fuck this
fuck install
fuck remove
fuck search
Parent
"apt-get install" - WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is "apt-get install" really that much different?
Yes, it is. "Rover, sit" works because "Rover" is the name of the dog, "sit" is a common English word, and the command pattern has been drilled into us since childhood. "apt-get install" - WTF is that to someone new to Linux? What's "apt" (I'd expect "app" at least)? Why the hyphenated "-get"? If I'm saying "get" the application, why do I have to include the redundant "install"? Heck, I'm a long-time hardcore geek and _still_ have to look it up every time; it's just not intuitive to someone who either is new to the concept of operating systems, nor to those who have to deal with a half-dozen or more OSes on a regular basis.
The App Store model, cheezy as it may be, works precisely because it's easy to find, easy to run, and easy to find & install applications. Linux doesn't have it yet. Having to spend hours Googling for what apps depend on what other apps, and how to install each of them in their own peculiar way, is largely what keeps Linux sidelined for now. At least with Windows I just stick in an installation CD for an application, or click on "install" on a distribution web page, and the install process just starts; with my iPod I just tap AppStore, find the app, and hit "install"; but with Linux I'm not even sure what the name of the application is, much less the precise command needed to install it.
Parent
Again, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Every time I dig into the Linux-software-install problem, the answers are always "oh, it's easy, just do X and Y and Z and P and D and Q - no problem!" Never mind that it works most of the time (what of the rest?), and there's a dozen other comparable posts that say something different and also may or may not work. I shouldn't have to elicit an obtuse answer from some unknown guy by posting a somewhat trollish message on /. - the answer should be right there on the desktop. Even the "just click on Install Programs for Ubuntu" comments come with "but when (not if) that doesn't work, use this non-intuitive command..." disclaimers.
This is why people buy Macs: it's pervasively designed for simplicity & intuition, not presumption of knowledge of cryptic commands. Would someone kindly explain why it's "apt-get" instead of "app-get"? what's with the 't'?
Parent
Agree! Obquote (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree with above. From the GGGP:
I'm not surprised that Nursie finds this intuitive. What astounds me is that Nursie doesn't understand why other people don't find it intuitive as well. The fact that you have to type in certain character strings (not even words) in a predetermined order with no hint from the prompt as to what to do, the fact that the computer does not understand near misses like "app-get install firefox" or "install firefox" or "aptget install firefox" or "apt-get firefox" is a far cry from the GUI that guides the user down a limited set of possible choices. Presumably Nursie would scratch his/her head trying to figure out what's so funny about following obquote taken from http://www.bash.org/?464385 [bash.org]:
<@insomnia> it only takes three commands to install Gentoo /dev/hda && mkfs.xfs /dev/hda1 && mount /dev/hda1 /mnt/gentoo/ && chroot /mnt/gentoo/ && env-update && . /etc/profile && emerge sync && cd /usr/portage && scripts/bootsrap.sh && emerge system && emerge vim && vi /etc/fstab && emerge gentoo-dev-sources && cd /usr/src/linux && make menuconfig && make install modules_install && emerge gnome mozilla-firefox openoffice && emerge grub && cp /boot/grub/grub.conf.sample /boot/grub/grub.conf && vi /boot/grub/grub.conf && grub && init 6
<@insomnia> cfdisk
<@insomnia>that's the first one
Parent
Re:Again, WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, most people do get a little confused. Which is why Meghan usually has to spell out her name to people who are writing it out, whereas Megan doesn't.
Everything is arbitrary, but some things are more arbitrary than others.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if he's trying to review from a 'clueless user' perspective, he's certainly on track.
That's exactly what Linux needs. The only way to get respect is through an easy to use UI, which is what the "clueless users" need who, you know, drive the market for desktops. If Linux was easier to use and free/cheap (as in beer), it wouldn't take long for it to be adopted. It just isn't there yet. And the only way to get there is to listen to these "clueless users."
Parent
Re:Lol (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.
Parent
Re:Lol (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.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
People take lessons to learn how to ride a motorcycle after all they've known how to drive is a car. Why would software be any different? Hell, I'd think it would be MORE important with software, it's a much more complex system than just driving.
Parent
Re:Lol (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.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:4, Insightful)
This is, with respect, complete rubbish. Most "clueless users" have other things to do and don't want their computer getting in the way. Not everyone is an anally retentive command-line nerd, or has dreams about being one. I shudder reading this guy's Linux experiences. I wouldn't use it as it is now. My life is too short.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I agree with you to some extent. I should have said from laziness *OR* from lack of time/interest. However, the people that know and admit they are ignorant are seldom the ones that are the problem, in my experience. It's the ones that are ignorant and seem to think they should be able to do it anyway, without any effort.
My parents are an easy example. They know they are "ignorant" about computers. If they have a question, they ask me... and they are also aware that Linux (which they're using now, due to viruses on Windows that they kept getting) is different, has quirks, and isn't perfect, but it is preventing them from having to completely wipe the computer annually (literally).
I'm a huge fan of making Linux way more user friendly than it is. I think this guy's Linux experiences are not quite proportionate to most people's Linux experiences, unless they tried to do it themselves.
Also, I might add that I think it's unfair to think we have to make Linux be able to be installed by someone who can't install Windows, either. If they don't know what to do when their computer "gets really slow" then in order to use Linux, someone else will have to set it up for them... just like someone else has to fix Windows for them.
And again, having other things to do/not wanting computer getting in the way, point taken, and you're right. I have argued that before, as well, but didn't think about it, my mistake. I should have used "non-busy clueless" ... would have been more accurate, probably.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
He is quite right. I've seen more than enough people not able to find things on the screen because they simply can't even take the time to read the equivalent of a sentence or two worth of words on the screen.
It's a shame we can't get everyone to agree to start developing innovation and stop pandering to the stupid. Over night you'd see the quality of the net improve ten-fold.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:4, 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.
Lazy, clueless? Why does simplicity always have to equated with stupidity or lazyness?
That's how easy it can be. Why put up with repositories, RPM files, dependency hell, etc... when installation can be that simple? When it comes to complicated, most users are defeated even by Windows install packages. 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. The poor UI design of many Linux package managers doesn't help either. 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. It would have to be two fold, firstly you could retain an RPM like package system for the non-consumer oriented 'professional' software. 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.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Informative)
or the linux way:
1. Find the software you want to install
2. apt-get (or GUI) install it
3. enjoy
Spoken like someone that hasn't used linux in 5 years or more.
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.
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".
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.
Parent
What is wrong with the Linux GUIs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people keep saying this implying it is true, without any substantiation of this whatsoever.
In which way is Windows installing easier than Linux?
First of all, both things are nor remotely comparable. IN a Linux machine you have thousands of packages readily available, once the software is installed you can pretty much forget about it: no pop-ups, no reminders, no auto updates, no nonsense.
In Windows, the software will keep pestering you about all of the above, but because you say it was easier to install all of the sudden we should close your eyes and enjoy the constant pestering of all these applications.
As for RPMs and debs packages, what could be simpler than double click on them, wait for the graphic installer to pop-up and click one or two buttons at most? And if you are actually running he tool provided with modern installations you simply search for what you need, highlight it, dependencies are resolved for you, and click an install button that gets things done.
Honestly, the underestimation of the computing literacy of most people is very patronizing.
Parent
Re:What is wrong with the Linux GUIs? (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Most clueless people are clueless from laziness.
I don't think it's laziness. This guy admittedly has been with windows since version 2.0. He has windows interface and doing things the windows way burned so deep into his skull that it would take a flamethrower and some napalm to remove it.
Imagine coming from windows and being used to windows updating just updating windows. Suddenly you click on something that updates every single piece of software on your entire computer. Imagine how scary that would seem to a windows user. I'd imagine it's much more complex for him, even using the gui, to update things that he doesn't understand like bind, tzconfig, or even allowing ubuntu to update his openoffice.
If windows update told me it had to update my firefox, I'd be more than a little leary. Coming from the windows world into linux and moving over to a completely different philosophy behind the word "update" would be hard enough.
Using apt (command line anything) is in an entirely different ballpark. Most windows users probably don't even know how to get to a command line, much less use it for anything useful. Trying to tell them to go to a command line interface to update their computer is even more alien than the computer updating all software at once.
It took microsoft years to teach people their interface and philosophy. Giving someone a cd and allowing them two weeks (referring to article) to learn an OS on their own is a ridiculous task. Imagine taking a clinical engineer from a hospital after 20 years of working on that equipment and putting him into a mechanical engineer in the aerospace field. Sure it's the same general job title "engineer" but they are vastly different jobs. Even though Linux and Windows are both OSs, they are vastly different in makeup, interface, philosophy, and interaction. Two weeks is hardly a primer.
Parent
Re:Lol (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.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)
He probably means 'command line' not 'linux command line'. He's been using the DOS command line for a long time, but he's implying that the Linux command line is different.
He's right. . . 'ls' never has worked on the Windows machines I work on, no matter how often I try :)
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
The problem is apt-get (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not that apt-get is hard to use, either from the command line or via synaptic. It's that you need to know what you want to install, and lots of the packages have cryptic names that, yes, are not newbie or oldbie friendly.
Try getting your AAC files to play. It's easy if you know *exactly what* to type to get apt-get to install the codecs. But, even if you have the right repositories set up, you can be an old unix hand like me and still not know which packages you need to get the job done.
Of course, there are websites out there that'll give you step-by-step copy and paste instructions for a particular distro, but by the rules governing articles like this, I think 'use google to figure out what website tells you how to do this, and then go there and copy/paste away' isn't going to be accepted.
Now, the reason you need to do this is that nobody's willing to stick their necks out and vouch for the legality of doing that. As far as I'm concerned, even if it's not legal, it's legal. For it not to be legal is clearly anti-competitive, and I'm not about to wait for the US legal system to catch up with reality.
It wouldn't be unreasonable, however, in a 'why Linux is hard' article to explain why it is that some things that should be simple in Linux are hard, and maybe you should write your congressperson...
Parent
Re:The problem is apt-get (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Why the GUI? (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!
Parent
Re:Why the GUI? (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.
Parent
Fear of the unknown (Score:5, Insightful)
You haven't actually used Linux, have you? Linux is and has been for several years *much* easier to use than MS-windows.
I just realized this when I had to give some lessons on Python programming to some people at work. I hadn't used a Windows desktop for several years, but since none of these people were Linux users I used XP for the course. I then realized how hard is XP for someone who's not used to it.
Starting with the "Start" menu, which is organized by software supplier, not category. Now where the fsck do I find a file manager? I just downloaded this file, where did it go? Where is my "home" directory, which in Linux has an icon intuitively shaped as a house? I want to copy a file, why did it create links for some, but not all copy operations? And so on. Windows is *extremely* hard to use for a beginner.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's my take:
Linux to me is like a great fishing spot. There are few people hanging around. All of them fairly experienced. No one asks, "What's a lure?"
Having millions of clueless newbies flocking to Linux is like building an interstate highway next to my fishing spot. Sure, it makes it easier to get to my fishing spot, but then it's not quite the same.
Of course, it's not a perfect analogy. In the Linux world there can be thousands of fishing spots. Some of them can have interstates and access ramps right along side of them. Some can only be accessed via a mile long spelunk and a hike.
There's room for both. But I think it's misguided to invite users just for the sake of market share. Market share is irrelevant to Linux. Or at least it is to me.
Parent
Re:Lol (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.
Parent
Re:Lol (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.
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)
This is Linux command line we're talking here.
if you want to add a user it's more likely to be a command like
GRAWK
ZZOD
PRIGTO
ZZZZEPP
with useful options like:
grawk -tgh username -ryUI password
Parent
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
People don't run OSes, they run applications (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't run OSes, they run the applications the OS runs on. 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. The list goes on.
Re:People don't run OSes, they run applications (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.
Parent
One size fits all (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.
Re:One size fits all (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly, thank you for the post. My family members tend to fall in this category, too, even my siblings (I'm still pretty young, so my siblings are young and "tech savy," all of them know what partitions are, what Linux is, etc). My wife recently said something that I thought was rather insightful: "I don't like Linux. It doesn't do what I expect it to." I'm sure the rebuttal would be "Well thats' because she's so used to Windows!" Well, you're right, so how are we going to make Linux usable for that market share, which is about 85% or whatever it is?
Ubuntu does a pretty good job, and she uses it to play music and stuff. She would NOT have been able to install it and get it working. I didn't know about the DVD encryption stuff, and it took me a while to get that working. Even after installing libdvdcss it still didn't work. Even after installing VLC it didn't work. I finally installd MPlayer, on a whim, which apparently installed libdvdcss correctly or something, I don't know.. it started working. Point is, it took me about an hour to be able to play a DVD. It takes her about 30 seconds - she puts it in and Vista plays it.
The list could go on. Amarok/rhythmbox/banshee/etc aren't really as good as iTunes at music library stuff (though the Magnatune combination is pretty nice and we use that a lot). Flash, for whatever reason, is rather slow in Firefox on my laptop (it's a Dell E1505 by the way, with Ubuntu 8.10 ... previously had openSuSE 11.1, which I didn't like as much as 10.3 so figured I'd try Linux Mint, Mandriva, or Ubuntu...). It requires a password every time I connect to our home wireless network because the WEP key (it's just to keep neighbors off, I know WEP is crackable in less than 15 seconds...) is stored in the password manager which requires a password to access, etc (people complain about UAC, I don't think even it does that...).
Mark me troll or flamebait if you wish (before you do, I'd like to mention that I have an entire CD case dedicated to Linux installs that I try on various (new and old) computers I put [back] together, including TinyME, PuppyLinux (or MacPup), gOS, Xubuntu, Ubuntu, openSuSE 10.3/11.1, Mandriva One, Linux Mint...), but there's a lot that is NOT user friendly in Linux, and simply expecting them to spend extra time learning how to use it is a bi enough expectation - expecting them to learn something like a command line simply to use it not acceptable, IMO, and forcing them to spend a lot of time looking for free or open source alternatives to software and then trying to get them to work, etc ... eh. Admittedly, it's easy to install stuff that's in the default repositories, but who wants to install 100 Star Gazing Exercises for XWindows? ;) openOffice helps tremendously, but it still has a ways to go, IMO.
Parent
Update only what you recognize (Score:5, Insightful)
Choice quote:
The Update Manager is accessed via the starburst at the top right-hand top of the screen. Click it, but be prepared -- you're about to be confronted with literally hundreds of potential updates with incomprehensible names and unenlightening descriptions ...
By default, every update has a check next to it in the Update Manager. Uncheck the boxes next to those you don't want to update -- I recommend updating only software that you recognize.
That's terrible advice.
He might have a point about the huge number of updates on an initial boot confusing users -- doesn't Ubuntu pull updates as part of the install process? If not, it really should.
update what you know? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:update what you know? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
I did RTFA... (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:
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.
Re:I did RTFA... (Score:4, Interesting)
Generally, I agree with the parent, but as a long time Linux user (Slackware, Debian, Ubuntu) and arguably a computer expert, I have (or WANT to have) a mental model of computers that essentially matches this description of Windows users.
Sure I can figure out how to get things working that don't, how to make the system start up faster, how to fix the problems I encounter, how to configure my firewall, etc. However, I don't WANT to do any of those things.
For example, the mental model I would like to have is that I'm going to write music, NOT that I'm going to use the computer to write music.
Much of my time, I'm not interested in the computer at all. I just want to do something that's also relevant outside the context of computers. Interacting with "the computer" in order to accomplish my task is a distraction.
Now, I think Ubuntu (for example) does a pretty good job of minimizing the distractions from the end goal. But I thoroughly agree with the parent that there are still some good opportunities to improve the way the computer gets me into the context of pursuing my ultimate task-related goal.
Parent
The bitter irony (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
An interesting quote from the article (Score:4, Informative)
No No No NO! Update everything. People didn't spend time updating software for you to ignore them. They updated it often because it needs securing.
App Installation (Score:4, Insightful)
The author had lots of trouble installing things. I've gotten into arguments over it before, but here's my take: package managers were the wrong answer to the installation problem. They make installing and updating the the libraries and components that make up the the OS itself very easy, but you'll never satisfy diverse application preferences with a central repository. In his original piece, he tries to update OpenOffice from the web because the package manager isn't offering the update yet. Naturally, this is difficult and not really designed with users in mind. This is why I hate package managers - they leave you with two really crappy choices: either don't use it and have no install management at all, or use it and be doomed to only what's in the repositories and having to wait until New Widget 3.0 is blessed by your distro. Certainly don't try to mix the two options or you'll break everything. The fact that some projects now offer their own repositories is just a terrible band-aid.
My Windows box on the other hand always has the latest version of OpenOffice, and I didn't have to touch a console - anyone could do it. I just go download the installer and run it, without even bothering to uninstall the old version. And it's very easy because it's not just a tarball full of crap - it's actually a well-tested package. This way, I get managed installs - I have a list of programs and if I chose to remove one I just choose it and click the uninstall button. I know the Windows install system is much-maligned for being fragile (breaks, or breaks other stuff), messy (throwing crap everywhere, and not completely removing things), and causing as many problems as it solves. I don't disagree with that assessment, but I'd blame the implementation. The open source community could have made a standard install system. Something nice for a front end, something reliable. Hell, you could even integrate it with your fancy package manager, if you really want to. But apparently nobody finds having to wait to get software they want to be as unpleasant as I do. While I could honestly care less about system libraries most of the time, I demand very specific things of my applications, and I don't like handing control over to whoever runs the package servers.
Re:I am asking: Is Ubuntu = Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent