Is Linux Out of Touch With the Average User?

MrSmith writes "Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user? ZDNet examines five reasons that could explain why people are still willing to pay for (or pirate) an operating system when free alternatives exist. One of the reasons seems to be that despite what many Linux advocates claim, Windows users aren't on the whole dissatisfied with their OS: 'Despite what you read on websites and blogs, newspapers and magazines, people on the whole aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows. There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'"

Re:Yes

"Something like 22,000+ packages available in the Ubuntu repositories today, all of them precompiled. "

This is also a major hurdle to people. How is Joe User going to know which of the 30 browsers he should use, or 20 file management utilities, or 20 calculators? Distributions come with standard software, generally, but even Ubuntu still requires you to connect to dubious quasi-legal repositories in order to get mp3 working. What Joe User is going to scour the internet for an obscure how-to on getting that to work?

Then there's the fact that most of the free software - gimp and openoffice - while excellent for student work, is woefully inadequate for typical professional work. And from the gamer point of view, well, okay - tuxracer. Quake 3. Um. WoW has a port, maybe? Cedega might work, but most likely won't - and will enjoy crashing your x server?

The only real market for linux right now is education, programming, and server applications. Two out of three are a HUGE minority of the installed end-user computer population.

Re:Yes

You are so close to stumbling onto the answer, the door through which Linux must walk before it takes off - and you don't even see it.

What does 'Windows' mean? It is a word for a window, a physical thing in your house, a glass square that you can look out and see stuff. And your computer has a glass square and you can look 'through' that glass square and see stuff.
What is a 'mouse'? A mouse is a small thing that fits in your hand, and has a tail. And next to your keyboard there is one, and you can move it around and see an arrow move on the screen.
What is a 'keyboard'? A board, with keys. Look down under your hands, it's that.
What is 'Word', in the context of your computer? Maybe an application to work with your words (ie, word processor). Yes.
What is 'Internet Explorer'? Maybe an application to explore the Internet? Yes.
What is 'Media Player'? Maybe an application to play media (music, movies, etc)? Yes.
What is 'Paint'? Maybe an application that lets me do pictures? Yes.
What is 'Calculator'? Maybe an application that does on the computer what a real calculator does in real life? Yes.
What is the 'clipboard'? Place where stuff can be cut and pasted? Yes.

Stay with me now ... here's where it gets tricky
What is 'Linux'? Another operating system? Good.
What is 'Ubuntu'? The first black guy off the boat in the movie Roots? (No, that was Kunta.)
What is 'GIMP'? A gay slave in black leather hood, kept in the back of a pawn shop in the movie Pulp Fiction? (hmmm. You got me there.)
What is 'Klipper'? A big ocean going ship? (arg)
What is 'YaST'? You use it to make bread, along with flour and water and eggs. (Arg)
What is 'Kopete'? A drug made from a cactus that grows in Northern Mexico? (No, that's peyote)
What is 'Firefox' - look at the icon carefully and see that it looks a LOT like your Internet Explorer icon? Internet Explorer on Linux? (Damn, good job.)
What is 'Kunta Kinte'? An operating system? (No, I already told you - he was the first black guy off the boat in the movie Roots.)
What is 'OO.org'? A porn site? (No, that's your new version of Office.) What's with the '.org'? (I don't know.)
What is 'amaroK'? Fuck this, I'm going back to Windows.

When Linux applications / applets start getting names that regular people can relate to - only THEN will we start overcoming the hurdles to acceptance. I've been using Linux of some sort or another on and off since about 1997 and there is no way in hell I'm going to say in public 'I'm going home where I will make Ubuntu and the GIMP do what I want.' Sorry, but no. Couple that with all the 'free as in beer' / 'free as in sex' (or whatever the hell) F/OSS political rantings - and we're just getting in our own way.

(Disclaimer - I'm in Firefox right now, on SuSE 10.1 Professional.)

Re:I have 3 words for you:

I double clicked a movie in Ubuntu, that Totem thing popped up with some nasty error message. I double clicked an MP3, no play. I tried to run Heroes of Might and Magic 3: it runs, but it's dog slow. With Windows it worked out of the box and I didn't even need to install it.

I know I'm being unfair, and that you could install the patent-restricted stuff to make the first two work (actually mplayer works better than anything on Windows), but that's not "without significant difficulty" for average users. They will see the error messages, either laugh and leave, or spend days making it work and then tell their friends that Linux sucks.

I don't know how to make #3 work. I tried dosbox, VMWare, Wine, and nothing runs it properly. And so it goes...

Re:I have 3 words for you:

You can play mp3s in Windows without any added codecs or software. This is true, but Microsoft lost a recent lawsuit over the inclusion of the technology that allowed you to do that.

You COULD NEVER just click on an encrypted commercial movie in Windows and have it run out of the box. You had to install the proper video drivers and then you had to install a commercial codec that you purchased or received as part of an OEM deal. You never were able to play an encrypted movie without doing that.

Once you install the two codecs in question you can do the same thing under Linux as you are doing with Windows.

Just stop giving people uninformed information. If you don't know what is happening you shouldn't be volunteering your point of view based on that lack of knowledge.

You NEED to purchase a commercial codec to play encrypted DVDs under Windows and you need to do the same under Linux. You need not pay for mp3 support because Microsoft provided that but they did so at the expense of other companies and got sued for it.

If you didn't install it then someone installed it for you. That's the same thing that would happen in Linux. If the Linux user didn't install it someone could do it for them.

Re:I have 3 words for you:

Not true, Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty) will prompt you and install missing codecs for you. This works as long as you stay with the default applications (that use gstreamer). Otherwise follow https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormat s [ubuntu.com]

Re:Yes

You mention Ubuntu.

Say my grandmother clicks Applications -> Add/Remove and decides she doesn't want GAIM. It shows up in Add/Remove with a checkbox next to it so she unchecks it. She is greeted with a message that no, GAIM can't be removed from here and she needs to launch Synaptic Package Manager. If it can't be removed from Add/Remove then why is it even there? This is the case for half of the preinstalled packages that show up there.

Next, say she want to listen to an MP3. She fires up Add/Remove again and installs the first one she finds. Audacity I think. She launches Audacity and points it to an MP3 she has in her home directory, but it doesn't play. Of course there are no error messages or anything to alert her as to why it didn't play, it gives her no indication of that anything occurred at all. Looking all over the awful Audacity interface she randonly clicks on icons that look nothing like any other icons she has ever seen before, and certainly aren't accompanied by any text descriptions, she finally locates some kind of error list that succinctly informs her that MP3s can't be played because there is no MP3 plugin. No direction as to how to obtain the plugin, not even a hint.

She wull have exactly the same experience with every single MP3 player in the repo until she gets to XMMS, at the end of the list.

Or maybe she never gets to the end of tyhe list. Maybe she deciedes to play GnomeNetHack instead. She launches it. It asks her her character info. Once that is complete it promptly disappears from her screen with absolutely no explanation of why, or where it has gone, or anything else. Launching it again GnomeNetHack informs her that she has a game on and does she want to quit that game and start a new one. She wonders where this game is on since she certainly isn't playing.

Anyway, the repo idea is great and it might be the path to get Linux software installation to where it needs to be. But pretending that it 'just works' is silly. There is still a load of manual work that has to be done by users to get it there. You don't necessarily have to compile anymore but you might, you certainly need more knowledge than any given Windows user.

Re:Yes

And the fact that it has a reputation as being something only computer geeks "can" use.

Undeservedly. My non-geek wife gets by on Linux just fine without much help from me at all.

And the fact that if you want to use any programs on linux you usually have to compile the source yourself.

Um, no. Not one application program on any of my three Ubuntu boxes at home is compiled from source. Most were either installed from the Ubuntu CD, installed via 'Add/Remove Programs', or installed via Synaptic.

And the fact that there are no human interface designers working on the linux project.

On the kernel? No. Kernels need human interface designers like Alaskan Eskimos need air conditioners. On GNOME and KDE? Yes, there are several professional human interface designers working on GNOME and KDE.

Microsoft may not do function very well, but their form is getting better, and they have a comparatively simple interface for users.

And GNOME and KDE are getting form much, much better, modeling their environments by combining the best features Windows has to offer with the best features Mac OS X has to offer, blending them into unique, consistent, stable GUI environments.

Re:Yes

So what you're saying is that you like to nitpick on the difference between the linux kernel and an actual build of linux, without refuting what I said.

I can't refute that 'the linux project' has no human interface designers. Now Linux distros and projects that need human interface designers employ them.

But basically, to sumarize your horribly long, double linebreak argument, linux builds look the same as average windows, almost, but arn't quite as compatable

No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I could go on and on about how modern distros like Ubuntu 'just work.'

When my wife installed our new scanner on her computer, she didn't plug in a scanner, put a CD in and click next, next... She just plugged it in, and *poof* it just worked. All necessary software and drivers were already installed by default. Let me know when Windows can do that, k?

When my wife installed her new digital camera on her computer, she didn't plug install any software, any drivers, nothin'. She just plugged it in and up came the pictures. *poof*. It just worked

My wife wanted Inkscape. She just installed it via 'Add/Remove Programs'. She didn't go to a web site and try to figure out what to do with 'setup.zip'.

What have I done to fix her computer since installing Ubuntu 6.06 about a year ago? Nothing.

Mod parent troll.

Re:Yes

Undeservedly. My non-geek wife gets by on Linux just fine without much help from me at all.

Sure. If someone had gone through all the work of setting up Ubuntu for me, I'd probably be a happy user right now. Unfortunately, I didn't have that luxury. While someone else will be along shortly to link you to my story, here's the car analogy [slashdot.org] of what happened.

And before you say, "but if people had to install Windows ...": well, they don't. You, the geek who doesn't understand why people won't switch to Software Freedom, are asking them to switch FROM Windows TO a Linux distro. So it is entirely understandable to expect that the switchover process be easy, even if the current dominant market participant doesn't make it easy to switch to them.

[interface designers] On the kernel? No. Kernels need human interface designers like Alaskan Eskimos need air conditioners. On GNOME and KDE? Yes, there are several professional human interface designers working on GNOME and KDE.

Unfortunately, there is more to the interface than the OS GUI, and on that, the GP was entirely correct: there is ZERO thought on interface design. On my Ubuntu install, if I -- someone with no professional training in user interfaced design (UID) -- had tested the install process once before release, I would have been able to recommend significant changes. When I tried to install Ubuntu, my first bootup led to a GRUB error that locked me out of all OSes. I know you're going to try to blame that on GRUB, but it was completely avoidable.

First, a UIDer should have thought for ten seconds and said, "wait, if GRUB errors can lock someone out of the OS, how can we mitigate this failure mode?" Since it (based on my experience in the Ubuntu forums) suddenly made the Live CD absolutely necessary, then the website should have been changed to classify the Live CD as being a "necessary download", since you NEED it for troubleshooting if anything goes wrong. Second, a UIDer should have noted that GRUB is not the only way to go, and some users would be okay with loading Ubuntu simply by telling the computer to boot from a CD so at least they can still load Windows. Users should be informed of this at the bootloader setup stage rather than being told, outright, that GRUB is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Third, since my problem (it later turned out) stemmed from using too large a harddrive, and Ubuntu had to know the size of my goddamn harddrive, there should have been some kind of flag -- either tell the user not to install, or use a bootloader that can handle that size. All of those things are under control of the Ubuntu interface designers, so no, you can't just pin this on GRUB.

Remember, being locked out of all OSes is REALLY SERIOUS. It means that the user can't then access the "massive Linux community" or burn new CDs without going far out of his way. The design process reveals an utter failure to recognize failure modes and adequately mitigate them.

And, based on experience, some wiseass is going to pointout how now, finally, they do require Live CD download with the install CD. But the point is that the design process at some point was such that it let such an abysmal failure through. A failure that kept me, a reasonably computer savvy user from switching. Remember, I did my due diligence: I read the download site. I set aside a large block of time for the install. I checked that the CD was burned properly. I evaluated alternate distros. I even bought a third hard drive so the Linux partition could be isolated. And STILL I got ****ed by piss-poor design.

So I tell Linux fans: a) You can put serious effort into making Linux accessible to newbies, and complain when they don't switch, or b) You can resign Linux to being a geek's OS but understand why its market share sucks for home users. But you can't have it both ways

Re:Yes

This discussion really frustrates me. There is only one reason why most people will still pay for or pirate an operating system rather than use Linux: Applications.

If all the programs I own worked just as well under Linux than they do in WinXP, I'd change immediately. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the interface or anything else. People want an operating system to run applications and that's it. Everything else is far down the list.

I've wanted to use Linux for music and video production for ages. The combination of the emergence of the horrible Windows Vista, combined with the release of Ubuntu Studio have convinced me to give it another try.

But still, I'd much rather not have to learn all new software in order to use Linux. If a well-financed company came out with a commercial operating system that ran Windows programs properly, it would be a huge success, if only because of all the ill-will Microsoft has created for itself over the years. I know that I'd support such a project, and be willing to pay a few hundred for it, too.

Re:Yes

I think it is simpler than this. The "average" user...hell, the average person on the street...is an idiot.

Yes, I imagine its easy to call people idiots when they aren't interested in the same fields you are. I'm sure lots of scientists think I'm an idiot because I don't understand what they take for granted. Or perhaps they're not so elitist.

Re:Yes

No seriously, he's right. They're idiots.

I'm not saying 'they don't understand technology' or any other single thing. They lack any sort of sense whatsoever. To fully appreciate the stupidity of the average human, you have to have worked in a non-tech job where everyone has access, like a supermarket or restaurant. You will be amazed at how mind-numbingly stupid people are.

People with average intelligence and above are fine. It's the 50% below that point that really amaze.

Re:Yes

bentcd, you've hit the nail right on the head. We live in a culture that ENCOURAGES stupidity, real or pretend. Now before I get flamed to death here, I'm going to give my personal account and nothing more. My experiences could be skewed, and I mean no ill intent by this, but I've seen women MASTER the ability to switch their brain "off" if it benefits them in a particular situation. Men for some reason, we can't do it so convincingly, or maybe I just don't fall for it as much when it's a fat bald middle-aged guy trying to pull a dumb act on my business.

I've been thrown off by that uncanny acting skill even when I was the one benefiting. Let me paint a picture. I'm at some megastore, standing in line with Jenny Random Girlfriend, both wise and educated individuals, at the customer service desk to get a refund for Gadget-X that sucks. I make my plea, explaining how I'm dissatisfied with my purchase and would like a refund, all done in a friendly tone; they send me a manager to convince me otherwise. After a few minutes of condescending bullshit from the kid with the darker pants, Jenny steps up and unleashes a tsunami of enraged nonsensical babble worthy of a Jerry Springer award. No matter what the kid says, it's as if she were deaf as she repeats the same childish chorus. We walk out minutes later with our money and I give myself a headache trying to figure out how the hell that worked.

You see, it's impossible to reason with truly dumb or lazy people, because their logic skills is shit, they will always rebut your carefully crafted arguments with mindless drivel to frustrate you further as nothing you say will get through their thick skull. If you flip it around and act stupid, you give your adversary no option but to give in to your demands. Like the saying goes, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Re:Yes

That's still elitism.

Everybody works with things they don't understand, and you cant understand everything (although you can try).

Calling IE the "internet" or even saying it's their "operating system" (or saying "Office 2007" is their operating system for that matter) is ignorant (by the definition of the word - lack of knowledge), yes. It however is not idiotic.

Computers are still not as simple devices as we'd like to believe, and for a casual user, there is a lot to remember. As a similar example showing my ignorance: I you show me a car, I can't tell you the make/model, and if you give me a model, I can't tell use the manufacturer in most cases. I'm ignorant in such matters - everyone has their own ignorances, and just because you know something that someone else doesn't, doesn't make that person an idiot - thinking everyone should know it, however, might make you one.

Re:Yes

No, they really are idiots. I'm not talking about people who can't compile source code or fix registry problems by themselves. I'm talking about people who really do think IE (or Google for that matter) is "the Internet"; people who can barely check their email; people who don't understand that turning off the monitor doesn't turn off "the computer". These are the same people who somehow manage to stumble through life and reproduce only because our society is built upon catering to the lowest common denominator all the time.

i don't know how to rebuild an engine. i don't know anything about tax law. i can't separate waste from water to make it drinkable again. i can't start or fly a commercial airplane. i wouldn't know the first thing about properly laying a brick sidewalk. i am completely incapable of stitching up a wound...

none of the people who excel at any of the above tasks have ever once called me an idiot. why should i look down at them because they may not know something that i do?

the world is made of of all types of people for a reason. thinking you are above any one person makes you more of an idiot than they'll ever be.

dude.

Re:Yes

i'd contend that not only is society built upon "catering to the lowest common denominator" it depends on that bulk group as the critical mass for the perpetuation of civilization. people who follow orders, do as they are told, are of nominal intelligence, etc.

i've never understood this sentiment, however. that guy "who barely checks his email" is the guy who fixes and maintains the elevators in your building, or prepares your food in a restaurant, or builds the home you'll raise your family in, or in all truth, teaches your children. it's weird to look upon those people in such a fashion because they are "people who can barely check their email".

The very nature of our western civilization depends on these people to "play" their position - to sludge through toxic sewage and repair potholes @ three in the morning so you have the luxury of smooth driving surfaces and clean water.

this is the problem with a lot of smarter people in general. it's this broad-day perpetual masturbatory "how could you not know that? everyone knows that?" attitude - that permeates techies in general.

It's interesting - the adage of absolute power. If only a few IQ points has you feeling so superior - imagine if you had real power over others. Bananas.

Re: your points.

1. IE IS THE INTERNET. Unneeded complexity. To the user there is no reason why their concept of the browser should not be consistent with the internet. To a driver, ignition makes the car run - is it sufficient to have the average user need to understand further principles of ignition and internal combustion in order to be considered an adequate user of a driving vehicle? I contend it is unneeded complexity to have the user even be aware of anything other than what it is they desire off the web. I contend that apple gets it in this regard - it is UNNEEDED complexity. I contend that we can't have it both ways - if we have an educational system that produces drones (as the US system does) then it is important to give them simple tools that work. Can't produce drones, then introduce unnecessary complexity and then complain when they don't comprehend.

2. TURNING OFF THE MONITOR DOESN'T TURN OFF THE COMPUTER. Again. unneeded complexity. apple gets it and got it for a while. the monitor is and can be the computer. Less components are better.

3. REPRODUCTION: as many might argue that reproducing is the point of it all - and reproduction rates tend to vary inversely with IQ (i read that somewhere but i might be wrong) then it might be that these idiots aren't so dumb after all.

I like being contrarian. it's a boring day. let the flames ensue. I do remember reading about how european women on west indian plantations during slavery never understood why survival rates were so low for white babies but they insisted on having slave nannies (who poisoned the babies in turn - after all, they were slaves) LOL. Morlocks and the Eloi - hell, even Fight Club. It's such a dangerous attitude to have - yours - and it's documented EVERYWHERE.

Re:Yes

Last week I installed Ubuntu on my boss' old laptop, and it installed pretty easily. I was having trouble getting the wireless going, so I looked-around online. I found a 14-step manual process (complete with command lines) to get it going, and thought that was simple enough...

Until one of the steps was a completely vague "now write a shell script to enable all the attributes".

At that point I gave up and walked-away, and remembered WHY I haven't personally used Linux in years.

I'm the go-to guy for computers for most people I know. I have a 4.93 GPA in the IT course I'm taking. But Linux... it's just a pain in the ass.

Re:Yes

If the manufacturers of this wireless device provided specifications for this device to the Free/open-source Software community, a driver would have been written the next day.

This is not a "Linux" problem, per se, it's a problem that most hardware manufacturers don't support Free Software (yet). So, just chill with your current favorite OS for a while. In the coming year, the whole IT industry is going to change. Dell is selling computers with Ubuntu. This will give hardware manufacturers an incentive to release specs, or write "open-source" drivers themselves, and (not soon enough) hardware support under GNU/Linux will be better than any other operating system (considering GNU/Linux runs on so very many platforms).

The other thing to note is that change takes time. The geeks will always be on the front lines of technological progress, and the regular joe sixpack and jane boxwine may follow along sometime later.