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.'"

Yes

[hal9000(jr)]

But so are many commercial and opensource programs.

Re:

[cyphercell]

Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?

No, Linux's market share is a matter of vender lockin, monopoly abuse, aligned with the fact that Linux is still quite a bit younger than windows.

Re:

[lanswitch]

There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty

Mostly because they are not aware of the problems. How many of those pc's are zombified, infected, or otherwise compromised?

Re:

[CogDissident]

How many of those users would understand or care if they were?

Re:Yes

[AKAImBatman]

aligned with the fact that Linux is still quite a bit younger than windows

That argument doesn't hold water anymore. Linux is approximately 16 years old and is based on a design that is ~40 years old. The original Windows codebase would be 22 years old this year if it weren't dead and buried. Windows NT technology replaced the original Windows line in the 90's, making the current Windows platform only 14 years old. So in actuality, it's Windows that is the young'un.

Re:

[AKAImBatman]

the Linux GUI is much younger

Not so! X was developed in 1984 at MIT. The current X11 version was released in 1987. Windows 1.01 was released in 1985.

As for the constant cycling of Desktop Environments, it's not Microsoft's fault that they've kept their system stabilized on a single DE since 1995 while the Linux community cycles through WMs and DEs like FVWM, Afterstep, Enlightenment, KDE, GNOME, and XFCE.

NT GUI would be being based on a design that is 22 years old

You're not serious, are you? The NT GUI is n

Re:Yes

[Ravnen]

Without commenting on the relevance of your points, your facts aren't quite right. Microsoft as a brand has been around since 1975, not 1981. The original Windows system was announced in 1983, and released in 1985, so that brand can perhaps be said to be 22-24 years old, although it didn't gain a wide following until the early 1990s, with Windows 3.x. In terms of the code, the Windows NT development group formed in 1988, when Dave Cutler and his team left DEC and came to Microsoft. The first release was in 1993, so the modern Windows OS itself (not the brand) is either 14 or 19 years old, depending on how you define the starting point.

On the Linux side, the GNU Project to create an open source clone of the Unix operating system was announced by Richard Stallman in 1983, coincidentally the same year Microsoft announced Windows. Some of the GNU codebase dates from 1984, but it's more difficult to indentify the equivalent of a 'release date' for open source software than for closed. Linus Torvalds started his computer science studies in 1988, and announced Linux in 1991, but the '1.0' release didn't come until 1994. Moreover, Linux made extensive use of existing GNU software.

On the whole, from a code perspective, Windows and Linux are roughly similar in age. From a brand perspective, Windows has an age advantage over Linux, but not GNU. Linux could have negated this by using the existing the 'GNU' brand (as Richard Stallman insists it ought to do), in the same way that NT used the existing 'Windows' brand, and thus have had effective parity with Windows, in terms of the brand's age. The fact that this was not done largely reflects Stallman's extremely poor choice of a name ('GNU'), which led to virtually no brand value being developed from 1983 to 1991, when the Linux brand came along. It was actually better to start over than continue to be saddled with such a poor brand name.

Re:

[GovCheese]

Don't forget that a computer is a big ticket item for many families. One of their most important considerations when they buy is "what programs are out there for the kids?" Compared with the wealth of solid education and kid entertainment software for Windows, Linux is a dry desert. It may not be your calculus when you chose your OS, but it is for many families. Port Freddie Fish (as one example) over to Linux and you might have a deal.

Re:

[gfxguy]

No, the problem is that many things users want to do require a work-around in Linux that just happens easily with Windows.

A lot of Linux distributions can't even play mp3's out of the box, or certain other mpegs and avis. It's easy enough for us to make our Linux systems work, but why would a typical user do something when they can get the same thing by doing nothing? When web technologies are present on your machine, windows users generally need to just click on a link and magically have Flash or Acrobat

Re:Yes

[morgan_greywolf]

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

[UbuntuDupe]

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

[morgan_greywolf]

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

[PopeRatzo]

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

[aussie_a]

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

[Aladrin]

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:

[bentcd]

You will be amazed at how mind-numbingly stupid people are.

You need to keep in mind that a fair number of people (perhaps of the more intelligent portion, interestingly) like to feign stupidity when dealing with service people since this is more likely to gain them better assistance, faster. Standing around looking completely lost and asking really inane questions tends to be a good way to draw the attention of the staff and encourage them to help you *every* *step* *of* *the* *way* and that can be really c

Re:Yes

[billcopc]

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

[jimstapleton]

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:

[Altus]

Yes, because the use of a car is designed to be a lot more intuitive than that of a computer.

Which is the point. Cars are designed for everyone to be able to use. The above poster chose to call everyone idiots, and frankly, the lowest common denominator is pretty damn low. Computers should also be designed for everyone to be able to use. They should be as close to idiot proof as possible like cars are (a big enough idiot can easily fail it when it comes to a car).

Now sure, you can argue that windows is h

Re:Yes

[i7dude]

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:

[Nebu]

i don't know how to rebuild an engine.

I don't know how to code an OS or even compile one from sratch truly. A better analogy is that someone doesn't know how to pump gas or fill their tires.

I don't know how to fill tires. I know how to pump gas 'cause I saw my dad pump gas when I was a kid, and he let me try it a few times. Similarly, I've thought kids a specific computer task (e.g. how to double click on an icon), and they've picked it up. It's not that they were smart enough to figure it out on the

Re:Yes

[BewireNomali]

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

[Kenshin]

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

[mw13068]

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.

Re:

[Thyamine]

I have to agree. I attempted something very similar for my wife who only needed a system to get on the web and check her email. Getting the wireless to work required me to search around for how to do it first, then begin downloading/installing additional components, and then playing around with things like NDISwrapper and rt2x00 on the command line to finally get it working. Then maybe every other day I had to rerun all the commands to re-do whatever was breaking and causing the wireless to just stop wor

Re:Yes

[erroneus]

Idiocy is a matter of perspective.

Frankly, I can claim you are an idiot for not being able to see things as I see them. I'm an IT manager. People are constantly assuming I think they are idiots (as most IT guys seem to) because they don't know or understand "X." ("X" does not refer to the window environment, it's a variable meaning whatever we're talking about at the time.) Once in a while, I have to break it down the way I'm breaking it down now:

Idiocy is a relatative term and a matter of perspective. I know my areas pretty well though I readily admit there are areas I have yet to study and understand. The people I work with seem to know their own areas pretty well. But since I don't attempt to dabble in their realm quite so much, I don't run afowl of being "an idiot" in their view.

Yes. The average person is "an idiot." Yes. A large group of people's VCRs blick "12:00." But I find that people have been conditioned to believe the knowledge and understanding is a burden and so people go well out of their way to avoid learning or experiencing anything that might lead to learning something. (I think this somehow goes back to our experiences with public education...)

But to include OSX into the discussion as you have, that is precisely why Apple has the reputation it has. "Happy Stupid People" is the image of the Mac user for good reason. "The For Dummies" series of books is so wildly successful because of the same fact. Knowledge is indimidating. If somehow a person can retain his "stupidity" while learning something new, then you have your hook. "Easy" means stupid people can use it.

And it's not so much that Linux doesn't mean easy... there is much distance for Linux to travel before we even get to that point in the discussion. Right now, "MSWindows" and "Computer" are essentially the same thing to people because of the monopoly Microsoft maintains. Once people see alternatives as viable, then we can talk about "Easy to use."

In my mind, the best path for Linux adoption by the masses, you must first promote Apple and Mac OSX. Then, when people see and use a single viable alternative, then they will also be open to recognizing a third. But at the moment, seeing even one alternative is a strain on their feeble minds.

Re:

[TheThiefMaster]

If you go into network connections and ask for the status of any of your network connections it's in there.

Re:

[grumbel]

Where do human interface designers come in on the kernel development front?

The kernel is something users come in contact with quite a lot of times and a lot of time it horribly fails to meet the users demand. The kernel isn't some thingy that is buried deep down and has zero impact on daily use, it actually has quite a lot.

Simple example, some days ago wanted to make my new keyboard work completly under Linux, not a big issue one might think, but it took a good six hours to get the thing going, since t

Re:

[jedidiah]

Some people excel at making their life difficult.

Congratulations, you are one of them.

Re:

[The_Wilschon]

You really haven't used Linux in a long time. Package management of precompiled binaries has been a major feature, even the defining feature, of most distributions for at least 8 years. Something like 22,000+ packages available in the Ubuntu repositories today, all of them precompiled. You don't even have to know what a compiler is to use most any program you can think of on Ubuntu. (or RHEL, or SUSE, or Mandriva, or, or, or)

Re:Yes

[bishiraver]

"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:

[Penguinisto]

"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?

Umm, the same way he picks wheat to drive - a Chevy Aveo, or a Kia Sportage, a Hyundai Sonata, a Porsche 911 Carrara, or a used Jeep Wrangler, or ...? The only real difference being that cost is no longer a factor in choosing software.

Now don't get me wrong - I grok the idea you're getting at, in that most folks don't want to sit down and actually do this for each and every proggie they want/need/desire. But then again, if (as is the case anyway) most distros provide a set of solid defaults, then the r

Re:

[bishiraver]

Hey, thanks for flaming me - I appreciate it. Just so you know, I run slackware with fluxbox on my old laptop - simple web browsing and email, combined with a pinned and virtual desktop independent terminal make for a convenient interface for me; I like typing in commands.

I have an iPod, and I use windows for gaming. I'm in no way a shill, just pointing out what some people don't realize - is that having to grok the difference between thirty different absurdly and counter intuitively named components is a m

Re:

[encoderer]

This thread illustrates the summary perfectly. It's. Still. Too. Complicated.

Re:

[N3WBI3]

Really how do I install ie7 on a windows 98 box? what I have to upgrade!

For IE7, but not Firefox. APIs still too unstable

[Rob Y.]

Microsoft may force you to upgrade for their own reasons - mainly to force you to upgrade.

But Firefox doesn't force you to upgrade unless they have to. Maybe FF 2.0 won't work on win98, I don't know. But all prior versions did. I used all FF's up to 1.5 on Win95 before I got a new box.

And FF 2.0 could probably work fine on any Linux distro. But the distros, for various reasons, can't easily support it. I think Mandriva 2007 had some GNOME dependencies on FF 1 stuff, so there was never an FF 2 upgrade p

Re:

[mhall119]

Ubuntu 6.06 is intended to provide a secure and stable environment for a long period of time. It is designed to use the same packages (with only security and stability updates) until the end of it's support cycle. That is why there is no Firefox 2 offered to you from Ubuntu's update manager. There is also no IE7 for Windows2000 users (for other reasons), so your problem isn't unique to Ubuntu.

So you have two options, you can either upgrade your OS to a recent version of Ubuntu, which is still free and us

Re:

[Knuckles]

Well, until I get it figured out, I don't know if it does or doesn't have anything to do with compiling.

There is little to figure out: go to firefox.com, download, read instructions. If you google for 'install "firefox 2.0" "ubuntu 6.06"', you will find a list of neat links to help.

Re:Yes

[Glonoinha]

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:

[mhall119]

When Linux applications / applets start getting names that regular people can relate to - only THEN will we start overcoming the hurdles to acceptance.

Hey that looks like fun, let me give it a shot:

What is Excel?
What is PowerPoint?
What is Access?
What is Outlook?
What is AIM?
What is Safari?
What is Fireworks?
What is Dreamweaver?
What is Acrobat?
What is XP/Vista/Leopard/Tiger/Big cat name here?

You're confusing familiarity with clarity. But even still, Ubuntu uses "Text Editor", "Web Browser", "Media Player", "I

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

Have you guys even looked at an Ubuntu Application menu?

It's not called 'GIMP', it's called 'GIMP Image Editor'. It's not called 'Totem', it's called 'Movie Player'. It's not called 'Evolution', it's called 'Evolution Mail Client'. It's not called 'GAIM/Pidgin', it's called 'Instant Messenger'.

Next?

Re:

[jedidiah]

Don't even bring MythTV into this. You would have problems with Windows MCE.

The fact that I don't like fighting my PC, and I actually like to make meaningful product choices is why I originally went with Linux.

This whole whining about having too many browsers and and whatnot demonstrates the basic cultural divide.

Re:

[jimstapleton]

They don't work on the Linux project, because the human interfaces used by Linux are not Linux projects!

As the GP posted, it is truely irrelevant to have a human interface designer on the Linux project. Now interface design people who port such applications to Linux are relevant.

I'd offer KDE as an example, except for *possibly* the Konqueror file browser, most of what is in KDE is handled better than it's comparable option in Windows (it took me no time whatsoever to migrage using KDE, and to be honest, wi

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

[mhall119]

You Linux apologists have yet to admit that the MP3 codecs aren't installed by default in anything except possibly XMMS. Not the default audio player that installs with Ubuntu, not Audacity and not VLC and not any other of the 50 or so MP3 players in the repos, all of which use different icons for their playlist buttons, their file add buttons, their fucking play buttons.

Ok, now that I'm done laughing, I can respond.

No, MP3 codecs are not installed by default on any free distro, that is because you have to

Re:I have 3 words for you:

[markov_chain]

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:

[HermMunster]

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:

[Knuckles]

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]

Ignorance?

[Mr.Intel]

Apart from games, which the clueful use as an excuse to not convert at least one box to Linux, I'd wager Ignorance (capital I) is the leading cause of high Windows market share. There's legions of bot nets for a reason... If the average computer user is satisfied with windows, it follows that they are blissfully unaware of the pornspam spewing from their infected PC.

Re:Ignorance?

[MontyApollo]

Most people I know have never heard of linux. In fact, the only people were IT people.

I think the average person is also entrenched in the windows paradigm. They really don't want to know how things work, but they have built up a certain level of knowledge in windows and might not be too inclined to start over again. Most windows users know how to load a new driver for example - you download it, then you double-click it (they are usually in executables that do all the work.) There are a lot of little things like that are big "achievements" for the average user, and he doesn't want too feel stupid all over again learning a new system unless he's REALLY been sold on the advantages.

Re:

[electroniceric]

You nailed it. In a broader sense I think it shows you how market change does and doesn't work. Linux ought to pose a lot of advantages - it's definitely cheaper up front, more maintainable, provides vendors with options, etc. So a hardware vendor can sell you Linux and keep more money than if they were selling you Windows. Clearly vendors don't all think that or they would have made many things work smoothly with Linux. This usually leads to an argument about support, training and TCO, and all those T

Re:Ignorance?

[sootman]

"Apart from games, which the clueful use as an excuse to not convert at least one box to Linux..."

The average user only *has* one box.

The fact is, there are a *lot* of computer users out there. Most--I'm not exaggerating when I say it's probably 95%--don't care to know anything about their machine other than which icons to click to launch IE, Word, and Solitaire. Most users don't know what an OS is, or that Windows is one; they certainly don't know that there are options. They don't know the difference between memory and storage, they don't know the difference between the desktop and the hard drive; if you change their wallpaper they freak out that their computer is broken, etc etc etc. Computer runs slow? It's been two years, buy another.

To respond to the question in question, yes, Linux is light-years out of touch--not that it's unusable, but that most users don't know what it is, where to get it, or why they'd want it. The fact that it's bulletproof against malware isn't enough--they fear change more. Don't underestimate the power of inertia.

Re:

[Mr.Intel]

Not so much a fanboy of Linux as a detractor of windows. They both have their uses. My point was that the average computer user is ignorant of Linux for many reasons, including being ignorant of the threats that face a Windows machine connected to the internet. That's not fanboying, that's just how it is.

Why I don't use Linux

[overcaffein8d]

yeah, I use windows. I love Linux, but some games don't work on it except with more tweaking that i can frankly handle. Other than gaming, Linux is pretty good, though.

Re:Why I don't use Linux

[Balthisar]

I don't use Linux, either*. I'm a heavy user, a power user, and I choose to use Mac OS X, and sometimes I fire up Windows. In fact, when Apple went Intel, it was a perfect chance to get rid of my home-brewed, whitebox PC and my PowerMac and replace them with an elegant pair of iMacs capable of running Parallels way the hell faster than VPC ever did.

This post would go on forever if I explained why I used Mac OS X versus Windows, so I won't. But I choose Mac OS and Windows over Linux because of lack of need for Linux. Mac OS X does *almost* everything I could want it to do, and Windows XP in a VM takes care of my needs for the few things Mac OS X can't do (certain personal applications, certain work applications, probably the same stuff that doesn't work in Linux, which would probably already be ported to Mac OS X anyway). I'm aware Windows has its security problems, but I don't really care; it's insulated from most of the world in the VM anyway, and any miniscule, potential exposure is only when it's running. Really, now, what's my need for desktop Linux over existing solutions?

*Oops, had to add a qualifier to this. My MythTV backend is a Linux box, of course, and it also serves as my my NAT store, and my home gateway for ssh access while I'm not at home. I guess I could have cludged together something under Windows, but then I wouldn't trust it for the job (and Mac OS doesn't run [officially] on non-Apple hardware). So, I'm a Linux user after all, just not a desktop Linux user, which kind of transforms my point into something about choosing tools for the job.

It sometimes looks that way

[PHAEDRU5]

I can't tell you how many times I've see a question like "What's the best linux for a newbie?" or "Will linux run on my laptop?" answered by a fair amount of mockery, and the advice to "Try it, and see what happens."

This is not reassuring to the average user.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the best car for a newbie?

Re:It sometimes looks that way

[Overzeetop]

I recommend buying a kit. Not a complete one - just the chassis, engine and transmission. Once you get that running, there are lots of places to buy a body, wheels, tires, windshield, etc. Oh, and it should be a stick - don't get an automatic 'cause you'll never really learn to "drive" in an automatic.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. *hangs head in shame*

Because it comes with a spell checker...

[gillbates]

why people are still winning to pay for (or pirate) an operating system..

Ok, Windows doesn't really come with a spell checker. But Microsoft Office does, and people think that if they use Linux, they'll end up sounding like some hacker-type...

While I said it in jest, I think there's a point to be made. People tend to use the operating systems that best suit them (or from another perspective: that they deserve). Linux users and Windows users have different needs. Surprise, yawn.

It would be more constructive to talk about how Linux users can improve the experience for Windows users. I know of quite a few people who hate computers altogether because of their experience with Windows, and, tragically, because of this, are unwilling to try anything different because they fear it will be more of the same.

Re:

[Constantine XVI]

I know for a fact KDE (and I think Gnome 2.18) has a desktop-wide spell checker that works in pretty much every kdelib (or libgnome) app (I've noticed in Konqueror, Kopete, Firefox and G^HPidgin)

Out of touch with most end users?

[Orclover]

Thank you Captain Obvious! We'll take it from here.

#6

[grev]

The average computer user doesn't know what Linux is.

Re:

[RedHat Rocky]

Not only that, the average home user (read, non-IT) equates "Computer" with "Windows".

Many times I've gotten the blank stare when I mentioned there are other operating systems than MS-Windows and the followup question is often "What's an operating system?".

Re:

[massysett]

Dude, if we could get you to write these periodic "Why Linux hasn't taken over the desktop" articles, we'd save a lot of time. Trolls love to write articles like this one, and they never even mention your point, which is so obvious: people do not even know what Linux is, and even if they did, they wouldn't care. They want to surf a little Net and see some photos, and they couldn't care less what an operating system is. Which is fine. But it's dumb to say that people don't use Linux because it's too hard, et

Aye sir!

[VincenzoRomano]

If the "average user" is a Windows user!
Apart of jokes, there's still a long way, especially if you think about the number of different distributions with very little in common!

The simple truth

[gosand]

I think that Windows is good enough. Yes, it can be frustrating at times, but let's not kid ourselves. Linux isn't a walk in the park either. Granted, it has come an *extremely* long way over the years, but there are still things that annoy me about it, and I use Kubuntu. Look, I have been using it on my main PC since Redhat 6.2. I love it, and prefer it. However, my wife doesn't want the hassle, and I don't want the hassle either. We recently got her a new laptop, and it has XP on it. (thank goodness Dell Small Business will install XP, I didn't want to wrestle with Vista). XP is installed, wireless works great, it all just works pretty well. She is already used to it, and we have all of her programs tranferred over. Once of those is Quicken. I know there is GnuCash and others, but when I started using them I found them to be cumbersome, and for some reason it wasn't able to import any of my bank statements. Finally got fed up with it, and turned the finances over to my wife and Quicken. It's been great ever since.

Look, why does Linux have to take over the world? Can't you just use it and enjoy it? I understand being passionate about it, I promote it where it makes sense. But honestly, it isn't a replacement for Windows. And there is no need for it to be.

Linux is great, but does it run under Windows?

[Shivetya]

A little sarcastic, but honestly I see the reason the average user isn't using Linux is either because they don't care or because, they really don't care.

Take my parents as an example. No problem with viruses, hacks, or whatnot. Why? Because I set them up right and told them what not to do. The rest of the relatives? All using Windows (one heretic uses a MAC - but she is a California girl so we let her). Kids, they want games, games run under Windows. Who cares if WINE can make their game run, thats one EXTRA step they aren't going to take.

So, basically unless Linux runs windows software seemlessly and comes preinstalled it ain't going to make a dent. People run Windows because it works. Regardless of the FUD you hear here it does what people need it to do. People don't care what makes it run, just that it does. If a virus takes them down they get their friends to fix it or some store.

Really, why would you expect them to take the extra STEPS to change something that is adequate for their need? what does Linux do that Windows can't? (and don't go on about security - they don't care)

It's not Linux's fault...

[Eggplant62]

...that the majority of people have never heard of Linux before. They've lived in a world where Microsoft software is installed on a new computer by default, and about the only thing they know about this Linux thing is that it is just something their kids told them the kid down the street likes to play with. The bulk of the software on the market that people are exposed to is either Microsoft or created to only run on Microsoft operating systems.

The answer is to just do what we do best. Show people, educate them, and let them see what Linux is. Keep up the grassroots movement. It will take time, but as long as we keep educating people that they have a choice, Linux will catch on. Microsoft started in 1975 with some stolen code on paper tape, and they didn't become a household name overnight, either.

It's on track.

[jshriverWVU]

When my girlfriends XP laptop went to the big electronic place in the sky, she started using my computer (Ubuntu box). Took her about an hour to figure things out and she's not very computer savvy. Now I'm building her a computer and she requested I put "that Lenux thing" on it, because she liked how it just worked smoothly and didn't have freeze ups. To me that said a lot.

Yes, of course they are satisfied!

[rumith]

Especially now that Vista decorates the BSOD with lighting effects.

This is a good thing

[rtkluttz]

It is good that it is out of touch with the average computer user.

Average computer users don't care about security. The attitude that average computer users take towards security is the reason why ISP's take it upon themselves to do security on behalf of the user. I don't want to have to search for a decent ISP who doesn't block ports or make security decisions for me. It should be my responsibility to secure my own machine and if I fail at than, then they have the right to boot me off the network.

Linux expects a certain level of proficiency, but it takes the correct approach in that it doesn't mandate it.

Asked and answered, your honor

[Control Group]

Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?

The question contains its own answer. Most people - even most technically adept people - are not interested in installing "the movement" on their PCs. They want an operating system. They aren't interested in making a statement, bringing Microsoft to its knees, or sacrificing their souls on the altar of RMS' inevitable apotheosis. They want an OPERATING SYSTEM.

Linux is a great operating system, with - IMHO - just a few minor hurdles that must be overcome before it can be seriously offered to an average person (most importantly, AAA games and hardware support - like USB 802.11x dongles). And those hurdles can be worked around if the average person knows someone with some knowledge of the OS (much like the hurdles of Windows can be worked around if they know someone with some knowledge of the OS).

But yes, "the movement" is out of touch with the average computer user. As long as it thinks of itself as "the movement," it always will be.

i think they are missing the issues

[noldrin]

What are the numbers of people who install windows via CD VS people who install Linux via CD?

The main reason is that under Linux your hardware won't work as well, more internet stuff won't work, and you can't play your games like Evercrack and WoW. People who use Linux generally are either really care about freedom, or are computer hobbyists who like messing around with their computer. Average users often just get frustrated and move back to windows if they were curious enough to switch anyways.

I think Linux would be better off targeting the computer hobbyists rather than prematurely going after average users. We are prematurely slapping an easy to use GUI on top of a system that you need to know about in order to maintain, translation: we are giving people enough rope to hang themselves before they know how to use rope safely. Once Linux has most of the computer people using it, the casual user will follow. This is how it worked in the world of DOS vs Mac

care with disatisfaction claims

[psbrogna]

Many of the Windows users that would be disatisfied aren't because they have a friend of family member that takes care of things for them when the box goes to hell because of malware or other disfunctionality. I however, and I imagine much of the readership here, am getting tired of supporting these boxes. It's not bad when it's just routine preventive maintenance but when it becomes corrective maintenance and happens often- that's when I reach for the Ubuntu distro. If I were to cease their Window support

People are afraid of change!

[FredDC]

It's very simple, people are afraid of change! Especially with that which they don't fully understand.

Most people don't know how their computer works, it just does. If they click a button it does something. The moment it does something else they panic! Change the way the button looks and they won't click it anymore, because it can't possibly do the same thing as before: it looks different.

I notice this every day with people who have used a computer for many years every single day. I've been trying to get so

Of course it is

[HangingChad]

Is Linux's less than impressive market share an indication that the movement is out of touch with the average computer user?

Of course it is. What we're really arguing is whether that's a bad thing. Remember when AOL users all piled on to the internet?

Why there are more windows and mac users

[emil10001]

"There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'There are millions of users out there who just get on and use their PCs without any real difficulty.'"

Yes, and my bet is that many of them wonder why opening their web browser takes 5 mintues.

Q: Why are there so many windows and mac users campared with linux users?
A: Because MS Windows and Mac OS X both come pre-installed on cheap/pretty boxes that the customer doesn't need to think about. MS and Apple also both have large, highly visible marketing efforts behind their software to make people aware of the brand, and attract them to the product. There is also the fear of something different that I'm sure many windows/mac users feel towards linux, they don't understand it, and it looks different from what they've seen before.

I think that the most effective way to get linux out to the people would be a large, highly visible marketing effort. As well as an easy way for people to get a linux distro onto their box without them needing to think about it too much.

Number 3 nailed it

[niloroth]

Quite frankly, i think the 3rd point was one of the biggest. I am rather good with computers, and networking, but getting my acer laptop to work with the wireless b/g card in it under any distro is more than i am willing to do. I can NDISwrapper the drivers, and have a card that will only work in b mode under linux, if i go in and mess about with the conf files. But even then there are seemingly random times where it will just stop working. And going between multiple networks without stopping and restarting the service is simply an exercise in futility, something windows doesn't have a problem with at all. I realize that without driver support from the manufacturers this will continue to be a problem, but non the less, it is a reason for the lack of market share, because if i don't fell like going through the hassle, i feel most users wouldn't even get far enough along to realize that all this work is far more than should be needed.

Re:

[just_another_sean]

I fully agree but at the same time I recently decided I really wanted a laptop, got my company to approve it and convinced myself that there was no way I wanted to use Ubuntu/Debia on my home and work PCs and Windows on a laptop. I don't mind Windows per se and need it to use some company programs we rely on (Great Pains!) but I use it in a VM now when I need to and can pretty much do the rest of the day to day on Linux. So... I researched and I ended up getting a laptop from LinuxCertified. Was it as cheap

Naming

[Snap E Tom]

I've always believed a big problem for desktop, mainstream linux adoption was the naming of popular applications.

Imagine using Linux for the first time.

Noob: What do I use to play CDs and MP3's?
Linux Teacher: XMMS
Noob: What do I use to edit photos?
Linux Teacher: Gimp
Noob: What do I use to play movies?
Linux Teacher: There's xine and VLC.
Noob: How about for IMs?
Linux Teacher: GAIM
Noob: Email?
Linux Teacher: Evolution

What the hell's an XMMS, Gimp, xine, VLC, or Gaim? Those names are awful, and they're often acronyms. If you ask any average Joe what a Gimp was, they'll tell you it's a guy who walks funny. How the hell are you supposed to know that that's an image editing application? Evolution's for email and not something to do with biology?

Photoshop. You have an idea what that's for. Internet Explorer. Same thing - I probably use it to explore the internet. Those are good names. If you're new to Windows, and you want to do something but can't remember the name of the program you're supposed to use, just look around in your Start menu or Programs directory. The names will probably clue you in.

Marketing and branding can definitely help - more and more people are hearing about Firefox, but that gained popularity first in Windows. Access and Excel aren't that descriptive, but they became household names because of marketing and bundling with Word, which is descriptive.

If people want to make Linux more "user friendly" developers should think a lot about the name they give their programs.

Re:

[Overzeetop]

If people want to make Linux more "user friendly" developers should think a lot about the name they give their programs.

They do - and developers are often far more clever (or think they should be) than the typical enduser. In all honesty, a developer is fully commited to the process, and understands far more about the application than any enduser will. It's no big deal that they use acronyms because they know what it stands for. Think of 14 year old girls texting - they don't see a string of meaningless let

Re:Naming

[oneandoneis2]

Right. Because "Powerpoint" is exactly what somebody who needs to do a slideshow will look for.

Need a spreadsheet? "Excel" will be the first word that comes to mind!

Want to get your email? "Lotus Notes" or "Outlook Express" - almost the DEFINITION of names that clearly explain what the application does.

Need to view a PDF? Good thing you've got the intuitively-named "Acrobat" available, isn't it?

And "Quicktime" is the first place I'd look when I wanted to watch a movie file. Really.

Re:

[X_Bones]

your and your parent's post both have it wrong - applications don't work that way.

When your program has millions of dollars in marketing and focus group research behind it, and (by and large) has the features and ease-of-use that the majority of people are looking for, you can name it whatever the hell you want and it will succeed. Notice how all the apps you named come from large vendors who can provide all that. A given piece of free or open-source software won't gain widespread acceptance until it has

Re:Naming

[Compholio]

Noob: What do I use to play CDs and MP3's?
Linux Teacher: XMMS or Rhythmbox

Ubuntu "Start" Menu: Sound & Video -> (XMMS Music Player | Rhythmbox Music Player)

Noob: What do I use to edit photos?
Linux Teacher: Gimp

Ubuntu "Start" Menu: Graphics -> GIMP Image Editor

Noob: What do I use to play movies?
Linux Teacher: There's xine and VLC.

Ubuntu "Start" Menu: Sound & Video -> (MPlayer Movie Player | Xine Movie Player)

Noob: How about for IMs?
Linux Teacher: GAIM

Ubuntu "Start" Menu: Internet -> Gaim Internet Messenger

Noob: Email?
Linux Teacher: Evolution or Thunderbird

Ubuntu "Start" Menu: Internet -> (Evolution Mail | Thunderbird Mail)

It's not as hard as you make it sound.

Re:Naming

[_Sprocket_]

I've always believed a big problem for desktop, mainstream linux adoption was the naming of popular applications.

Non-issue. Yeah... sure... Open Source folks seem to like picking wierd names. They're not marketing specialists. But its not the stumbling roadblock you make it out to be. A real neophyte is going to just go clicky-clicky on an icon or media file and go with whatever comes up. Heck... how many times have you heard a new user talking about "using the Internet" without a clue about what ISP or browser is involved (or even if they ARE involved).

I can play the name game in the Windows world too.

Imagine using Windows for the first time.

Noob: What do I use to play CDs and MP3's?
Windows Guy: WinAmp
Noob: What do I use to edit photos?
Windows Guy: Paintshop Pro.
Noob: What do I use to play movies?
Windows Guy: WinAmp or Windows Media Player
Noob: How about for IMs?
Windows Guy: AIM or ICQ
Noob: Email?
Windows Guy: Outlook Express

How many of those names are intuitive?

What's important here isn't the name of the applications. It is either access to Linux (sitting down at a computer that has it already installed and going with it) or specific applications. Most people have never seen a Linux desktop. And those that do rarely get their favorite applications. I would love to go to my local Fry's, walk down a software aisle, and pick up a software package knowing there's a native Linux install included in the box. I'm fine with most OSS alternatives. But I'd also like the choice. Competition is good.

The hassel factor

[simm1701]

I'm a linux user and admin. By most peoples standards (ie in the developement department of a bank in which I work I'm a linux/unix expert).

My home laptop (which is my main computer) is dual boot XP/ubuntu.

What do I boot to 95% of the time?

XP.

Simply because its less hassel.

I've used wineX, cadega, etc. I've built it from cvs, submitted bugs and the occasional patch to it, I've contacted game devs and worked with them to get new games to run under it (and had screen shots from my PC posted on developement group walls after they were impressed about it running under linux)

I only have 1 game even installed under windows, morrowind, and I know for a fact I could get it running under linux.

Why don't I?

Time.

It would take me an hour or two of messing around to get it working under linux.

It would also take me that time or more to get my wireless networking working how I like it under linux (ie knowing the WPA key for several different areas and using whichever is available at the time).

I'm a very busy person and I just feel no need to do it, when its already working without the hassel on my windows partition. I'm not fond of windows, but cygwin covers me for most things I need to do, if its really desparate I'll boot to linux, but thats a pretty rare occurance.

My home file server runs linux, my firewall runs linux, my personal IMAP server runs linux - I dont have an issue setting these up.

But when someone like me tends to use windows as a desktop it points to the fact that there still needs to be moreease of use put into linux on the desktop.

Users are lazy, until its actually easier to run linux in 99% of cases then its not going to happen. (and I don't mean better, I'd argue in general linux would be better for almost all things I do, but it isn't easier)

They dont want to be like us.

[LibertineR]

Arrogance personified.

The sheer arrogance displayed by the majority of us who want the world to take a look at Linux is miles beyond what is going on by those pushing Windows or even Macs. To most of the world, we come off as intemperate assholes who hate anyone dumb enough to not agree with us. Never mind that the world has managed to function pretty well in spite of Linux not running everything, we act as though all wisdom and knowledge reside strictly with us.

Hate Microsoft, hate Apple, but those organizations do not treat potential customers as primordial slime until they have evolved into dual booting at the very least. We talk down to our audience, we cringe at the thought of making adoption the slightest bit easier for noobs, and if you are a hardware vendor that balks at creating a driver for our benefit, well, we just might shoot your mama in the head.

Someday, our community may figure out that Marketing wins, period.

Nope, we wont, we have had enough time and evidence to know this, and we have rejected that argument.

Microsoft has another record quarter, while we just stay pissed off.

Take your best shot, I've got karma to burn, bitches.

Re:They dont want to be like us.

[ratboy666]

I'm sorry, I don't get your point. Microsoft is the "arrogant" one here.

For instance, does XP support NFS out of the box? How about NIS? How do I get XP to reflect home directories and common NIS passwd signon?

Microsoft is arrogant-- their solution is "better". Ignoring interoperability with any other common OS (SUN OS, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX).

What about POSIX support "out of the box" (a standards compliant shell environment would be nice)? X Window support?

As a programmer, how about a C99 compliant compiler?

Yes, I use Linux and Solaris and I even know WHY. I also develop for Windows. I don't mind it, because it's a massive market. But, really, it isn't "Linux" that's arrogant, it's Windows.

Because maybe Linux is only just now usable??

[lawaetf1]

How about the fact that for the average user Linux was all but unusable due to driver support / app support / features up until *maybe* a couple years ago? Give it time. It's absurd to ask the question "why isn't everyone using Linux??" when Linux is only just now becoming a viable desktop. There is a powerful inertia in OS usage due reasons including what's already installed, what people know, people simply not upgrading, etc. IMHO Linux still has a couple years to go before it is really mass-market friendly. Maybe then we will start to see some movement in its direction.

The reason is user attitude

[Opportunist]

When someone gets Windows, he installs it, starts it up and starts clicking around. Some things will work, some won't, but those that won't don't discourage him. After all, everyone says Windows is so easy to use, every dumbo can work it out. So they try. I mean, who wants to be dumber than... And they try. And putz around and finally (maybe after reinstalling, when they managed to click somewhere they really, really shouldn't) it works.

When someone gets Linux, he installs is, starts it up and starts clicking around. Some things will work, some won't, but those that won't discourage him. After all, everyone says Linux is a geeks-only system, nobody but a true blooded geek can figure it out. So they don't even try and toss it as "too complicated".

IT's the apps.

[Lumpy]

I know of several film students at Ferris State university that use or pirate windows simply because all Video editing and DVD authoring apps under linux suck horribly and pirated versions of MAC software are hard to get.. (they prefer final cut)

Cinerella is unstable and not even 1/2 as usable as Adobe Premiere 4.0.. Apps like Sony Vegas, the current Premier, Canopus, and Avid Dv express kick the absolute living crap out of all the linux video eding apps all rolled together hands down.

DVD authoring also stinks under linux. It's not even at the par of the dirt cheap Dvd-Lab product out there without being a comand line expert.

Dont get me started with the effects and composting apps that simply do not exist under linux.

How about Engine tuning software? ALDL or ODB-II scan tool software? Electronics design software (Eagle Cad is the ONLY ONE and it's not that good) how about a Decent CAD package that is even 1/2 as useable as autocad was from 3 years ago?

It's the apps. People cant rip their DVD's easily (no anydvd for linux), they cant sync with their ipod without pulling teeth, they cant sync with their phone's contacts easily, installing non free and not in a RPM repository apps is something that even a seasoned linux user sighs at.

Linux is there, it's a rock solid OS. it just suffers from the same problem that OS2 and BeOS sufferd from. Nobody is making software that people want for it.

Hell I'd buy a decent video editing app for linux. It does not exist. Main Actor is utter crap and is the only commercial offering.

I'd pay for a native photoshop and Dreamweaver+flash suite for linux, and thousands of others would to.

It's the apps, plain and simple.

Windows - the VW Beetle of computer systems

[flyingfsck]

The simple fact is that most people aither know how to fix a zonked PC, or they know someone that can fix it for free. Therefore, they don't care much about the issues with Windows. It is only the highly technical crowd that gets annoyed with Windows' general shittyness.

People used to fall in love with the VW Beetle - hands down the worst car ever - but everybody knew how to fix it...

On the whole, people don't know what an OS is.

[Wapiti-eater]

"'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.'"

And that's only because 'people on the whole' not only have no clue what an operating system is, they don't recognize the OS is often the seat of their frustrations, nor are they aware there are alternatives. It's actually a refreshing to have a user not blame their own PC ignorance for the delicate nature of their work environment.

If I only had a nickel for the number of times I've had to explain that Word is not Window, not only doesn't come with the OS, but you have to buy it. That inevitably leads to the question, "What is an OS?". That leads to the explanation of what Linux is - because there IS a choice and they deserve to know about it.

So - my own empirical experience - Windows fragility and weaknesses are not only a motivator for the development of Linux, but a well used marketing channel as well.

copy&paste

[multi io]

Yeah, just convince all UI programmers to put in place a moratorium on new features until copy&paste works between all applications, all the time, with all commonly used kinds of data. Once that's done (2030 or so), world domination will become reality on short notice.

Re:

[rAiNsT0rm]

Yeah, but who wants to work together? I mean I want to create Yet Another Some App That There are already 100 of by myself, and who cares about making it interoperable!!! There's no fame in copy/paste, but Yet Another CD Ripper will make me kewl and a billionaire.

It all comes back to some sort of central control, which is lacking. As much as so many cry that it "ruins the spirit of Linux" there needs to be a guiding light that directs the efforts of open source programmers to actually get core functionality

Only geeks buy a computer for the OS...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Most users buy the computer for the applications they can run on it. Pick some of the major interest areas. What choice of applications for that interest area are available on Windows? On Mac? On Linux? I would wager that nearly all of the available end-user oriented apps for a given interest area will run on Windows, but very few will run on Linux. Consequently, it's a no brainer-- unless you're an OS geek who cares about such things, Windows gives you far more choices WRT what you can run on your computer. The choice is very easy. Even the Mac does far better than Linux in this area, many many significant applications run on either Windows or Mac platforms.

The question you have to ask yourself is not what do end users think about Linux (they don't think about it), but what to commercial developers think about it? Why aren't they porting their apps to Linux as well as Mac and Windows? When you answer *that* question, you may have some idea as to why Linux isn't ready for end-users...

linux is not Windows, never will be.

[burnin1965]

Why is it that the average computer user still chooses to spend hundreds of dollars on Windows or Mac when there are countless Linux alternatives that they could download, install and make use of completely free of charge?

Because your average user is not capable of building their own white box PC and installing linux or Windows for that matter. If you buy a pre-manufactured PC your choices for an OS are Windows or ... Windows. Go figure.

The PC market is extremely cut-throat. It has to be because consumers will go to great lengths to save a few bucks when buying their latest system.

Correction, the PC HARDWARE market is extremely cut-throat. The cost of proprietary software is outrageously expensive especially when you compare the manufacturing costs of hardware versus software.

there are plenty of users who would rather break the law and install pirated copies of Windows than go the legal route and install a Linux distro.

One word, games. Windows is a gaming OS, the majority of the games are for Windows, I suspect a majority of the pirated Windows installs are running games.

most people would rather spend the money on Windows (or Mac) than take the time to experiment with Linux.

Actually the Mac is in the same boat as linux, small market share and competing with a monopolist for the desktop market. If you focus "most people" on servers you find that linux has a significant portion of the market based on IDG world wide server market reports. Why is that, because Microsoft has not been able to achieve a monopolist position in the market.

1 - On the whole, users aren't all that dissatisfied with Windows

Every family member with a Windows PC has called multiple times with problems related to Windows insecurity. Often times it results in breaking down and reinstalling because recovery is virtually impossible. The only calls I get from family members I've given linux to is when they can't get a Windows game to run under wine. If there is no dissatisfaction its because users have been beaten into submission and accepted their fate of using a sub par OS.

2 - Too many distros

Hardly, I suppose consumers are also shell shocked by the overwhelming number of hardware and software options for the Windows PC and so they end up never buying, right. When major PC distributors start selling pre installed linux desktops the choice will be made, or as is my case I help make the decision because I provide support.

3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work

Absolutely, and its hit and miss with Windows versions even when the box says it works. But as with Windows you will have a great machine if you choose the right hardware and software. It is also important to keep in mind that linux is not Windows so while there are obvious software alternatives in linux like Open Office or Firefox the more obscure solutions are there but will take some research to find. The open source projects don't have the massive marketing waste that proprietary solutions have but they still have solid solutions.

4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur

So don't use, but what kind of idiot would propose that the most powerful user interface be dumped in the name of making clueless mouse jockeys happy. And comparing the DOS command line to linux or any *nix shows the ignorance of the writer. I have to laugh anytime I watch the Windows IT guys doing something as simple as comparing two ini files by opening them in notepad and doing a manual line by line comparison, how lame and archaic is that.

5 - Linux is still too geeky

As if the average user understands the inner workings of Wi

me thinks...

[Grinin]

I would say that the common Windows user does not know how to reinstall their operating system, which is basically the same principle when installing Linux on a dual boot computer. Not to mention that Windows doesn't usually play nice with other operating systems messing with its boot loader. If the common user was smart enough to reinstall their own operating system, then I think that same user could install Linux and do just fine with it.

I think what Windows has done is made computer users less intelligent, less intuitive, and MS likes them this way. Ignorant computer users will stick to what they know, they have brand loyalty whether its a good product or not, and they have learned all sorts of little tricks and quirks along the way so that when something breaks, they might be able to fix it.

Back in the day, you used to have to have some pretty extensive knowledge to operate a computer, and this could even be true for Windows 98, though it would boot into the GUI automatically, it was still running on top of DOS, and if something happened to your autoexec.bat file, you might have to mess around in DOS again to get it working.

If the common user spent more time learning about all the modern advances in computing, I'm sure many of them would at the very least have a dual boot system. Its true though, Linux is not 100% capable of replacing the common users desktop for the simple fact that they wouldn't know how to install software no matter how easy you made it. Modern Linux distro's are getting there when it comes to software distribution and system upgrades, but sometimes you do have to get your hands a little dirty in the terminal... as you once did in DOS.

I installed Ubuntu Linux 7.04 on my parents computer and turned it into a dual boot machine. I then rebooted into Ubuntu, and made sure that everything was up to date, and the applications they would need for their limited use would function. They were already familiar with the Firefox icon, so they knew they could check their email. They were also familiar with the concept of a "Desktop" so they could easily save email attachments to it, and then open them with whatever application loaded on the screen when they double clicked it. They Knew they were not in Windows while using it, but they didn't complain, and they actually said that they liked the ease of use, and the "smoothness" of whatever they were using.

That was all the proof I needed that Linux could be quite useful for the common user... especially if you consider that the common user only really uses a computer for word processing, solitaire, web browsing, and web based email services.

Some gamers previously posted the issues they've had while trying to use Wine to play their Windows games, which is a true downside to running Linux as your sole operating system. However, if the market share were large enough, it would be just as easy for the programmers to develop cross platform games which could then even open up the Mac world to even more video games as well.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? In order for Linux to stand a chance on the common users desktop, we must first have consistent and simple methods for the user to install and run programs. Not to mention that programmers need to also take an initiative, throw out those god forsaken C# and .Net books, and learn how to program for all platforms and not just 1 in particular. Also, its cheaper by nature to program in open source or in a cross platform environment, because you don't have to spend too much (if any) money on proprietary IDE's, costly books published by MS, and the proprietary operating system itself. All those costs add up, and by the time you release a product to the market, you have to sell it for over $100 in order to break even.

Linux, like Mac OS X, will not be replacing all Windows installations... but I think more users will be willing to take the plunge and delve a bit into Linux or Mac OS X. People have been asking me what a good laptop purchas

In the end, is not ready.

[cabazorro]

I've been installing Linux since Red Hat 6.2.
I remember the days when getting the Linux to recognize your video settings and bring X was like winning the lottery. It was that hard.
Last week I got a brand new PC System with the Asus P5L-VM1394, Pentium D. That's it! No funky hardware.
I loaded Fedora Core 6 thinking:
I have a pretty good feeling the all my hardware will be loaded smoothly, I just had that experience happening 2 or 3 times with different combinations.

NO CAN DO!

The 2.6.18 Kernel does not carry the Attansic Gigabit net driver atl1.ko so my net chip doesn't work.
This is a brand new spanking box! With brand new spanking hardware! The least I would expect is for the OS to cover my hardware.

I had two choices then:
1. Zap the drive and install Vista.
2. Do the rounds on the net looking for those crusaders who patch drives and post them on the web for little people like me.

The Asus board had the Linux drivers on a CD but they wouldn't build. I had some sort of error:
Well, do you expect the average user to understand simple concepts like kernel headers and global replacements in the make file?
Well?
Anybody?
After 2 hours researching on the web I found out that
the Makefile was looking for a deprecated file named config.h (I find a kind soul posted the info on the web). I renamed autoconf.h and my atl1.ko was built. I installed and the network started running. The upgrade program, yum, asked me if I wanted to upgrade my packages, I said yes. Why not?

I let it rip through the night and next morning all modules were updated. I rebooted and my network was gone again!
WTF!?
yum went ahead and upgraded my kernel from 2.6.18 to 2.6.20, thank you very much, and now the atl1.ko driver doesn't work with the new kernel. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED! Sorry buddy, better luck next time.

I was pissed and dumbfounded.
Some powerful chakra let my brain and my body depleted for the next two hours.
I went to play in my mac for a while.

Anger gone, I went ahead again and downloaded the Attansic net drivers for the 2.6.20 kernel.
Another post said that the drivers are now part of Linux 2.6.21..whoopee.

This time the drivers built on the first try and modprobe took care of the rest.

I was so ready to ship the damn box back and get a DELLVISTA box. But I digress.

But right now FC6 is humming along. The stand by or any power saving mode doesn't work. But sound and video really rock.
Michael and Bill are not getting my money and I don't have to sign any effing EULA contract. Not today.

My Vanilla Linux box is a keeper.

Maybe I should have started with FC7. I don't like odd numbers in my revisions of anything.

But one fact remains true:
Linux Distros will never compete with the home PC commercial domain,
until the hardware manufacturers commit to support it.

If anybody knows how to configure the acpid for an Asus P5L-VM1394 board, I'll be in my room.

Re:In the end, is not ready.

[Tanuki64]

Interesting. When Vista has problems with drivers, it is because of slow and incompetent hardware manufacturers. When Linux has problems with drivers, it is Linux, which is not ready for general use.