Is Linux Out of Touch With the Average User? 1067
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.'"
This is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
i think they are missing the issues (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Ignorance? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Naming (Score:3, Interesting)
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 letters, they see a fully formed sentence. You almost need someone with a flair for marketing - someone who hasn't a clue what happens inside the code - to come up with a name that the puclic will understand. Call them a waste of oxygen (and I often do) but marketing types do serve a useful function here. And, sadly, linux probably needs a few of them. I recommend having them tied and gagged most of the time, but others migh consider just locking them in a room until we need them.
"Naiive" user (Score:2, Interesting)
Firefox, he said.
That's it?
Yup, just browse and read my Hotmail.
So, I said, no spreadsheets, games, documents, nothing else?
Nope.
How about I bring over another hard drive (you'll still have your old Win2K system, unchanged) and we try Linux?
Same Firefox? I'm fine with that.
So, I installed Ubuntu, copied his Firefox profile over and let him have at it. His only comment was: it seems faster!
At least in this naive user's case, Linux and Firefox were cheaper (he has since cancelled his McAffee subscription) and faster. And for my brother, that's a win.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
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, with a little setup, as I would do in an GUI where it's allowed, KDE looks a lot better). As for Konqueror, that's my one big complaint about OSS desktop managers in general - I've not found a file browser that has an interface that "feels" like explorer. An before some clown decides to make the sarcastic "then program a crash timer into it", Explorer hasn't crashed on me in years - I'm talking about the way a user performs tasks with it.
But this isn't really a Linux thing anymore either... Why? Because it can be used in other operating systems such as FreeBSD and MacOS. These desktop applications tend to *not* be Linux specific.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:Why I don't use Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
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
[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
UBER-GEEKS at it again... (Score:1, Interesting)
Anyone who claims that the Linux distros are as easy or even easier to use than Windows have completely missed something... it's just not true. I use Linux about 90 % of the time and I can say the Windows experience just is that much easier that I will not recommend any Linux distro to any of my relatives or friends, if they are not computer geeks like I am. If I did so I would only be asking for trouble and quite a workload for myself, which I do not want.
The people who say "average people are idiots" are complete idiots by themselfs. Try to look a bit further than your own nose! Not everyone wants to fight with a damn computer as a number one hobby. Not everyone wants to learn all the secrets of Linux administration. And it is perfectly fine. For many people the computer is not "The Thing", they just want to accomplish some useful practical goals instead of going uber-geeky. This behaviour is the exact problem with open-source developers: they fail to see how most people see their computers and computer programs: as tools to do something and not as "The Thing".
I've discussed for example user interfaces with some of these uber-geeks who claim that "average people are idiots": if you need to have 5 buttons in an interface, and they put them into the interface so that the result is far from convenient, easy-to-use, pleasing to the eye. Then when I go to complain about it to them, the reply is "we will not design it for idiots". I mean come on, now think what you are doing! User interfaces do not need to be complicated and difficult to use even if it is a "professional" program. Somehow many programmers/designers seem to think they need to be, or just don't know how to create an easy-to-use interface thus failing miserably and at the same time rejecting any useful user feedback. You don't need to hinder efficiency, in fact an easy to use user interface is more than likely to IMPROVE efficiency. Again, these uber-geeks fail miserably in seeing this point.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
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 convenient to you as a customer.
Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
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 can't separate waste from water to make it drinkable again.
Yet you know that drinking sewage water would not be good for you.
i can't start or fly a commercial airplane.
Yet you know how one flies, generally, and how to properly be a passenger on one. I doubt you've tried to get out in mid-flight for example.
i am completely incapable of stitching up a wound...
Yet you know not to rip apart stitches or when you may need to get stitches (or go to a hospital).
Re:copy&paste (Score:3, Interesting)
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 completed before any more crappy paint/cd ripper/themes continue to get made.
The Kernel has this sort of control over it, and guess what? It works. The rest does not, and guess what? It doesn't. The system will work once the core gets completed, but until then it is a mess. Far too chaotic. Hopefully Ubuntu is going to change this and bring the focus to one distro and making it just work, and support as much hardware as possible, and gain acceptance, and then go ahead and create Yet Another Widget. 400 distros are not sustainable.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
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 the kernel, as always, is rather picky when it comes to third party code, which in this case meant getting the latest kernel, patching it and recompiling everything and then recompiling it again to disable some thingy that conflicted with the NVidia driver. Ok, let me emphasis that, six hours to get a simple keyboard to work, the same thing took like five minutes under Windows. And no, this isn't a closed source issue, the keyborad driver (needed to support all keys and scrollwheel) is perfectly GPLed like all the rest of Linux, but since Linux doesn't come with a stable ABI or API all this recompiling is needed.
Completly different issue, lets try to list a directory, shouldn't be to hard you'd guess:
$ ls -l * /bin/ls: Argument list too long
bash:
Whoa, what is that? A little web browsing later you will know that this isn't 'bash' fault, its not 'ls' fault, its the kernel fault, due to some implementation detail it can't dynamically allocate the memory for the argument storage so all your GB of RAM never get touched and the kernel barfs at a list that my C64 might have been able handled without to much problems, totally ridiculous.
The standard answer to the later issue is of course to use xargs, however xargs doesn't fix the problem, it works around it, the real issue is in the kernel, but nobody considers it important enough to actually fix it. Now I am not sure how much influence a human interface designer would have to actually get these issues fixed, but there are heap loads of issues that he could identify, document and do whatever he normally does, since Linux, like every other component, in a computer does have an impact on how good or bad a human can interact with the machine.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
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", "Image Viewer", "Document Viewer", etc when you're looking for an application by function.