Groklaw Tries Their Own Linux Usability Study 611
inode_buddha writes "There's a new project taking shape at Groklaw. Calling it Grok-docs, it aims to do what many of us have long whined about - a large-scale linux usability study. Evidently, PJ had some frustrations with linux, and is asking for suggestions. So far, it seems to be following a Wiki-style setup. Everybody is welcome, especially those with little or no linux experience. I hope the distros and vendors are watching this one!"
EASIER SETUP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ease of use definitely needs to be made more of a priority if we're going to see Linux succeed as a desktop platform.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean someone else won't. Especially when that someone else is a child.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wake up Ziviyr, most people aren't computer geniuses.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem is that a lot of documentation is very distro and even distro version specific. The breakneck speed of development and the fractured nature of all the distros make it hard to find the right documentation. Enter a serch term in google and you might find something that works in RH but wll not work on Mandrake. heck something that worked one way in the 9.0 version of your curent distro works differently in the 9.2 release.
It's not as easy as yelling RTFM every tie there is a problem.
I just spent the weekend getting sound and 3D acceleration working on my MEPIS system. The documentation was full of: it works this way but there might be 15 different options depending on X, Y and Z. I almost had to draw a diagram to cover all the possibilities.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Insightful)
The SOLUTION is to make the design usable in the first place. This is often overlooked when people look at why Windows in the lead. The popular opinion is that Bill Gates put a gun to 80 million people's heads and told them to use Windows, they never stop and think that it's the "RTFM" attitude that's holding them back.
Man I've never seen so much resistance against making Linux more usable. It is not an unreasonable request, and doing so yields a much broader user base. Oh the horror of that.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignore Microsoft. Why not make the best interface that can be made? It'll take time but it'll arrive.
I'd like to see lots of distributions with a strong core feature set to each of them, but with each carrying an ever varying application set. Think KDE on a large scale.
h
The Linux problems run deeper than the interface (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't making an interface usable something interesting? Something challenging? Aren't challenges something geeks do well? Ignore Microsoft. Why not make the best interface that can be made? It'll take time but it'll arrive. I'd like to see lots of distributions with a strong core feature set to each of them, but with each carrying an ever varying application set. Think KDE on a large scale.
What I find interesting is that whenever someone says "usability" and "linux", people automatically assume "the graphical interface".
How about the rest? A well thought out OS, as far as usability is concerned, is thought so from the ground up.
Pardon me, but I'm going to point at Mac OS X. It's definitely not just the interface that's different, that's just the icing on the cake. The underlaying OS is vastly different from your average Linux distro, because the way it is organized. It has to do with everything: the bootscripts, the security, the application packaging, the filesystem organization, etc.
Think about it: those guys at Apple probably sat down and said "let's make it easy on the user", then they started doing things more or less from scratch. Only some of the people who contribute to Linux give a thought to the basic design principles that Linux is organized upon. No I don't mean the freaking graphical interface, I mean everything. The result is obvious.
The Linux heritage is UNIX, which has always been a black hole of usability. UNIX was always an OS designed by the extra-power users for other extra-power users. Naturally, Linux inherits all the flaws in it.
Frankly, I think it will take something like 10 or 20 years for Linux to become usable (you know what I mean by usable, don't start nitpicking please) and impose itself on the market. If it won't be too late by then. Why? Because companies like Apple and Microsoft can afford to redesign the entire operating system every few years. Think about how the Windows systems have evolved, or how Mac did. Eventually, one of these summers, you're going to look at the new Windows system and say "dude, that looks so good and usable, and it's thought out so well." People already say this about Mac, it's just the price tag for the hardware keeping them back.
Granted, the Linux community could do the same in 6 months to 1 year. The problem is that they don't even begin to acknowledge the need for a complete overhaul. The replies to this post will probably say "what's wrong with Linux as it is today?" Therein lies the problem.
There are already avangardist projects like GoboLinux [gobolinux.org] or Zero Install [sourceforge.net] (heck, even SELinux [nsa.gov] makes a good example, see how many adopt that soon) out there who try to challenge the basics of the Linux system design, but not many people take them seriously. It's a shame, because if anything, such projects have proved that you can do anything with Linux, as long as enough people start to see the need for the change.
Every year, the major distro's come up with bells and whistles, and better hardware detection, and package newer versions of the software, and better tools to tie together with ducttape the problems in the system. And we delude ourselves into thinking that Linux systems are evolving. Please. No, I don't mean the kernel or the applications, I mean the systems.
Sigh. You'd think there would be a breakthrough at some point, somewhere. That someone would understand the need for fundamental changes. That someone would design a new breed of Linux system. That it would implement that new system to a fairly usable point. That a company would appear to pick it up and bring it to the masses. That the community would embrace it.
But it doesn't happen. There are 5 hops I mentioned here, and something happens at some point. I can figure out some reasons and you can probably figure them out too. So we all clap for the 10th version of the same old distros, going on the 20th.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now onto the topic. In media theory theres this idea of "paedocracy" , kind of 'by the children for the children'' And it essentially describes the medias prediclition to treat adults as children on the basis that the mysterious view *might* just be that dumn. Spelling *I think* commented that his model viewer was a retarded 12 year old. Of course this just makes for dumb adults.
In many respects theres a danger of doing this with 'easy' computers. But its not sooooo bad. I use at home Xandros debian , for two reasons. First off, my family is still capable of using it. Secondly there is *still* under the hood debian. Best of both worlds really
Compare that to windows. Generally its pretty easy (asuming the damn thing *works*) to do the basics needed. But try getting into the kernel parameters without a hell mess of H_KEY_ARCANE_REGISTERY_TWEAKS.
Ugh.
You're an exception (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of kids don't sit and program BASIC on their dad's C64s when they're 7 or 8. Maybe they trade baseball cards or play sports. Just because you did doesn't mean everyone does. Consequently, just because you sat down and spent hours learning how to program doesn't mean everyone else wants to.
Re:You're an exception (Score:3, Interesting)
His point, and the original point of this thread, was that kids don't necessarily need to be sheltered from all possible complexity for them to use computers. In fact, I'd wager that kids could learn to edit configuration files and handle all sorts of nasty stuff faster than a similarly experienced adult could be taught.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:3, Funny)
But
10 PRINT "1 RULZ"
20 GOTO 10
was l33t
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok I blew all my moderation in this thread just to speak my mind. Most of the replies to this parent are so retarded I don't know if I should be embarrassed that i'm at the same website as them or pity that theyre such arrogant, elitist, pretentious dorksnobs who somehow think their dorksnobdom puts them on a pedestal so that all of the unknowing can praise them 5 times a day at set intervals.
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean someone else won't. Especially when that someone else is a child.
Ok let's focus on the child thing here, I guess a good thing to know would be do you have a child? And if so does your child know how to run linux? And if so does your child know the intricacies of linux and OSS in general? And if so, in all honesty, how normal is your child? Really?
His comment had nothing to do with elitism. He simply stated that some children don't need hand holding to use their computers. I know this is true - I was writing BASIC programs on my dad's C64 when I was 7 or 8.
Come on now, writing ANY type of program at 7 or 8 is AB-FUCKING-NORMAL, I don't care how smart you are, when you're 7 or 8 you're flying kites and playing little league, so I call bullshit. I call bullshit cause you think the dweebs and nerds here will give you credence and props cause you were one of the maybe 5, 10, 100? kids globally 'programming at 7 or 8'. Sorry Doogie Howser, you were learning to read and write at 7 or 8, and if you weren't, in all honesty, how normal of a child were you? Really?
once you start telling people how to do things, especially if they usually do it differently from you, they start to rely on being told how to do it. the solution? RTFM!
Oh you go girl! RTFM!!!!! Yeah, you told em there!!! But did you happen to notice that the WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THIS ARTICLE/DISCUSSION IS THAT THE MANUAL IS INSUFFICIENT!? Of course not, because you're a moron.
Lots of adults don't either. I know any number of adults who got to grips with DOS commands back in the '80s (whether by choice or because they had to).
So of people YOU knew in the '80s, likely extremely hip people, you knew "any number of them" who got to grips with DOS commands. Who the fuck cares? You could've, and likely knew other nerds, and even if you didn't, it wasn't a random sampling of people because the fact is, as much as you want to deny it, the average person is not a fucking computer geek, they don't "get it", and I don't understand why you don't "get that".
Anyone who can do that has the basic skills to get started with a *nix box of any flavour. Unless, of course, evolution works in reverse, and we're all getting dumber.
No, anyone who can do that has the basic skills to copy and delete files. Come on, are you really trying to say 1980's MSDOS is on par with doing much of anything from a linux command shell today? Knowing ALL of MSDOS TODAY still isn't much on par with doing much of anything from a linux command shell today. It's not even relevant.
As opposed to the "You're stupid enough to use this OS"? Yeah that's an improvement. Quite frankly as an average user, your characterization of average users isn't an improvement. So stop helping us.
Oh god shut up "average user". Are you also offended that your tv remote came with instructions to install the batteries? I mean, an average user who was as above average as you could figure out how to install the batteries, no? What the fuck are you whining about anyway? I really don't know.
I'll sum this up for the egotistically blind, so that they may fail to absorb any of it. If you write computer programs, or if you write about computer programs, or if you document computer programs, err, well i'll just cut this short, if you use, or know how to use, or have heard of anything but Microsoft Windows, then you're NOT a typical user. It's pretty simple, right? Yet so many who are supposedly the "elite" fail to grasp it.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Funny)
OS X is closed source. This means that it is the work of the devil - its purpose is to make the end users eat babies.
Linux is the only free OS. Yes the BSD lincenses may appear more free, but as they have no restrictions, they are actually less free than the GPL. You see, restricting the end user more actually makes them more free than not putting restrictions on them. You must be a dumb luser for not understanding this.
And you obviously dont have a real job. A real job involves being a student or professional academic. You see, academics are the ones who know all about productivity - if you work for a commercial organisation you obviously do not know anything about computers. Usability is stupid. Whats wrong with the command line? If you cant use the command line then you shouldnt be using a computer. vi should be the standard word processor - you are such a luser if you want to use Word. Installing software should have to involve recompiling the kernel of the OS. If you dont know how to do this, you are a stupid luser who should RTFM. Or go to a Linux irc channel or newsgroup. After all, they are soooo friendly. If you dont know how the latest 2.6 kernel scheduling algorithm works then they will tell you to stop wasting their time, but they really are quite supportive.
Oh, and M$ is just as evil as Apple. Take LookOUT for instance. You could just as easily use Eudora. Who needs groupware anyway, a simple email client should be all we use (thats all we use as academics, why cant businesses be any different).
And trend setters - Linux is the trend setter. It may appear KDE is a ripoff from XP, but thats because M$ stole the KDE code. We all know they have GPL'ed code hidden in there somewhere (but not the things that dont work, only the things that work could possibly have GPL'ed code in it).
And Apple is the suxor because they charge people for their product. We all know that its a much better business model to give all your products away for free. If you charge for anything, then you are allied with M$ and will burn in hell.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Does your child know how to "run" Windows? Does he know all the intricacies of Windows and closed-source software in general? And what does "run" mean?
Seriously, what do kids do on computers? I've watched my nephew and some young cousins, and they click on the buttons for their games and play them. How would this be any different in Linux today? I can click buttons and visit disney.com or whatever and it's not any harder than it would be in Windows.
I think the only real argument there is the fact that so many kids games might not exist on Linux.
Yes, programming at 7 or 8 is abnormal. I agree there.
Oh god shut up "average user". Are you also offended that your tv remote came with instructions to install the batteries? I mean, an average user who was as above average as you could figure out how to install the batteries, no?
You think the average user of a remote control doesn't know how to put the batteries in? I doubt that. Many companies write documentation for below average users. "Don't get in the tub with your hair drier," "Don't stick a fork in your eye." Stuff like that.
if you use, or know how to use, or have heard of anything but Microsoft Windows, then you're NOT a typical user.
If you use the computer for anything but writing e-mail and browsing the web, than you're probably not a 'typical user' by your definition. I doubt your 'average user' could do any configuration of anything on Windows either. They'd have as much luck adding a line to a configuration file as they would poking around all the different tabs and menus in the Windows control panel programs.
I'll say that I don't even know if Linux _should_ try to target the average user. It works fine for me and I don't care if it gets onto everyone's desktop. However, if typical users are how you represent, them, then they probably have trouble using anything that isn't totally set-up for them to begin with, and how is a totally set-up Linux box more difficult than a totally set-up Windows box? Either way, all I have to do is click on stuff.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:3, Informative)
Come on now, writing ANY type of program at 7 or 8 is AB-FUCKING-NORMAL, I don't care how smart you are, when you're 7 or 8 you're flying kites and playing little league, so I call bullshit. I call bullshit cause you think the dweebs and nerds here will give you credence and props cause you were one of the maybe 5, 10, 100? kids globally 'programming at 7 or 8'. Sorry Doogie Howser, you were learning to read and write at 7 or 8, and if you weren't, in all honesty, how normal of a child were you? Really?
Ch
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Except when it doesn't.
- No clicky-drooly friendly installers for most software
- CD/Floppy Auto-mounting not quite perfected (but getting there)
- limited usable software selection. (one word:gnucash)
- sporadic hardware support (Scanners, printers, usb, etc...)
- &c..
For the record, I use Slackware as my main box (FreeBSD doesn't have the multimedia support I need yet...) and the above (except for the installer part) are all problems *I* have had, and I'm FAR beyond an average user. So stop frothing, you only make yourself look foolish.Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux zealots really need to lose the "We're smarter than everybody else" attitude. Just because somebody doesn't want to go fucking around with
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Funny)
thats where youve been going wrong all this time.
vi
*opens new file*
ARGH!!! - crappy
NO setup (Score:5, Insightful)
The user should NOT be slave to the machine.
Re:NO setup (Score:4, Insightful)
How about when it does do something to keep your helpess user out of harm, like surfing the net and blocking "harmful" sites? Some users will cry censorship or restriction. What if it didn't block the "harmful" sites? Lawsuit from Mom who doesn't like to see other ladies boobies.
Or how about when the system thinks it knows best, and won't let you do something? You turn it off, but the computer knew you hit the kill switch because it couldn't do a clean shutdown, so it boots to a safe mode where you can't do shit and repairs the damage. You're back to square one. Do it manually by editing a config file? No, because the OS was protecting your data, so it encrypted the disk.
If you want an OS like this, you are both idealistic and misinformed. For something like this to happen, you'll need more than OS programming geeks to bend over for you, you'll need a bunch of AI geeks too. And a bunch of lawyers, because most of the interesting and innovative stuff is protected by patents.
In a word? (Score:5, Informative)
In a word...yes. Or else you fail usability.
Nobody's gonna act like your app is some gift from heaven. If users can't use it, they'll bitch and move on to something else. There are few things I hate more than programmer egos. YES, you're not God's greatest gift to computing. YES, if you're developing software you expect to be used publicly, you are slave to the users who will demand features, or else you're just another asshole who puts software out and then complains when people don't like it.
Re:In a word? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, people will move onto something else. It's called "free market." People use what's cheapest, easiest, etc. Whatever has the most advantages.
This is somewhat irrelevant. My point was that people will drop piss-poor apps like a bad habit, no matter how much the programmer whines about how he shouldn't be a slave to users. Basically, I'm saying that programmers shouldn't bitch if people don't like their stuff. If you don't want to hear feedback, keep your app on your private network and don't release it into the wild--obviously there was an intention for widespread usage by putting it online.
Re:NO setup (Score:3, Informative)
b) "Protection from harm" was purposefully left subjective. Why? So that the implementors could choose hot to implement, and not be restricted by why _I_ or _you_ believe they should be restricted to. This is what makes programming an art, and not a science.
c) As for the implementation you speak of, "safe mode", in my opinion, doesn't need to exist. I believe i
Re:NO setup (Score:3, Interesting)
So that suggests a lot of trial and error - uh, i mean iterative development - which doesn't work so well in a public market-driven world. Fine in hous
Re:NO setup (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, the irony! (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's also the feature that most drives me to distraction -- the software thinks it's smarter than I am. So when something goes wrong, there's never a simple way to fix it. 'Cause the system is supposed to fix itself! Yeah, right.
The mistake both you and Microsoft make is to assume that all the mind-numbing complexity of standard desktop systems is somehow necessary. So when something breaks, it's beyond the ability of most users to deal with it. So you add "healing" "active protection" and "automatic updates" and other stuff that stands in for the overworked system admin.
But that just makes the problem even worse. You're adding yet more complex software, to do that automatic stuff -- and that extra software always has problems of its own.
The right solution is to makes things simple from the start. You don't add complicated software to "heal" and update the system -- you design the system so it's less complex, and thus less fragile. So Fewer fixes and updates are necessary. And when they are necessary, the semi-skilled user can apply them himself.
Which is, of course, never going to happen. That would mean cutting back on cool features. Which is what drives software development -- both in the traditional and open source marketplaces.
Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
The mistake YOU make is assuming a self-healing system somehow equates to Windows, just because you don't like how Windows attempts its self-healing.
WTF does Windows have to do with Linux? Are you saying we can't do better? Or that we shouldn't try?
I don't get this incessant need for people to be resistant to change, progress, and making things easier. It's not going to make the CLR go away, don't worry.
Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)
The mistake you make is assuming that Linux, which is essentially a patchwork system put together from pieces scavenged from here and there (with the GNU project being the biggest donator) and assembled in wildly varying configurations by different distributors, running anywhere from server sto desktops, with users customizing it further, would somehow be a better target for this than Windows which is developed by a single corporation and offers very little real customizing possibilities (no, changing mouse cursors and desktop backgrounds do not count).
There is subsystems where self-healing is appropriate (such as filesystems), but a general, system-wide healing capability ? No.
Because I have a very nasty mental image of spending three hours configuring the machine and wondering why the darn thing won't work, and then finding out that some subsystem didn't like the new values and "fixed" them to something the programmer, who's never even seen my machine, thought would be appropriate.
I also remember installing new display drivers in Windows, just to find out that they couldn't detect the possible refresh rates for my display, and thus locked it to a safe choice of 70 Hz. Safe for the display, maybe, but not for my eyes.
Fortunately, I was able to install an older version of the drivers, which was dumb and didn't bother checking if the refresh rate I gave it (85 Hz) was possible or not, and thus worked perfectly. Suppose, however, that some automatic self-healing function had decided that I was making a mistake and restored the new drivers at the next startup ? I would have been screwed.
So don't give me a computer that tries to be smart and second-guess me, give me a computer that's dumb as a brick and does what I tell it to do.
Have the computer ask for confirmation for potentially destructive commands. If Joe User can't or won't read them, then Joe has no one to blame than himself if something bad happens. And if Joe can't or won't take resposibility for his own actions and blames others, then Joe shouldn't be using computers in the first place, at least not without supervision.
User interface has little if anything to do with self-healing systems. They are tangentual issues.
What I'm worried about is that this will be the first step towards a DRM remote controlled computer. After all, a general self-healing system is one which tries to restore itself into a given state if it's moved from that state. I'm worried about the implied loss of control, if my computer will attempt to determine for itself what this state should be.
"If you want to install this program, you must first get authorization from The Microsoft Corporation. Press here to get authorization. Authorization will cost 1 per program."
"The program you tried to install, Openoffice.org, is not certified and cannot be installed. However, a certified program performing the same function was found: Microsoft Office. Would you like to purchase and install Microsoft Office now for 500 ?"
"An attempt to alter the protection settings of this computer has been noticed and prevented for your protection. Would you like to download wallpapers instead ?"
"An attempt to download a CD image file has been detected. You have not detected authorization from the Microsoft Corporation to download this file. The download has been halted for your protection."
"An attempt to boot from an unauthorized CD has been detected. You are not authorized to boot from a CD that has not been certified by Microsoft. This machine will now continue it's normal bootup sequence. Press any key to continue."
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:3, Insightful)
Mandrake is pretty easy to setup for day to day use. As PJ says, it does take a bit of learning to do stuff that's not normal.
Do you realize how massive the world of GNU/linux is? The project of making it all easy for the user isn't as easy as with windows. Where there are 5 apps for windows, there are 30 apps for linux (if not more). All with different levels of functionality.
I think what someone should do is enable Newbie mode, and make linux like being i
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally like Linux, and think that it is the most powerful home operating system out there. However, I wish people would stop saying that Linux is the Windows killer, and just call linux what it is: a powerful hobbyist OS. N
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:4, Insightful)
You guys are barking up the wrong tree with making installs easy. The easiest OS I've ever personally installed was Knopix and the second easies was Red Hat. XP and Win Server 2003 both required much more effort. What you all need to be focusing on is the user experience after the install. My short list:
1. Adding hardware can be amazingly easy or a massive pain in the ass. There needs to be a third choice. When there are no preinstalled, autodecting drivers for a piece of hardware, the OS needs to do a better job of helping the user resolve the situation.
2. Drag and drop. Yeah, they're getting better at this, but it has a way to go. If you're used to doing it, it's hard to go back.
3. Context sensitive help/rollover help/question-mark help: If you develop on an open source project that has a GUI, why don't you give some really good help to people where they need it? They will love you for it. Even geeks don't know what all that stuff is that you want them to click on.
TW
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Insightful)
The first key to understanding users of Windows and the Mac is that they want the O/S to fade into the background. The needs and obsessions of the O/S hobbyist, the developer, the system administrator, fundamentally do not interest them.
But it is a dangerous mistake to call them noobs or lazy because their focus lies elsewhere. They can spend an extraordinary amount of time and money in the mastery of applications which interest them, Photoshop and Office are the obvious examples and they can be quick and ruthless in weeding out the second-rate.
Let RealNetworks stand as the example here,
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Interesting)
Beyond that, Windows has a clear advantage since you can buy a box with the software in it from your local Walmart. That's a lot easier than going using the Internet and finding it yourself, to people with little computer experience.
Linux needs software Kiosks that will burn people a CD with Mozilla, OpenOffice, KDE, etc since you won't find that software in a box on a self at a local Walmart.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Informative)
I've been managing UNIX systems for about fourteen years now, with a focus on Solaris. I've installed my share of W95/W98/W2K/WXP systems. I've pretty much always had an install that ended up being what I expected it to be. I have read *no* documentation on how to install Windows. Ever. I'm pretty sure that I've never even watched someone install Windows.
I've installed Linux a few times. I had to tell it what serial mouse I was using and what video card I was using. I had to figure out how to apportion swap. Mind you, figuring out what swap was was easy for me coming from the UNIX world, but for the average person? And the tool to repartition the filesystem was
Look, Windows is the scourge of humanity, there's no disagreement there. But claiming it's as easy to install Linux as it is to install Windows? That way lies insanity.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:5, Informative)
I've installed Linux a few times... But claiming it's as easy to install Linux as it is to install Windows? That way lies insanity.
Your comment makes clear that you haven't installed Linux in the last year or two, or if you have, that you haven't used an easy-to-install distribution. Most modern distributions install more quickly, more easily and with fewer questions than Windows does. Oh, and they do more stuff after the install is complete.
Grab a current Mandrake CD, for example and give that a try. You'll be surprised.
Uh (Score:5, Informative)
In Windows, it just knows when I plug the damned thing in.
Red Hat still asks you to partition things, and to mark out swap space, etc. It also asks you for a lot more network configuration than Windows does (Windows lets you just check "Typical settings"), generally asks for more questions on things like security levels, program groups to install, and so forth. Hell, check out the look on someone's face when they're asked to install a "bootloader"--what's more, their choices are things called "LILO" and "GRUB," typical OSS project names definitely showing how useful they are to people outside of development communities.
He's right--to say Linux is easier to install than Windows is insane fanboyism. It's just not true, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that so it can be addressed.
Re:EASIER SETUP! (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything that helps with the particulars of hardware configuration would help me.
The Biggest Problem With Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux will never be able to truly have a mainstream challenge to Windows until it applies the tried and true formula of Microsoft, AOL, and all of those massive software companies.
Re:The Biggest Problem With Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
The Linux vendors can't follow the MS route, because they can't strong-arm hardware and software vendors to produce products for their OS. This is a good thing, and FWIW, trying to compete with AOL is kinda silly anyway. It's a sad day when a Linux distro proclaims it's got the dumbass market sewn up.
Re:The Biggest Problem With Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. For quite some time I believed, as do most, that Windows was simply more usable than Linux, hence its popularity.
Then I set some people up using Windows that had no computer experience, or had only Mac experience, or had only DOS experience.
What an eye-opener. These people were absolutely as perplexed by Windows as you can imagine. It's as if you shoved them in front of a strange screen with thousands of dials and knobs, none with an obvious purpose. They didn't understand some of the metaphors-- folders even confused one of the Mac users!
So, in reality, people like Windows because they've already learned how to use it.
Re:The Biggest Problem With Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are so serious, I'm sure you can tell me just one reasonably popular GUI-application in Linux that doesn't work with Ctrl+X/C/V, because even after years of using Linux I couldn't find any except the old Netscape4 (which used Alt+X/C/V), which is extinct by now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Biggest Problem With Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Biggest Problem With Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Its been tried for years. Good luck. The other problem is that developers don't necessarily have the resources to compile binaries for even all the major distros. However, good documentation (like Apple's PostgreSQL docs linked to in the grandparent) allows people of any knowlege level to get the software working.
Re:The Biggest Problem With Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Can't find the modem? (Score:4, Insightful)
If PJ's experience with Knoppix is really as she says, there seems to be a serious problem with Linux (at least Knoppix).
Hopefully this kind of focus on improving Linux documentation will result in something tangible. ESR had his say a few months ago, now PJ has hers. There seems to be a very large movement of newbies demanding better docs. Let's all hope that the wizards among us hear them and provide us all with better information than we've got now.
Re:Can't find the modem? (Score:3, Informative)
She used Knoppix to verify that it was not a problem with the operating system or drivers, and was instead a problem of the modem.
Big Deterent (Score:4, Insightful)
On Linux, you've gotta download that one file and then find all of it's dependencies that aren't installed on your system and install them. Then install the dependencies of the dependency. It gets to be a pain in the ass.
RPM files were a step in the right direction but they still have their flaws. Until the application installation issue is solved, I have a feeling adoption will continue to be slow. And I'm talking about a universal solution, not something limited to one distro.
Re:Big Deterent (Score:5, Informative)
Apple has now, hasn't it? (I don't own a Mac myself, but I saw a friend of mine using "fink", which he described as "apt for Macs")
I use Debian, and in 98% of all cases, I simply do apt-get install foo, and then I'm done. Menu shortcuts, proper dependencies, everything.
Actually, I find Apt-Get far easier than Windows.
Re:Big Deterent (Score:3, Informative)
There are still plenty of things to be fixed on the desktop for linux, but installing software is no longer one of them! It's as easy (if not easier) to install software with linux than with windows. With windows you have to find the software on the internet, download it and double click. With Mandrake (for example) you go to the menu
Sorry, but (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously wonder why nobody has implemented binary installation/uninstallation routines for the Linux desktops yet. What's the damn holdup? Users need to be able to buy a Linux application from a store, take it home, and stick in a CD to get an autoplay installer.
Of course, to get that truly working well, you'd want a sane, robust progr
Re:Big Deterent (Score:5, Informative)
Urpmi, Synaptic, APT-GET etc work well so every mention of denpendency hell should at least make mention of its cure.
Nope - doesn't answer the question (Score:3, Insightful)
Newbies are routinely encouraged before delving into Linux to ask for help from the "gurus". Unfortunately, that is the type of answers they tend to recieve when asking questions concerning very basic functions of an operating system: "This is so outdated, only morons don't know this. Download urpmi and these libraries, change
Re:Nope - doesn't answer the question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Big Deterent (Score:4, Insightful)
Application installation hell certainly isn't an out of date complaint about Linux. Is somebody going to make a .rpm/.deb/.tgz for EVERY single piece of software out there? Nope. Then, it has to be in a repository to apt-get/urpmi. And finally, you have to have that repository set up. But on top of that, what about commercial software?!
The parent was referring to an installation in Windows where you download a .exe/.msi and its a self contained installation.
Linux can do better (have self contained insallations while keeping some form of dependency checking).
Check out http://ww.autopackage.org [autopackage.org]
Re:Big Deterent (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Linux is a hobbiest system, designed and programmed by hobbiests. Most Linux users (myself included) don't care whether or not Linux will make it meanstream. I couldn't care less if Linux "takes over the world" or not, as long as it works for me. Linux was not meant to be a consumer product, companies like RedHat and Mandrake, et al are trying to make it such.
2. Most of the hobbiests that use Linux are
Re:Big Deterent (Score:4, Insightful)
2. It's doubtful that Linux is primarily used by hobbyists anymore.
2. Sites like Slashdot are pushing Linux on "take over the world/Beat Windows" agenda, so it's perfectly reasonable to criticize Linux without taking it's Hobbyist Community's needs into consideration.
> A lot of people expect the world for free, and then bitch when they can't get it.
I think people aren't bitching so much trying to explain to the insular Unix programmers out there what the expectations are.
Re:Big Deterent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Big Deterent (Score:4, Insightful)
I work in IT as a senior systems architect. I've been a Solaris admin in my time, managed VMS systems, but these days I design and build large-scale Active Directory and Exchange systems. Yet somehow even I find it difficult at times to get a Linux box to do what I want it to do.
Having to know the type of mouse is only the tip of the iceberg. What about the need to install all sorts of hard-to-find libraries to get some apps (especially games) to work, or the need to read complicated (and poorly written) man pages in order to maintain your installation once it's up and running.
I'm not saying they need to dumb it down and build a wizard for everything. I'm just saying that it's hard, and most people don't want hard, they want easy. While geeks like me don't care if they lose an entire weekend to building a system, "normal" people expect to stick the CD in and have a machine built nice and fast. This is why OEM machines (like laptops, for example) come with self installing OS CDs - because that's what the bulk of customers truly want.
Incidentally, even I'm heading towards reducing my management efforts for my home machines. Having 5 machines at home works out as a hell of a lot of admin work to add an app or hotfix to all the machines if I run Linux. Running Windows means the hotfixes install themselves, and the apps take just a few minutes to install.
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Sourceforge may be a 'geeky' site but there are many OSS project for Windows on there. These all come with .exe files that just work. For example: FMA [sourceforge.net]
This is what is needed for usability. Most people don't want to bother with dependancies.
My beef (Score:5, Interesting)
I will admit that it is a heck of a lot better than it used to be, but I still have to do a bit of googling to get my linux system usable. Windows on the other hand, you can go to the control panel and what you want to change will likely be in there somewhere, unless it's application specific, and you don't have to read any manuals or docs to figure out how to configure your system - it's intuitive.
The registry is easy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now which part of:
To change the display format in windows explorer is simple?In the article it talks about it there being no menu options to find things off the beaten track - like mc - the reality is there is a whole world off that track on the command line. Putting anything more than the major things in the menus without getting some disorganised mess would be a mammoth task. How do you do a GUI interface to a piece of useful weirdness with awk and grep? Check out the various front ends to transcode for an idea of how complex it can be to do a GUI for a command line program which has a lot of options.
My favourite program on the Atari ST was one that gave you a command line (gemini), which made it a lot easier to do some things. The same principle still applies when you have a general purpose machine, the command line gives you flexibility while a menu system gives you greyed out options which you know the program can do - it just won't let you do it. A linux machine set up to be a web browser or word processing machine is trivial to use, but once you increase the options the learning curve gets steep for anyone that has only used a gui.
Re:My beef (Score:3, Insightful)
A GUI isn't a silver bullet.
I spend most of my time with various *nix systems (Solaris and Linux mainly). But when I ha
A Linux Newbie's View (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Linux is ready for *some* desktops only, namely ones where users won't be constantly tweaking and installing new software and hardware. You want a computer for grandma to browse the web, send email and view a few grandkid photos? Linux is great! You want to roll out corporate desktops where employees don't really need to be able to download and install the latest version of KaZaA? Linux is a godsend (provided the business software you need is supported).
2. Linux is *not* ready for the average user desktop. The average user wants to do everything grandma wants to do, but they also want to be able to install or upgrade software and hardware *easily*. In addition, they want a fully functional GUI, with no *necessity* of dropping to a CLI for everyday tasks. They want to be able to go to a third party software/driver website, follow the 'click here for Linux version' hyperlink, download the file, then double-click to install it.
Needless to say, as long as Linux distributions and desktop managers continue to proliferate, the average user's requirements will never be met. I say this as a *fact* not a *prescription*, so spare me the Linux-strength-in-diversity comments. I just think you can't have your cake (freedom/diversity) and eat it too (Linux on average desktop).
We Only Need 5 Users (Score:5, Interesting)
_____________
my weblog [afriguru.com]
Keep in mind what this is about (Score:5, Interesting)
The easy, cool, experienced thing to say in response is "RTFM" or "read the man pages and leave me alone." That works for the experienced switcher, or those who have some experience with computers. Most grandma-types (and I'm using that as a stereotype, so all you computer-whiz grandmas need not send me mail, k?) are not going to know how to even find the FM, let alone be able to RTFM. "Man pages? What's that, honey? I'm a female. Aren't there pages for me?"
One of the good things about Microsoft is they spend the money to do usability studies so that grandma types can figure out how to send email. This grokdoc project is going to apply the many eyes principles of the community to replicate the usability principles that Microsoft can just throw money at. We can't throw money at this, but we can throw eyeballs. (go ahead, make your joke, I'll wait.)
This is a new site, not on Groklaw itself, and it is a community project, not just PJ. So don't worry, Groklaw is not going anywhere, and PJ will still have time to tear into those legal papers. And yes, we know, there are other Linux doc projects, and those are wonderful, but they are not yet grandma-friendly enough, and so now the community will attempt to add to the existing docs something new, targeted at a new audience. An audience we actually do want to see using Linux if we are ever to see widespread adoption of the software. Remember, the /. crowd is atypical. The vast majority of computer users lack of knowledge of the machines would make our hair stand on end if we focused too much on their ignorance. So we can either crack jokes about them, or we can pause a moment and give them a helping hand. The grokdoc project is an attempt to give a helping hand to a new type of Linux user.
Re:Keep in mind what this is about (Score:3, Insightful)
We need a distro that, at its simplest, can be used by the average grandmother; and yet it can be used by competent users without being demeaningly simple.
What you describe already exists. It's called $FAVORITE_DISTRO and is currently being used productively on many office workstations around the world.
Fool.
Interface Is Everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent plan. (Score:3, Interesting)
The result of this is to have a huge archive of usability studies, a self-moderated public discussion on it, and an official document with polished observations and recommendations. So a few details need to be worked out (including a good format for the usability data), but the overall plan sounds excellent.
Wikis (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux: Usable? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a developer, so I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty with a little configuring. I do quite a bit of tweaking to base installs of Windows, but those tweaks are for performance or preference, not to make things work.
I find Linux is just fine for most daily tasks, and usually has a comparable way of doing almost everything I do in Windows. The problem is getting them installed and running.
I fault Linux in the usability arena for two reasons. Having to mess with config/ini files to make things work post "install", and how it reacts when something does go wrong.
If I install a piece of software, it should work after the install. I shouldn't have to change keyword/value pairs in a config file to complete the install.
If I screw up my video drivers, put me in the GUI at 640x480 and let me try again. Making me resort to command line hacking when I don't have a clue where to start only gets Linux one thing...uninstalled.
I guess one other thing I'd suggest to Linux developers is, at some point...release version 1.0!
Regardless of whether you are 100% certain it's perfect or not, which looks more inviting to the average user:
My Program 0.1.00.37 Beta
My Program 1.0 Beta 1
Just look around Sourceforge, is anything at v1 yet?
Usability is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows is pervasive for many reasons, but two of the most critical reasons are the Office Suite and Exchange.
Just look at Mac OS X: arguably as usable (or more usable) as Windows 98/2000/XP, but a tiny market share.
Re:Usability is fine (off-topic) (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, this is nothing against you but I need to get this off my chest.
I use mac os x but I keep an eye on Linux because I think the open source/free software is interesting. While I'm skeptical of it actually happening, I'd like to see Linux, in some form, become a solid desktop operating system.
In my mind, one of the most interesting things about open
Standards must be agreed on first (Score:4, Interesting)
These things make Linux awesome and infuriating at the same time. The choice is awesome, because if you don't like one thing, then something else is probably available that does it differently. But then it comes down to hoping your distro has packages for the software you want, or you get to be brave enough to compile everything from source and hope you don't get stuck in dependancy limbo.
Maybe a large distro collalition is needed where the big guys all agreed to at least use a standard frontend? That way they can all still use different backends, but people would be able to sit down at a different distro and easy jump right in. How to do this? Heh, right. If I knew that answer I'd be rich, not posting on Slashdot.
Linux Usability: Financial Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Usability is much more than doing surveys, or talking to people, or just watching people. That is "street level" usability, as I like to call it. But, it isn't what is needed to Linux. What is needed is a fully funded usability study. It can be done, and done cheaply if done right, but to think that it can be done in some "open" fashion isn't workable.
Consider for a moment that reliable data is needed. To get reliable data, you often need to motivate people with money. The best usability studies pay people for their participation. The payment generates motivation and focus.
But there is more. Usability is a research activity, and it is a human to human activity. When people have to talk to each other, or when people have to observe other people, the labor takes time. That time is not "free" time. It isn't sweat equity, it is real time. Developer time is often hobby time. Granted hibby time will get a lot done, but it can be done cheaply or free whereas usability labor costs money.
Finally, I am confused about the scope of the research. Do we really want research that covers everything, in an unstructured WiKi environment? Not me. I'd rather gather data piece by piece. This is a time to start small and grow over time. Get some little victories first, then expand.
Here we come to a potential flaw... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people like developing for linux as a hobby, or for fun. Rarely is it for money. And often if it is for money, they only need to get the product working. There's no golden "standard" for walkthrough-esque documentation for linux applications.
The man pages are the typical standard, but they are a far cry from what Ms. PJ is asking for (and many others as well).
Though this is a major task, I still think the reason documentation is lagging behind program development is less people find it a job they enjoy doing.
Perhaps the main reason why there aren't many who find this enjoyable, is that mainly it is the technical types who get involved with developing in linux. I don't think you'll see english majors or doc writers taking to the linux platform.
The more writers/language focused people that get interested in linux, the more possibility there will be for better walkthrough type documentation.
The linux documentation project is a great start. I think it will be able to evolve into something which will be of great use to newbie users of linux.
I may even consider pitching in; I've got tons of pointers and tips that I have written down so I don't forget them (I constantly forget certain commandline actions which I only use every month or so). I've often considered putting up a website; but as many people have posted about the linux documentation project, maybe I could just pitch in there?
I'm not a very experienced programmer (I'm still a sophomore in college, CS Major) and I do enjoy writing as a hobby. I've always wanted to contribute to linux, because I believe in the ideals the Open Source community represents. Maybe this will be my summer project =D
Few people will write documentation. (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a writer/language-focused person. I even spent years working as a tech writer. I code like crap. Yet all I've "given" to the world is a few freeware command line utilities and a couple of scripts.
The motivation for much of open source is need. Someone needs (or at least wants) some software functionality that just isn't out there, or isn't out there for
I think theres a 'glory' side of it. (Score:3, Interesting)
We monkeys are impressed by flashy, impressive looking (even if functionally vapid) things. This is why there may be 10 million screen savers or fancy looking mp3 players - but nary a decent accounting package.
Why? Because who wants to write things like accounting software in their sparetime for no pay? Could you go to your mailing list collegues and say "i sure did optimize the hell out of that accounts receivable sub-menu, whew!" Even though somet
The Clipboard (Score:5, Informative)
In my opinion, there should be two separate clipboards, which I refer to as the "Tempboard" and the "Permboard" for clarity. Yes, I hear many of you saying--this is the way it's implemented. Well, yes--partially. Let me first explain The Right Way to Do It, followed by applications that break the rules.
The Right Way to Do It:
(I'm using Eterm 0.9.2, Gaim 0.75, and Opera 7.23 on a Fedora box. Please let me know if these errors don't happen on other versions or other distros.)
- Select some text in a Gaim window, then close that window and attempt to
middle-click paste it into another program. No pastage.
- In Gaim, select some text in the textbox and then attempt to middle-click pa
ste it to the same text box. No pastage.
- Highlight some text in Opera. Then unselect it. Try to middle-click paste
it somewhere. It works!
- Highlight some text in Opera. Unselect it. Highlight something in another
window and close that window. Try to middle-click paste--you get the old fake
Opera-select.
- Highlight something in an Opera textbox. Middle-click it to the url box.
It works. Highlight something using the keyboard. Middle-click it to the url
box. It pastes instead your old highlight.
- In the Gaim textbox, type "Text1". Select the text and CTRL-X it. Type
"Text2" in the textbox. From another window, select "Text3".
- CTRL-X "Text1" in Gaim again. Select text from Eterm. Shift-Ins in the
terminal window. Shift-ins in Gaim. Different things are pasted to each
window!
- CTRL-C text in Gaim's chat screen, and try CTRL-V to paste it into the
textbox below. It instead pastes what was previously in the Permboard.
Does anybody else have ones they'd like to add to my list?Problem: The Tempboard gets deleted when the window is closed.
Problem: The Tempboard gets deleted when you middle-click inside the same text input widget.
Problem: Opera uses "fake selects" in order to work around the clumsy situation of not being able to highlight multiple things at the same time. Firefox does is that well, and so does OpenOffice.org. As we shall see, they don't always get it right.
Problem: The Tempboard reverts to Opera's old fake-select when the window is closed.
Problem: Highlighting with the keyboard doesn't update the Tempboard.
Go back to Gaim, select "Text2", and type Shift-Ins. "Text1" is pasted.
Problem: Shift-Ins pastes from the Permboard, not Tempboard.
Problem: Shift-ins pastes from the Tempboard in Eterm, but pastes from the Permboard in the Gaim window.
Problem: Selecting chat text and CTRL-C doesn't update the Permboard.
Dlugar
Re:The Clipboard (Score:5, Interesting)
If an application simply does not deal with the copy/paste facility of X properly, it will do so running on any OS that uses X, correct? Are the applications screwing up copy/paste, or is the X copy/paste so screwed up no one can use it correctly? I don't program much on X (yet, anyway) so don't know if copy/paste is supposed to be in X or not, so some enlightenment is appreciated (yes, I intended that one, you E17 fans).
IMHO, the necessity of dealing with copy/paste should be removed from the application - it should be the sole responsibility of X. If that can't be done, a braindead simple Copy/Paste API should be put in place so that any programmer who messes it up would be embarassed into not screwing up again. That way, whatever desktop or window manager you use, it just works, and works the same way in any application.
This goes back to the initial problem - who the fuck cares where the problem actually is - let's find it and fix it for once and for all.
Soko
configurability (Score:4, Insightful)
-vi/emacs/pico: manually edit the files
-CLI, text based app: application that runs in console to automate config
-GUI: pretty, click-and-hit-OK.
I'm a RedHat/Fedora guy, but have tried my hands on Slackware, Debian, and SuSE, but always came back to RH/Fedora. Before I talk about configuring things post-install, the distros HAVE to get some things in the install, such as installing/enabling USB-HID by default and setting up X to use both PS/2 and USB mouse, which is especially useful for laptop users. Another includes USB-Mass Storage..and sound (for most modern cards anyway) RH8.0+ has gotten it right on the USB-HID, slack/suse(8.2) didn't. The Debian installer doesn't tell you that you have to add users to the audio group to get sound working.
Now, onto post-install config. RH/Fedora/SuSE have it right on providing GUI config tools for printers and network setup. For everyday settings, one should not have to google for config file HOWTOs to set up a printer at a remote location, or punch in a dial-up number.
Text-based config tools..you need in case the GUI goes wrong..as in setting up the X server. I'm pretty sure most distros have such tools, but there needs to be standardization in naming them. Whatever happened to linuxconf? It's still around but not included in any of the distros I've tried recently.
Manually editing files is great in case there's a certain option that you need is is rarely used and not included in the automated tools. Plus, you can always copy the config files to a floppy for quick recovery if you reinstall the system.
For the manual file editing, there NEEDS to be a standardization on file locations, or a list generated that tells where the files are exactly. E.G.:I was trying to look for the iptables file under Slack (RH keeps it at
I've had very few problems with linux... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if it happens to be one of the applications bundled with Mandrake I can just use the software installer and everything works perfectly every time. However, whether I'm downloading and compiling from source or trying to install RPM's, I've repeatedly been dragged into what can only be called dependency hell!
OK, I've downloaded NiftyApp. If I'm compiling from source, I'll find out about the dependencies while running
So I find out what it's dependencies are. I go to Google and RPMFind and locate + download the required packages. But lo and behold, these packages too have unsatisfied dependencies. Sometimes I end up repeating this cycle so many times I just give up: For God's sake, how many damn dependencies can this program *HAVE*?
Other times (This is usually where I give up), the computer starts acting as if it's on crack:
rpm -i annoying-dependency.rpm
Error: package annoying-dependency is already installed.
rpm -e annoying-dependency
Error: Package not installed.
Make up your mind: Which is it, installed or not installed?!?!?
In short, I'm saying that Linux seriously needs to improve packaging. At the very least, list all the packages that your program needs installed before it can compile in a help file. That will at least save me the trouble of discovering them manually. Or list the deps on your website or Sourceforge page. I've tried installing K3D, for example, and just given up, having hunted down about 8 other RPMs and then getting the crack scenario described above. Even if it doesn't prove impossible to clear up the dependencies, It's still a major PITA to try and install, for example, MPlayer and end up downloading 5 packages for that program, and then hunting down 6 more for A/V control.
Now, I'm pretty technically proficient. I'm not afraid of the evil command line, I can use a console, and don't mind manually editing config files. If *I* can't get half the programs I download to install, what hope do ordinary users have? (Heck, considering the obscene amount of hard drive space most of us have, why not just offer a statically compiled version for download? It was the only way I could get the Game of Life (GOL) to work)
Luckily, Linux comes with about 95% of the applications I would ever use anyway. But the remaining 5% make me want to pull my hair out!
Re:I've had very few problems with linux... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, I hate this one myself. I hate spending ages downloading something, then realising that I've still got several components to hunt down and install/reinstall/upgrade first.
apt-get really is your friend in these situations. OK, it's only as good as the repositories for whatever distro you're running. But if it contains the program you're after, it'll contain the dependencies, too. Then it just does the whole thing foe you.
(But in a rather nice verbose way so it actually tells you what changes it's making. Maybe not essential for newbies, but I certainly appreciate learning these things.)
Actually, I'm finding that an increasing number of projects are actually doing this. And not only do they list the dependencies, but quite often they link to the Project Page for the dependency in question.
That would be nice, too. If for nothing else than for use in "If all else fails" scenarios. I'm not sure how viable it'd be, though. Both technically and license-wise.
TiggsPlus, for the things that do get static binaries, statis packages would be nice. Or at least an install-script. Actually, the latter would be nice. You can run it and get the work done for you, but then you can also look at the script and see exactly where what things are being put.
Re:I've had very few problems with linux... (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh.
I don't think this is the best idea (Score:3, Interesting)
"Make it easier, make everything easier, make everything do everything by itself so I don't have to worry about anything. When I turn on my computer it should know that I'm hungry and offer me something to eat. All this stuff is hard to install and use."
"Well, did you read the easy 10 steps to get it working".
"I shouldn't need to read that stuff is what I'm saying."
No matter what you do you'll always get something along those lines. Documentation doesn't make usability better when it's not read. Personally I believe the best way to make a usable interface would be to incorporate neural network like functionality into the interface and the way it operates. This way, the interface accomodates the user based on the usability guidelines provided by the programmer and will compensate for a specific users behavior.
Users are averse to change (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing I noticed about users is they are averse to change. Here's a typical user:
You add 300 new features to their OS, KDE rocks. But they can't find their "A" drive. "I have to go to /mnt/fd0 instead?" Because of this, they will hate it. Here's the proof.
We took a company with a shit MS-access app thingy and converted it to a web based app. It ran faster, more stable, suppored more users, etc... Lots of plusses. But the select box in MS-Access lets you type in it to lookup values, rather than just the first letter like in a browser. We added hundreds of new features, but because they lost one the upgrade was crap and they couldn't use it. I'm afraid that it's all about who bitches the loudest
don't spit 6 pages of crap at me (Score:3, Insightful)
My idea for increased usability? Don't just spit out the man page at people , take the time to look at the options given to you in the program , and actually say what's wrong. Don't just blindly print out the man page.
Bad idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus... (Score:4, Funny)
IANALUE - I am not a Linux Usability Expert.
Sell out (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no need for any new usability studies, there is only a need for Linux developers to give a damn about the ones that have already been done. The root of the problem is money. Without a large influx of money, open source developers are coding for themselves, not as part of a job to help others. They scratch their own itches and expect others to scratch their own. To do otherwise amounts to selling out, and for nothing at that. That seems to be the attitude, anyway, and it needs to change.
The solution isn't more documentation, it's quite plainly more money and more developers who are willing to "sell out" to actually make Linux useful to the general population. You need to start by discarding KDE and Gnome; the more you cry about the loss, the more you ensure Linux will never be ready for the desktop. Mac OS X makes a usable Unix desktop, and many of their lessons learned are available via GNUstep. Why so many open source developers ignore GNUstep is beyond me.
The solution is to stop putting out distributions that have packages for everything under the sun, often times with dozens of ways to do the same thing. It's about time we all picked a browser, just one, and ran with it. Yeah, a system should have multiple browsers available, but there should be one "official" Linux browser. As it stands, all the options being available all the time just confuses the hell out of users. There needs to be a base functionality that is available across all distributions, something that can be branded and advertised as the one true Linux Standard Installation. Right now, the name Linux doesn't really mean anything specific and useful to most non-geek people.
Linux style guidelines? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first post on Groklaw has to do with squirrelmail and how the buttons for flagging messages as read, unread, and important confuse the users because they simply set a flag for the message but don't really perform any action otherwise. This is a bad use for buttons and really should be a checkbox or a checked menu item kind of thing.
Linux could really use more consistency with this sort of thing. One of the things Windows has always had going for it is that MS has always pushed for a consistent style in applications. To the point where a basic MFC app would begin with menu items for basic window functions and the basic copy, cut, and paste menu items. Small things, but I bet a hell of a lot more MFC apps have copy, cut, and paste because of it, and most users know where to find it because of that.
Something like this would really benefit Linux if developers would follow it. The problem is that there's nobody pushing these kinds of standards. It would require a group that's already respected in the Linux community to push something like this. It would help if applications were then rated by how well they stick to the style guidelines. Users could then use this as part of their basis for evaluating which applications to use. By knowing that an application follows the style guidelines, they will know that an application is going to generally be easier for their users to learn because it should then be like other applications in its style.
Oh well, just my thoughts.
Re:Know your strengths (Score:5, Informative)
Did you actually read the articles? The point is that this won't be on Groklaw, but on a new site. It is a separate project designed to further the growth of FOSS. Ain't nothing wrong with that, and it won't affect Groklaw since it will be the community that does this project. PJ merely proposed it. She won't be the one doing it. She'll just be one of thousands of people who offer input.
Re:this may sound stupid and all (Score:5, Insightful)
The Windows file structure is just as hard to use. From the UNIX user's perspective, at least. Everything seems to be dumped halphazardly into C:\Windows or C:\Winnt... config files, libraries, drivers, executables... you can't tell what anything is, there are hundreds of odd 3-letter extensions and no command (that I know of) like the "file" command to tell you just what these things are.
At least the directory names in UNIX mean something...
And as a final aside, the reason for abbreviations, i.e.