Posts in by tag
Recent Poll's
User login
Navigation
Recent Comments
Syndicate
Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 13:05 — Borax Man
Firstly, I'd like to preface this by saying that I run an old Red Hat 7.3 distro. It's not perfect, but its pretty good. Yes, I use linux, but there is a reason I'm not keen on upgrading.
I switched because Windows sucked, but MOSTLY because I didn't want MS to dictate how I use my computer. I saw Linux as a means of using the computer the way I saw fit.
The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the hackers who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather schizophrenic view of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play, develop, which is fine, but also want Linux to become dominant, or at least far more prevalent. Most computer users do NOT want a 'developers OS', they want an OS which does what THEY want.
1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.--
Most computer users, that is, your average user, (95% of them), doesn't want someone else to decide how their desktop should behave, or decide that they should learn to use a new GUI, or have to relearn how to use software. GNOME for instance, has changed its Open/Save file dialog boxes over the versions. Media Players keep changing. The configuration tools keep changing. One version your using a little GUI to configure LPD for printing, then using a web based tool to configure CUPS. There is little consistency. Windows has also forced uses to adapt, but not as frequently. I personally like consistency, not having to worry that an upgrade will make everything unfamiliar, or break anything, or introduce new problems.
2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.---
I was struggling with an IM program called pidgin, but I realised there is also GAIM, Trillian, YATTM?, and about a thousand others. MP3 players? Again, more than you can count. Same with everything. Users want just one or two options which WORK and are STABLE. Seems developers, not happy with the 50+ MP3 players out there, set about to create "yet another MP3 player". Just what Linux needs, ANOTHER half finished, buggy program missing features. Maybe if they consolidated their efforts they could create just a few options which are good, rock solid. Thank the lord for aMSN.
3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.---
There are two things which Linux zealots keep mentioning which puzzle me.
Firstly, they say that Linux can deal with crashing programs more gracefully. Yes, its true that it is very difficult to get Linux to hard lock, even if the whole GUI comes crashing down, the Linux kernel keeps on ticking. But wait a minute? Your multitasking. You're burning a DVD, downloading a file and writing a document. All of a sudden, you start a program or click something that causes the whole GUI to crash. You've lost your document, your download and your CD burning app has stopped giving you a coaster. Now, according to the zealots, you're supposed to be glad that the kernel is still running? Also, its hard for a virus to run as root and trash your system. Hmm, all well and good, but a malevolent program can EASILY run under your own user account, and trash all your personal files. Now, whats more important, the Linux distro which you can easily reinstall, or your family photos, your documents, your programs and your settings? The problem is the frame of mind which puts the OS above all.
4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.---
They say it does, but thin/thick clients dont count. Nor does running a limited distro with just a command line. Fact is, get the current distros, and they WILL run slow on good hardware. Maybe not as bad as Vista, but still needlessly slow. I'm trialling Vector Linux on my AMD 700MHz, 384M RAM, and apart from the network issues, it runs, but not as fast as the older distros. Same software, same capabilities, but slower.
5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users.---
Linux users are supposed to be able to learn quite easily how to compile from source, figure out how to configure software, know what LPD/LPR is, sockets, jobs, LPP, that /dev/lp0 is where their printer is, that eth0 = inet1, etc, etc. Also, users all have high speed unlimited broadband internet, so when they download a small program using apt or yum or whatever, they can easily download all the dependancies and upgrade have their OS. If you have dial up, many will just laugh at you and say you should get DSL. You shouldn't need high speed internet to upgrade your OS. Also, they expect users to WANT to know their system, to baby it by upgrading it all the time, working on it, tweaking it, learning how to install software a million different ways. The fact that an ordinary user doesn't care about the OS and just want to use the computer for a specific TASK seems foriegn to many of the zealots. Also, users should be programmers that can fix source code, write their own drivers, otherwise they are freeloading.
Anyway, just a brief overview. I do like Linux, but get frustrated by some of the community (not all, just the zealots) who really do hamper and destroy what would otherwise be a fine OS. It saddens me to see people just ignore user requests simply because those users aren't hackers, or decide what people should want, rather than listen. We dont want complex web based configuration utilities with an SQL backend and perl wrappers, or yada yada yada to do something simple. A really simple GUI with GOOD instructions to configure a program is more than enough. But instead, to configure a printer on Vector linux I have to use a web based configuration program which just isn't that speedy.
I dont think Linux sucks, per se, but it is serious need of redirection, or just SOME direction. Developers really should be enlisting help from people who are NOT developers, but understand what common users like. They need to stop focusing on what THEY want and thinking that users should use computers they way they see fit, and actually program FOR users. If Linux was developed with this attitude in mind from the beginning, I think it could easily rival windows at the moment. But Linux is losing out precisely because at its core, its development is so detached from real world computer users.
RE: Why Linux will most
RE: Why Linux will most likely succeed - a view from another experienced user
Hello all,
First of all, I find it a little sad that almost everybody in this forum is this divided. Either you are against linux, or you are not. There goes objectivity...
If you want to be objective about something, don't care about what you think, think about what cares.
Anyway,
quote:
The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the hackers who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather schizophrenic view of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play, develop, which is fine, but also want Linux to become dominant, or at least far more prevalent. Most computer users do NOT want a 'developers OS', they want an OS which does what THEY want.
I don't really agree on this because I find it a very simplistic idea to only mention developers. IMO, developers are people who are very technical, very in depth people, who create all the real hard stuff. They might or might not have a schizophrenic view ;-) about linux, but thats irrelevant to me. Why? Simply because they are the people who enjoy building things, not because of the credit they get from others, but because they care about getting things to work. You can not expect the developers to find every usability issue of a program, because they most likely will never notice such things. (Its like trying to find a mistake in a calculation you made. The best way to find it is by having somebody else check it, or restarting from scratch). Up to a fairly large time ago (IMHO at least some years ago), this caused a lot of problems for end users. However, without this phase, it would have been impossible to create something as well built as linux. A few years ago, a shift in focus has been visible. This has been from the moment that distributions have really began focusing on giving a good end-user experience. These 'packagers' as I will call them are the people that care about usability.
Now, the real job of these packagers is to streamline the whole user experience, which is a huge effort. They have had the vision to created guidelines to desktop experiences, which are now being used in eg. kde, gnome. This allows for developers to create a feel to a certain program. However, still the developers will not always find all errors, which is again where packagers play an important role. They are the first line error reporters, and the 'filter' between the end-user and the developers. I do not know the specifics, but I believe the packagers are the underliyng indirect reason why the linux kernel development release shedule changed fundamentaly in the 2.6 series. The basic idea about the packagers is that they can give a guideline to developers about missing items, problems, user needs, etc.
Now let me get back to the post itself.
1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.
As mentioned above, there's no need for them to understand, the packagers are the one who try doing this.
2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort
Again, the packagers realise this, and now the default choice is limited a lot in comparison to say 5 years ago.
3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.
Well, again, they might or might not, it's irrelevant IMHO.
As a technical note: It does make a difference if the kernel is still running. Filesystem corruption is fairly certain when it would crash, having the effect that not only your open files, but all of them might get screwed. I still prefer the first.
4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware
This is typically something said by a developer to try to persuade someone into using linux. This is irrelevant to end-users because the stupidest thing an end-user can do is buy an old pc to learn working with a pc. It will have problems with any operating system. period.
5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users.
See 1) 2) or 3) ;-)
quote:
Anyway, just a brief overview. I do like Linux, but get frustrated by some of the community (not all, just the zealots) who really do hamper and destroy what would otherwise be a fine OS. It saddens me to see people just ignore user requests simply because those users aren't hackers, or decide what people should want, rather than listen. We dont want complex web based configuration utilities with an SQL backend and perl wrappers, or yada yada yada to do something simple. A really simple GUI with GOOD instructions to configure a program is more than enough. But instead, to configure a printer on Vector linux I have to use a web based configuration program which just isn't that speedy.
I think that if you were not an experienced user, you would never have had the experience you had, which apparently isn't that positive. However, I believe that for new users, the experience is becoming a lot easier than for new windows users. IMO I believe that from KDE4.2 onwards (I don't have that much experience with gnome, so I can not speak for it), it will always be a lot better. It is very streamlined, the feel of programs is almost identical, and the technical possibilities are tremendeous, making it a lot easier to implement the features users request, and even getting them to other operating system.
So basically, I do believe linux is heading into one direction, moreover, I see it as the good direction.
with kind regards,
NeveIlNosnam
in summary: you don't like
in summary: you don't like the UI.
Fair point. I do agree that the user interface is more attractive in Windows, albeit much much less configurable. Of course, this may not make a difference to the average joe who can't figure out to configure it.
You don't need to get so fired up. Just use Windows until there's a linux UI/Desktop Environment that suits you.
And if you feel that will never happen, then just Windows forever.
I mean you guys "have a life", unlike we linux users, so why waste your time with pointless rants? "I don't like the GUI" is all you had to say.
The UI is more attractive in
The UI is more attractive in Windows?
I dunno. I certainly love the Vista look, but I've played around with KDE 4 a bit, and it's gorgeous too. KDE 4 is a piece of shit, but if everything would stop flickering it'd be absolutely awesome.
And Gnome may not be gorgeous, but it's functional and not unattractive...
Hmm... as if id care if
Hmm... as if id care if linux becomes public, its mine all mine! lol jk Well it works for me so why the hell should I use osx or windows. IMHO linux does not need to be popular to be good (in fact I think quite the opposite I hate being part of the pack) linux does what its supposed to if it does not work for you then DON'T USE IT!
Why did you mention
Why did you mention Trillian? That's a closed-source application that's just for Windows. And why Pidgin AND Gaim, when they're the same thing, just different version numbers?
And yes, GNOME changes. You know why? Too make it more intuitive and less "um, well I think I clicked that thing, and then that one, then over here, and um...I forget."
Wow, here is the EXACT
Wow, here is the EXACT reason why Linux will never overtake Microsoft.....
"You know that is the problem with most people today, Linux was never meant for he mainstream it is a way of life that we choose to live. We chose Linux because we are different from 95% of the users.
As far as Linux stability goes even during a lockdown a recovery is much easier and better than on windows."
A way of LIFE that you choose to LIVE???
It's a F#$king O/S for god sakes! It's like you chose to give up meat or sex for the rest of your life.....
It's a lifestyle??? LMFAO, give me a break, yes, you are different than 95% of computer users and you are living such a unique lifestyle.
Do you go out at night to bars or whatever and say, "It's a lifestyle choice, I run Linux" LMFAO!
See, this is the smug arrogant community that will kill Linux.
Enjoy your "lifestyle" kiddies, we grownups have real work to do and girlfriends/wives to get home to.
I have a MS degree is CS. I
I have a MS degree is CS. I have worked mostly on Windows and have 5 years of industry experience. I write compiler optimizations mostly and am fairly good at that.
Recently I needed to use linux and while I like the open source idea, I realized again why I find it extremely frustrating to use linux. Nothing installs. I am a CS guy
The fact is the following - the job of the OS, like a system admin is to not come in the way, just disappear. How many times do you have to open compiler code change portions and rebuild to get you program to compile. It just works.
Off course, linux folks cannot achieve that. Their solution - you are a moron if I have written something that does not work.
You are trying to use a car? you moron, don't you know you have to open the hood, move this filter, pull that chord and while holding it turn the key. I am better than you since I know thats how a car is started. We hate MS, their car just starts
"Recently I needed to use
"Recently I needed to use linux and while I like the open source idea, I realized again why I find it extremely frustrating to use linux. Nothing installs. I am a CS guy"
I'm not a CS but I have manage to install quite a few programs in linux. ;)
You are trying to use a car?
You are trying to use a car? you moron, don't you know you have to open the hood, move this filter, pull that chord and while holding it turn the key. I am better than you since I know thats how a car is started. We hate MS, their car just starts
Well, if i got the car for free, I would have absolutely nothing against having to start it that way ;-)
Eventually you would,
Eventually you would, especially if you weren't as knowledgeable about cars as you are about computers. Besides, whats the POINT of making it hard to use? If I built a car and didn't put the effort to put in an ignition system, or at least make starting it somewhat organised, it shows I dont care about either a) those who are going to use my car and/or b) my workmanship, polish or handicrafts.
The 'you got it for free, so don't complain' and 'I like to operate software in a torturously manual way' arguments are often used to cover up apathy and laziness. When devs of KDE4 say that they don't need users, well, that says it all.
Besides, it might be free, but when you post something on the Internet and distribute it for public use, you should expect criticism. Maybe people shouldn't expect commercial polish, but at least a determined attempt by the author to make a suitable product.
Having a Microsoft degree in
Having a Microsoft degree in Computer Science is not something that invokes awe. You will still be judged by your writing abilities, which, I'm sorry to say, make you appear an incomprehensible rambler. So my first advice is: only boast about your educational achievements when you have the writing skill to back them up.
[off-topic]
>I realized again why I find it extremely frustrating to use linux. Nothing installs. I am a CS guy
Again, stating that you are a CS guy and can't figure out how to install a program on a non-standard OS does not lend you credibility.
>The fact is the following - the job of the OS, like a system admin is to not come in the way, just disappear
It is not a fact, but an opinion, even if most experts seem to agree on this. But I fail to see how this has anything to do with either Windows or Linux.
>How many times do you have to open compiler code change portions and rebuild to get you program to compile. It
>just works.
Syntax error: "open compiler code change portions" is not a valid verb construct
Semantic error: if "it just works", the number of times you have to change something is zero, unless you're performing destructive testing.
I fail to understand how your choice of compiler, your choice of programming language, or even your perceived lack of understanding of the chosen language and compiler, have anything to do with the OS?
>Off course, linux folks cannot achieve that.
Syntax error: ambiguous antecedent for "that".
Semantic error: "off course" requires a subject and a verb.
Achieve what? I'm sorry, I'm trying very hard to find out what you intended to write, but you're making less sense with every sentence.
>Their solution - you are a moron if I have written something that does not work.
Judging from your writing style, I'd say you're a moron as well. And I haven't even seen any of your code yet.
>You are trying to use a car? you moron, don't you know you have to open the hood, move this filter,
>pull that chord and while holding it turn the key. I am better than you since I know thats how a car is started.
I seriously doubt that you have a drivers' license, or know how to operate a manual gearbox. Knowing how to open the hood is a requirement for all drivers, because you should be able to check the oil level and refill if necessary. You are also required to know how to check tire pressure, refill the gas tank, and know the meaning of all the warning lights on the dashboard. Too difficult for you? Use a taxi.
>We hate MS, their car just starts
So, your entire incomprehensible rant boils down to simply "Linux developers envy Microsoft because Microsoft programs always work"? I'm sorry, but I won't even start to comment on that.
[/off-topic]
Now to get back to the subject at hand:
1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.
True. Most open source developers write programs because they have a desire to write, not because they have users they need to support. They do not write *for* the users, they write for themselves. I'm not saying this is negative, it's just an observation. But it helps to understand all other points you make.
2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.
I do not see this as a problem. I'd say that application uniformity (one program for every task) is worse. We've seen examples where it can lead (Internet Explorer anyone?). My favorite example is media players on Windows: we've had real player, windows media player, winamp, foobar 2000, multimedia jukebox, itunes and no doubt many others I don't know about, and everyone has a different "favorite". Why is that a bad thing, and why should we all settle on the same program?
They only place where the duplication is harmful, I think, is in infrastructure: it does not make sense to have two desktop IPC desktop protocols, like KDE and Gnome used to have. They have now both adopted D-Bus. But it is important to remember that the design of d-bus is based on both its predecessors, and it would have been less succesful if those projects had not existed. And even with those, you can still have two implementations of the same protocol - it will work without problems.
3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.
I'm assuming you intended to write "skewed", and this is basically an extension of 1. See #5 for more information.
4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.
Of course it does. But it is important to note that when this is said, 99% of the time this is said about the Linux kernel, not the OS. I have the same (source-wise) 2.6 kernel running on a 1998 javastation and on my 8-core opteron workstation. But the Javastation runs Blackbox, not KDE or Gnome. Have you tried the latest Xubuntu? I got it running acceptably on a Via C3 1GHz with 128MB of RAM.
5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users.
I'd say that users have unrealistic expectations from developers as well. And that's just a result of them living in totally different perceived worlds. It should also be noted, that it mostly are not the developers that urge users to try their software, but organizations and marketers that act as middle-men. There is a reason why, in the professional software world, developers hardly ever answer the phone when you call them for support. You get to talk to account managers, software consultants, or helpdesk personnel, which are trained to interact with end users.
And here is where the current open source model is different from commercial offerings: users get a chance to deal directly with developers, but both are not trained to understand each others' world. That is neither the fault of the developer, nor the user, but both will blame the other. And that is why sites like this get filled with the most useless rants, even when they are created with the best intentions.
Had the parent given more information about his situation, he could have served as the perfect example: a knowledgeable, off-the-world geek that knows compiler internals on one side, but a helpless end-user when he is faced with a new environment in which he must perform his work. Had the parent called a Linux vendor for support, he would have gotten knowledgeable answers from people who were trained to support him. Instead, he chose to ask the developers (in their eyes: harass) with questions that they know how to solve, but do not have the time (or the inclination) to walk a clueless user through it.
Open source software is maturing. So much so, that you can build a live-cd with basic software, that will work in almost any environment and allow you to do basic stuff everywhere. Configuration is in some cases still a weak point and could use more polish. But what we need most has nothing to do with programming: we need application administrators, that can act as a conduit between the users, that can not be bothered to deal with the technical side of their software, and the developers, that can not be bothered to deal with non-technical users. Failing that, we need more technical users and more fuzzy developers. But the latter will not be an optimal solution.
Congrats! That's a great
Congrats! That's a great reply! Do you think "MS" might actually stand for Master of Science degree in Computer Science?
THANK YOU! Borax Man is on
THANK YOU! Borax Man is on the same page as 95% of the users out there.
I have been saying this since SUSE 6.4 and people totally ignore any constructive criticism.
It's not really Linux that is flawed it's the designers, programmers AND the linux community.
I left Linux because I am tired of the snobs and the arrogant SOB's that have been ruining this community.
I thought Apple users were smug and uppity but man, walk into any Linux forum and suggest that something should be changed because it unreasonable or the feature set would be better for the end user.
If you are not called a Microsoft fanboi or told RTFM than consider yourself lucky.
Plus there is so much news about how secure linux is vs. microsoft, apple, etc. It's simply not true at all, there are two facts that most Linux "fanboi's" will not admit.
1. DHS had to step in and scan hundreds of linux projects because of the gapping security holes in the software. Microsoft did not need to do that because they can afford to purchase the software that will scan code. I am not a fanboi, I am stating a SIMPLE fact.
2. If linux has 2/3 as many users as Microsoft they would see the same (if not more) vulnerabilities. Again, it doesn't pay to write a virus/exploit, etc for an O/S that has 10-15% of the market when you can write one that has 85-90% of the market. Why waste all that time for little effect?
Do I like Linux, yes, but it's not the IDEA that is the problem it's the developers and the community that is killing Linux. They need to address end users needs, it's no longer viable to say "well you can compile your own kernel with only the drivers you want and it runs faster!!1111!!"
Well that is great and all but again, two reasons why the standard user will not:
1. It's a pain in the ass if I change hardware to have to recompile. It's just not worth my time.
2. Processors are at the point now that you will not really even notice a big difference. Not to mention the dirty little secret that ubuntu is as bloated as a Microsoft O/S. (Yes you can do a custom install but I am talking about the AVERAGE end user).
I do believe in choice of programs but it seems that once a project is started and other one comes up (IM clients for instance) people lose interest in fixing/debugging the first program and move on to the next more popular program.
If you are going to have thousands of IM clients at least 4 of them should be stable and not buggy.
I know a lot of work has gone into the whole "dependency hell" situation with Linux (again, another dirty little secret) however, it still exists and it's still a pain in the ass.
And to be honest KDE and Gnome are ugly compared to Vista and Mac O/S, I know this is not a popular thing to say in an opensource crowd but looks do matter….sorry guys, I know you hate it and I know you can add things to KDE and Gnome to improve the look and add the special effects that vista’s aero does but it’s just not the same……..
Just my 2c, take it or leave it but end users are telling you what they want and you ignore them like Microsoft does.....and you slam Microsoft for doing that.....
Hey just the same feelings
Hey just the same feelings from me (also a SuSE user for years). I used to be pretty happy with the community but then it became full of snobs. Not to blame the buyout but that is the time period that things changed for the SuSE community IMO. It got so snobbish that many of the regulars branched off and started a separate IRC channel where even the non-elites would be able to speak again.
System is now very BIG if just a normal install. Crashes were once unheard of on my linux box but over the past couple of years I have dealt with my share (mainly x crashes).
The snobs that only respond "RTFM" combined with the lack of documentation haven't driven me from linux. I simply no longer participate in the community. Not that it matters since I'm not a coder, I'm sure the community is very happy that I am gone (for the most part). Nobody cares about users until you start bragging market share.
Also this is likely a dead horse but linux sucks because it doesn't have the ability to play the cutting edge games, I know they are coded for windows so it isn't any fault of linux, but it still sucks.
yea but you CAN change the
yea but you CAN change the appearance unlike windows and with compiz you can have much better looks than VISTA or OSX (Even better than that crap they show on youtube) but it requires a lot of tweaking of the settings. I understand the whole dependency hell thing, I just compiled the latest version of VLC because it was not in the repository and it took me u30min of searching for the missing dependencies then the compiler took 30 more min even with my Phenom X4 processor at almost full usage. Gnome and KDE may use up a lot of resources but there are alternatives such as open box which uses almost no ram at all yet still looks awesome.
Linux will never succeed in
Linux will never succeed in the mainstream until there comes a time when accessing the command line or manually editing a config file is not needed. Ever. EVAR.
The rub is that the very thought of that is anathema to Linux evangelicals who feel the command line is THE way to squeeze every the last bit of control and efficiency out of the OS. I'll concede that may be so, but not everyone wants or cares to hyper-tweak their system. It's not the way the mainstream wants to use their OS, and it's absurd to expect people to take such a step BACKWARD in computer evolution.
GUI interfaces on Linux are created as an afterthought. That mindset is a huge problem. The FIRST thing a program writer should be thinking about is how to craft their program so that a GUI frontend (which they should be making simultaneously with the CLI version) can fully manipulate every function. Quite simply, If a program does not have an effective GUI, it is incomplete, and I daresay broken.
Whats wrong with the CLI? do
Whats wrong with the CLI? do you have difficulty reading and writing? Does a book with no pictures put the frighteners up you?. Seriously which is dumberer/easier (imagine trying to tell somone how to do this over the phone):
press control+alt+F1, you have a black screen with text?...login...type
ifconfig eth0 192.168.99.14 netmask 255.255.255.0 up
or
you need to go to network device properties...blahblahblah...no thats network neighbourhood...lets just start again, close all the windows. go to my computer...blahblahblah...there is referance to network in my computer? what about in the quick links on the left of the window? um um um...aaaah you must have the classic theme as oppose to luna. ok, close all the windows now click start button, yup. click control panel...no? um is there an entry called settings? yeah? okay click that, there you see control panel? ok open that...blahblahblah...ok now choose the network interface that refers to the ethernet device not the wireless...blah...um it should say somthing about ethernet or wired or somthing. Ok look down the list of protocols..blahblahblah...um yeah its like the language for the network device to speak...blahblahblah...choose the one that has tcp/ip somwhere in the name. Now choose properties...blahblahblah...no not advanced or config properties...blahblahblah...okay you should see some tabs lets start filling in the addresses......blahblahblah......blahblahblah......blahblahblah......blahblahblah... it still doesnt work? mmm i need more info okay close everything and click start...blahblahblah...yup type in cmd, this should get you a screen with some writing on it. can you type in ipconfig and tell me what the screen says?
Oh whats that, you get no debug back from XP? The fixall is a complete reinstall? but what about my photos and memories? i shouldv backed up? if only i could boot this system from a cd and rescue my stuff before i hose the lot.
Serioiusly folks, maybe it is you who is incapable of being prepared to do any work to learn how to use a tool. maybe linux DOES NOT want idiots like you guys spamming up the OS. You are the computing equivalent of where Darwin stopped and the welfare state took over.
Microsoft will eventually kill it self through greed, linux however will still be there and maybe when you are sick of viruses and insane DRM will you come crawling back.
Wow! How about this: Go to
Wow! How about this: Go to Control Panel, then Network Connections. Right click Local Area Connection, select Properties, Highlight TCP/IP and hit the Properties button, Fill out IP Address with xx.xx fill out Subnet Mask with xx.xx. Click OK.
And you know what is going to happen? The user might actually REMEMBER where he went in windows, meaning that they will be MORE EFFICIENT the next time it needs to be done. Thats why MS Windows is more INTUITIVE than any linux distro has ever been. You can configure the whole system through a GUI that remains familiar to users from version to version. Its harder to remember a string of text that is entered into a black screen, if you arent familliar with it to begin with. And sorry to say, black screens and text are NOT the future!
Just because you have spent countless more hours in front of a CLI, learning the commands of Linux and how the system works, doesnt make you SMARTER. Just because someone doesnt want to enter commands into a black screen doesnt mean they are STUPID. It just means that YOU spent more time than THEY HAVE in front of a computer. As a software developer I can assure you that your not special. And if by saying "Linux doesnt want you", you mean the code contributors dont want noobies, their constant attempts at making linux more WINDOWS & MAC LIKE pretty much proves you wrong doesnt it?
The thing that you cant grasp is that most developers (including linux developers) are making their software EASIER, more INTUITIVE, and more AUTOMATIC. Linux is very slow in these areas and guys like you, elitist pricks, alone with no one to love them, who lash out against the average person for not wanting to skip showers and recompile their kernel instead, make linux suck. You are the problem.
I know this is an old thread
I know this is an old thread but...
I changed over from Windows because I was tired of all the overhead, my brand new kicka$$ machine being painfully slow. I installed linux easily, it recognized all my hardware, no problems at all. And yes, it took some time to get used to. And yes, I am much more savvy than your average user. But with all that being said, 90% of what the average user will ever have to configure can be done from within a graphical environment. I've only had to go to the command line when I am toying around with things that the average user would never do. Most people go online, we have firefox for that...they IM, we have Kopete for that...they like their multimedia, we have Amarok or Kaffiene or whatever you choose to use. There is very little adjustment for the average Windows user to make. All of this nonsense about linux being hard to learn, its just that...nonsense. My machine runs faster and more stable than any Microsoft OS I can remember since maybe DOS 6.22. So you can miss me with all of that "its too hard for people" nonsense. I personally run Mandriva, but from what I understand Ubuntu is even more user friendly. So give people a little credit, they are intelligent enough to figure things out. Linux made a believer out of me.
And you know what is going
And you know what is going to happen? The user might actually REMEMBER where he went in windows, meaning that they will be MORE EFFICIENT the next time it needs to be done
Ok, this could happen (even if I think they will forget all one our later), but what's the difference with NetworkManager (apart that in my opinion NM is easier)?
I think Windows is going to be more complicated than Linux. Many tasks today are less time consuming and more intuitive on Linux. Have you tried to configure a wireless network on Vista? Don't you stay a minute looking for the right icon on the Control Panel? Have you never had to change the letter of a drive? Simple task for me, but hard for that 95% of pc users.
Linux lacks many gui utility to configure things, but fortunately in many cases you don't need them anymore (i.e. Xorg now autoconfigures itself. On Ubuntu I don't have to configure the printer, I plug it and it just works. No driver to be installed, no stupid configuration tool to use). Some distros are trying to become more intuitive than possible. Ubuntu, Mandriva, OpenSuSE, Fedora... many work to be done, but I see the light at the end of the tunnel (but we need to wait some time).
Besides simple commands are not so hard to use and remember. Some day ago I spent a lot of time on phone explaining one my customer how to install VNC. Oh... my God... I had to tell him which button of the mouse to push, every time. It was so frustrating. I can't imagine how to explain him how to get the ip adress of its pc. I sually get this information much quicker asking him to exec ipconfig on a command prompt.
ok, you have obviously never
ok, you have obviously never tried to explain to your elderly mother or someone else just as uninitiated how to check settings to find out as to why their broadband wont work. Instructions like 'go to control panel' are generally met with 'whats a control panel'.
'intuitive, ease of use' is in direct conflict with 'flexibility and functionality' You cannot have both. A balance must be struck. Windows sacrifices a lot of functionality just for ease of use(which it really isn't KDEvsExplorer shell is like Swiss army knife vs bowling pin). Its like vi vs notepad. Sure notepad is easy enough to pass the mother test and vi can make anyone feel consistently stupid when they cant even make letters appear on the screen. HOWEVER, when it comes to the big editing tasks (renumbering lines, complicated find/replace etc vi kicks the ass off notepad. The problem however, you cannot be bothered to learn how to operate vi.
Another example manual gears vs automatic. Any chump can drive an automatic, you turn the wheel and press the 'go' button. simple. However if you want to have more control over your engine you cannot expect an auto car to work like a manual. yes, you must LEARN. When you start, you would probably stall and grind the gears and shout and create a web site called 'whymanualcarssuck.org'
So, if you want to use an advanced operating system that DOES require learning so that you may have more power then READ THE FUCKING MAN(pages) and stop complaining it is so hard. If you cannot be bothered go and use windows.
So yes, more time has been spent behind the CLI than windows users, hence the power of the CLI is obvious to me. I have had to learn how the os works and the controls to drive it. This gives me more control. For example if I really wanted I could have the machine scripted to check at exactly 3:17am if it was on it side (accelerometers in a laptop for ex.), if i had new mail and i was playing a particular game to start playing a movie, format the hard drive etc. obviously this is a banal meaningless chain of events however it should demonstrate the flexibility. How would you do this in windows? Is there a tick box for it? Write a batch file? (HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA) Learn how to program in visual basic?(then figure out how to interface hardware?)
The problem here isn't with the OS. The problem is with the person. I like to learn new things and explore new ideas, read books listen to lectures etc. Learning is a slow process of diminishing ignorance that can be enjoyable. Don't blame the car, blame the driver (i.e. you).
Now I will take my Swiss army knife and automate, script and program my way to victory. You take your $300 bowling pin and uh...uh reformat it?
You obviously did not read
You obviously did not read the point of his (I'm assuming male) article. He was not complaining about how difficult Linux is to use because he doesn't want to learn Linux. His entire point was questioning the dual purpose of Linux, one of which was to rival Windows. You say
"So, if you want to use an advanced operating system that DOES require learning so that you may have more power then READ THE ******* MAN(pages) and stop complaining it is so hard. If you cannot be bothered go and use windows."
That's exactly his point. Most users don't want to sift through piles of manual pages to learn how to use an OS. Most users want to have a simple, functioning, intuitive operating system. Why is it that when a Linux is bashed or flamed for it's complexities, Linux users fire away with the "unintellegent, lazy users can't be bothered to learn..." argument. His entire point was Linux will never rival Windows for that exact fact. Too many are tired of people complaining about the lack of intuitive nature in Linux, and they say "use Windows then". That's what everyone is doing, taking your advice, which is exactly why Linux will never attain the popularity of Windows, it's not easy to use. His point is valid, correct, and you just helped make it.
I agree the command line has
I agree the command line has more potential but it is very boring to read the man pages and other articles on the command line when it just works in windows. It would be nice if someone made a fun interactive tutorial on the command line.
You've completely missed the
You've completely missed the point of this website, "whylinuxsucks" is not anti-linux, we're extremely PRO-Linux. We've realized that the only way to improve Linux is to bash the likes of you; the Linux zealots who can't understand that the lack of general user-friendliness is the very reason Linux hasn't kicked M$ out of the market yet.
You zealots don't realize that 90% of the population doesn't need flexibility; they want to be able to surf the web, send email, and do their banking, nothing more. Windows does that all fine, with almost zero configuration, so people use it and are completely fine with it. Most people who start with windows can *guess* their way forward and make everything work, without hosing the system, can you say the same about Linux?
Until Linux has reached the point where it can do pretty much everything without a command line, it will continue to be a second-if not third-grade Desktop OS. Not because it's inferior to Windows in terms of features or flexibility, but because you have to jump through hoops to make anything work, at the risk of hosing your system.
Linux in a nutshell: "If you don't want to/can't learn ALL the arcane nuances of this OS, FUCK THE HELL OFF WILL YOU!!?"
One of the BIG reasons I
One of the BIG reasons I went to Linux was the CLI. Personally, I prefer it for many tasks. Its good to have a CHOICE of being able to use the command line to work with the system, or use the GUI. Linux distros which use Graphical programs to configure the system by altering the very text files you can do by hand get it right. A GUI front end to the CLI stuff.
Linux will never reach a point where you can do everything in a GUI simply because there are things you can do on the command line which you CANT do in a GUI with the same ease. Thats kind of like saying that diagrams will completely replace written instructions. Sometimes TELLING someone what to do, is easier than drawing diagrams or showing a video. I dont think the CLI is 'arcane' either, it will always be an integral part of computing. IT's considered arcane because it predates the GUI, but then the wheel predates the internal combustion engine by a couple of thousand years and used on obsolete technology like chariots, but we still need wheels.
Thats whats good about Linux, you have BOTH. Windows does suck because they ignore what a good CLI can do.
the problem is when you need the CLI to do things which should by all rights, have a GUI tool for, such as setting up that Windows FAT32 partition instead of editing /etc/fstab manually learning all the options.
It's not a matter of choosing one over the other, just being sensible and making sure that whether on the command line, or using GUI tools to edit those config files, that its complete, documented and consistent.
You are completely right,
You are completely right, typing stuff into a black screen is completely useless, time-consuming, and just feels like we are taking a step BACK in computing
I have been using linux
I have been using linux along windows for months now. Not that I need linux, but just to know another OS. I must say I'm disappointed the way linux evolved. I dont think it will reach the normal users unless and untill they take care of the software installation issue. A normal user will always want to play around with new software, without caring about dependencies.
I've seen the Linux fans saying the software installation issue in Linux is as it is just to provide the users with flexibility. They needs to understand that they are actually driving away the new potential Linux users who really does not care so much about flexibility. There are confusing terms used in all the OS's (like "c:/" or "/"). But the users will adopt to them. What they wont adopt is the dependency issue.
I've found so many websites saying why windows is bad and why Linux is better. I wonder why they have to talk so much about windows being that bad. And if anyone says in favor of Windows, I've seen comments like "MS is paying these types of people to say such things". If they are looking to promot Linux, they should just highlight the better features of Linux rather than going against windows.
While the Linux developers are always talking about the beauty of the command line interface, for normal users, it is just a bad dream.
I do believe that Linux have the power. But what is holding it back is the non-flexible mentality of the developers.
WOW, good article. It pretty
WOW, good article. It pretty much sums up my past week.
I am comparatively new to Linux having used it years ago and only now getting back to it. I've just installed and tested Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Open SUSE and Fedora Linux over the past week. None of them get a pass from me.
I am a "high end" user who has some limited programming and a ton of system hardware experience. I can see both sides of the grand debate here... but in the end the user needs to win. If Linux is to be anything but an essoteric hacker's tool, they really need to get their shite together...
1) A single, unified, installation procedure is desperately needed. Taraballs, RPMs, DEBs, Gzip, etc. doesn't get the job done... it took me hours and hours to install a printer driver because it wasn't available in the package tool's native format. Hey on windows, click on the "exe" and it knows what to do all by itself... users don't want to fuss with package converters, they want to get back to losing at poker.
2) The underlying architecture must be standardized. If someone says a program or driver is "for Linux" then it should work on ANY Linux. This means programmers may have to write adaptive code ("Is this feature present?") but mostly it means developers need to decide on a single underlying architecture for the GUIs. Sure, give the user a choice of themes and some special desktop features... but the installed stuff --programs and drivers-- should be universal.
3) You are absolutely correct in pointing out the average user doesn't care crap about the OS. Most are trying to get that proposal in on time or hoping to finish their emails before their movie comes on... they don't want to think about upgrades, settings or configurations... they want to USE their computers... hense the title: "User".
4) WRITE HELPFUL HELP FILES ... Really, if there is one single think wrecking the Linux experience for me it's the lack of useful help. Don't worry about explaining what X-Config does... think about answering the question "How do I set my video mode?" Really... try to answer the questions people are most likely to ask instead of bragging about your work.
Anyhow... I've vented enough for one day. Linux has come a long way... but it just ain't there yet. I'm gonna fire up windows and watch a movie on my big screen...
quite simple, 1. From a raw
quite simple,
1. From a raw terminal vim /etc/X11/xorg.conf, browse away, add your modes.
2. From within your windows manager 'xrandr --output VGA mode XxY
3. KDE, GNOME have apps in the settings menu to change them for you.
You didnt find any of these answers by researching the net?? did you even look?? How would an uninitiated windows user find the resolution settings? THEY WOULD READ THE MANUAL.
maybe you should stick to a peice of paper, a penci and a slide ruler.
Non they would not read the
Non they would not read the manual...ever, that is where you fail...
they would click and see something like properties and find it from there.
And they would not be asked a password to change the resolution.
And it would work 99% of the time when on linux you would probably limited to a set of resolution well below your hadware capabilities....
adding commands in a conf file is a recipe for disaster, a single mistype and a user can brick his computer.
Why is it so hard to understand that a gui that would write it can never miss the syntax ?
Or most likely the coder are fucking lazy and don't want to do it cause they are not paid ?
Yeah that is the real problem of linux, if IBM Oracle and such pays for the server things, not ONE of them contribute to real end user fun stuff.
So we are stuck with free sucking program, cause people are cheap.
I agree to most of what you
I agree to most of what you said. To advance GNU/Linux I think the main priority must be to understand users need.
Understanding users need is very difficult. MS (and probably Apple) did a lot of research on this. Of course very few hackers have the background that might be a good help to understand the questions. That is natural. If you spend your time hacking you can not at the same time educate your self about psychology and pedagogy.
The big question is however how to overcome this difficulty. How do we get things together? There are surely other people that could give valuable input, but how do we get people to listen to each other?
Before we do that I think that unfortunately a lot of work is more or less thrown in the big garbage can because of too little cooperation.
Why are we wasting our time
Why are we wasting our time trying to convince some moron who should just go buy an apple computer so he doesn't have to learn anything? I have coding to do.
Because I am a long time
Because I am a long time Linux user who wants it to succeed. Rather than get into a self congratulatory circle jerk where we all talk about how good it is we can do X and Y and we dispariage all those who say Linux is less than perfect, I'm actually trying to provide something USEFUL.
I've helped others move to Linux, people more like your average (but competent) user. I got sick of making excuses as to why I would have to drop into the command line to get program X to work, or set up access to their FAT32 partition, or why they just cant download a program and install, but instead have to look for an RPM package, then log out of KDE and into GNOME, to install it. and these are users who HAVE pulled apart and built their own PC's.
I WANT them to use Linux, but I've stopped advocating it and trying to get people to convert because these poor users are going to struggle with an OS which developers have written for themselves. I don't care if developers DO write an OS just for themselves, but stop pretending its for regular users and berating those who use Windows.
MS don't write Windows for MS, they write it for their target audience.
Linux developers need to follow this model. Write an OS for your target audience. If that audience is YOU, thats fine, but then stop trying to say that I should use an OS you designed for yourself and stop trying half assed attempts to make the OS look like its suitable for others.
It's a bit like a car company making a modifiable V8 supercharged ute then putting features on it to sell it to the grandma who only drives to church on Sundays and only can drive an auto.
True. Also make sure to stop
True. Also make sure to stop yelling that linux "pwns" windows. As a product for users windows is way better than Linux. Feel free to play a on show where you build strange vehicles from materials on a scrap heap, but please dont compare to Ferrari.
"Most computer users do NOT
"Most computer users do NOT want a 'developers OS', they want an OS which does what THEY want."
Hmm, you dont say, you want something the way you want it, maybe thats why the developers wrote it that way, because thats how THEY want it. If you want an OS perhaps you should try writing it yourself. Its not like the developers are paid (actually arent they? at least some?)
"Most computer users, that is, your average user, (95% of them), doesn't want someone else to decide how their desktop should behave"
Yeah, again, write it yourself, or better yet ask for your money back :) Doesn't microsoft do this too? They write windows and dont ask for your input, you just accept it then complain that Linux is different
"There are too many software projects which duplicate effort ... Users want just one or two options which WORK and are STABLE"
Hmm, seems the developers disagree, and when you arent paying the developers you dont get a say
"its hard for a virus to run as root and trash your system. Hmm, all well and good, but a malevolent program can EASILY run under your own user account, and trash all your personal files. Now, whats more important, the Linux distro which you can easily reinstall, or your family photos, your documents, your programs and your settings? The problem is the frame of mind which puts the OS above all."
Uhh, yeah, if the OS stops working, you dont have a working computer anymore, if the pictures go away you still have a working computer. I think its better to have the computer working. Oh and its worse with windows so why don't you complain about that?
"Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.---
They say it does, but thin/thick clients dont count. Nor does running a limited distro with just a command line. Fact is, get the current distros, and they WILL run slow on good hardware. Maybe not as bad as Vista, but still needlessly slow."
Umm, windows doesn't run on old hardware either. Also he said linux is better than the most current version of windows (vista), what is wrong with this? Basically their expecting linux to be MUCH better than windows, not just better.
"You shouldn't need high speed internet to upgrade your OS."
Ok then try updating a fresh install of XPSP2 and see how long that takes
"Also, they expect users to WANT to know their system, to baby it by upgrading it all the time"
if you dont do this with windows you quickly end up with a nice little virus habitat
"Also, users should be programmers that can fix source code, write their own drivers, otherwise they are freeloading."
nope, thats false
"We dont want complex web based configuration utilities with an SQL backend and perl wrappers"
ok so you want a really bad configuration utility? whats wrong with web based, its easier to write and can work just as good.
"They need to stop focusing on what THEY want and thinking that users should use computers they way they see fit, and actually program FOR users"
program for users? thats what they do, they program for themself (the user) and nicely let other people use it for free, whats wrong with that, if you were to make something and give it away would you expect complaints form the recipent?
"Hmm, you dont say, you want
"Hmm, you dont say, you want something the way you want it, maybe thats why the developers wrote it that way, because thats how THEY want it. If you want an OS perhaps you should try writing it yourself. Its not like the developers are paid (actually arent they? at least some?)"
Thats why people BUY Windows or a Mac and pay $$$ instead of download Linux for free. Because MS has something CLOSE to what they want.
It's not worth my time to code my own OS. I'm better off comprimising and getting something which is closer. Even if it costs $500, its still cheaper than learning to program and writing the entire OS (and having not apps to run on it).
"Yeah, again, write it yourself, or better yet ask for your money back :) Doesn't microsoft do this too? They write windows and dont ask for your input, you just accept it then complain that Linux is different"
Yes, MS does it too, and they give people what they want. Some people want something different. You COULD make Linux big by tapping into that niche, but no ones interested in listening to them because they aren't coders. Again, the calls to just 'write your own OS" is as stupid as writing into Wheels magazine and berating someone who picked faults in the latest model Corolla and saying they should 'just build their own car'. Do you recommend that people just "build their own house", "Build their own cars" and "make their own movies"? The cost of Linux (free, usually) doesn't really factor into it. I'm still investing my time and effort.
"They say it does, but thin/thick clients dont count. Nor does running a limited distro with just a command line. Fact is, get the current distros, and they WILL run slow on good hardware. Maybe not as bad as Vista, but still needlessly slow."
Umm, windows doesn't run on old hardware either. Also he said linux is better than the most current version of windows (vista), what is wrong with this? Basically their expecting linux to be MUCH better than windows, not just better."
My point was that the 'running on older hardware' part comes at a cost. You dont get all the features of a standard desktop distro, so its kind of disengenuous. IF you dont upgrade your distro, you quickly find software that doesnt run. My point is that Linux IS better, but only because there are ways you can compromise.
"if you dont do this with windows you quickly end up with a nice little virus habitat"
Windows updates are easy to apply, and viruses not to hard to stop if you have a virus checker to install. I have had few viruses (though I dont run Windows much). Its a headache, but so was getting software installed in Linux. I think 'viruses' are made out to be worse than they are. Windows does suck when it come to viruses, but its not THAT bad and its not any worse than other OS's flaws.
"ok so you want a really bad configuration utility? whats wrong with web based, its easier to write and can work just as good."
No, just something straightforward and lean and works.
"program for users? thats what they do, they program for themself (the user) and nicely let other people use it for free, whats wrong with that, if you were to make something and give it away would you expect complaints form the recipent?"
I would if I put it on the internet and had all these people evangelising it. I used to make Quake/Doom levels. Reviewers would occastionally criticise aspects of them, even though they are free. Nearly all the comments were favourable because I put the effort to make something that the Quake/Doom fan would want to play. I would not expect people to be AS demanding as commercial addons, but if I put something with flaws, I would EXPECT someone to pick up on it and point it out. If the level is crap, I expect criticism. If its not what people want, I expect people to point it out. I put it out there for others to download. There were other levels I made for myself, just to try things. I didn't distribute them because they weren't written for others. My pride in my work is making something OTHERS can use and want to use. If someone says "look, the level was great, but the tables and chairs looked big" or "its too hard", I listen, I dont just say "Go make your own level!". Thats the impression that people get from the Linux community (even though I'm sure many linux users aren';t like that).
If you dont want constructive criticism, then don't distrubute it worldwide!! But if you are distributing it worldwide then dont a) berate people for trying it and point out where the project falls short and b) saying to those uesrs it was never for them when all the while nearly everyone involved in the project wants to see its used by them.
I can't really code big apps, so my contribution back to the Linux community is my perspective as a Linux user of 8 years and as an advocate who's dealt with others wanting to migrate to it. I'm spending my time as a gift back to the Linux community in clearly and succintly putting forth my (and many other peoples) views, observations and perspective.
So what is the point
So what is the point then?
Its almost a lost cause to write an operating system that appeals to 1% of the user base. If linux tried to focus more on that other 99%, it would become vastly more popular. The way it is being run now condemns it to being nothing more than a geek's play thing. Even as a system's admin, I don't WANT to deal with linux servers even if it runs services slightly faster. Its way too much work. As far as security goes, its far easier for me to just slap a good firewall in front of IIS, or whatever I'm hosting. Even admins like things easier.
You know that is the problem
You know that is the problem with most people today, Linux was never meant for he mainstream it is a way of life that we choose to live. We chose Linux because we are different from 95% of the users.
As far as Linux stability goes even during a lockdown a recovery is much easier and better than on windows.
Not everything is perfect,
Not everything is perfect, you have to work upon it to improve it.
I am using Linux since Red Hat 6.1 and I have seen Linux getting improved over this time.
1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.
On one hand you complaint that developers don't listen and on the other hand you complaint that things get changed and consistency breaks.
Things changes as there is a need of improvement which mostly have been reported by users only.
2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort
So is on Windows, so is in automobile, so is in electronics market.
3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.
Security is a deep issue to discuss upon, still at least if I have encrypted partition for which I reduce access; it is not very easy to hack it. Compare that to hacking net bios in Windows and wiping the whole disk.
4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware
Ever tried puppy Linux?
5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users
If your 1 year old mobile doesn't have enough features and you find a better alternative will you still stick with your old mobile or will you change it? For example compare Nokia mobiles UI with Motorola UI.
In the end one last question, have you tried Ubuntu 8.04?
Of course there is no
Of course there is no perfection.
""Not everything is perfect, you have to work upon it to improve it.
I am using Linux since Red Hat 6.1 and I have seen Linux getting improved over this time.
1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.
On one hand you complaint that developers don't listen and on the other hand you complaint that things get changed and consistency breaks.""
The best thing to do is make a product which people can use. I've read of Linux users sayings its easier to install software in linux, because it takes a few fewer mouseclicks! Once its easy, it doesn't need to get easier. Is that what users want? What users want, and what they SAY is often different. They want easy installation, but once you've taken the "./configure;make; debug code; install updated autoconf; install library; ./configure;make;make install; make icon in start menu" out of the installation process, it doesn't matter if it takes three clicks or five. No one really except Linux zealots care that perhaps you have to use a two step process to isntall software instead of one (from a repo). The Windows system of installing software is usable and consistent. Thats good enough. Taking an extra click out of it, or one less dialog box isn't going to mean much.
Yet despite this effort, you still need to hack the /etc/fstab file to get that fat 32 partition automatically mounted on boot with distros like Fedora. (soemthing a lot of dual booters want to do).
"Things changes as there is a need of improvement which mostly have been reported by users only.
2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort
So is on Windows, so is in automobile, so is in electronics market."
How many MP3 players are there for Linux? How many are actually GOOD?
There are lots of cars, but they all work and are reasonable. People might buy a crappy car, but 95% of the time, its good enough to tide them over till the next one.
"3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.
Security is a deep issue to discuss upon, still at least if I have encrypted partition for which I reduce access; it is not very easy to hack it. Compare that to hacking net bios in Windows and wiping the whole disk."
Not an issue for most people. It happens, but it doesn't happen as often as some suggest. Windows isn't that bad, as much as I hate to say it.
"4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware
Ever tried puppy Linux?"
Yes, I have, I quite like it for what it is. But its not the same as Fedora or Suse in terms of completedness and ease of use and most people not familiar with Linux will not realise that many of the features which make Linux accessible and powerful disappear if they try to make it run on older hardware. But if I put Puppy Linux on an older and gave it to my mum to use.... She has started to use a computer and is using Vista. I would switch her to Linux, but only if I knew she would have the same freedom to autonomously install software and use the system as she does now (without me having to do it). But then, what would be the point? May as well use Windows, rather than something that tries to be as easy as windows.
"5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users
If your 1 year old mobile doesn't have enough features and you find a better alternative will you still stick with your old mobile or will you change it? For example compare Nokia mobiles UI with Motorola UI."
I have a 4 year old mobile. I dont expect it to do anything except what it was built to do, which is all I need from it. I think it would be unrealistic for phone companies for instance, to expect users to be able to recompile their Java apps, or learn how to meddle with the innards of the phones OS, just to send an SMS etc or get the cable connecting it to their PC to work.
"In the end one last question, have you tried Ubuntu 8.04?"
I think I've tried an earlier version. It's OK but I had issues with it detecing my sound card. Perhaps the sound card was too old, most newer distros don't detect the SB AWE 64
Linux isn't going to win mum & pop home user over. It's like Ferarri making family cars. They don't bother. They have their market and aren't going to compete where they don't want to.
If you just install Ubuntu, stick to repos and simple, basic desktop use, its OK. If you want to deviate and use more horsepower, you're going to have to get your hands a lot dirtier than you want (or that its worth). There isn't the happy medium, and thats where there is a big hole in the OS market. Linux would really take off if it endeavoured to fill that.
I guess the point is, why is it that you can't just download a single file, install it, and it will make a menu entry and work? Repositories/apt/etc are just workarounds to disguise the fact its more complex, and automates something which shouldn't need to be automated.
I agree with most of your
I agree with most of your comments here, Borax Man. I'm a first time Linux user who just recently installed Ubuntu on a few of my home machines, both laptops and desktops (including a few distros running on VMware Fusion on my iMac).
I was blown away by how good the OS was -- especially compared to Vista. I love the fast boots, instant resume from suspend mode, and professional fit-and-finish.
On the flip side, I was also blown away by how many overlapping ways there were to run the desktop environment, listen to tunes, and on and on and on. I suppose it is one of the strengths of the FOSS community to create such a thriving Darwinian ecosystem of software. But it is also a disadvantage for casual users like myself compared to the unified, consistent experience someone like an Apple can create.
If we could somehow coordinate the wildly creative and professional power of the community around the user experience rather than , no one would have to buy an OS from Microsoft again -- and Linux could really give Apple a run for its money on the desktop.
You are absolutely write
You are absolutely write Rudy, I would like to add though that I think Linux the kernel has been successful, the internet would be saddly crippled if it wasn't for unix and Linux servers. I have a lot of systems at various speeds running Linux, from an old mac g3 and 1ghz thin client I use as a network drive, to my brand spanken new 64bit AMD dual core. The point is a Linux desktop will, and does run on any reasonable system... How much you can do is naturally limited by the hardware... C'mon you wouldn't expect a machine that ran win95 to run opengl games and the like... Not a valid point!
The main requirement for Linux to be really successful as a desktop system is for a distribution to standardize and make sure things work for all there users. And while I don't use Ubuntu for various reasons(debian guy), I believe they have the best running desktop distribution to date.
BTW Borax pidgin rocks! Works great on my windows, mac(audium) and Linux machines. Blows amsn out of the water. maybe you should consider using debian... I ran redhat9, and now fedora core at work... constant sorrow :(
As some one who uses Linux
As some one who uses Linux for many things, I think you missed the one of the most annoying things: the fact that most of the of the developers assume that the command line is always the best solution. I program for a living and when something goes wrong reading the commands in the instructions can be a challenge let alone fixing it my self. The developers should understand two things when writing GUIs double clicking is good. I should be able to double click on an executable file and have it run, and if it needs admin privileges; ask for the damn password! I also should be able to change preferences for something without having to open the shell ... ever. For a complete experience for everyone you need to let users do things there way not learn your way. The user should be able to run the os completely from the shell and vice versa completely form the GUI.
"the fact that most of the
"the fact that most of the of the developers assume that the command line is always the best solution."
Don't think that is true since many (most) programs/tools have GUIs. That said, for some things, having the GUI separate from the "tool" it self is a very good thing, allowing for easy remote usage and scripting.
"I should be able to double click on an executable file and have it run,"
You do that since ever! Of course, don't expect CLI tools to be useful that way. Use a GUI for that.
"and if it needs admin privileges; ask for the damn password!"
Some programs don't require just "admin privileges" but also a "admin" environment/session. For those just to "ask for the damn password" is not enough and starting a root session every time is not very recommended.
First, let me start by
First, let me start by saying that my primary desktop OS is Mandriva GNU/Linux and has been for many years. I have been a GNU/Linux user for more than a decade but have used many desktop and server OSs: Microsoft Windows since 3.0, NextStep, Solaris, DOS, several GNU/BSDs including MacOS X, various other unixes and of course GNU/Linux.
I am a software developer, in the sense that it is my main source of income. I have released some of my work as FOSS and have also helped several FOSS projects with code and bug reports. I also manage servers and help windows users keeping their machines alive.
Now for a critic to your statements.
"1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want."
ALL developers I know (FOSS or not) welcome user input and take it in to account but that does not mean that they will follow every advice or implement every feature requested.
Most of the FOSS developers (my self included) are making programs primarily for personal or professional use with specific requirements. If a request from a user conflicts with the developers objectives then the user is out of luck. This does not mean that the "Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want." They probably understand the issue better than the user.
One advice: Don't be disrespectful or "demanding" when asking help from developers. Most people I know (developers or not) don't tolerate that kind of behaviour from anyone, not even from those that pay them very well for their time and work.
"2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort."
One thing that FOSS projects are good at is sharing effort. Just because you see many programs for, lets say, media playing that does not mean that under the hood they are completely different. They probably share much of the code. FOSS projects grow, split, share, merge. This is part of exploring new ideas.
For example, I'm working on a video analysis project that uses code from several other FOSS projects, either as libraries or pieces of code. This allows me to quickly provide a solution to my client in a fraction of the time and cost.
"3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities."
I completely agree with you on that. I don't understand the almost "religious" fervour that some people show regarding software. I just don't understand it!
It is true that "crashing" is a problem for too many programs in a too many GNU/Linux installations. Program stability is important and this problem should not be ignored. That said, I think that the main cause for this is that many users and some distribution want the "latest and greatest" and use beta software. If you want stability be conservative in what version of the software you use. Many distributions provide several versions of the same program (e.g. stable, test, development, nightly). Use the one that is selected for stability.
It is the personal files that are important. I could not agree more! One of the main reason I use GNU/Linux. Making the administrator account (root) hard to get is fundamental to protect your files (Microsoft finally understood this in Vista).
"Hmm, all well and good, but a malevolent program can EASILY run under your own user account, and trash all your personal files."
"EASILY"!!! Really?! Lets say a malevolent program gets in to the system (e.g. downloaded, email attachment, what ever). Now what? The file does not have executable permissions so it can't run. Of course if a user is foolish enough, he can always give the file executable permission and run it (this can be easily stoped by giving the /home partition a noexec flag, a standard in all my installs).
If this is "EASILY" then what you call the vulnerability of a certain other family of OSs where no user intervention is needed to get it completely compromised, even remotely?
In terms of security very few OSs have a significant advantage and the most used OSs simply are no competition.
"4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware."
CPU - AMD 386 40MHz
RAM - 8 MB
Video - 512 kB
HDD - 270 MB
Is that old enough for you?!
This was my first computer with a CPU capable of running Linux. It lived for almost 10 years. Died a few years ago. It run Linux and X with icewm until it's last days and was used for text editing, email, ssh terminal.
Of course, don't expect to do more with it than it originally was capable of. A computer does not age like wine. :)
CPU - Pentium III 900 MHZ
RAM - 256 MB (later upgraded to 768 MB)
HDD - 20 GB (later added a 240 GB disk)
GPU - nVidia TNT 64 MB (later upgraded to a Geforce MX 128 MB)
This one is my old desktop and runs GNU/Linux very well. It has the exact same GNU/Linux configuration as my current 18 month work station, including Compiz Fusion. Obviously not a speeder like my current work station (dual core 2GHz CPU plus 2GB RAM) but perfectly usable (even fast for most things).
"5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users."
I used to compile a kernel to trim it down and get extra memory and speed. I used to compile a few application that where not available in the repositories. I used to ... but have not needed to do so for many years. The small extra boost from compiling a kernel is mostly irrelevant with todays machines and the repositories are so complete that I have found everything I have needed in them.
From the users point of view GNU/Linux is just as easy to learn and use as Windows Vista or MacOS X. People that never used GNU/Linux before can use it from the get go. I have seen this clearly in libraries and school where people don't even blink twice before diving in.
You don't need high speed Internet to upgrade GNU/Linux. The package management system can upgrade not just the OS but also all other programs managed and this can result in a significant number of updates and bytes to download. Of course, nothing forces you to upgrade. You can select what you want to upgrade or ignore it completely and upgrade nothing.
On a side note: only the BSDs have a equivalent system, "ports".
"Anyway, just a brief overview. I do like Linux, but get frustrated by some of the community (not all, just the zealots) who really do hamper and destroy what would otherwise be a fine OS."
This makes no sense! Zealots don't "hamper and destroy" nothing but their brain cells. Just ignore them. It's that easy!
If you "dont want complex web based configuration" then use the GUIs available (I'm also not a fan of web applets). Editing the configuration files directly is also a possibility. Your choice.
"They need to stop focusing on what THEY want..."!!! Are you kidding?! They need to continue to work on what pays the bills and provides for their families needs. If you want a developer to focus on what YOU want then you can always become a paying customer. Do you work for free? Do you give your work for free? If you say YES to both then you have the moral ground to support your statement, if not then your are asking from others what you do not do!
"But Linux is losing out precisely because at its core, its development is so detached from real world computer users."
GNU/Linux is loosing nothing! GNU/Linux was built by many people to provide for their needs. It was generously shared to others and as a result it has achieved an impressive place in the computing world. It runs most of the super computers, it runs most of the servers, it runs the Internet backbone, it's the favourite in the embedded market.
In the desktop it has achieved around 1% share (assuming the web usage statistics are transferable to the desktop installed base), well bellow the other markets share where it is dominant. I don't know how it will evolve in the desktop and I really don't care. GNU/Linux is about choice and freedom and it is already providing both.
This comment is already too long. I'm ending here. :)
Regards
""GNU/Linux is loosing
""GNU/Linux is loosing nothing! GNU/Linux was built by many people to provide for their needs. It was generously shared to others and as a result it has achieved an impressive place in the computing world. It runs most of the super computers, it runs most of the servers, it runs the Internet backbone, it's the favourite in the embedded market.""
I was referring to the desktop. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
""They need to stop focusing on what THEY want..."!!! Are you kidding?! They need to continue to work on what pays the bills and provides for their families needs. If you want a developer to focus on what YOU want then you can always become a paying customer. Do you work for free? Do you give your work for free? If you say YES to both then you have the moral ground to support your statement, if not then your are asking from others what you do not do!""
I've given hours and hours, days, weeks that should be, of my creative work out for free. I got critiques and reviews, with suggestions of where I went wrong. I dont criticise them because they didn't pay and have 'no right', but rather I listen so I can make a better Quake/Doom addon. Just because they didn't pay, doesn't mean they don't have the right to comment. It was ME making my work public for them to use, so of cOURSE they have a right to at least comment.
If programmers don't want comments, then they should not distribute their work. Or if they do, at least say something like "This is just for me to play with. Probably of no use to you, but here it is if you want".
Because Linux is sold, advertised, evangelised, I reckon the 'consumer' has a right to expect what it's hyped up to be, regardless of cost. Especially if these very people WANT a greater desktop share, more support, more acceptance.
So I'm giving my perspective based on hours of supporting others trying to use Linux, etc. I'm saying this because I see many users who WOULD use Linux but don't, and I'm putting forward the reasons why I believe they aren't and what could be done to win more people over.
it's just that I dont believe the answer is 'easier installers' or 'flashier GUIS' or 'one click online updates'. I think these efforts dont wash over people who would move to Linux. They would prefer "consistency between distros", "ability to install software downloaded" and the raw performance and control over the system that Linux can provide (but is hidden in GNOME for instance because it 'confuses' people?).
I believe the problem is trying to appease 100% of the people half assedly, rather than making one which will be loved by 10%. (Like what Apple do).
Well done Pedro. Thanks,
Well done Pedro.
Thanks,
I think that your views on
I think that your views on linux are very uninformed and biased on the mistaken thought that windows does it better.
1. All of the available desktop environments have a default configuration for the way they behave / look. Changes to major GUI components like file load/save dialogs are very rare, less frequent than Microsoft products (i.e. recent changes to Windows itself, Internet Explorer, Office). The few GUI changes that are made are done because they provide obvious enhancements to the functionality of a program.
2. Linux is about choice - being able to choose what you want most. There are many stable mp3 players each with different goals in mind (one for the minimalist who doesn't want to consume too much cpu, one for the person who likes to have a sorted media library with xml feeds from the internet, a console mode player for the person who doesn't run X on that station or would like to control it remotely through ssh - although I can't help but mention that a graphical player can be used in this case too using X forwarding).
3. In terms of comparing to windows, if you are multitasking in windows and an application causes windows to lock up you *will* lose your cd too. However, in linux because the kernel is still running you won't run the risk of consequently having a corrupted registry or hard drive information. The cd burning back-end is a command-line application cdrecord, I believe if the graphical front-end dies it will finish burning your cd before terminating. This aside, how long does it take to start using your computer again after X crashes VS after windows crashes. As for putting the OS above all and protecting system files, what more can you expect? Do you want the OS to ask you before opening and modifying every file? In windows a virus can mess up your system files and your user files.
4. It runs better than windows, again this seems to be a case of unrealistic expectations. I can run debian or xubuntu on my 233 Mhz laptop with 128 MB ram and perform basic functions like browsing the internet, sending and receiving e-mail and chatting on an instant messenger. It may not be as responsive as a fast computer but have you tried doing the same on Windows lately?
5. Have you tried ubuntu lately? The newer releases of ubuntu have simplified so much. Through the GUI you can easily add a network and/or local printer without having to ever touch a console or know ports. There's no expectation of compiling from source or even writing the configuration files for newly installed programs. The ubuntu package tree has precompiled binaries with standard configuration files which should cover basic users needs, kind of like an installed application in windows. They also have a nice add/remove programs gui which has packages grouped by category so that you can easily find multimedia applications or games or internet applications and so on and check off each one you want. I think this is much easier than having to visit the website of every application you want to install and download them one by one.
Anyways I'm sure you'll write me off as a linux zealot but I had to speak up because I've been a linux user for a year and a half now and it's been the most rewarding conversion for me. The more I learn about linux the easier all tasks become. Once you learn basic shell scripting you can do anything that would have been long and tedious (or required an application specifically written to do it) with a short script. For example:
Unzip all of the zip files in the current folder:
for i in *.zip; do unzip $i; doneOr to unzip them each into their own subfolder named after the zip file
for i in *.zip; do unzip $i -d $(echo $i|sed 's/.zip$//g'); donefalckon said "Once you learn
falckon said "Once you learn basic shell scripting you can do anything that would have been long and tedious (or required an application specifically written to do it) with a short script. For example:
Unzip all of the zip files in the current folder:
for i in *.zip; do unzip $i; done
Or to unzip them each into their own subfolder named after the zip file
for i in *.zip; do unzip $i -d $(echo $i|sed 's/.zip$//g'); done"
hahaha, was it supposed to be an irony or a parody? :D
let's see how "long and tedious" it's in the microsoft universe:
select the zip files and right click and "extract here" or "extract here using file names for folderS".
oh, also the command line equivalent, unzipping things in DOS, is easier: "pkunzip *.zip".
done, no "for" instruction or criptic things that look like source code.
tip: THE COMMANDS SHOULDN'T BE AS FUNCTIONS TAKEN FROM A SOURCE CODE, it should like "dothis thing.bla" or "dothis /ble" and have a "dothis /help" with actually useful information.
so, the example backfired, it's a trivial task to unzip several zip files in DOS and windows, but it requires you to device a looping algorithm to do so in "lisux"
err, what about find . -name
err, what about
find . -name "*.zip" -exec unzip {};\ ???
It might not be exactly right, but that should do the same, yes? And this would work if the zip files are all in different subdirectories too.