PDA

View Full Version : Hurdles preventing mass adoption of Ubuntu Linux



Cybran
May 10th, 2012, 08:38 AM
Hurdles preventing mass adoption of Ubuntu Linux:


1) Ease of use: Command-line should never need to be used in a OS. All files should be easily executable, accessable and playable (all programs and codecs included).


2) Device support: Until our printers, phones, tablets, modems, cameras etc ship with native drivers for linux people will continue to struggle with and ultimately abandon linux.


3) Premium games: Once the previous two issues are overcome developers need to port their games over to Linux and OpenGL. Preferably all newer titles to keep costs down. And instead of using some proprietary distribution service like Steam, rather use the Linux OS's native Software Center.


4) Classic menu system: Interfaces such as Unity (Ubuntu 11.04~) and Metro (Windows 8~) are more of a confusing obtuse hinderance than an improvement. Linux should should be utilizing the simple and easily navigable drop down classic menu system.


Once these issues are addressed users and manufacturers would have no reason not to switch to Linux (whatever brand). Considering how the main OS's MS Windows and Apple OS are heading further into closed environments, Linux will be remain the best alternative as an open environment where innovation, userability and productivity isn't restricted.

plant
May 10th, 2012, 08:44 AM
I disagree with the first point, that command line should never be used. Infact Windows also has command line function. However windows is not advertising or encouraging users to use command line functions. They always provide the solutions that go through the user interface way. More better and attractive the user interface, less the people use command line.

jespdj
May 10th, 2012, 08:56 AM
This sounds like a Recurring Discussion.


1) Ease of use: Command-line should never need to be used in a OS. All files should be easily executable, accessable and playable (all programs and codecs included).
For Ubuntu you don't need the use the command-line. You can install the system and a lot of software and run whatever program you want without ever using the command-line. You can install programs and codecs using the Ubuntu Software Center.


2) Device support: Until our printers, phones, tablets, modems, cameras etc ship with native drivers for linux people will continue to struggle with and ultimately abandon linux.
Device support on Linux is quite good. Did you ever try installing Windows yourself? You'll need to install a dozen or so drivers manually, from chipset drivers to drivers for your network card, webcam etc. With Ubuntu almost everything works out-of-the-box, no need to manually install drivers. Unfortunately some hardware manufacturers are still not supplying drivers, but that's the manufacturer's fault, not the fault of Linux or Ubuntu.


3) Premium games: Once the previous two issues are overcome developers need to port their games over to Linux and OpenGL. Preferably all newer titles to keep costs down. And instead of using some proprietary distribution service like Steam, rather use the Linux OS's native Software Center.
Electronic Arts Attending Ubuntu Developer Summit (http://omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/05/electronic-arts-attending-ubuntu-developer-summit/)
Electronic Arts At Ubuntu Summit; Linux Games Coming? (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA5NTk)


4) Classic menu system: Interfaces such as Unity (Ubuntu 11.04~) and Metro (Windows 8~) are more of a confusing obtuse hinderance than an improvement. Linux should should be utilizing the simple and easily navigable drop down classic menu system.
That's your personal opinion. If you want you can still get a classic menu system on Linux (try Xubuntu or Kubuntu, for example).

Nytram
May 10th, 2012, 08:59 AM
I think the command line should be available to those who want to use it, but there should be GUI alternatives for every terminal command.

jespdj
May 10th, 2012, 09:01 AM
Why should there be GUI alternatives for every terminal command? Can you give examples of terminal commands for which there are no GUI alternatives and for which that is really a problem for you?

Nytram
May 10th, 2012, 09:11 AM
What I mean is that it shouldn't be obligatory to use the terminal to perform certain tasks. Examples off the top of my head include running wine or dosbox, fixing package manager errors, general system maintenance etc.

alexfish
May 10th, 2012, 09:24 AM
Only one thing to say : All of what you List , Can be available , and Configurable on Linux , Not just Ubuntu

One Word will some it up :Education

it is a pointless Leaning how to use Applications first . It is backside foremost to learning Computer Skills

Should go back to way BBC used to do it , Then you will be able to achieve what you mention.

It is all Available Now.

nothingspecial
May 10th, 2012, 09:30 AM
This sounds like a Recurring Discussion.




I agree

Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.

wilee-nilee
May 10th, 2012, 09:30 AM
The people I have talked to just do not want to change, that is the fundamental reason I have found. They are not even aware of most of the arguments.

3rdalbum
May 10th, 2012, 09:33 AM
People talk about "mass adoption of Ubuntu" as though every Jane Average with limited computer skills is champing at the bit to ditch Windows, but can't because of Massively Cliched Proclamation About Ubuntu #3 that's holding her back onto a platform that she hates.

Now let's demolish these babies one by one...

#1a: Command-line. You do not need the command-line to use Ubuntu.
#1b: All programs executable without the need of the execute bit. If the user instead uses those massive repositories that are so costly to Canonical to maintain and keep running, then the user never needs to touch an executable bit.
#1c: All codecs installed by default. This will not drive mass adoption of Ubuntu. The opposite - Litigation would shut it down. It's already trivially easy to install codecs simply by attempting to play the files that Ubuntu doesn't have codecs for. It offers to install them. You can't get much easier than that.
#1d: Auto-login by default, root access by default. You didn't mention this one, but this is a common one to be mentioned in these kinds of posts. There are very good security reasons not to do this. I suggest you look up a beginners article on computer security.

#2: Device support. Mac users never describe device support as a hurdle keeping people back from buying a Mac. Not everything has Mac OS drivers, you know. I'd even be willing to bet that Linux supports more devices than the Mac OS. But, you see, when Mac users want to make a hardware purchase, they first check if the hardware has Mac compatibility BEFORE buying. I was a Mac user for many years, I know how it works. Therefore, not a hurdle for Ubuntu users - they just check compatibility before buying.

#3: Big-name games. Once again, this doesn't hold back the Mac OS, simply because people can dual-boot with Windows to play their games. Er... you can dual-boot Windows with Ubuntu too, so this is not keeping people away from Ubuntu.

It stops some people from going 100% Ubuntu-only, but it doesn't stop many (any?) from having Ubuntu at all.

#4: "Classic menu systems". Jane Average Windows User doesn't use a "classic menu system" to find and launch applications. She uses icons on her desktop that various installers have thrown there. That demolishes your point right there. But what about power users? Well, the power users do it too, to some extent. I've also never heard anyone with an Android or iOS device lament that they preferred their old Windows Mobile 6 device because it used a classic menu. And to further dance on the classic menu system's grave, even on Gnome 2 I used to just hit Alt-F2 and start typing the name of what I wanted to run. Most power users did.

So, power users just start typing, novices prefer the big icons.

#5: So now that I've addressed your issues, why don't manufacturers start shipping Ubuntu dual-boot with Windows? Well, there's a big reason: Microsoft. If any manufacturer tries this trick, they'll just find that their Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows licenses become just that bit more expensive. There may even be a "delay" in getting new license keys to the manufacturer. They still need to deal with Microsoft for the people who need Windows or demand Windows because they haven't heard of this Un-bun-tu thingy.

Your post was naive. I'm sure I was a little like you back in 2005 when I was just starting with Ubuntu, so I'm not making fun of you, but really what you've got is a simplistic view of everything. The things you mention are not necessarily large issues, and they're certainly not barriers to Ubuntu adoption for someone sufficiently motivated to switch.

3rdalbum
May 10th, 2012, 09:41 AM
What I mean is that it shouldn't be obligatory to use the terminal to perform certain tasks. Examples off the top of my head include running wine or dosbox, fixing package manager errors, general system maintenance etc.

Have you used Windows?

There's this command on Windows called "rundll32.exe". With this command, you can fix ANY problem. In fact, most problems on Windows can ONLY be fixed by using this command. The unfortunate thing is that "rundll32.exe" is a tremendously difficult command to formulate, as it has about a billion different arguments which are often confusingly named. So rather than deal with this hassle, they just reinstall Windows and hope the problem doesn't reappear.

My point is that fixing system problems in the terminal is as much a reality on Windows as it is on Linux. Because the Windows terminal is so difficult to use, people just reinstall Windows rather than go through the hassle. That's not a good thing. Mac OS and Linux users prefer to enter the terminal, copy and paste a couple of simple commands they found on the Internet for this problem, and presto.

If you want to make a million bucks, write a frontend for all system administration / problem fixing things that currently require the terminal, and sell it for $20 in a box with a manual. You'll be the Norton of the Linux world, with significantly less effort on your part.

Running Wine should not require the command-line, but I think you're right: It does, currently. It's hardly a "rundll32.exe" command though (wine <drag file in here>), and ideally people would just use native Linux programs anyway.

I'm sure most people who want to use Dosbox aren't bothered by having to launch it in the terminal, for obvious reasons that you could probably think of. :-)

sadaruwan12
May 10th, 2012, 09:42 AM
Terminal or the command line should be there in linux 'cos it's the true power behind the OS. GUI is a candy wrapping to make the terminal functions more easy. I've been a win user for a long time it also has a command line function but it's not as powerful as our terminal. And using the terminal on day to day basis depends on the user. If the user knows more and confident on using the terminal they should use it if he or she don't much about the terminals function them better stick with a GUI program.

Well every thing do runs in linux even win programs using wine, PoL or crossover linux. It's easy to run a win program on a linux platform but this is not applicable vis versa. If you're referring to media well thats also is covered with players like VLC.

When it comes to device support linux have grown immensely and for an example if you take Ubuntu every thing supports out of the box if there was a glitch then that can be fixed by referring it to the forum. But most case it's due to the vendors not providing the drivers to the linux community so we can make it work for others. when it comes to win well you have install tone of drivers to keep the system running.

Games well thats also a personal thing if you're a hard core gamer then use windows system just for that we don't recommend linux for that but as of late some game developers are looking in to the linux platform 'cos more and more people are leaving the windows platform and turning to linux.

Classic menu well we need to move one have ever tried the new HUD and Unity if you have you want be asking for the classic menu.

To be a linux user you have to have an open mind and an open heart.

Paqman
May 10th, 2012, 11:45 AM
The problem with Linux isn't that it isn't good enough. It's a mistake to think that all we need to do is make Linux better and people will magically start using it.

Linux is good enough for a lot more than 1% already. What holds Linux back is the fact that there's a single OS that holds a monopoly on the market, and people are locked into the system. It doesn't matter if we make Linux as good as (or better) than Windows. The majority of people will still use Windows anyway. It's ubiquitous, well supported, has a vast software catalogue and most people are already trained to use it. Those are killer features that we can't really compete with.

Just carry on using your free, open, fast, secure, flexible and fun Linux system and forget any ideas that the rest of the world are going to join you. Some few will, but most won't. Their loss.

Lars Noodén
May 10th, 2012, 11:57 AM
You forgot lack of choice. Over the time that linux has been available, there has been only one time that I've been able to walk into a store and buy a Linux machine off the shelf. That was Asus and even though they were selling like hotcakes, Asus succumbed to pressure from MS and stopped. Even then, it was an under-powered, under-specced netbook. On the full notebook side of things, only one vendor, System76, has had Linux notebooks available from their web shop. Some others had made less than half-hearted attempts and had the Linux machines more or less hidden. All those barriers are attributed to MS death grip on the OEMs.

So lack of choice at the OEM level is one of the biggest, if not the main, hurdle to mass adoption of Linux in general, not just Ubuntu. Get Linux on the shelf and people will buy it.

jockyburns
May 10th, 2012, 04:56 PM
When I moved over to Ubuntu, I was talking to a friend at work. He said "Ahh, you have to learn computer programming to use it." You have to use the terminal to launch every program.", "It's nothing like Windows."
A few weeks later, he came round to my house, and took every word back, when he'd seen Ubuntu working perfectly on my computer. I showed him , that I don't have to use terminal. I showed him programs launched from the applications menu. His only comment on it was that the close program icon was on the wrong side. :lolflag::lolflag:

rg4w
May 10th, 2012, 05:35 PM
I just got back from the first two days of UDS-Q. All of the items in the OP are getting plenty of attention there. No OS is perfect, but Ubuntu is moving forward at a faster clip than most. 12.04 is a giant leap foward IMO, and between here and the next LTS I see many great things happening.

georgelappies
May 10th, 2012, 08:03 PM
People talk about "mass adoption of Ubuntu" as though every Jane Average with limited computer skills is champing at the bit to ditch Windows, but can't because of Massively Cliched Proclamation About Ubuntu #3 that's holding her back onto a platform that she hates.

Now let's demolish these babies one by one...

#1a: Command-line. You do not need the command-line to use Ubuntu.
#1b: All programs executable without the need of the execute bit. If the user instead uses those massive repositories that are so costly to Canonical to maintain and keep running, then the user never needs to touch an executable bit.
#1c: All codecs installed by default. This will not drive mass adoption of Ubuntu. The opposite - Litigation would shut it down. It's already trivially easy to install codecs simply by attempting to play the files that Ubuntu doesn't have codecs for. It offers to install them. You can't get much easier than that.
#1d: Auto-login by default, root access by default. You didn't mention this one, but this is a common one to be mentioned in these kinds of posts. There are very good security reasons not to do this. I suggest you look up a beginners article on computer security.

#2: Device support. Mac users never describe device support as a hurdle keeping people back from buying a Mac. Not everything has Mac OS drivers, you know. I'd even be willing to bet that Linux supports more devices than the Mac OS. But, you see, when Mac users want to make a hardware purchase, they first check if the hardware has Mac compatibility BEFORE buying. I was a Mac user for many years, I know how it works. Therefore, not a hurdle for Ubuntu users - they just check compatibility before buying.

#3: Big-name games. Once again, this doesn't hold back the Mac OS, simply because people can dual-boot with Windows to play their games. Er... you can dual-boot Windows with Ubuntu too, so this is not keeping people away from Ubuntu.

It stops some people from going 100% Ubuntu-only, but it doesn't stop many (any?) from having Ubuntu at all.

#4: "Classic menu systems". Jane Average Windows User doesn't use a "classic menu system" to find and launch applications. She uses icons on her desktop that various installers have thrown there. That demolishes your point right there. But what about power users? Well, the power users do it too, to some extent. I've also never heard anyone with an Android or iOS device lament that they preferred their old Windows Mobile 6 device because it used a classic menu. And to further dance on the classic menu system's grave, even on Gnome 2 I used to just hit Alt-F2 and start typing the name of what I wanted to run. Most power users did.

So, power users just start typing, novices prefer the big icons.

#5: So now that I've addressed your issues, why don't manufacturers start shipping Ubuntu dual-boot with Windows? Well, there's a big reason: Microsoft. If any manufacturer tries this trick, they'll just find that their Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows licenses become just that bit more expensive. There may even be a "delay" in getting new license keys to the manufacturer. They still need to deal with Microsoft for the people who need Windows or demand Windows because they haven't heard of this Un-bun-tu thingy.

Your post was naive. I'm sure I was a little like you back in 2005 when I was just starting with Ubuntu, so I'm not making fun of you, but really what you've got is a simplistic view of everything. The things you mention are not necessarily large issues, and they're certainly not barriers to Ubuntu adoption for someone sufficiently motivated to switch.

+1 Well written reply.

aysiu
May 10th, 2012, 10:41 PM
I don't think any of those "hurdles" matter in the long run.

To install a custom Android rom, you may have to use some terminal commands. That didn't stop Android from succeeding, because most Android users do not install Android themselves.

When Android first launched in 2008, there were very few Android games. That didn't stop Android from succeeding, because Google set up a commercially viable platform for future game development.

When Android first launched, it supported only one device. That didn't matter, because you bought Android preinstalled and Google made deals with manufacturers (HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc.) and didn't ask consumers to download AOSP and try to figure it out for a non-Android phone.

Mass adoption comes from a well-publicized and well-deployed consumer product from a well-known corporation at a competitive price point with commercial support. It doesn't come from being "user-friendly" or hoping that commercial support will come later once you are "user-friendly." You make the deals first, and then you release the product. If you don't believe me, check out Android 1.5.

Perfect example in the other direction, when Dell released Ubuntu-preinstalled laptops: Mark Shuttleworth found out about it after the fact--it was not a joint effort on the part of Ubuntu and Dell to create a custom well-thought-out product. Dell released essentially Windows laptops with Ubuntu on them. They did not construct a custom Ubuntu product with Linux-friendly components. Nor did they heavily advertise or competitively price the Ubuntu options. There was no support infrastructure for Ubuntu at Dell. In fact, there were many people who called in to Dell and got a customer service representative who didn't even know the Ubuntu options existed. That is how you do a failed launch. Doesn't matter how user-friendly the product is or not.

In terms of third-party support, you don't try to support everything before everything supports you. You heavily publicize what does work and steer consumers to that. If there are two Linux-friendly printers, you say "Buy this Ubuntu laptop and also buy this printer that will be guaranteed to work with your new Ubuntu laptop." Not "We support practically everything but only kind of sort of maybe as long as they support us."

QIII
May 10th, 2012, 11:07 PM
#1 holds no water. My daughter knows exactly squat about the command line.

Hardware, games, etc, require that OEMs and software developers create Linux versions.

There are two things holding Linux back -- on the desktop:

1. A certain 800 pound gorilla that has historically had the industry by the gonads and has cash to burn to keep it that way. That gorilla is very, very good at its business model.

2. A dearth of cash in the hands of the distributors of a non-commercialized product to even try to unseat the gorilla.

The "Year of Linux" -- on the desktop -- is, and has always been, a pipe dream.

Linux already has the world in its sway in so many other ways that Microsoft either never envisioned or never pursued that the Gorilla only stomps in one room of the castle. Everything else belongs to *Nix, including the gorilla's servers.

As soon as the guy who snickers at Linux while he is at his Windows PC gets up from his chair and goes to watch a cable movie on the boob tube or drive to the store in his car, he's in *nix world. He was even there when he was watching Youtube on the web. He just didn't know it.

KiwiNZ
May 11th, 2012, 01:02 AM
Hurdles preventing mass adoption........ imagination

Imagination of OEM's to believe they can think outside the square
Imagination of the consumer to see there is alternatives
Imagination of CIO's to look around the blinkers
Imagination of the Linux community to see that change is good
Imagination by Linux Developers to feel that being different is valuable

Hurdles preventing mass adoption........ realization

realization by the OEM's that there an alternative
realization by the large IT houses that competition is a good thing
realization by the consumer that they can step outside the square
realization by the Linux community of its limitations and that being different is OK
realization by the Linux developers that what has always been does not need to be always

aysiu
May 11th, 2012, 01:31 AM
The "Year of Linux" -- on the desktop -- is, and has always been, a pipe dream. Only if "Year of Linux" means that Linux meets some magical standard of goodness or user-friendliness that suddenly the majority of non-technically-oriented users will suddenly download .iso files, figure out how to burn them to CD (or "burn" them to USB), figure out out how to boot from the new media, figure out partitioning (and backing up their data first, of course), and then troubleshoot hardware issues... themselves.

3rdalbum
May 11th, 2012, 05:00 AM
All very well-written replies to the OP, quite entertaining to read, with some excellent points. Thanks everyone :-)

mamamia88
May 11th, 2012, 05:46 AM
Um how is unity any more difficult than a drop down menu? Heck it's easier you have your 10 most used applications with launchers right on the side and anything else can be launched quickly by spelling it out. Games are only relevant if you care about games. And I care about games but still do all my gaming on consoles because that is what i grew up on. I agree it can be daunting to use the terminal but it's also good to have the option.

lento_
May 11th, 2012, 02:33 PM
#3: Big-name games. Once again, this doesn't hold back the Mac OS, simply because people can dual-boot with Windows to play their games.

I think it's more that there's a growing number of mainstream games which have specific Mac versions available. I know my favourite game of choice is available on a Mac, but not on Linux.

Dual booting may help some people decide to choose Ubuntu, but I think the average user would probably be a bit put off needing to stop all their running programmes restart into a completelly different operating system just to load up a game. If I was going about my business in Linux, surfing the web, chatting to people online, doing some coding etc and fancied playing a game for half an hour, I wouldn't want to have to close all that other stuff down and switch over to windows.

I've got Windows running on my PC at home so I can play games on it, but rather than dual boot I run Linux in a full screen VM instead - I do most my every day stuff in Kubuntu in the VM and play games using the underlying Windows system. It's less than ideal though, and a lot of people wouldn't want to do the same.

Until mainstream games are easy to install and run in Linux, I think this will be a significant barrier to adoption among gamers.

Perhaps better virtualisation is a way forwards. Perhaps better integration of Wine-type technology in Ubuntu could work. Maybe some companies will start making Linux editions of their games. I'm not holding my breath on any of that though and can't see myself moving over to having Linux as my main operating system on that computer any time soon.

thatguruguy
May 11th, 2012, 08:44 PM
4) Classic menu system: Interfaces such as Unity (Ubuntu 11.04~) and Metro (Windows 8~) are more of a confusing obtuse hinderance than an improvement. Linux should should be utilizing the simple and easily navigable drop down classic menu system.


I've stated this before, and I will state it again. All Linux desktops have used the "simple and easily navigable drop down classic menu system" for years. And yet, they never achieved any significant market penetration on the desktop. There's probably a lesson to be learned by that.

Also, if the proliferation of various docks [cairo dock, Sim Dock, Docky, Avant, etc.] tells us anything, it's that people don't always want to use the "simple and easily navigable drop down classic menu system."

Maybe, just maybe, Unity and Gnome Shell are more easily navigable, once the user acclimates himself/herself/itself to the different way of doing things, than the "simple and easily navigable drop down classic menu system."

KiwiNZ
May 11th, 2012, 08:45 PM
i've stated this before, and i will state it again. All linux desktops have used the "simple and easily navigable drop down classic menu system" for years. And yet, they never achieved any significant market penetration on the desktop. There's probably a lesson to be learned by that.

Also, if the proliferation of various docks [cairo dock, sim dock, docky, avant, etc.] tells us anything, it's that people don't always want to use the "simple and easily navigable drop down classic menu system."

maybe, just maybe, unity and gnome shell are more easily navigable, once the user acclimates himself/herself/itself to the different way of doing things, than the "simple and easily navigable drop down classic menu system."

+1

aysiu
May 11th, 2012, 09:14 PM
In my experience, computer users who self-identify as "computer illiterate" get confused by just about any graphical user interface (Mac OS X, Windows 7, Windows XP, Unity, classic Gnome, KDE, iOS, etc.). For this demographic, "learning to use a computer" means more memorizing a series of steps and less logically expecting a consistency of interface design.

CharlesA
May 11th, 2012, 09:24 PM
In my experience, computer users who self-identify as "computer illiterate" get confused by just about any graphical user interface (Mac OS X, Windows 7, Windows XP, Unity, classic Gnome, KDE, iOS, etc.). For this demographic, "learning to use a computer" means more memorizing a series of steps and less logically expecting a consistency of interface design.

Yep. I've run into ones who have called the PC itself the "hard drive" or the "modem" on more than a few occasions.

Not really a bad thing cuz they don't know any better and no one has bothered to correct them.

codingman
May 11th, 2012, 11:18 PM
#1 If there was no command line in Ubuntu, it would simply become the same as Mac OS, having a unix/linux terminal, but not needing to use it, and no one would know that it is linux based.
#2 Ubuntu actually comes with more device support than Windows, ever tried putting an Apple keyboard or mouse on windows 7? It's gonna give you an error, and if you put it on an Ubuntu machine, it simply works. It is not Ubuntu's or Linux' fault that some companies don't know about linux or choose not to put drivers for them, this is not a hurdle for Linux users, as they may check before buying.
#3 Yet again, it is the game designer's fault they do not put support for linux, and since word has gone about that "Linux is only a command line, and the UI is terrible", people are just stickin' with windows so the game designer's just don't look the other way. This is also not stopping people, some people may not game, and some just keep a dual-boot machine, with windows just for gaming.
#4 Why don't you just use xubuntu or some other "classic" os' that have a classic menu style? or install gnome classic and go to this link:http://ubuntublog.org/how-to-remove-unity-desktop-in-ubuntu-12-04.htm

If you seem to hate Ubuntu so much, try some other distro, Ubuntu is not the only linux distro. Or go use Windows for all I care, if you like such a GUI type interface.

wolfen69
May 12th, 2012, 05:17 AM
People talk about "mass adoption of Ubuntu" as though every Jane Average with limited computer skills is champing at the bit to ditch Windows, but can't because of Massively Cliched Proclamation About Ubuntu #3 that's holding her back onto a platform that she hates.

Now let's demolish these babies one by one...

#1a: Command-line. You do not need the command-line to use Ubuntu.
#1b: All programs executable without the need of the execute bit. If the user instead uses those massive repositories that are so costly to Canonical to maintain and keep running, then the user never needs to touch an executable bit.
#1c: All codecs installed by default. This will not drive mass adoption of Ubuntu. The opposite - Litigation would shut it down. It's already trivially easy to install codecs simply by attempting to play the files that Ubuntu doesn't have codecs for. It offers to install them. You can't get much easier than that.
#1d: Auto-login by default, root access by default. You didn't mention this one, but this is a common one to be mentioned in these kinds of posts. There are very good security reasons not to do this. I suggest you look up a beginners article on computer security.

#2: Device support. Mac users never describe device support as a hurdle keeping people back from buying a Mac. Not everything has Mac OS drivers, you know. I'd even be willing to bet that Linux supports more devices than the Mac OS. But, you see, when Mac users want to make a hardware purchase, they first check if the hardware has Mac compatibility BEFORE buying. I was a Mac user for many years, I know how it works. Therefore, not a hurdle for Ubuntu users - they just check compatibility before buying.

#3: Big-name games. Once again, this doesn't hold back the Mac OS, simply because people can dual-boot with Windows to play their games. Er... you can dual-boot Windows with Ubuntu too, so this is not keeping people away from Ubuntu.

It stops some people from going 100% Ubuntu-only, but it doesn't stop many (any?) from having Ubuntu at all.

#4: "Classic menu systems". Jane Average Windows User doesn't use a "classic menu system" to find and launch applications. She uses icons on her desktop that various installers have thrown there. That demolishes your point right there. But what about power users? Well, the power users do it too, to some extent. I've also never heard anyone with an Android or iOS device lament that they preferred their old Windows Mobile 6 device because it used a classic menu. And to further dance on the classic menu system's grave, even on Gnome 2 I used to just hit Alt-F2 and start typing the name of what I wanted to run. Most power users did.

So, power users just start typing, novices prefer the big icons.

#5: So now that I've addressed your issues, why don't manufacturers start shipping Ubuntu dual-boot with Windows? Well, there's a big reason: Microsoft. If any manufacturer tries this trick, they'll just find that their Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows licenses become just that bit more expensive. There may even be a "delay" in getting new license keys to the manufacturer. They still need to deal with Microsoft for the people who need Windows or demand Windows because they haven't heard of this Un-bun-tu thingy.

Your post was naive. I'm sure I was a little like you back in 2005 when I was just starting with Ubuntu, so I'm not making fun of you, but really what you've got is a simplistic view of everything. The things you mention are not necessarily large issues, and they're certainly not barriers to Ubuntu adoption for someone sufficiently motivated to switch.
Thank you. I just have limited patience these days. I remember when I used to write things like that. Glad to see some are still passionate. I'm just getting old. :-({|=
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/applause.gif

MisterGaribaldi
May 12th, 2012, 05:01 PM
Here's how I feel…

Points Already Made:

jespdj: Windows lacks a lot of hardware support, including chipset drivers, drivers for network cards, web cams, etc., which have to all be acquired and manually installed on top of a clean WinXX install (which implies a random computer user out there would know to do this and how).

3rdalbum: Mac users don't consider device support (necessarily) as a hurdle to overcome in buying a Mac. Mac users are hip to checking hardware compatibility before buying something. Also, average users don't (necessarily) use a classic menu system to open programs, often preferring icons scattered across their desktops. And, Mac OS X and Linux users prefer being able to find a command with parameters they can copy-n-paste into a terminal on those occasions they need to do this to solve some difficulty.

aysiu: You have to use at least some terminal commands in the process of rooting and customizing an Android phone's ROM. Also, what aysiu said as effectively a comparison between how Google handled Android's introduction, release, and continuing development versus what happened when Dell decided to put out some Ubuntu boxes. Lastly, don't try and support stuff before it supports you; pick the best options and recommend those to your customers to aid them in having the best possible OOB experience.

KiwiNZ: Um, yep. Pretty much everything he said.


Regarding the whole "year of Linux" thing, that did happen, back in like 1997 or 1998, if you'll remember. And you know what happened? It was an unmitigated DISASTER despite all the best intents and efforts in the world, by SuSE, RedHat, Slackware, Mandrake, et al. You know why? Because Linux was in absolutely no way "ready for prime-time" at that point. Very likely that's what's fueled a lot of the "Linux is all command-line crap that's insanely difficult and you have to be a total computer geek and a programmer to use it" mythos that it still, ahem, "enjoys" to this day.

To borrow from something James Burke once said about the Apollo program, "nothing fails like success". The reason I say this is Linux has really advanced quite a bit in many respects, producing (especially) such a stable underpinning for things like servers and embedded devices that it flies under everyone's radar out there, with nobody actually realizing what's going on. Therefore, because people (at large) are barely cognizant of Linux's existence, and to the extent the are "aware" of it they have nothing but distortions, half-truths, and out-and-out lies to go on, it has a very low on-the-desktop adoption rate.

This, of course, then simply gives rise to a continuing chicken-and-the-egg problem with further commercial software development, which I think fundamentally is the crux and lion's share of the "legitimate" reasons for not switching to Linux. Take me for example. I obviously am aware and smart and intelligent enough to have written this post and weaved successfully through everything that's been said up-thread about Linux, yet despite all of that I don't run Linux "on the desktop" myself because the apps I need and want just don't exist for it, and/or have very poor substitutes for which I am unwilling to settle.

Will this ever get resolved? Who knows, but frankly I'm not holding my breath.

timothy69
May 12th, 2012, 05:22 PM
Most windows users don't do anything themselves.
They ask their friend/son/guy who knows computers to do it.
In my experience(although limited), most people have never heard of ubuntu or linux.
On occasion someone will say; 'isn't linux just text?'.
If someone uses my computers, or computers I have put ubuntu on, they say things like 'this works great', 'i love your computer', etc. Most have just never heard of linux as competition to windows. Even people who hate windows don't know there is another option.
Most computers users are like most drivers. Put in gas and go. If it doesn't, call a tow truck.
Even the most basic pc users, once they have tried ubuntu, will NOT go back to windows.
What would help is everyone who uses ubuntu to post links to http://www.ubuntu.com/
when possible. We can do that, right?

MisterGaribaldi
May 12th, 2012, 05:44 PM
timothy69:

I think that's largely a function of willful ignorance on the part of the masses. They don't want to think for themselves because they've been raised to not rock the boat, cause problems, etc. They're also so occupied with other things in their lives they just don't care to spend the time. And, most people are not -- let's face it -- technology enthusiasts.

Tell you a short story. I know of more than a few people who are like this:

There's a program called "foo". It comes on a CD, sold in stores, and people buy it. But, for some reason, the designers of "foo" didn't use the Windows auto-run functionality, and therefore what's actually required is to put the CD in, wait for Windows to recognize it and give you access to it, and then open My Computer -> Your CD drive, and double-click on "Foo Setup".

Only what actually happens is the customer puts the CD in, "nothing happens", so they eject the CD, put it back in, "nothing happens", so they eject the CD... (you get the idea). They can't even cope with manually launching an installer program because all they know is they're force-fed stuff and are completely dependent on that kind of mechanism. In essence, this is "learned dependency" we're talking about (not actually all that different than what we see going on out there in the real world).

To be honest, I am NOT a fan of having that sort of person as a member of the Linux community because they have the chilling effect of just dumbing down the population.

Ashtray2
May 13th, 2012, 07:29 AM
I disagree with the first point, that command line should never be used. Infact Windows also has command line function. However windows is not advertising or encouraging users to use command line functions. They always provide the solutions that go through the user interface way. More better and attractive the user interface, less the people use command line.

no, he said it should never NEED to be used. The large majority don't want to do that, sorry but thats reality.

I think it will get worse for Linux on the desktop before it gets better. Ubuntu app repository was a step in the right direction at least.

codingman
May 15th, 2012, 01:18 AM
to put a basic end to this, if you do not like linux, go to windows, why worry about the rest of the people? In the end, were all gonna be using linux if not the entire community. Don't worry, Windows is gonna lose lots of market share when windows 8 ships.

aysiu
May 15th, 2012, 02:26 AM
to put a basic end to this, if you do not like linux, go to windows, I don't see any Linux-bashing here. People are just talking about sociological and technical reasons desktop/laptop Linux isn't taking off with the general populace.
why worry about the rest of the people? Well, I have two reasons to talk about barriers to mass adoption of Linux: 1) more users means more third-party support, including drivers and commercial software, and 2) there are some people who have genuinely given Linux a shot and have decided they don't like Linux, but there are plenty of other people who have never heard of it or who are wary of trying it, even though it may be the best platform to suit their computing needs.


were all gonna be using linux if not the entire community. I don't know what this means.
Don't worry, Windows is gonna lose lots of market share when windows 8 ships. If it does, it'll lose market share to Mac OS X, iOS, or Android, at least unless something fundamentally shifts in the desktop/laptop Linuxes' business approaches (or lack thereof).

rg4w
May 15th, 2012, 04:40 AM
There's a program called "foo". It comes on a CD, sold in stores, and people buy it. But, for some reason, the designers of "foo" didn't use the Windows auto-run functionality, and therefore what's actually required is to put the CD in, wait for Windows to recognize it and give you access to it, and then open My Computer -> Your CD drive, and double-click on "Foo Setup".

Only what actually happens is the customer puts the CD in, "nothing happens", so they eject the CD, put it back in, "nothing happens", so they eject the CD... (you get the idea). They can't even cope with manually launching an installer program because all they know is they're force-fed stuff and are completely dependent on that kind of mechanism. In essence, this is "learned dependency" we're talking about (not actually all that different than what we see going on out there in the real world).
That AUTORUN.ini "feature" is also the mechanism used for the most significant computer security breach in US military history:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20014732-245.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Interestingly, Mac OS 7 had a similar feature - for about three months. They soon figured out how it could be used to spread malware, and canned anything like that sort of auto-run.

But Microsoft took a different path, and our national security paid the price.

codingman
May 15th, 2012, 10:32 PM
I don't see any Linux-bashing here. People are just talking about sociological and technical reasons desktop/laptop Linux isn't taking off with the general populace. Well, I have two reasons to talk about barriers to mass adoption of Linux: 1) more users means more third-party support, including drivers and commercial software, and 2) there are some people who have genuinely given Linux a shot and have decided they don't like Linux, but there are plenty of other people who have never heard of it or who are wary of trying it, even though it may be the best platform to suit their computing needs.

I don't know what this means. If it does, it'll lose market share to Mac OS X, iOS, or Android, at least unless something fundamentally shifts in the desktop/laptop Linuxes' business approaches (or lack thereof).

Ok by meaning "why worry about other people" I meant that you can still use Linux freely without needing the entire community. The only reason people aren't using linux is because they:
1) haven't heard of it.
2)don't think it's user friendly and would like to stay on the safe side.
Linux could be much better if there was everyone using it, but no; along comes this dumb thing called Micro-whatever and starts with simply just a DOS terminal, then people use it becuase it's the only thing around, then they hear of something of linux and some people; the underdogs, go for it. While others stay with their safe old windows systems.

By saying that Linux isn't going with the general populace and that I said to go with windows, is actually a good idea based on the first post that no one reads but just makes a post on whatever the last post had said.

If you didn't understand that second part, here is what it means:

It means that we will be using linux in the end unless we choose not to, it's not like Steve Jobs' zombie and Bill Gates are gonna come to all linux' users computers and uninstall Linux from it.

Last quote, not necessarily, it can lose to linux, especially with all those system76 ads all over the place.

lento_
May 16th, 2012, 09:47 AM
One thing which I think reduces Linux uptake in the UK (and I'd guess in many other places) is that most schools run Windows on their computers.

Most kids, if their family has a computer, will probably use Windows at home as well, and then use Windows when they grow up and get an office job.

For many of them Windows just is the normal thing which a computer does. The internet means that blue swirly icon. Writing documents means using Word. Running a programme means clicking on start.

If schools were to switch over to using Linux then it would teach the lesson very early on that there are alternatives out there, and that Windows offers just one way of doing things among many. It could also potentially save large amounts of money in licensing fees, although possibly offset by extra training costs.