PDA

View Full Version : In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

ThirdWorld
November 9th, 2005, 05:32 PM
In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread?

maruchan
November 9th, 2005, 05:49 PM
Lack of a Twisted Sister video featuring Mark Shuttleworth as an angry, bitter schoolteacher? Other than that, I have no ideas.

earobinson
November 9th, 2005, 05:57 PM
Where is the option to say that windows is just better? Or to say linux just needs time, or that linux is not designed to be used by the advrage user.

i know that these are all populare reasons for why linux is not wide spread

GeneralZod
November 9th, 2005, 05:59 PM
Where is the option to say that windows is just better? Or to say linux just needs time, or that linux is not designed to be used by the advrage user.

"Other"

;)

Brunellus
November 9th, 2005, 05:59 PM
Where is the option to say that windows is just better? Or to say linux just needs time, or that linux is not designed to be used by the advrage user.

i know that these are all populare reasons for why linux is not wide spread
your reasons are vague, and unspecific. the options presented cover your options, but do it in the concrete.

jdodson
November 9th, 2005, 06:04 PM
web polls.

trash
November 9th, 2005, 06:11 PM
I do installations for people, 90% of the time when I am dealing with a potential client I hear (replace XXXX with brother/sister/computer friend and the list goes on and on....

"my XXXX said that linux is too over my head, too hard to learn....."

For some reason people who may have tried linux 2-5 years ago can't fathom the idea that linux evolves the same way windows does...(even better in my opinion)

Lovechild
November 9th, 2005, 06:20 PM
Users, they complicate any system I really think we should consider ways to get rid of them.

23meg
November 9th, 2005, 06:21 PM
None, just one thing: FUD

Bekker
November 9th, 2005, 06:31 PM
I voted publicity, because a lot of people whom I tell I'm using linux don't know what I'm talking about. Most people in the IT-branch know what it is because they read magazines, but the average home user never heard about linux.
Low 3rd party support is just because linux isn't widespread so manufacturers don't care for it, there's no money for them.

23meg
November 9th, 2005, 06:35 PM
In contrast, IT people I talk to seem to have no grasp of what open source really is. Even many people who've studied CS for 4+ years in university seem to be out of the know, which is just sad.

raublekick
November 9th, 2005, 06:45 PM
i'd say 3rd party support. if games and drivers can get really good support in linux, the rest will take care of itself.

linux is fine as a workstation OS, infact i'd say better than windows. but if it can't play all the newest games, yadda yadda yadda, people may not realize it.

nrwilk
November 9th, 2005, 06:55 PM
Misconceptions that linux is too complicated for the average casual computer user.

Conversely, Linux's deep transparency and tweakability is what drives me to learn and use it.

gray-squirrel
November 9th, 2005, 07:02 PM
None, just one thing: FUD

That is so true. And so much of it is out there, and sometimes even spills into mainstream media, that people more often than not buy into it without taking the time to do research.

At least there many of us willing to reach out to those who can benefit from Linux: countering disinformation with good publicity.

tom-ubuntu
November 9th, 2005, 07:02 PM
Games are a big point. Cedega is not a real solution, just a workaround.

Stormy Eyes
November 9th, 2005, 07:19 PM
In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread?

The average Windows user isn't ready to use Linux. Either he doesn't have the expertise, or he has not suffered enough under Windows to make Linux a viable alternative.

aysiu
November 9th, 2005, 07:29 PM
I'm amazed no one's mentioned the most obvious reason--mainstream computer manufacturers do not preinstall Linux on computers that ordinary folk buy. Their options are Windows and Windows. Sometimes Mac if they go to an Apple store.

ThirdWorld
November 9th, 2005, 07:32 PM
I'm amazed no one's mentioned the most obvious reason--mainstream computer manufacturers do not preinstall Linux on computers that ordinary folk buy. Their options are Windows and Windows. Sometimes Mac if they go to an Apple store.


yes that option is in the poll: Microsoft business model...

joflow
November 9th, 2005, 07:33 PM
Misconceptions that linux is too complicated for the average casual computer user.


Yes! Well not just the average casual computer user. I think I've known more about computers then the average computer user since even before I had a computer or even regular access to one (I used to read magazines so I knew alot about computer hardware).

I first started hearing about Linux around 97-ish when Red Hat was getting alot of attention. I always wanted to try it but never did because article I found about Linux was always talking about how hard it is to install.

I had the misconception that installing linux involved typing/knowing command line/terminal syntax and that I would probably ruin my computer since I didn't know what I was doing.

It took me years to get over that fear. What made me take the plunge was finding out that Mandrake has a graphical installer and was "newbie friendly"..so I installed Mandrake 9.0 (or 9.1). I was still afraid of trying a distro that had a text-based installation.

When I finally tried Ubuntu...I realized that the text-based installation is nothing to be afraid of...its very similar to windows installation, might even go as far as to say its easier.

Also, I'm an off and on linux user. I think there are alot of people out there like me. We try a distro, we can't figure out how to do something or something breaks and we just quit using linux all together.

When I tried Mandrake, I stopped using it because KDE broke for apparently no reason (I must've did something..all I know is that I couldn't log in to kde), also I had no clue how to set-up urpmi (had no clue what it was for that matter) and I tried installing software from source which never worked right so I stopped using Mandrake for a few months.

So I found a forum (a love forum oddly enough) that just so happened to have a few Mandrake users on it. They encouraged me to try it again and taught me how to set up urpmi. So I installed 9.2 and tried Linux again. Urpmi worked, I could install software so I was happy. Then KDE broke again..for apparently no reason. So I logged into Window Maker and googled the error message and found the solution (I had to type in some obscure command in bash) but I was disgruntled. "Stuff like this never happens with Windows"

So I eventually formatted my Mandrake partition to install Windows Media Center Edition 2005.

I got the Linux bug again and tried Ubuntu. So far so good. I find Metacity to be a bit dull. KDE is overwhelming to me (so many options and it isn't very intuitive) but I like the Gnome + Enlightenment 17 combination. If the quirks with Enlightenment + Gnome ever get resolved, I might switch entirely to Linux with a windows machine just for gaming.

I've seen some Gnome 3.0 markups that were posted in this forum and I'm very excited about that. I think the concept called a Object Orientated Desktop. I think its best for Linux if it can find some way to differentiate itself from Windows like Apple has done.

Bekker
November 9th, 2005, 07:35 PM
Look what publicity did to Firefox, everybody now knows what it is, and I mean everybody. Most of you guys have friends that work a lot with computers and so know what linux is (correct if I'm wrong). But how about you're average Joe who buys a pc with winXp preinstalled, without even knowing that kost them a substantial part of the total price. And not knowing even there are free alternatives.

Edit: while typing I didn't see

Their options are Windows and Windows
but as you can see I agree totally on that.

Wolveen
November 9th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Totally 3rd party.
I would be XP free right now if Software companies would release Linux versions of thier software and drivers.

But looking at it again Publicity is what would drive these 3rd parties to make Linux versions available.

nsa_767
November 9th, 2005, 07:55 PM
I'm amazed no one's mentioned the most obvious reason--mainstream computer manufacturers do not preinstall Linux on computers that ordinary folk buy. Their options are Windows and Windows. Sometimes Mac if they go to an Apple store.

Yes, that is actually the top reason.

Second reason would be games... Nobody realises it, but games are a strong driving force in the computer world.

aysiu
November 9th, 2005, 07:57 PM
yes that option is in the poll: Microsoft business model... Oops. I didn't make that translation.

aerials
November 9th, 2005, 08:00 PM
One big setback is the bad WPA support, or WLAN in general. There are nice tools available like gtkwifi or networkmanager, but neither supports WPA.
You can use WLAN quite flawless if you only work in one network, but as soon you have to manage three or four configurations you have to pray for everything to work everytime you change the network. A friend of mine just dropped Ubuntu because of that issue :rolleyes:
Luckily I have only one WLAN to configure, so no profile chaos.

raublekick
November 9th, 2005, 08:38 PM
Yes, that is actually the top reason.

Second reason would be games... Nobody realises it, but games are a strong driving force in the computer world.


that's not the main reason though. mainstream manufacturers don't seel Linux machines because it isn't profitable. sure, there's some people that would take it but not enough to make it worth being consistent about. even though Linux is free, it takes time and money to create a new branch devoted to Linux installs. manufacturers don't sell Linux because not enough people want it.

and why don't people want it? because of the various other reasons: not enough 3rd party support, not enough publicity, etc...

the general populous simply donesn't think Linux is as good as Windows, and that is the biggest hurdle: public opinion.

aysiu
November 9th, 2005, 08:47 PM
Right... so without HP and Dell preinstalling Linux, suddenly the general public is going to realize Linux is what they want? That logic makes no sense. I don't know anyone (not a single person) personally who wants to use Linux but who is stopped by third-party support. Most people I know just don't know Linux exists. The rest just don't want to use Linux because they don't want to bother installing a new OS on their computers. A precious few actually use it.

I don't know anyone who thinks, "Yeah, I'd use Linux except the third-party support isn't there." These people exist--I just don't know them.

Sheinar
November 9th, 2005, 08:58 PM
People unwilling to put time into learning new ways.

If an application screws up in Windows, they blame the application. If an application screws up in Linux, they blame Linux.

xequence
November 9th, 2005, 09:02 PM
None of the above. Its the big computer sellers. If dell and HP and everyone else sold the same computers for 100$ less but with linux I am sure the linux user base would skyrocket. Especially if the default was linux and windows was an add on.

aysiu
November 9th, 2005, 09:04 PM
If an application screws up in Windows, they blame the application. If an application screws up in Linux, they blame Linux. Well put. You see on these forums all the time.

emperor
November 9th, 2005, 09:11 PM
1. Actually, Linux is tehnically ready with the exception of multimedia support; The MP3, CSS, and etc issues and installation problems, also current version of plugins like WM and quicktime for mozilla/firefox.

2. In Ubuntu, sound is still a nightmere to setup and get multimedia, games and etc all working at the same time. I got it working on my laptop, but it took 2 days.

3. More games ported to Linux would also help. Ported by the game vendors themselves, not hacked half feature versions.

4. Support of Linux by Dell and other "Big Buck Daddy" corporations!

Ubuntu/Kubuntu has helped by making a great Distro and this forum is a fantastic treasure!

Sirin
November 9th, 2005, 09:14 PM
Mostly the fact that the command line is required for 65% of everything you can normally do with a GUI in Windows.

aysiu
November 9th, 2005, 09:14 PM
Yeah, emperor: #1 and #2 would be solved by #4. If a manufacturer like Dell or HP preinstalled Linux on a computer, everything would be configured for you (just as it is in Windows). Games isn't stopping things, as Mac support for cutting edge gaming isn't there, but it's "everyday" user base is there. Would games help? Sure. But that's not what's stopping mass adoption.

angkor
November 9th, 2005, 09:16 PM
Users, they complicate any system I really think we should consider ways to get rid of them.

*lol*

Amen, I'm thinking of filing a bug report.

btw. 3rd Party support. If the manufacturers would release software and drivers for Linux developers would have more time to concentrate on the fun stuff.

ThirdWorld
November 9th, 2005, 09:18 PM
None of the above. Its the big computer sellers. If dell and HP and everyone else sold the same computers for 100$ less but with linux I am sure the linux user base would skyrocket. Especially if the default was linux and windows was an add on.


You are rigth, it looks pretty logic... but there is where Microsoft's obscure business practices appear....

aysiu
November 9th, 2005, 09:24 PM
You are rigth, it looks pretty logic... but there is where Microsoft's obscure business practices appear.... I realize that Microsoft's business model affects how Dell and others act, but Dell and HP are still making the choice not to sell Linux. Sure, they may not get the OEM agreement with Microsoft--Microsoft may be strongarming them into preinstalling Windows, but I don't think most people answering this poll know what you mean by "business practices." They probably think of the "get the FUD" campaign.

angkor
November 9th, 2005, 09:30 PM
I'm amazed no one's mentioned the most obvious reason--mainstream computer manufacturers do not preinstall Linux on computers that ordinary folk buy. Their options are Windows and Windows. Sometimes Mac if they go to an Apple store.

hm, I thought that counted as 3rd party support as well.

aysiu
November 9th, 2005, 09:44 PM
hm, I thought that counted as 3rd party support as well. Well, since it said "printers, sound cards, etc." or something like that, I assumed it meant companies like Lexmark or Realtek not providing enough Linux drivers for their peripherals. I didn't take it to mean Linux not coming preinstalled.

ThirdWorld
November 9th, 2005, 09:57 PM
I realize that Microsoft's business model affects how Dell and others act, but Dell and HP are still making the choice not to sell Linux. Sure, they may not get the OEM agreement with Microsoft--Microsoft may be strongarming them into preinstalling Windows, but I don't think most people answering this poll know what you mean by "business practices." They probably think of the "get the FUD" campaign.


believe me aysiu, this PC manufacturers (aka Acer, Dell, HP, Gateway etc) dont have a choice if they want to stay competitive in the market selling systems with Winxp OS. This is one reason why Ms have become a monopoly. they use whatever means to dominate the market. i dont need to list them, we already know what practices are those. what their "business model" is...

Lovechild
November 9th, 2005, 10:07 PM
*lol*

Amen, I'm thinking of filing a bug report.

btw. 3rd Party support. If the manufacturers would release software and drivers for Linux developers would have more time to concentrate on the fun stuff.

Well I was actually kidding..

I think the think that's holding us back is half finished features, something like DVD burning and palm syncing only works half and half - it seems people get it working for themselves and then abandon the project. Other features are crippled due to utterly stupid laws, mostly here would be multimedia features like DVD playback - this isn't even technical problems, it's lawyers.. come on we need this to change, fight against it please.

Some features are directly keeping us away from the market, such as trusted computing. Worst of all they are selling it to us as if they are doing us a favor.

I think we need to build a platform where we can shine, I see the debate on HD-DVD vs. bluray and think.. why even bother we can't play either one back, I've seen passionate Linux users argue for one or the other - I don't want neither one, not before I get a promise I can actually use them legally.
The same thing with .NET vs. Java, these are not platforms we control, they are excellent but ultimately they are in the hands of people who we can't count on to play nice, why are we only talking about the possibility of a .NET like framework for python and saying it's impossible - kernel developers said the same thing about replacing bitkeeper, it would take ages and it would be technically very hard - Git took a few months to get to a usable state. Couldn't we at least try?

xaque
November 9th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Games and polish. Linux has come a long way, but it's still not quite at the "just works" stage yet.

aysiu
November 9th, 2005, 10:10 PM
believe me aysiu, this PC manufacturers (aka Acer, Dell, HP, Gateway etc) dont have a choice if they want to stay competitive in the market selling systems with Winxp OS. This is one reason why Ms have become a monopoly. they use whatever means to dominate the market. i dont need to list them, we already know what practices are those. what their "business model" is... Who's "we"? You (ThirdWorld) and me (aysiu)? Sure. But how would other people know that? That was my point.

raublekick
November 9th, 2005, 10:18 PM
Right... so without HP and Dell preinstalling Linux, suddenly the general public is going to realize Linux is what they want? That logic makes no sense. I don't know anyone (not a single person) personally who wants to use Linux but who is stopped by third-party support. Most people I know just don't know Linux exists. The rest just don't want to use Linux because they don't want to bother installing a new OS on their computers. A precious few actually use it.

I don't know anyone who thinks, "Yeah, I'd use Linux except the third-party support isn't there." These people exist--I just don't know them.


do you honestly think that Dell or HP is going to start preinstalling Linux over Windows just to make a point? Even though they have in a small degree (i think) they aren't going to make it their major drive. even if given the choice, most people aren't going to want Linux because of various other reasons.

suppose someone doesn't know linux exists. then they find out about it. what are the chances that it seems right for them? i'd say pretty slim. why? because it's too technical, too hard, it's not Windows... who knows! and then if they do try it out, they're likely to run into some terrible bumps that completely ruin their image of linux.

the fact of the matter is that linux just isn't "equal" to windows in the eyes of the general computer user. a huge part of making it equal is making it easier to get fully working, which largly involves third party support.

publicity right now isn't going to do much more than show a lot of people how unready they are for linux.

qalimas
November 9th, 2005, 10:52 PM
Publicity and false rumors, and just plain idiots who can't take change because they don't want to look like a novice at something again, like my computer electronics teacher.

aysiu
November 9th, 2005, 10:53 PM
do you honestly think that Dell or HP is going to start preinstalling Linux over Windows just to make a point? No. My point was that the reason Dell and HP aren't preloading Linux has nothing to do with people wanting Linux or not. Please reread my post.

bored2k
November 9th, 2005, 10:54 PM
The money behind other OS and their ads. Besides that, it's all the neophytes that say stuff about other OSs and Linux that hurts it.

MetalMusicAddict
November 9th, 2005, 11:05 PM
Lack of a Twisted Sister video featuring Mark Shuttleworth as an angry, bitter schoolteacher? Other than that, I have no ideas.
That was awesome. \m/

ThirdWorld
November 10th, 2005, 12:47 AM
If the next ubuntu version will become more user friendly maybe we can expect new PC manufacturers that will sell hardware with linux pre installed. I believe this could be a great opportunity for them to make lots of money selling hardware and for linux companies to make money offering support. if these new companies grow other manufacturers will follow, some of them will even ditch windows. this will force windows to change their business model and drop software prices to compete. At the end, windows users will also benefit from this competition, as well as linux users as they will receive more 3rd party support.

aysiu
November 10th, 2005, 12:55 AM
If the next ubuntu version will become more user friendly maybe we can expect new PC manufacturers that will sell hardware with linux pre installed. Do you really think Dell and HP don't preload Linux because it's not "user friendly" enough?

MetalMusicAddict
November 10th, 2005, 01:04 AM
If the next ubuntu version will become more user friendly maybe we can expect new PC manufacturers that will sell hardware with linux pre installed. I believe this could be a great opportunity for them to make lots of money selling hardware and for linux companies to make money offering support. if these new companies grow other manufacturers will follow, some of them will even ditch windows. this will force windows to change their business model and drop software prices to compete. At the end, windows users will also benefit from this competition, as well as linux users as they will receive more 3rd party support.
Unfortunately this will never happen in the US.

MS gives such a volume discount to PC makers (ie: Dell, HP, etc..) that if they start to ship another OS or offer another one MS will pull the discount making it really hard for PC makers. I say do it and pass it on to people who buy MS based PCs.

They wont do this so MS essentially keeps their grip on the US.

If the did MS belives that the alternative OS based PC will just be wiped and pirated copies of windows will be put on them. I do agree with this but probally not to the degree MS tries to make it.

I have seen people buy Linspire based PC and wipe 'em. Sad.

deleola
November 10th, 2005, 01:20 AM
First and formost - The learning curve could be daunting unless there is a reason for doing so.

2. Linux scared people away at the outset when all one has to do was to mount this and mount that with all sorts of programming jargons.

3. It is not yet an average user's friendly.

4. Most PC users are used to click and go and in some cases this is missing in Linux.

ssam
November 10th, 2005, 01:56 AM
linux is great for nerds, programmers, computer scientist etc. maybe a few percent of computer users. they probably know about linux and have tried it, maybe dual boot or run it as their main system. (or maybe run solaris/bsd and look down on linux users)

it is also good for people who know very little about computers, who just need to write things, email, browser the web and play card games. (though they might need someone to help them set it up.) there are a lot of these people, but they are unlike to hear of linux, or to download and install it.

the trouble is that in the middle is a large group of people who use windows a lot, know how to tweek and customise windows. they are likely to be adicted to a bunch of programs maybe photoshop, some program to draw weather maps on their desktop, itunes, desktop widgets, games etc. if they move to linux they will have to relearn lots. they'll go from a guru to a newbie.

if we can find ways to eat away at the top and bottom of the middle group then linux will grow. i think having graphic configuration tools for everything would be a big step. i may be happy editing a config file, but to them if feels like the 80s. making linux look very cool might help. why go to the trouble of setting up drop shaddows on windows when linux has them by default?

i also think that having things like firefox, openoffice, gimp etc available on windows will help. then people can ween themselves off expensive software slowly. also it shows that opensource is about choice.

aysiu
November 10th, 2005, 02:45 AM
2. Linux scared people away at the outset when all one has to do was to mount this and mount that with all sorts of programming jargons.

3. It is not yet an average user's friendly.

4. Most PC users are used to click and go and in some cases this is missing in Linux. Translation: the vast majority of potential Linux users have to install and configure Linux themselves. The vast majority of Windows users have Windows preinstalled and preconfigured for them by Dell and company.

ThirdWorld
November 10th, 2005, 03:38 AM
Unfortunately this will never happen in the US.

MS gives such a volume discount to PC makers (ie: Dell, HP, etc..) that if they start to ship another OS or offer another one MS will pull the discount making it really hard for PC makers. I say do it and pass it on to people who buy MS based PCs.

They wont do this so MS essentially keeps their grip on the US.

If the did MS belives that the alternative OS based PC will just be wiped and pirated copies of windows will be put on them. I do agree with this but probally not to the degree MS tries to make it.

I have seen people buy Linspire based PC and wipe 'em. Sad.


i already said that in my previous threads, what im talking about is that this is a important moment, it could be a shift in history if NEW PC manufacturers arrive to the market who sale exclusively linux as an alternative to windows.

TecnoVM64
November 10th, 2005, 03:45 AM
I'd like to choose two options:
-3rd party support: Most of people that I know that got rid of linux it's just because their hardware wasn't supported, things like TV cards, Webcams and Printers are most of those things.

-Other: Gaming support, In my case, it's the only thing of why I didn't got rid of my Windows partition yet, there are some games that I love too much and I want to keep playing (Silent Hill 3 and GTA), and yeah, I know the gaming support on linux it's getting better now, but it isn't good enough yet.

Pi rules
November 10th, 2005, 03:46 AM
My main problem is the first (and most popular) choice. The lack of drivers/support for Linux is probably the main thing keeping me away. First I didn't have sound (resolved) and couldn't print (unresolved), I can't use my 5-button mouse, when I started with another Linux distro my graphics card wasn't supported...the list continues. I was also introduced to Windows long before Linux. The rest of the choices were more minor, but still important, reasons in my opinion.

Dr. Nick
November 10th, 2005, 04:08 AM
Translation: the vast majority of potential Linux users have to install and configure Linux themselves. The vast majority of Windows users have Windows preinstalled and preconfigured for them by Dell and company.


Perfectly put IMHO.

I believe linux to be better for total computer newbies who dont know windows. If they are computer illerate then they have to learn something right? Why not learn linux now, which may be more challenging than windows, but save yourself from learning about virus removal and spyware later?

I think if linux came pre installed and setup for the hardware like windows does newbies would have a hader time breaking it than windows, aslong as common sense was used and they didnt just change random stuff without knowing the potential consequences.

I think Linux would do good if they beat MS, And Apple to something big that alot of people want. I dont know what that is though :rolleyes:

ubuntu_demon
November 12th, 2005, 03:45 AM
3rd party support (drivers for printers, sound cards etc) - people want stuff working easily
copyright infringements - people want stuff working easily
publicity - Ubuntu/Mark/Canonical is working on this one (IMHO not a problem anymore in a couple of years)

majikstreet
November 12th, 2005, 03:50 AM
I voted "other" because the only reason linux isn't widespread is because of PEOPLE.

<rant>
Windows users want their hold-my-hand way for EVERYTHING f'cking thing! GROW UP! Really. Linux isn't like that. You have to LEARN linux! In addition, most of the windows users are too STUPID or LAZY to try linux.
</rant>

xbaez
November 14th, 2005, 03:09 AM
I think that there are too many distros in Linux, that's a problem

Installing a scanner for instance it's not easy (copy firmware...)

Games don't work ok (some do in cedega)

Overall, it's more difficult for the average user

teaker1s
November 14th, 2005, 03:13 AM
it's power and configuration-people are thick they want point and click.
while my hardware is supported it couldn't be said to be a point and click experience.

I've switched to linux 100% but I think editing config files and terminal hold back general adoption of linux. this is a desktop issue more than anything else

aysiu
November 14th, 2005, 03:24 AM
I've switched to linux 100% but I think editing config files and terminal hold back general adoption of linux. 1. Linspire and Mepis do not require you to edit config files.

2. Most users do not ever install an OS from scratch. Most do not even use the recovery CDs that came with their Windows computer.

Brunellus
November 14th, 2005, 03:27 AM
it's power and configuration-people are thick they want point and click.
while my hardware is supported it couldn't be said to be a point and click experience.

I've switched to linux 100% but I think editing config files and terminal hold back general adoption of linux. this is a desktop issue more than anything else
As I said in my comments on my "what was your first OS" poll--the majority of respondents to that poll indicated their first OS was MS-DOS, with significant minorities reporting experience with pre-MS-DOS systems.

What that tells me is that most of us "grew up" on OSes that needed a bit of config file hacking every now and then, and so we are not at all scared by the prospect.

The corrolary is that the theoretical plateau for desktop linux adoption as things presently stand is the set of people who learned how to use computers before 1995.

That will change when people are confronted with linux desktop environments as a fait accompli, something that is not unlikely when and if a large corporation (or government agency, or school system) adopts linux on the desktop. That was what got people using IBM-PCs (and clones) in the first place.

Iandefor
November 14th, 2005, 05:23 AM
I think that it's a combination of all the options, but some more than others. I think, primarily, it's the Microsoft business model; If the majority of users just get their computer out of the box with Windows installed, and they don't know or care about the nature of Microsoft (IE, they just want to do WP, E-mail, surf the web, etc, and don't want to screw around with the computers beyond that), then they aren't going to go find an alternative.
Publicity comes next, either in the form of "Too little" or "Bad"; everyone I meet who doesn't know what Linux is either is completely oblivious, think it's a tool for hackers, or believe it's too difficult to use.
3rd party support is tertiary; Support can be patchy under Linux in my experience.
Copyright infringement not so much, although high profile cases like SCO vs. IBM can generate a lot of bad publicity.

maynoth
November 14th, 2005, 07:15 AM
Driver and software installation is the biggest thing holding desktop linux back.

There needs to be an easy way to download software and install the latest versions without having to recompile everything from source and spend ten hours on the command line. I know I will prolly get flamed for speaking the truth, while central repositories are very cool, not being able to install 3rd party (not on the repo) and up 2 date software really blows. Autopackage is making huge leaps, soon they will have a native dependency resolution system.


Driver installation is also annoying. Everyone always wants the latest and greatest ATI, and Nvidia, and chipset drivers..... having to wait 6 months for a new kernel won't cut it for mainstream windows gamers. etc.

Malphas
November 14th, 2005, 07:36 AM
None of the above. Its the big computer sellers. If dell and HP and everyone else sold the same computers for 100$ less but with linux I am sure the linux user base would skyrocket. Especially if the default was linux and windows was an add on.
There's no way that the larger PC vendors like Dell are paying anything like $100 for every copy of Windows though.

I voted the lack of better third party support, it's even the reason that people who want to switch to Linux are still stuck dual-booting.

graphfixpunk
November 14th, 2005, 07:46 AM
3rd party without a doubt if everyone would support it and make software for it why would anyone argue with it

anaoum
November 14th, 2005, 08:09 AM
Three things:

1. Games

2. Puplicity (Computer vendors rarely sell computers with a linux OS, it is usually MS Windows)

3. Hardware Support

fuscia
November 14th, 2005, 11:37 AM
with windows, every piece of hardware i would buy for my OS, would work out of the box. the installations would be as simple as following the directions any retard could successfully use. the same cannot be said of linux. just as most people who drive cars don't want to have to take their engine apart every time they go to the store for a loaf of bread, most people don't want to have to fv<k with their computers just to get them to work. in their 'lazy and stupid' minds, they have something better to do.

ubuntu was as easy for me to install as it was for me to install windows ME. trying to get my netgear wireless going was a nightmare. i never did get it going. if i hadn't had an old linksys 802.11b adapter lying around, i would have had to go back to windows. almost everything i do with my computer requires me to be online and using wireless is my only option. whether or not the reasons behind that are unfair, the fact remains: it worked out of the box on ME, it didn't on ubuntu. if i hadn't been so bored by windows, i wouldn't have even bothered in the first place.

an inherent problem in open source, in general, is that there is a wider variety of problems that can occur because of the greater flexibility it allows for. in other words, with greater customization comes a greater number of customized problems. this makes standardizing resource material more difficult. fortunately, there are forums like this one and the mozilla forums where one can find a tremendous number of people willing to help and help patiently. and even this can be problematic. when an expert user is helping someone with little knowledge, something an expert user might take for granted as common knowledge, might be an astonishing revelation to the novice. most windows paid support staff assume the user is an idiot and ask them things like "have you plugged your computer in yet?" (it's a lot easier to ask questions like that if the problems are more standardized than not.) most end users are not going to try a variety of solutions (and it does sometimes take trying more than one solution to solve a linux related problem), when they have another option (windows) that already works.

xbaez
November 14th, 2005, 02:05 PM
1. Linspire and Mepis do not require you to edit config files.

2. Most users do not ever install an OS from scratch. Most do not even use the recovery CDs that came with their Windows computer.

I had Mepis, installed Nvidia drivers, never ever worked, tried 2004.06 and 3.3

Ubuntu is the only distro in which I was able to install restricted-modules, and then, nvidia-glx-config enable

I would say that Linux is not as easy to use as Windows or as a Mac. It's good for servers, but for desktop users, not that easy. People like using Microsoft Word, I will like to see a distro that comes with Wine and encourages people to use it.

aysiu
November 14th, 2005, 06:35 PM
with windows, every piece of hardware i would buy for my OS, would work out of the box. the installations would be as simple as following the directions any retard could successfully use. Hasn't been true for both times I installed Windows. Sorry.

poptones
November 14th, 2005, 06:58 PM
Me either. When I install hoary on a thinkpad 600 it works perfectly right off the bat - even the pcmcia 10.100 network card works. The modem I dunno because I never had reason to try it, but the rest is great.

When I install windows 2000 I have to fight with an installer for the network card and it frequently flakes out which requires me to unplug it and reseat it. The video is screwed up and I have to manually change settings, and I have to install a bunch of third party tools in order to do anything usable.

If I install win2k on my desktop the video is REALLY bad and I get to fight with not only a third party video driver but a third party MOTHERBOARD driver. The sound doesn't work without a new driver, the video, the network... everything has to be "installed." Strictly from an installation pov there's no contest - ubuntu blows windows out of the water.

Stormy Eyes
November 14th, 2005, 07:09 PM
I installed Breezy on a secondhand Toshiba Tecra 550CDT without any trouble at all. This thing is frigging old, OK? It's so old that it has a 233Mhz Pentium Pro as its CPU, a 4GB hard drive, and 64MB of RAM. Ubuntu handled the D-Link PCMCIA network card, and everything else but sound, even though I did a server install and then manually installed xubuntu-desktop.

teaker1s
November 14th, 2005, 07:12 PM
aysiu stated that linspire doesn't need altering of config files and while thats true to an extent it's attempts to bleed more money out of you for cnr becomes it's biggest benefit and drawback-I for one don't like paying for free software and its konsole apt-get or synaptic from cnr but you pay for it. That's why I dumped linspire for ubuntu which i found needed more tweaking but allows more freedom.
Another point you will find that you can't walk into any electronics store and pick up a
printer or other component and know it's going to work -sad as it is windows has this advantage

poptones
November 14th, 2005, 07:18 PM
I was one of those who signed up for the "free lindows" when they were doing the microsoft lawsuit rebates. I got nine months of "free click and run" and a free download of the OS. I never was able to get it to install on my thinkpad, it would just throw repeated "boot error" messages, but I got it to run on the desktop.

I didn't care for it but it's obvious from their website many people do. I'm not keen on paying for free software either but I think it's great they are able to make a go of it. Creating a market where people are willing to pay for "free software" is a good thing for any developer with bills to pay.

Sirin
November 14th, 2005, 07:36 PM
In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread?

1) The Command Line
2) Personal Opinion
3) Lack of Advertisement

Paloseco
November 14th, 2005, 07:49 PM
THE PIRACY, no need to explain. :KS

bernardo
November 14th, 2005, 07:58 PM
1&#176;) 3rd party support
2&#176;) Up-to-date killer apps: some of the best apps are Win apps, and when/if they're ported to linux, they don't have the latest features (such as Kademlia in amule). The distro itself may be "bleeding edge" but the apps aren't (except for amaroK ;) )

Stormy Eyes
November 14th, 2005, 08:11 PM
1) The Command Line

The commandline only comes into play when the defaults aren't enough. My wife never touches it.

Wide
November 14th, 2005, 08:18 PM
In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread?

Absolute confusion for first time users

Just way too many different Distro's to choose from.



Command line is not for the general public, they like point & click while their hand is held.

tomski
November 14th, 2005, 08:36 PM
Absolute confusion for first time users

Just way too many different Distro's to choose from.



Command line is not for the general public, they like point & click while their hand is held.

i would second that..
but i first heard about linux/*nix when (dont laugh) trawling through the mountains of read me's & how to's for cracking/phreeking.
thats what got me into it in the first place, i cant remember where the file is but it was a text about the history of unix and it stated that when unix was first released to get a copy you had to know the basics of C programming..
which to me sounded apealing and lets face it it would stop alot of questions about how do i do this when i compile that.
then again windows is the os that has got firmly stuck in mundainia so its no wonder windows people fell lost when sitting in front of any *nix distro

so i would say that linux' biggest set back is a fundamental lack of knowledge which was there in the beginning but very few people have in this day and age;
all because we have all had a very long mundain use of windows which has made using computers in general too easy

hence my signature.... sorry if i offended anyone!!

Malphas
November 14th, 2005, 08:53 PM
The idea that you should have to know C to use a computer is ridiculous.

Chayak
November 14th, 2005, 09:03 PM
A big hinderance is games and drivers.

tomski
November 14th, 2005, 09:29 PM
The idea that you should have to know C to use a computer is ridiculous.
maybe the case for windows but i would say at least 50% of the file in linux are C files fglrx.ko is a C object and all files thet have .h are headers ie the very first part of a win32 .exe ... linux does not need to have these present in a binary because it knows what they are so it just gets on with the real stuff
were as windows is such a stripped down and rebuilt version of unix it has forgotten what to do with any .h file so it needs to be told what each binary is upon excecution

so just think of how much more customization/tweaks you can do if you learn C
probably why gentoo has stuck with the hard way to install
you end up on a learning curve by default....

Stormy Eyes
November 14th, 2005, 09:41 PM
The idea that you should have to know C to use a computer is ridiculous.

You don't have to know C in order to run Linux. You don't even have to know the shell. Does it help to know both if you want to really customize your environment? HELL YES! The greater your understanding of a tool, the more you can do with it.

Malphas
November 14th, 2005, 09:51 PM
You don't have to know C in order to run Linux. You don't even have to know the shell. Does it help to know both if you want to really customize your environment? HELL YES! The greater your understanding of a tool, the more you can do with it.
I didn't say that you had to know C to run Linux. Read my post in the context of tomski's one before it.

ferentix
November 14th, 2005, 10:29 PM
I think that one of the problems is just general ignorance in the majority of the computer using world. I know plenty of people who would consider themselves to be "computer literate" but they aren't- they are Windows literate (hell, I'm almost one myself). Basically, to most people, you talk about a computer, they instantly think Windows. If you tell someone you're having a problem with your computer, and they are a good Windows user, they'll probably automatically assume Windows, and say "That's easy! Right, what you do is..." then reel off instructions kicking off on the "Start" menu... Generally, in fact, many many users have no conception of what an Operating System is- computer is entirely synonymous with Windows.

Then, if people do learn a bit more, find out what an OS is, and then find out about Linux, they are then likely to either see some of MS's "information" on Linux (go to Microsoft.com and search for Linux... it's almost embarrasing to read). But let's say they are distrustful of MS, or find the lack of any sort of balanced argument of Win vs Lin on MS sites a bit suspicious. At this stage, they may already have realised there are literally hundreds of different Linux based OS's available across the 'net. If not, then they will most likely be absolutely baffled by it all- after all, Linux is an OS like Win or Mac, right? so why do people call it so many different things? Mandriva? Debian? SuSE?!

If you gat past all these points, then you may well discover that your hardware is not actually fully compatible...

And if you install it yourself, then, well, you're going to maybe have troubles if you've never installed an OS before (though Ubuntus installer seems solid and easy. Never installed any OS before that). Once You've done that, you realise you still have more to do to get it all set up. Now, personally, I don't have a problem with that, but I can guess that to many it wouldn't seem worth the trouble.

Someone on these forums has a sig with a link titled "Linux is not Windows"... I think it's a pretty good explanation of this sort of thing.

tomski
November 14th, 2005, 11:23 PM
i agree frenetix.

also many people use windows at work too unless its an in-house built single tasker, i worked at a certain pharma company and all machines were win/xp/98/3.1 and even CE on the actual plastic thermo formers when i think back linux would have fitted in ok if avaliable or known of.
but most have a work standard and ethick to follow and most of the documentation for training only contained refferences to windows, so that will be a hard thing for any *nix distro to compete with.

so i also think that windows by its current nature/trend is a *nix set back!

tomski
November 14th, 2005, 11:48 PM
The idea that you should have to know C to use a computer is ridiculous.
i know but back then what was you going to do with a box running unix no prebuilt packages but software you built or maybe you configured someone else's source to compile on your box also no gui all CLI

i wonder how many punch cards you would need for ubuntu??

Malphas
November 15th, 2005, 12:20 AM
i know but back then what was you going to do with a box running unix no prebuilt packages but software you built or maybe you configured someone else's source to compile on your box also no gui all CLI

i wonder how many punch cards you would need for ubuntu??
Yes I understand that, what I'm saying is that your assertion that somehow this was a good thing and that you'd prefer if people still required a similar level of knowledge just to operate a PC is absurd and archaic.


Someone on these forums has a sig with a link titled "Linux is not Windows"... I think it's a pretty good explanation of this sort of thing.
I hate that article.

tomski
November 15th, 2005, 10:45 AM
that is right & i wish i had more knowledge, if you don't then thats your choice but i'd like to know whats going on under the hood and understand whats happening & how that lot got there, but thats just me im a geek..you may not be.
when the first computer you get is a zx81 and the first computer game i played was one that i sat there for 2 weeks typing in (yeah it was only BASIC) but i was 11 and after those years i tend to appreciate the computer a bit more than going through menus till you find the prog and to be honest i learnt more then than with windows because i need an IDE to write progs (decent ones) and they cost a packet but with linux its free

also i was saying that because of the way windows works by using it all you learn is where tools are within a gui and its all tied together.
with linux its kept separate but works to the same result ie if xorg crashes the pc is still working you can ssh in and fix it ..try and do that the next time explorer falls over you cant the entire pc is locked up!!

Lifesteeler
November 15th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Misconceptions that linux is too complicated for the average casual computer user.

Conversely, Linux's deep transparency and tweakability is what drives me to learn and use it.

couldn't agree more.

ferentix
November 15th, 2005, 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferentix
Someone on these forums has a sig with a link titled "Linux is not Windows"... I think it's a pretty good explanation of this sort of thing.

I hate that article.


I'll admit I didn't read it all through (too HUGE), and I didn't agree with everything the author said (especially about how non technical users, or users who don't really want Linux are "not wanted by Linux") But, I feel the core point- that Linux OS's are fundementally different to Windows was perfectly sound.

And the widespread Windows use in workplaces, again- a quote from my IT/computing teacher, when questioned about the possibility of using non-MS products on the network (I dunno exactly what they were. I think a few people wanted Firefox or something):

"Microsoft is the standard. You just have to accept that"

and on talking about the security of Linux systems vs. that of Windows:

"The reason that you never get a virus on these (Linux) systems is because so few people use them"

:? Kinda backs up the argument for closed mindedness and ignorance. An answer based on logic- like it would be a waste of time to switch browsers on the system when IE is working just fine- I could understand, but that's just... dumb. Not to take a knock at my IT teacher- in most ways they generally know what they're doing... as long as they're sitting at a Windows box with Office and other familiar progs...

Pablo_Escobar
November 15th, 2005, 03:41 PM
My 0,02 $

I believe that most people are scared of Linux and they don't know how it evolved. Some of my friends when I say that I have only Ubuntu installed think I'm a computer genius. They don't know how easy it is to setup, and how many good alternatives there are for M$ products.

So IMHO the main setback for Linux desktop - global spreading is lack of information. I try to change that, telling my friends it's not that hard to install and operate it. :)

Master Shake
November 15th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Humans are creatures of habit. That's the problem. The only way to solve this, is to introduce Linux to youngsters.

Pablo_Escobar
November 15th, 2005, 03:57 PM
Humans are creatures of habit. That's the problem. The only way to solve this, is to introduce Linux to youngsters.

Youngers = games. And in the current of Linux Gaming state youngsters won't be so eager to leave games behind :(

Master Shake
November 15th, 2005, 04:00 PM
Def. a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation.

However, we can go younger. There are some great education programs on Ubuntu, and my daughters are in love with Tux Racer.

Stormy Eyes
November 15th, 2005, 04:18 PM
Youngers = games. And in the current of Linux Gaming state youngsters won't be so eager to leave games behind :(

Switch, let the brats cry and whine for a couple of weeks, and then let them poke around. What's the big deal?

Master Shake
November 15th, 2005, 04:21 PM
"Oooh. Here's a great game! It's called 'OpenOffice Spellcheck!'"


:lol:

MemoryDump
November 15th, 2005, 04:26 PM
my vote was for "3rd party support (drivers for printers, sound cards etc)"
if all these manufactors would release linux compatible drivers upon release of their Windoze drivers Linux would start picking up steam and a faster rate.

another holdback is software! I'm talking closed-software! Yes the software you would have to buy. Why isn't there a photoshop for Linux? (yes I know there's gimp.. however GIMP ISN'T Photoshop and never will) The same goes for other software & especially games. Thes DEV people have to stop relying a M$ technology so they can release their games/software on ANY platform. idSoftware is on that right track for games at least! ;)

I would gladly PAY for software/games which were designed to work under Linux right out of the box. Right now I'm still stuck with my windoze partition since there are too many apps that simply don't work properly under linux period. Wine can do some good but it's simply NOT good enough.

there's my rant for today! Peace! :p

-MD

Stormy Eyes
November 15th, 2005, 04:32 PM
"Oooh. Here's a great game! It's called 'OpenOffice Spellcheck!'"

I prefer kill -9, myself. Frankly, I have no sympathy whatsoever for PC gamers. Let them buy consoles.

blueturtl
November 15th, 2005, 06:18 PM
It's got to be Microsoft. Half the time the systems that I setup "differently" to be more secure (aka replacing the MS apps with alternatives) someone soon comes complaining to me:

"Why can't I open this document my friend wrote with a out-of-the-oven-Word?"
or
"Why can't Opera/Mozilla/Firefox view this [crappy] page that works on my friend's computer?"
or
"Why can't I open this [enter propriatory codec] video on my computer when my friends can?"

Somehow I think the majority of computer users associate Linux with the can't do because of many things that really isn't Linux's fault! If the closed ever changing document formats and codec patents were lifted we'd have a revolution. Let's see how far Windows gets without 3rd party support (which is what I voted for) and then do a functionality comparison!

I feel a stone in my throat every time I try to explain that the lack of functioning is really Microsoft's / evil media vendor's fault and not Linux's since they do their best to cripple functionality. Linux is the one system that really is on the consumer's side and once more people realize what's going on the more there is going to be more inflow.

As for patenting video formats, DRM and stuff.. that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever.. EVER encountered. Why would I buy a DVD if I'm not allowed to view it on my computer? What good does it do to have video (streaming or not) on the web, if it's illegal to download and store it for later viewing? Why does everyone treat me like a damn criminal for wanting to do things with my PC that any normal people would like to do?!

stoker
November 15th, 2005, 08:25 PM
one of the biggest issues for me right now with Linux is laptop support. Most laptops have special keyboard functions that you don't find elsewhere, they really rely on the ability to suspend and manage battery power efficiently, and they may contain WinModems and other funky wireless cards that require Windows to function properly. Linux is, unfortunately, just not where it needs to be to compete with Microsoft in this arena ... yet. It'll be a great day when I can install Linux onto my lappy and have everything function properly, whether or not it involves a bit of tweaking.

Otherwise, the main thing that keeps me from moving over to Linux full blast is that there are still apps I use in Windows for which there aren't decent Linux counterparts. Yeah, I could use the wine crutch, and I understand it's improved quite a bit since I last used it about a year ago, so maybe I should give it a whirl, but honestly I don't like the idea of installing Windows apps on a Linux box. It just feels ... dirty.

condensed top issues:
- laptop support
- third party hardware support
- some apps exist in Windows for which there aren't suitable Linux counterparts, making a complete transition difficult

that's about it.

stoker

blastus
November 15th, 2005, 08:58 PM
I'd have to say all of the above but, Microsoft is a huge impediment to the adoption of Linux. Microsoft is not the only vendor against Linux, but they are the most prominent one because they are the ones who would lose the most if Linux was widely used on the desktop. The sheer economic power they enjoy from their Windows (and Office) monopoly, allows them to pressure/manipulate hardware manufacturers, software manufacturers, and even governments beyond what normal pressures the market would place on them. They know that to keep Linux off the desktop they must keep Windows on the desktop. They stand out because they are the only company that is publicly and politically against Linux with some 60 billion in cash reserves to do something about it.

kcy29581
November 18th, 2005, 03:02 AM
the simple things that work everywhere else without problems:

example: wpa_supplicant. A program with great aspirations, but for many ot never works. I'd say it falls victim to the other main problem: lack of PROPER UNDERSTANDABLE documentation!

oh well, I'll wait for dapper (wait.. I said that about breezy...)

freqhack
November 20th, 2005, 02:44 AM
I think the solution is simple: the average person is just scared of the command line...

Personally, i like that idea that i'm using an OS that's a little different that the rest :cool:

xequence
November 20th, 2005, 02:49 AM
I think the solution is simple: the average person is just scared of the command line...

Personally, i like that idea that i'm using an OS that's a little different that the rest :cool:

But the average person doesent know that linux exists ether :P

Vorian
November 20th, 2005, 02:50 AM
But the average person doesent know that linux exists ether :P

Yep

Clazzy
November 20th, 2005, 03:00 AM
You could probably pin Linux's small share of the desktop pie on all those reasons equally, but I think that Microsoft has a very big impact on it. You have to remember to most people, people only know of the Windows operating systems, and maybe DOS prompt (which they will either remember as complicated or have been told that). That puts people off a CLI, so hearing about Linux's greater focus on that scares them.
Most people see Microsoft's stuff as 'the standard' now, and don't use anything else. Since MS is dominant, most companies have to work to make their programs on it or face losing a great deal of money since so few people will otherwise buy their program. In some respects, the actual Linux/open-source ideals as a whole could scare off developers. Why should they delve into a market for a different operating system when there are lots of open-source solutions out for it already, the majority of which are free? I'm not saying that the whole OSS ideal should be stopped but companies could quite possibly see it as a threat to creating their software for Linux.

poofyhairguy
November 20th, 2005, 06:43 AM
But the average person doesent know that linux exists ether :P

I know a guy that makes a pretty good living selling web based database applications and he did not know what Firefox was when I used it on his wifes computer.

I told him it was "the new netscape."

fuscia
November 20th, 2005, 03:46 PM
I think the solution is simple: the average person is just scared of the command line...

i disagree. the average person doesn't want to mess with it. they think it's a pain in the ass and they want an easier, faster way to do things. they've got other things they'd rather do. linux will not dominate until it is at least nearly as easy to use as windows.

sapo
November 20th, 2005, 04:03 PM
I voted for other, so now i m going to explain.

The thing that i like least about linux, is that we have millions of distros, millions of apps.. but they all want to the way they think its better.. and then we got a lot of apps.. but none works on my distro.. or we have a hardware that just have a driver for a distro that we dont use, and it doesnt work on our distro...

I think if ALL the developers sit down for a while.. and make a standard wich ALL the distros should follow i think that linux would become way better.

Think about it.. isnt it easier for a hardware manufacturer to make only a SINGLE DRIVER PACKAGE, that will work in ALL DISTROS, then to make hundreds of different packages, one for each distro.. or maybe.. try to make something to work on all...

For me this is the worst thing about linux.

Ok ok, now you can scream and say:

stfu sapo, we love linux because we have the freedom to pick what distro we like, and play with all those different distros.

Freedom is good, i know, but if you want to be better you must give up a little of your freedom to make something better...

oh wait.. it looks like ubuntu "humanity towards others".

Just think about it guys.. why do i choose ubuntu and not other distro?

For a simple thing.. i dont like those distros that come with a thousand of apps that i will never use.. but they will keep eating my hard drive space, i loved ubuntu at first sight, cause it has exactly what i need, and if a dont need something i can just uninstall it, if i need something more.. i can just install.. its simple.

If ubuntu was a 10cd distro with zillions of apps, i would have never tried to use it :D

tazwegion
November 20th, 2005, 04:13 PM
i disagree. the average person doesn't want to mess with it. they think it's a pain in the ass and they want an easier, faster way to do things. they've got other things they'd rather do. linux will not dominate until it is at least nearly as easy to use as windows.

It's a factor of human nature... we often choose the path of least resistence (despite what sensei says! :razz: )

As for the original 'posed' question -> In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread?...

While Ubuntu 5.04 was my first major step into the realm of X (coyote Linux firewall doesn't count does it?) being able to acquire it in a purely install-able package (DVD), combined with it's easy installer console made the whole switch 'more attractive', IMHO the lack of support from Gaming Empires & seemingly all too often inflexible nature of WINE deter many would be converts (on a regular basis) for this reason alone :(

Teroedni
November 20th, 2005, 04:45 PM
I would say games and the fact that most pces comes preinstalled with Windows

kpm
November 21st, 2005, 02:19 AM
Well, I am one of the folks who used Linux 5 or 6 years ago at university, then I was off working, non-computer related... but ended up in working in the IT field and then decided to go get more training... attending a really really crappy rip off IT course at an up till that point in time a well respected college... it was all Windows based in that crappy program (I am getting over it...) which has since been squashed and anyone that had anything to do with it sent packing... what can I say, I was a sucker... any way, my point... I have since been working with Windows only and didn't really mind after I nearly lost my mind on occasion trying to do things like get drivers for Linux 'supported' modems and the like... and I would have said that is why Linux won't get wide spread adoption... that was until I recently installed Ubuntu... what a difference a few years makes! I luv it. But now, my argument is for the copyright issues as an impediment... for instance, every thing I need works out of the can, word processing, spreadsheet, database, graphics manipulation, etc... BUT what I don't need BUT want, doesn't... That is, I have hundreds of MP3 files, I wish they were OGG, but they are not, so I have to go research and install plugins... not to much of a pain for me, but it sure would be for someone who can only boot point and click.... granted that is all it takes to get the stuff working, BUT you don't have to do that in Windows or with a Mac... you browse and everything works. I installed the plugin that makes it so I can play MP3s, gstreamer, but then when I went to a web site that uses embedded Quicktime 7 files, Firefox craps out and when I researched what I had to do to make it so I can watch vids, I find out I have to uninstall gstreamer and install a different plugin... THIS is the kind of thing that puts a sour taste in users mouths, and if it wasn't for the propritary issues I am sure after I installed Ubuntu, out of the can, I would be able to browse to sites with rich and varied media, and all would work... but alas, I need to research, install, uninstal... etc... if there was one unified document that instructed us on what we need to do to make the webs rich content work after installing Ubuntu, that would be very helpful. Currently, from what I can see, it is a bit peicemeal... MP3 - do this, video codec - undue this and do that.... or that is my breif experince so far... I do however think that Ubuntu is exactly the kind of distribution that can win folks over... it really does work well and presents well with minimal configuring.

... an edit... I needed to keep looking for my multimedia fix, rather than post here... I found my solution a little after my rant... ;)

bvc
November 21st, 2005, 03:11 AM
Other:
There has not been a big merger of the 4 biggest and best distros, to put all their resources into one pot, trim down the fat, and finally produce a product worthy. This would solve many of the things mentioned in this thread (though this may have been mentioned and I didn't read all post). Why it hasn't happened yet, is beyond me.

aysiu
November 21st, 2005, 03:15 AM
Other:
There has not been a big merger of the 4 biggest and best distros, to put all their resources into one pot, trim down the fat, and finally produce a product worthy. This would solve many of the things mentioned in this thread (though this may have been mentioned and I didn't read all post). Why it hasn't happened yet, is beyond me. Read this: http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux.php

fuscia
November 21st, 2005, 03:24 AM
Read this: http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux.php

"If Linux were to gain a substantial amount of the desktop market, hardware vendors would be more likely to make Linux drivers or release driver code to Linux developers, and commercial software and gaming companies would be more likely to port their wares to Linux."

i was just wondering why anyone cares if linux gets a larger amount of users. the above is a pretty good reason.

Parkaboy
November 21st, 2005, 03:37 AM
Well, most people I know do not even know that Linux exists or does not know much about it. So how would they preffer that over Windows if they do not know about it?. Another thing is that most computer come with Windows installed so the regular user who do not know (and do not have to know) what a partition is for example or how the computer works at all do not want to take the job of installing another operating system instead of what they allready have in their computer if they are not absolutly sure that this other thing would be completly superior to Windows.
To sumarize I think it is publicity

matthew
November 21st, 2005, 03:49 AM
Lack of a Twisted Sister video featuring Mark Shuttleworth as an angry, bitter schoolteacher? Other than that, I have no ideas. Man, you took my answer!!

On a serious note, I think the main reason is fear of the unknown. People tend to stick with what they already know. It's FUD, plain and simple. Sometimes produced by others, sometimes it's just from within. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are inherent to humans.

Speaking of Twisted Sister:

What You Don't Know (Sure Can Hurt You)
(chorus)
WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW SURE CAN HURT YOU
WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE MAKES YOU SCREAM
WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW SURE CAN HURT YOU
WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE IS WHAT YOU DREAM

(Please, no flames...I just cut & pasted, I didn't type it in all caps. You have to admit, they were usually shouting, though.)

erikpiper
November 21st, 2005, 04:47 AM
People who can't think for themselves.

No handholding in linux.
(KEEP IT AWAY!!!!! ONE OF THE REASONS I CAME TO LINUX!!!!
(Shouting over :) )

chajuram
November 21st, 2005, 05:33 AM
I voted other, here's why:

I think the biggest hinderence to mass usage of linux is ease of use. Most people just want a ready system on which they can do regular day to day work like, checking mail, text editting, some multimedia. Mots peoples idea of fun isn't browsing through pages of ubuntuforums to figure out why some website does not play the music it should.

I think the two most important points are

1. Easy to install, I know that Ubuntu has come a long way and is now quite easy to install, but there is the fear of leaving familiar teritory and the fear that they will lose everything they have. Also the big brothers tactics of not even allowing computer sellers to sell computers with existing partitions. So that for a person with limited computer knowledge, just partitiong that harddisk is a big step.

2. Compatibility. If a persons friend uses MSN then it will be dificult for him/her to do the same under linux since it is not so well supported here.

Chajuram.

bvc
November 21st, 2005, 07:30 AM
Other:
There has not been a big merger of the 4 biggest and best distros, to put all their resources into one pot, trim down the fat, and finally produce a product worthy. This would solve many of the things mentioned in this thread (though this may have been mentioned and I didn't read all post). Why it hasn't happened yet, is beyond me.Read this: http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux.php
First: I didn't say Unified, I said Merge....big diff!
Second: Even applied to a merger the writer hasn't a clue what they're saying, having very poor arguements against it. Actually, I didn't see any arguements, only personal opinions based on misconceptions.

If I find the time this week, I'll break that article down piece by piece.

poofyhairguy
November 21st, 2005, 07:52 AM
Other:
There has not been a big merger of the 4 biggest and best distros, to put all their resources into one pot, trim down the fat, and finally produce a product worthy.

Well, all of the distros do share most of their resouces. Since all the software is GNU most of the resources combine. There is a lot of "not invented here" and that is sad sometimes, but even in a unified company resources are often wasted.

I mean....Linux is a kernel. The kernel comes from one source. And EVERYONE who contributes to the kernel goes through that one source.


Why it hasn't happened yet, is beyond me.

Ok, I'll stop acting dumb. You are asking why there is not one Desktop Linux distro that goes head to head with OSX and Windows. The reason is lots of the big distro makers have different goals.

Redhat wants to win the server market. They showed long ago that they don't think the desktop is as viable. I mean....at one point, Red Hat WAS the Linux desktop for most. Like never will happen again. And they ended up thinking it was a dead end pretty much. But they do well with servers, so why not?

Novell wants to cut off MS's cash cow by competing only on the corporate desktop and to create a new platform for their old cash cows.

Ubuntu is Mark wanting a top flight distro based on Debian but with hm calling the shots.

Linspire is to compete with MS directly in the home desktop market by undercutting their prices (they can afford this because of C&RR).

Knoppix is a Live CD project.

I honestly don't get Mandrake enough to comment on what its trying to do.

Debian is trying to keep all the others honest by making sure at least one holds up the original GNU ideals.

Gentoo is what happened when some hardcore Slackware people played with a real package manage (probably Debain) and could not go back but missed all the compiling.

In each distro you see a decision- you see at its core some thing that makes it not work with the vision of the other distros. You could say "why not be all?" But shooting for the server is a way different task than shooting for the corporate desktop if you think about it. Different needs. Or more importantly, shooting for the regular home user (who wants all the codecs -Linspire) is way different than staying an totally open source OS (Debian). Some directly conflict.

You can say "why can't the major corporate ones get together and make a unified Desktop Linux?" Because who runs the group? The whole point would be to have one run the group. Does Novell run it, as its the biggest company? It can't buy them all so that won't happen, and in any other arrangement Redhat would be stupid to agree to that demand. Do any have what it takes to run it? No. Maybe if a really big company walks in and buys them all then it could be unified.

Plus, then all it would take is one hot shot like Mark to come along and take the big new huge corporate Linux's code and add a few million in spices and marketing they have never known and the whole things divided all over again.

arnieboy
November 21st, 2005, 07:57 AM
but Dell and HP are still making the choice not to sell Linux..
HP is actually selling computers preinstalled with mandriva these days..

aysiu
November 21st, 2005, 08:00 AM
HP is actually selling computers preinstalled with mandriva these days.. Not according to this (http://search.hp.com/query.html?lang=en&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&qt=mandriva&la=en&cc=us).

arnieboy
November 21st, 2005, 08:04 AM
Not according to this (http://search.hp.com/query.html?lang=en&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&qt=mandriva&la=en&cc=us).
its currently only available in france:
http://store.mandriva.com/product_info.php?cPath=106&products_id=262&osCsid=61fbddb9d388b41dedf17875e102910c

aysiu
November 21st, 2005, 08:06 AM
its currently only available in france:
http://store.mandriva.com/product_info.php?cPath=106&products_id=262&osCsid=61fbddb9d388b41dedf17875e102910c Yes, but the major setback that's preventing Linux from being widespread is those products not being widely available to the masses. Who's going to go to the Mandriva store to buy an HP computer except someone already familiar with Linux? Most people will go to HP's website to get an HP computer.

arnieboy
November 21st, 2005, 08:09 AM
Yes, but the major setback that's preventing Linux from being widespread is those products not being widely available to the masses. Who's going to go to the Mandriva store to buy an HP computer except someone already familiar with Linux? Most people will go to HP's website to get an HP computer.
point taken.. but its all after all a vicious cycle.. HP does not mind selling a laptop with ubuntu preinstalled if it supported the webcam that its bundling with it for free.
HP is the first hardware MNC after IBM which has gone all out to help linux... look at the HP printer driver set being bundled with ubuntu these days..
The real issue is with smaller hardware manufacturers who just cant see beyond windows.. every penny of investment towards linux seems like a loser deal to them.

aysiu
November 21st, 2005, 08:12 AM
Point taken.
I don't begrudge HP.
I'm thinking of the effect more than the cause. The effect is that everyday consumers don't seem to have a choice (even though they actually do).

arnieboy
November 21st, 2005, 08:28 AM
Point taken.
I don't begrudge HP.
I'm thinking of the effect more than the cause. The effect is that everyday consumers don't seem to have a choice (even though they actually do).
the reason behind all this is a chink in the open source business model.
It has by no means tried to provide any incentive to smalltime hardware manufacturers to make their stuff linux compatible (as opposed to microsoft). as a result, lots of small and yet nifty hardware remain unsupported/barely supported on linux. As a fallout of that, normal end users who really dont mind trying out a new OS stay away from linux.. and as a result, linux's desktop marketshare keeps increasing at a measly rate (its still less than 5%)... as a consequence of which small hardware manufacturers (for whom every penny counts) feel its a waste of time and money porting their stuff to linux... and the vicious cycle goes on and on..
talking of effect and cause.. in this case.. every cause is an effect in itself.

Big hardware manufacturers are aware of the negative consequences of prepackaging their computers with a linux OS which freaks out on most of these "other" hardware.

Paloseco
November 21st, 2005, 11:56 AM
The need of internet to install more programs.

poofyhairguy
November 21st, 2005, 12:52 PM
The need of internet to install more programs.

Good point.

ygarl
November 21st, 2005, 01:33 PM
I think it is the fact that so few manufacturers have it installed from purchase, like Windows usually is.
If PCs just arrived with Ubuntu/Mandriva/FC4 installed we wouldn't HAVE this discussion because it would be everywhere.

Orunitia
November 21st, 2005, 02:16 PM
From my experience, it's the fact that everyone still thinks Linux is extremely hard to use.


My family thinks that, and it's kind of my fault. 3 or 4 years ago I installed Mandrake on my computer, and completely failed at keeping XP as a dual boot. I had no idea how to get it back, as my restore disk (yeah...) wouldn't reinstall over my linux partition. So now my family thinks that if I have trouble with it, how the hell are they going to use it.

jsmidt
November 21st, 2005, 08:38 PM
I don't think huge scores of people will convert to Ubuntu unless they can bring the programs they have grown to love with them. The only reason I have successfully switched is all summer I had linux people helping me transition, a help not all people have. But if they could bring programs like Word, that to be honest most Windows users are skeptical linux can replace, with them to Ubuntu they will then begin to transition from one OS to the other. That is when they will make the switch. I don't know if wine will need to be used but I percieve this needing to be done if you want people to flock to Ubuntu. :smile:

teaker1s
November 21st, 2005, 08:44 PM
word= open office and While I see what your saying I personally think as linux is at the moment many average joe's won't like the hands on approach and occassional konsole sessions. to really get ahead would be to get schools and colleges to teach on the system.

my view may sound hard on linux but I only now have ubuntu on my pc and xp is history:KS

uberlinux
November 21st, 2005, 08:44 PM
I've been telling people the same thing for ages. Wine hasent gotten visibly better, and all the purists cry foul when this is mentioned.

Stormy Eyes
November 21st, 2005, 08:54 PM
Oh, dear, not this again. I've been using Linux since 1999 and I still don't understand why it is necessary to compete with Windows or even consider Windows. Let those who want Linux have it, and leave the rest alone, I say. What's wrong with finding a niche and exploiting it? It's worked for Apple, hasn't it?

blastus
November 21st, 2005, 08:59 PM
This is the "applications barrier to entry" concept that the U.S. DOJ argued against Microsoft. It's not the only barrier, but it is certainly a significant one that keeps Microsoft Windows on the desktop for the vast majority of businesses and home users.

BTW: OpenOffice.org is an alternative to Microsoft Office. Check it out (http://www.openoffice.org/). It's free. :)

matthew
November 21st, 2005, 09:01 PM
I'll never fully switch to Windows until it lets me run Synaptic to get my program updates and install new software. I can't understand why anyone would go through all the hassle of downloading everything from individual web sites and try to install it all individually.

<that was tongue in cheek...well, mostly>

The fact is Windows and Linux are different and serve different populations. Stormy_Eyes is right. Who cares if Linux competes with Windows? Let those who are interested find something that does what they want and be happy with it and let everyone else do the same thing.

jsmidt
November 21st, 2005, 09:01 PM
I want to clear something up. I don't view it as a compitition. But I do feel that linux has so much more to offer in the end, that it should be made with the intent to help those in Windows transition so that they have a chance to try it out, without needing too much help.

matthew
November 21st, 2005, 09:04 PM
I want to clear something up. I don't view it as a compitition. But I do feel that linux has so much more to offer in the end, that it should be made with the intent to help those in Windows transition so that they have a chance to try it out, without needing too much help.Not gonna happen. The two are different enough that the average person will always need help...just like when a person switches from Windows to Mac or Mac to Linux. I say let them be different and help those who want to switch to understand how to do what they want to do.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Stormy Eyes
November 21st, 2005, 09:06 PM
I want to clear something up. I don't view it as a compitition.

Then why start a thread entitled, "How to compete with Windows"? It's not nice to confuse cuddly little blue-eyed programmer cats. *meow*


But I do feel that linux has so much more to offer in the end, that it should be made with the intent to help those in Windows transition so that they have a chance to try it out, without needing too much help.

I won't speak for Linus, for the kernel hackers, for the GNOME hackers, or for anybody but myself, but I disagree with you. If I am coding in my spare time, I am going to focus on writing good software. If I have to ignore those in Windows transition in order to do so, then I will do so. Unless I am being paid, I code first and foremost for myself.

FOSS developers should not focus primarily on ex-Windows users. They should be focusing on coding rock-solid software.

poofyhairguy
November 21st, 2005, 09:07 PM
Wine hasent gotten visibly better.

And it seems it will never get to point where it provides the sort of compatibility that is needed to be "Windows compatible."

The OSS community does not have the resources to build MS's billion dollar OS from the ground up without the intructions. What we have so far is AMAZING when you think about it.

aysiu
November 21st, 2005, 09:13 PM
I hardly think we need two of these threads going on at once. I've merged them.

Kuolio
November 21st, 2005, 09:37 PM
Why do we need to compete? Aren't we good enough already, mostly even way better than any competitor out there? Cant we just be, and let linux grow to whatever direction it is going? Damn the competition.. I just love linux as it is, bit geeky (like a secret society amongst geeks) yet very powerfull and customisable OS that can do all the tasks I want it to do. No need to compete with anyone, as there actualy is no competition (for me that is) about what OS is ruling on my desktop, servers and contentproducing environment. Linux and opensource is my choise now, as they are superior choise for my computing needs beating everyother OS hands-down, 6-0.

No other OS can offer the same variety of free programs, stability, opennes, ease-of-use, safety and general high standards of quality, as Linux does. Well, *BSD's kinda come close but the config-hell drops them out a bit, and they dont have such a great support and wide community as linux nowadays has.

And when it comes to windows... people, please. Why to even bother to compare Linux to Windows? Ok sure, windows is the standard gaming platform.. but in every other aspect I can think of linux is already way ahead. Ease-of-Use? Sure, my mom finds it impossible to keep track with windows updates, antivirusupdates, firewallstuff, adaware-removing tools etc. But with linux she doesn't have any problems at all.. I showed her how to use "Add Programs", "Synaptic" and "apt-get" in Ubuntu and she wrote the basic commands down, and no need for my expertiece since. Yey.

Office? Well, neither my mom, my wife or me don't in no way what so ever miss ms-office. OOo is atleast on the same level, plus the pricetag on it helpes alot when the competition is in all other ways a close call. OOo wins in this family.

And with image editing and manipulation, we have Gimp and it's GUI tweak "gimpshop". Um, I might be just a noob but I havent actualy found any such features that PhotoShop has and Gimp doesn't. Im sure such features exist, because everybody is always saying so.. but then again, I am not a professional photoeditor. I just do it for fun to our holiday-pictures and for some small office image editing... as I imagine most people do.

Then, multimedia. Well, with windows it's insanely hard to get all codecs you need to play all the media files. I have always needed to hunt down various "codec-packs" from (usualy) shady websites or p2p-networks. Or then I could visit some n^2 sites (where n is the amount of codecs needed) to dl my codecs one by one. With linux I just ad a repository or travel to mplayerhq.com and dl w32codecs, and copy-paste the other needed codecs and packagenames from wiki/guide to terminal (could use Synaptic also) and voila, I'm done with something like looking into 2 websites, one dl and one "copy-paste-enter-answer:yes". Linux beats windows on this aspect also.

Another thing is to choose your media player.. and, with linux even this is easyer. Just click open "add programs" and start cheking the boxes and trying out wich program suits you best. With windows I have to surf the web to find a good player, then propably either dl and install it or read some reviews about it and then decide.. and then there is always like different versions for different windows versions, which coused some trouble to my mom when ever she tried to install anything (my mom is not very good with english..).

And that what I said there above is also true on almost any other programinstallation.. so Linux is way ahead of windows in installing new programs to your system. And I dont even bother to say.. or what the hell; uninstalling programs is also much easier in linux. "sudo apt-get remove <program>" in terminal or you can use Synaptic or "add programs". What ever suits your needs, but the bottom line is: uninstalling programs happens logically with the _same_ tool you used to install the app.. no more hunting for mysterious "uninstall-<program>.exe" files, and no more broken "add/remove programs" dialogs. Simple.

Safety. Well what can I say.. only safety issue that Linux has is the user, atleast here on the desktop. On servers I know that you must be more aware of your system and update it frequently to keep the creepy-crawly-evildoers out, but with home/desktop use just let the automatic updates roll in when they want and you are safe. The paranoid ones can activate firewall, but even that is not so essential as it is on windows where there is propably million worms out-there just looking randomly for an unprotected machine.

Installation. Well, last time I installed windows XP the installation jammed four times in different parts of the installation, and the GUI of the installer was butt-ugly and the installation tools were.. well, uninformative at best. Ubuntu installer looked professional, it was very well explained and kept me informed when installing about what my options are. Also, installation did go through succesfully on the 1st try and it was quite speedy.

Even installing drivers has been a breeze, as easy as it was in windows but only with one expection: With Ubuntu-linux I only needed to download my graphics driver and wifi. Nothing else. With windows I needed drivers for graphics (actualy 2 drivers... directX plus RadeonDrivers), display, sound, wifi, motherboard, processor (AMD Turion) etc. So, Linux wins in this aspect also.

And there is million other reasons, million other details, that linux does way better. I just dont have the energy to write them all down. But there is some of my thoughts and experiences there. And my mom just called to say "Hi" with her new ubuntu64 machine using Skype which she had installed using very simple guide that I emailed her. So, I'll end my rant here. Byes.

aysiu
November 21st, 2005, 09:48 PM
Just to clarify a bit--when people say "compete with Windows," they're not always talking about in terms of quality of product. The competition is often in terms of numbers of users or numbers of contracts.

Not everyone in the Linux community has this goal, but many do (including many companies--Novell and Linspire come to mind). Kevin Carmony isn't going to say, "Yeah, let's not compete with Windows. Let's just be."

Mark Shuttleworth himself considers Windows dominance of the preinstalled desktop market "the #1 bug."

Stormy Eyes
November 21st, 2005, 09:50 PM
Fair enough, but neither Kevin Carmony nor Mark Shuttleworth speak for me. I think it's all rather silly.

aysiu
November 21st, 2005, 09:53 PM
Fair enough, but neither Kevin Carmony nor Mark Shuttleworth speak for me. I think it's all rather silly. And you're entitled to that, Stormy Eyes. I just want to make sure people are aware of the diversity in the Linux community. There are many, like yourself, who couldn't care less if Linux "competes" with Windows. There are also many, like Carmony and Shuttleworth, who think it's quite a big deal.

Neither group should be discounted.

sethmahoney
November 21st, 2005, 10:11 PM
Ease of use, GUI config tools, lack of eye candy, all the necessary tweaking, and, of course, lack of driver support.

poptones
November 21st, 2005, 10:39 PM
Just to clarify a bit--when people say "compete with Windows," they're not always talking about in terms of quality of product. The competition is often in terms of numbers of users or numbers of contracts.

You left out the biggie: mindset. Millions of users means nothing to linux if they are all of the windows "I need to find a shareware app to scratch my butt" mindset.

bvc
November 22nd, 2005, 07:51 AM
Just to clarify a bit--when people say "compete with Windows," they're not always talking about in terms of quality of product. The competition is often in terms of numbers of users or numbers of contracts.

You left out the biggie: mindset. Millions of users means nothing to linux if they are all of the windows "I need to find a shareware app to scratch my butt" mindset.
Since when do business owners care about the mindset of the millions of people paying for their product? Their money spends the same ;)

BLTicklemonster
November 23rd, 2005, 03:46 AM
I voted other, by which I mean there's still too much reliance on the command line. Trust me, the average person can't spell much less type.

aysiu
November 23rd, 2005, 03:50 AM
I voted other, by which I mean there's still too much reliance on the command line. Depends on the distro--Linspire and Mepis do not rely on the command-line.
Trust me, the average person can't spell much less type. That's why they have copy and paste.

Stormy Eyes
November 23rd, 2005, 04:14 AM
Trust me, the average person can't spell much less type.

I blame the public schools for that.

dcast
November 23rd, 2005, 04:19 AM
publicity would solve all of linux's problems, if people knew about linux some would use it them with demand would come 3rd party support.

BLTicklemonster
November 23rd, 2005, 04:43 AM
pwned by aysiu and stormy.

but they still use computers...

poptones
November 23rd, 2005, 05:01 AM
Since when do business owners care about the mindset of the millions of people paying for their product?

Since when is linux a product?

Dragineez
November 23rd, 2005, 05:20 AM
:confused: I thought it was pretty well widespread. I commute to work on a train, and I see as many Linux laptops as Windows ones on the way to work. There are 3 LUGs and 2 Linux training centers within 15 miles of my house. Looks pretty widespread from where I'm sitting.

Malphas
November 23rd, 2005, 05:22 AM
Since when do business owners care about the mindset of the millions of people paying for their product?

Since when is linux a product?
Around '94/'95 would be my guess.

aysiu
November 23rd, 2005, 05:26 AM
:confused: I thought it was pretty well widespread. I commute to work on a train, and I see as many Linux laptops as Windows ones on the way to work. There are 3 LUGs and 2 Linux training centers within 15 miles of my house. Looks pretty widespread from where I'm sitting. Wow! Where do you live?

super
November 23rd, 2005, 06:19 AM
i think the biggest setback for linux is third-party support.
in particular i am thinking of 1) video cards, 2) wireless adapters and 3) ink-jet printers.

----------------------------------

1) it is absolutely frustrating for a new user to install linux on their 3Ghz computer and see jerky or choppy video when dragging application on the screen because acceleration is unavailable for their video card. complete turn-off!

can you imagine how much faster progress would be on projects like XGL or luminocity if developers had access to video card driver sources? the OSX crowd would be drooling on their keyboards looking at our desktops! :p

2) progress is actually being made quite rapidly on this front with things like ndiswrapper. but third-party drivers for wireless cards could allow for things that are so simple in windows, like network scanning.

and even with ndiswrapper, it's still a pain to get these working. many network card chipsets simply don't work in linux

3) what can i say? unless it's an hp, those $50 inkjets from future shop just don't work! :(

unfortunately, people who buy their computers from dell, gateway, future shop, circuit city, etc... (most computer buyers) end up with a $50 inkjet printer.

----------------------------------

in my opinion, linux as an operating system is already a far superior product to windows. but the third party support is a huge problem, especially since there is really nothing linux developers can do about it.

linux just needs a fair shake! :D

ps. i can't believe i just wrote something semi-intelligent. i think it's my first time!!

BLTicklemonster
November 23rd, 2005, 06:20 AM
Around '94/'95 would be my guess.


Don't go there, he'll link you to something.

bvc
November 23rd, 2005, 07:59 AM
Since when do business owners care about the mindset of the millions of people paying for their product?

Since when is linux a product?Since it was boxed and sold....marketed (not to mention stock, shares..etc)......tech supported....advertized.....just tell me when to stop....

Just because it's open source doesn't mean it can't be a product. Open source can be it's greatest strength, or as it is now, it's greatest weakness.

Optimal Aurora
November 23rd, 2005, 08:24 AM
I say 3rd party support and copyright infringements. I like messing around deep within code but because 3rd party companies are scared to offer support for linux in certain areas and because Microsoft and other companies want to protect their precious code, people are scared to try linux because they feel that they can't handle it or that it would be like downloading illegal MP3s, they would be fined severally or go to jail for using it. I also said other because for like me, originally in 5.04 Ubuntu and Kubuntu and in Fedora 3 and 4 in its earlier test and post test versions I had some major problems, that stopped me from using Linux all together for a while. I then chose to try linux again recently after talking to a fellow network admin and like he said never give up on something like linux because if you can learn it and become adept at using it, you would be on the list of people for a company to try to recruit to work for them...

migo
November 23rd, 2005, 11:59 AM
I voted other, as far as I see it the biggest problem is that supply > demand.

Vlammetje
November 28th, 2005, 08:10 PM
Actually, the most frequent response I've been gettin since I made THE switch about 6 weeks ago..... is that people believe most software proggies will not be compatible.

After which I go into 'full persuasion' mode and try to convince them they couldn't be more wrong. That my system does everything and more when compared with their home windows systems (or occassional MAC).

I've voted 'publicity' because most people I've encountered have generally no clue what linux is and what it does.... LACK of adequate publicity is what I believe created this situation......

xbaez
November 28th, 2005, 10:37 PM
I am not able to HotSync my palm with linux, I tried jpilot, gpilot, kpilot.

No one is able to sync AvantGo good, they all make the program present an error when it loads. The program works, but you feel the impression that linux 'damages' AvantGo software program.

I am not able to sync my mails from my Palm to Thunderbird. I'm reading about a workaround, but honestly, in Windows the Palm just work better.

AddIt, AvantGo, and Mails all work correct
Under Linux, I'm able to sync everything except addint and my emails, and AvantGo produces this error.

I will try to sync AvantGo with Jpilot later today, hope it doesn't breaks anything

thegnark
November 28th, 2005, 11:08 PM
centralized management

not sure if that falls under ms or other... but anyway...

i'm currently on breezy authenticating through active directory on windows server 2003. i have been tasked with deploying a test box to a sales person to use in lieu of windows

at the moments i have a couple of gripes, some of which are workable, others are not:


multimedia codecs/activex/flash/java 1.5 plugins (these should be part of base install)
active directory authentication (this should be as easy as running a utility to install & enable winbind/pam and set the config options instead of manually doing it all)
sudo (i can't seem to get sudo to accept %domain\linuxadmins or %linuxadmins as a valid group. instead i have to `su admin` then `sudo apt-get upgrade`)
evolution exchange conector needs work
connecting to windows share prompts for password twice. first dialog you can enter somethign and have it continue bothering you, or hit cancel and have it go away. even pops up when saving password to keyring. the SECOND dialog box is the important onethat's all i can think of off the top of my head. i have 2 desktops at work (xp and breezy, using synaptic between the two). a dual-boot windows xp/breezy box at home (dual monitor, need windows purely for WoW until i try to patch wine source tonight). and a laptop running breezy exclusively.

there are many things linux does better than windows (wvdial) and several things it fails at miserably (windows environment communication namely). it's ALMOST there. that's good enough for geeks, but not for the populace in general.

N8MAN1068
November 28th, 2005, 11:20 PM
Mostly the fact that the command line is required for 65% of everything you can normally do with a GUI in Windows.

Agreed. While it's nice to control who installs what in a business environment, at home it's rather annoying.

Speaking of installing, thats my main beef. There's a general lack of software out there with support. Even though it's getting better, linux as a whole is still viewed as a 'college-kid project'. Someone writes a quick app, and then that's it. no updates. no support. barely any help unless you pay for RH/Suse.

It's much easier to run into your local EB Games or whatever, and grab a game for Windows XP than it is for Ubuntu/Debian/RH/FC4/Suse/Mandriva etc. running gnome/kde/xfce/fluxbox on a i386/i686/k7 etc kernel.

I also believe that for linux to gain ground in the corporate world, it HAS to interface seemlessly w/ Windows Server systems. It needs to integrate w/ MS ldap+active directory. I hear Xandros does this very well, but since it's not free, I haven't tried it yet. I recently had a tough choice between implementing a Suse Enterprise 9.3 server or a Windows SBS2k3. SBS2k3 won because: I couldn't get a local novell retailer/support shop to return my calls, I know a dozen MCSP shops in the area that i can call when I need help...the only Novell shop never returned my calls. In a corporate world, posting a question on a support forum and waiting...hoping...someone will answer that day with a solution is not an option. I'd lose my job if the CEO asked 'how long until ______' or 'Why is _______' and I said 'I don't know. I'm waiting for a response on an internet board'. Granted, I could take different classes, learn programming, etc.

Thats all for now...gotta go reboot 2 MS servers...lol.

Topsiho
November 29th, 2005, 09:01 PM
I voted "Other" (explain) but did not see where to explain.

I think that we have to live with Windows for some time as most people have to work with Windows professionally and so are used to it.
In most working places MS-Dos was the norm as it was the OS on IBM and IBM compatible computers. Other systems were (much) better but they were not IBM.

And MS-DOS evolved to Windows which of course was marketed very well and aggressively by MS. For business decision makers it is also a plus that Windows is backed by a (big) company, where Linux is not.

That it is possible to change a momentum was proved by MS itself as the most popular word processor in Holland was swept aside by MS Word in just a short time. By just being better maybe.

However I see around me that most professionals (?) in shops and most people I know react aggressively when I am talking Linux. They fear that they have to learn about using a computer all over again.

Just try in a shop to buy a new computer without Windows installed. Most shops chase you out of the shop well into the street.
So if you buy a computer it still is with Windows automatically.
I bought a laptop a few years ago without Windows on it in a shop, and put on it several versions of Linux, and am now installing Dapper Drake Flight 1 on it :)

Topsiho

Kelpie
December 17th, 2005, 09:11 PM
support for drivers and things like that
linux is like that of a new language and can be difficult for people who are either a bit shallow or scared of learning - even though if you screw up you can do a nice reinstall of linux
publicity, there isnt commercial, ad's, or any 'free to give aol-like' CDs to let people try it out
people consider bugs on linux a big thing, exaggerated quite a bit actually, and even though even the smart ones know windows has bugs, they still exaggerate the fact that linux has bugs too
linux is not for people who are simple minded, its really an advanced thing
also not for people who are afraid of using the terminal or root terminal
being quite lost on a NEW operating system can be very depressing to some people
kernel panics - if one doesnt know how to fix it then they will drop out of trying linux at a drop of a dime


thats my thoughts, but there could be more

Linux BASHer
December 18th, 2005, 12:19 AM
All of the reasons stated are valid. It would be huge help to Linux if regular OEMs that everybody knew advertised and offered PCs pre-installed with linux. However, I will re-iterate another point that has been made already. One that we (as in the Linux community) can actually do something about: The ease of use, mostly the GUI.

At this moment, I don't see that any DE comes close to anything like Mac OS X's Aqua GUI, or even the regular Windoze GUI for most users. Sometimes I feel that this may come from an inherent weakness in the Open-Source model, though I don't know how accurate that is, and I'd rather be wrong. It seems to me like there are too many wills and separate components/projects involved in the development of the Linux GUIs (or DEs- that is Gnome and KDE, among others).

A good thing about the type of development model that Apple uses (to which there are bad things to, mind you) is that once Jobs or whoever Jobs puts in charge, decides the direction, feel and features of a project, that is how it is developed. There is one single overall direction and will at work.

I use Gnome, and have fiddled with other DEs. They are usable, and continue to get better. I root and cheer their development on. But they need to get cleaner, better, and easier to use. They need to allow the user to do EVERYTHING they need to do, everything they can do on Mac OS X or Windoze, via the GUI. It needs to be like Mac OS X-- where you can do everything a normal user would want via the GUI, but always have the power of the terminal at your fingertips.

I think Linux today is easy enough where you can set up a regular user to use it for common tasks on a daily basis-- But what happens when they want to install another program, or a (eek!) driver, or change file permissions (you can do it very easily via the GUI in Mac OS X, but in Gnome... that's another story..)?

I still don't even know where synaptic puts the apps I download sometimes. I don't see icons for them. A lot of times I have to look. Now, to be fair, Synaptic is a really great leap forward, and is arguably easier to use for obtaining apps than anything on other the platforms, but even this needs some work to appeal to the regular user.

So, in conclusion, I do think the lack of an easier to use, comprehensive GUI system hampers Linux's adoption for many many users. I don't understand why the Open-Source community couldn't have come up with something like Aqua years before Apple, except to think that this may be difficult to do with the Open-Source model. Please, feel free to discuss this point, though.

aysiu
December 18th, 2005, 12:25 AM
I agree with your general assessment Linux BASHer, but I don't think that's going to change. Linux development is rapid and steady, but it's still in development. The integration will come... it just won't happen overnight because, as you said, no one person is overseeing it all.

Rackerz
December 18th, 2005, 01:54 AM
I think Gaming is maybe not a large part, but definately something with is setting Linux back. Alot of people play games and games on Linux would be good.

vininim
December 18th, 2005, 02:12 AM
I would say third party support, because the average users uses his home computer for entertainment and conectivity.
And then we have audio or video cards with no good support for advanced features, we have winmodems(!?, we do in some countries), we have banks that needs internet explorer activeX. A bunch of little stuff that is not in the opensource developers hands to deal with.
The average user(and let's consider the one that buys the computer), have sons and daughters that want to play their games. So we are back to video/audio cards with no support, wich makes games company not very much interested in linux.

AudioBookDiety
December 18th, 2005, 04:30 AM
OTHER

To much choice. Most people do not want have to make to many decisions, and with Linux the available choices are insane.
I spent the last month trying out different distros and apps trying to figure out which is best. If there were only 1 or 2 choices then you just make the best of it.
I think the simple question 'which distro should I use' is the #1 reason people don't start useing Linux.

aysiu
December 18th, 2005, 04:37 AM
I don't buy that at all. People don't complain about too many pizza toppings or too many car manufacturers or too many publishing houses. They like choice.

The problem is related, though--it's publicity. People don't know where to start because they don't know anything about the choices. If you give someone a choice between a Chevy pick-up truck and a Toyota hybrid, she'll at least know what those words mean. She can picture in her head what a pick-up truck is. She knows the advantages and disadvantages of owning one, as opposed to a hybrid.

If you say to a Windows user, "You can have Mepis, Blag, Linspire, Xandros, Mandriva, Gentoo, Slackware, Fedora, or SuSE," all she's going to hear is "You can have blah, blah, blah, blah, or blah."

I would have been saved a lot of trouble in the beginning of my Linux journey if people had said, "Oh, you don't know what distro to try? Check out these two links:
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/
http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major " instead of people answering things like, "Slackware. Slackware is the only true Linux" or "Just use whatever works for you."

It's the lack of education and publicity regarding choice... not the choice itself.

william_nbg
December 28th, 2005, 03:12 PM
People are always talking about this topic. Big Linux users, like myself, can never understand why anyone would be interested in Windows - Linux is so much better, more flexible, a lot more fun to tinker with.

I recently gave my brother-in-law an Ubuntu CD on his birthday, who is a web designer, and works on a computer everyday, I know he would love Linux he gave it a chance just from the way he likes to work. But, like often, he's so afraid of change and the time it would take him to change.

My wife made the change a few weeks ago. She loves Ubuntu, but is having some Windows withdrawals. She used Acces heavily, and OO is getting better and better, but the DB is still a bit bugy and misssing features.

I meet a lot of people on the job and have personally set up 5 or 6 computers over to Ubuntu. All but one have changed completely. I told him, wait for MSVista - you'll be back.;)

mcmuffy
December 28th, 2005, 03:37 PM
I selected 3rd party support but see my sig for my feelings on other stuff.

SteelValor
December 28th, 2005, 03:42 PM
I think driver support is a must. Although I have only found 2 pieces or hardware I couldn't use on Ubuntu and that was probably due to my fear of the console.

A major break through in gaming would push Linux to the public mainstream. Let's face it, if you nab the kids they will bring in the parents. :D

My other thought is if it was more user friendly to configure I think a lot of the websever people, myself included, would drop NT in a heartbeat.

My only beef with Linux is that the gui isn't as robust as Windows or Mac.

eriqk
December 28th, 2005, 04:36 PM
Lack of support from the hardware folks *cough*Broadcom*cough*.
For most non-techies (such as myself) a computer should work OOtB. It's much better now than it ever was, but we're still at the mercy of hardware companies to provide drivers (and/or enough specs so other people can make them).

If you can show people around you it's possible to run a free (or even semi-free) OS and It Just Works, it's much easier to win them over. From that point on, viral marketing can take over.
User friendlyness would be second, but I think it's closely connected to the above. On my shuttle, for example, Ubuntu Just Worked, and any post install tinkering was done as a choice, not a necessity. Most other bases are covered (except maybe the oft mentioned screen resolution thing).

//edit
I forgot. Propriety media formats are still a problem.

Groet, Erik

TheRealEdwin
December 28th, 2005, 04:50 PM
Stupid little things not working. Do I really need something special for the back and forward buttons on my mouse to work?


I found that to be a common theme in each of my forays into *nix on my home PC. When it's at work, I was always just telnet/ssh-ing in and doing stuff in the CLI, on servers... which it's great for. It's when I try to let it stand side-by-side with my everyday I-just-wanna-use-it-not-argue-with-it system that it annoys me.

NoTiG
December 28th, 2005, 06:02 PM
The biggest setback is: Lack of programs.

This includes things like gimp not being the most preferable alternative to adobe photoshop... and things such as games.

The second biggest setback is: third party support.... this includes drivers for hardware and peripherals... but also at issue is the fact that the ATI and NVIDIA drivers are not up to snuff on their windows counterparts.

The third biggest setback: Proprietary crap... for instance how MP3's do not work out of the box... how some websites will not work with firefox even though its standards compliant... how microsoft documents do not always play well with Open office , how you need dvdcss to play dvds... etc.

If all of these issues were fixed then there wouldnt be any major obstacles. I would say the fourth however is : Program installation and ease of use. If ubuntu is setup properly... even a newbie can use it.. and program installation can actually be EASIER with repositories... but it is still possible to get lost in linux. That is why i would say this is an issue but not major.

I have made this list before with alot more thoughts but the post was locked for some other reason :/ .

chimera
December 28th, 2005, 06:22 PM
The "It's free, so it can't possibly be as good as it's ultra-expensive alternative (M$)" mentality most people I know seem to share:mad:

Sir_Yaro
December 28th, 2005, 06:43 PM
Biggest "problem" is lack of commercial games for linux. This part of market brings biggest money and arouse biggest interest of people (mostly kids). Right behind is lack of drivers and technical support in linux. But it's closely connected with with the first problem so there is no point to consider this point.
To recapitulate, I think size of game market in linux is tightly conneted with popularity of given o/s. Of course there is much more different acpect of this matter but this one is the most important....

chimera
December 28th, 2005, 06:50 PM
Biggest "problem" is lack of commercial games for linux. This part of market brings biggest money and arouse biggest interest of people (mostly kids). Right behind is lack of drivers and technical support in linux. But it's closely connected with with the first problem so there is no point to consider this point.
To recapitulate, I think size of game market in linux is tightly conneted with popularity. Of course there is much more different acpect of this matter but this is the most important....

List of COMMERCIAL, non-open source games I currently have installed (native)
-America's Army
-Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory
-Unreal Tournament GOTY
-Unreal Tournament 2004
-Doom 3 + Expansion
-Quake 4

List of open-source games I currently have installed (besides the ones that were pre-installed)

-Flightgear
-Nexuiz
-Warsow
-Planeshift
-Dangers of the deep


Did I hear "lack of games"?

Supermouse
December 28th, 2005, 07:10 PM
really, there`s some setbacks in linux which impedes his widespread (crap english...), like:

-hardness to configure: the first configuration of a Linux System, even the desktop made user friendly, can be a pain in the ass for a newbie (category that 99% of the population fall in). many aplications just doesn't exist in the repositories (and many linux distros doesn't even HAVE repositories), there's virtually no aplication that can be instaled by a double click, and running a console to do anything just sounds antiquated to anyone coming from the Bill Gates school.

running a linux system already configured, in other hand, is very easy, unless you need to change something. in this case, all the users (in "user" you can read: people who don't read manuals, don't make searchs, and don't even know what are doing. they just turn the computer on, go to de desktop and launch their favorite game... some doesn't even know how to install programs in windows, wht these people will do in linux?) will imediately rant about the system, says that it sucks and go back to windows.

-lack of games: don't come tell me that cedega exists, or that there's some good games for linux... users doesn't know how to even install programs in windows, you can't expect they'll configure cedega... users just want to sit back in theyr chairs and have everything working, without any work by them.

users doesn't know Transfusion, Tux Racer or Battle For Wesnoth. they don't even want to meet these games. they want to play Battlefield 2, GTA San Andreas and NFS: Most Wanted. the introduction of games would bring many people to linux.

-and, last but not least, we are stuck in a circle. windows is the most used because he is the most used. understand? no? I'll explain: there's an issue that OOffice is not totally compatible with MS Office, right? so, it's not the most used, right? but, if OOffice would be the most used, this issue wouldn't exist, because the majority of the documents would be made in OOffice.

in the same way, third party companies launchs programs, drivers and games for windows, 'cause it's the most used. this cause more people to use it.


that's the 3 reasons, IMHO, why Linux is not so widespread. they could not be right, but that's what I believe...


sorry for the crappy english. it's not my main language, so errors can occur. I use web foruns, technical documentation and like to train, so feel free to correct me:cool:

ardchoille
December 28th, 2005, 08:12 PM
I have helped just over 80 people and businesses switch from Windows to Linux and I have found the following.

1. There are a lot of Windows users who are extremely lazy.
These are the kind of folks who don't want/care to read or learn anything, they just want someone else to do everything for them. These people usually end up with an infected system, and in my opinion, it serves them right and will hopefully teach them a lesson. These are also the folks who say "I have been using Windows for an X amount of years and my system has never been infected". What they don't understand is that if their system were infected or owned by some script kiddie, the script kiddie is going to make sure the system runs without problems because that script kiddie needs the system to appear as if it were secure and running without problems so the script kiddie can depend on that system to do their dirty work.
Never trust a closed source OS. Would you enter into a game and expect to win without having access to any of the game rules?

2. The folks who switch to Linux, have problems and switch back to Windows.
These folks usually make the same fatal mistake: they always left themselves the option of going back to Windows. They always had it in their mind that "if this doesn't work, I can always go back to Windows". So, when it comes time to do some serious work or learning, they give up because it's "too hard" and go back to Windows.
Your resources are valuable. If you're going to devote resources to a project, see it through to the end.

In 1995 I got fed up with Windows and gave my computer away. When someone introduced me to Linux, I started learning about it with the mindset of "if this doesn't work, I just won't use a computer, but I am NOT going back to Windows." Here I am today using Ubuntu, having used Linux for almost 10 years, and the biggest problems I have found in Linux were easily solved by switching to a different Linux distro. I love Linux and would never use a Microsoft product for all the money in the world.

My advice to people wishing to switch to Linux from Windows:
1. Realise that there will be a learning curve. You're going to have to learn new things if you expect your Linux experience to be beneficial.

2. Realise that you're going to have to read documents, man pages, etc. Almost evey distro/app comes with an instruction manual. If not, there is usually a way to find it on the net.

3. Join some forums, mailing lists and IRC channels. There are people in this world who jump at the chance to help newbies, take advantage of this wealth of knowledge.

4. Don't be afraid to make mistakes. Most of the greatest inventors in human history made lots of mistakes before they were successful.

You cannot change anything in life without learning something new - whether you realise you learned something or not.

Lord Illidan
December 28th, 2005, 08:50 PM
About the terminal.

I am not sure if it is that much of a hassle to learn some basic commands. Most commands I have learned from the internet, and copy/paste. Also, my sister (she is using Linux finally) does not need a terminal for simple browsing, music playing, and working with open office.

Biggest Deficiency of Linux : Lack of 3rd Party support, imho.. And what ayisu has said ad infinitum : the lack of Linux being shipped with computers from Dell, etc. Also, it is the laziness of windows users, and their belief that they will screw the system by installing linux, ha!!

About 3rd party support.. I mean drivers and games. I don't blame Linux because my cheapo webcam doesn't work with it (A Nortek one), I blame the manufacturer.
Games. We teenagers love games. I now play opensource games, and I think I will try Starcraft under Wine, but there needs to be more games released for Linux. And Wine definitely has to be improved.

Also, codecs. I remember in SUSE 10.00, all the media players were crippled so to install codecs, I has to re-install the media players too. A waste of time, and disk space. Who is not going to play dvds? Who is not going to play mp3s? What the hell is wrong with packaging codecs? Doesn't Windows package the mp3 and wma codecs? Or is it some weird licensing?

DevilsAdvocate
December 28th, 2005, 08:53 PM
Benefits: generally more stable OS. Less/no malware. Free. Fun.
Drawbacks: requires more time and effort.

For most people drawbacks outweigh the benefits. That doesn't mean they're lazy or stupid, as many Linux-geeks suggest. It generally means that most people would rather invest their time and effort into other activities.

Growing my own food would be cheaper and probably healthier as it would be for most people. However, I don't think everyone who goes to the grocery story is lazy or stupid. I would prefer to invest my time and effort in other areas, and pay the farmer/middlmen money for his food. Just as he would rather pay for my services than put his time and effort into producing them.

pegleg
December 29th, 2005, 07:34 AM
as a very new user, what I find most difficult is lack of drivers, certainly lack of games and other mainstream apps...

and my pet peeve has become unusual program installation compared to windows... using the toaster model, program installations in windows are pretty much insert bread, press button... viola, toast... pretty much the same toast everytime... programs install in a folder called "Program files", launcher inserted into the start menu, and if requested also on the desktop...

I really like the ease of use of the package managers, but after the installation,where the heck is the launcher??? not in the dropdown menu, not on the desk top... jeesh I gotta go find the dang launcher and create my own shortcut to the desktop... this kind of stuff really needs to be standardized for linux to become popular with anybody but "linux geeks"...

also, this is a great community filled with a lot of helpful people, but until y'all stop defending command line interactions for routine tasks and wearing "linux user" like a badge, this kind of stuff will never change...

Deaf_Head
December 29th, 2005, 07:41 AM
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=109174

Number 1 reason is stuff like this. I wish people could all think 'outside the box' but I guess we do live in America huh? (atleast I do lol)

Lord Illidan
December 29th, 2005, 08:11 AM
as a very new user, what I find most difficult is lack of drivers, certainly lack of games and other mainstream apps...

and my pet peeve has become unusual program installation compared to windows... using the toaster model, program installations in windows are pretty much insert bread, press button... viola, toast... pretty much the same toast everytime... programs install in a folder called "Program files", launcher inserted into the start menu, and if requested also on the desktop...

I really like the ease of use of the package managers, but after the installation,where the heck is the launcher??? not in the dropdown menu, not on the desk top... jeesh I gotta go find the dang launcher and create my own shortcut to the desktop... this kind of stuff really needs to be standardized for linux to become popular with anybody but "linux geeks"...

also, this is a great community filled with a lot of helpful people, but until y'all stop defending command line interactions for routine tasks and wearing "linux user" like a badge, this kind of stuff will never change...

The command line is a darn useful tool once you learn it. From 99% GUI I have moved to 50% GUI and 50% CLI. Learn how to use it.
Also, if you like your system to be more windows like, use Kubuntu


sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

poofyhairguy
December 29th, 2005, 09:45 AM
but until y'all stop defending command line interactions for routine tasks and wearing "linux user" like a badge, this kind of stuff will never change...

We defend the command line often because its all we have in some cases. Many here would prefer more GUIs, but if the decision is between no function and function with only CLI, many pick the command line.

Plus once you get used to it, it has some cool advantages.

As far as "wearing Linux user like a badge" I almost take offense to that comment. There is many reason to do that:

1. Pride for surviving in a world where the easiest path is just running the XP that came on your Dell.

2. Pride for getting around the problems created by a world that mostly runs Windows- opening Word docs in Open Office for example.

3. Pride for making a system customized for you, rather that a cookie cutter OS that is so special that it looks and acts exactly like a half billion other computers in the world.

4. Pride in learning more about computer systems and learning how things work. Now when I deal with XP after a year of heavy Linux use I find that my XP skills are higher. Why? Because I now understand better what parts of the system are rather than just memorizing how to do tasks, and because the problem solving skills I picked up in Linux apply great to XP ("you guys think this XP problem is a big deal? Its nothing compared to getting wine installed in a chroot on my 64 bit Linux box"). Like it or not, using desktop Linux is not always easy, yet the challeges is what seperates many of us as "high end computer users." Why be prideful of that? I don't know, why do people take pride in being good at anything?

5. Pride in a sort of independence- with Linux I have many options. If Ubuntu goes, another will exist. I always have options. Often times in Windowsland to get things done your options are either to buy more software or steal more software. Its fun to be free from that.

6. Pride is being part of a community with a common interest.

7. Pride in being able to help (with bug reports at the very least) make things better for everyone. In MSland, often you can't help and if you can the real people you are helping in the end is MS shareholders.

8. Pride in doing things XP can't do (such as running a fully 64 bit desktop if you want- even the 64 bit Windows still has 32 bit parts out of the box).

9. Pride of no longer being a victum. No longer do I have to "just deal" with Windows problems such as viruses and malware. Sure any geek worth their salt can defend a XP box, but use it for years and one day something bad will happen that is not your fault. Then you are a helpless victum- you best hope is a reinstall (aka start over). In Linuxland, the only problems I have are caused be me- either me wanting a feature (or device to work) that is not easy by default in Linux or me demanding more. With Windows if you have low expectations the system can always find a way to get past your tolerance level (aka no one will accept a not working system because of a virus), yet with Linux I can lower my expections as much as possible and still not sacrifice basic things like web browsing and office doc use. I mean....do I really need to play that new PC game? DO I really need a wireless network? No.

10. Pride in being able to spread your favorite software without guilt. When I was a Windows guy, I found myself often not being able to help others because they could not afford the software needed to get a certain function in Windows (non crap CD/DVD Burning support is a GREAT example). It sucks to say "sure you can copy DVDs, but you need to go to teh store and buy the $100 Nero first." Often I found myself cracking and stealing XP programs for others to avoid the confrontation. No more- every program I use full time in Linux I can give to other freely. I apt-get it for them like I apt-get it for me. No guilt either way.

The pride is warrented. We ARE the minority. We ARE talking the harder path. And we ARE doing it for a reason. That reason gives us pride. That pride drives our community.

Show me a Windows forum were so many people boast they run the OS they do. You can't, because not many have pride in running Windows. Such things might not matter for normal users, but thats what makes a person a nerd of any trade!

daschl
December 29th, 2005, 09:58 AM
We defend the command line often because its all we have in some cases. Many here would prefer more GUIs, but if the decision is between no function and function with only CLI, many pick the command line.

Plus once you get used to it, it has some cool advantages.

As far as "wearing Linux user like a badge" I almost take offense to that comment. There is many reason to do that:

1. Pride for surviving in a world where the easiest path is just running the XP that came on your Dell.

2. Pride for getting around the problems created by a world that mostly runs Windows- opening Word docs in Open Office for example.

3. Pride for making a system customized for you, rather that a cookie cutter OS that is so special that it looks and acts exactly like a half billion other computers in the world.

4. Pride in learning more about computer systems and learning how things work. Now when I deal with XP after a year of heavy Linux use I find that my XP skills are higher. Why? Because I now understand better what parts of the system are rather than just memorizing how to do tasks, and because the problem solving skills I picked up in Linux apply great to XP ("you guys think this XP problem is a big deal? Its nothing compared to getting wine installed in a chroot on my 64 bit Linux box"). Like it or not, using desktop Linux is not always easy, yet the challeges is what seperates many of us as "high end computer users." Why be prideful of that? I don't know, why do people take pride in being good at anything?

5. Pride in a sort of independence- with Linux I have many options. If Ubuntu goes, another will exist. I always have options. Often times in Windowsland to get things done your options are either to buy more software or steal more software. Its fun to be free from that.

6. Pride is being part of a community with a common interest.

7. Pride in being able to help (with bug reports at the very least) make things better for everyone. In MSland, often you can't help and if you can the real people you are helping in the end is MS shareholders.

8. Pride in doing things XP can't do (such as running a fully 64 bit desktop if you want- even the 64 bit Windows still has 32 bit parts out of the box).

9. Pride of no longer being a victum. No longer do I have to "just deal" with Windows problems such as viruses and malware. Sure any geek worth their salt can defend a XP box, but use it for years and one day something bad will happen that is not your fault. Then you are a helpless victum- you best hope is a reinstall (aka start over). In Linuxland, the only problems I have are caused be me- either me wanting a feature (or device to work) that is not easy by default in Linux or me demanding more. With Windows if you have low expectations the system can always find a way to get past your tolerance level (aka no one will accept a not working system because of a virus), yet with Linux I can lower my expections as much as possible and still not sacrifice basic things like web browsing and office doc use. I mean....do I really need to play that new PC game? DO I really need a wireless network? No.

10. Pride in being able to spread your favorite software without guilt. When I was a Windows guy, I found myself often not being able to help others because they could not afford the software needed to get a certain function in Windows (non crap CD/DVD Burning support is a GREAT example). It sucks to say "sure you can copy DVDs, but you need to go to teh store and buy the $100 Nero first." Often I found myself cracking and stealing XP programs for others to avoid the confrontation. No more- every program I use full time in Linux I can give to other freely. I apt-get it for them like I apt-get it for me. No guilt either way.

The pride is warrented. We ARE the minority. We ARE talking the harder path. And we ARE doing it for a reason. That reason gives us pride. That pride drives our community.

Show me a Windows forum were so many people boast they run the OS they do. You can't, because not many have pride in running Windows. Such things might not matter for normal users, but thats what makes a person a nerd of any trade!


nothing to add here, great comment

a big fat "ack".

dada1958
December 29th, 2005, 10:11 AM
Yesterday I wrote a short email to Ricoh:


Dear sir/madam,

I have a Ricoh Caplio RX camera; I can't use it with my Ubuntu Linux PC.
I think you should know that Linux is an emerging platform and that Ricoh could gain market-share when you'd develop drivers for it.

Sincerely,
dada

And wow, this very morning I got a reply!


Dear Mr. dada,

Thank you for contacting RICOH Service Team.

Unfortunately, we are presently unable to offer you support or drivers for
Linux OS. Whether this situation may vary in the future, we presently do
not know. However, we will gladly pass on your comments to our supervision.
Our customer's feedback can help us improve.
Best Regards,
RICOH Service Team

I think we have to tell the manufacturers that we are here...

John Mytton
December 29th, 2005, 11:40 AM
Photoshop > Gimp
MM Flash > DrawSWF or Ming

So yeah, it's all about the third-party shuffle. All I can do is dual boot, write a letter to the company that most pisses me off and hope it adds to a growing pile :(

chimera
December 29th, 2005, 12:44 PM
You see, it's a circle:

Windows has the biggest market share->Most of the 3rd party developers only make windows applications->People who need those 3rd party applications have to use windows(luckily, not me)->Windows' market share increases

The only way to break that circle is to make Linux FOSS alternatives of those commercial 3rd party applications that don't have Linux support, and let the people who use them know about it.

504harry
December 29th, 2005, 01:25 PM
I voted publicity, because a lot of people whom I tell I'm using linux don't know what I'm talking about. Most people in the IT-branch know what it is because they read magazines, but the average home user never heard about linux.
Low 3rd party support is just because linux isn't widespread so manufacturers don't care for it, there's no money for them.
/
Yes yes yes, printer drivers, a problem for reasons as you say - but there is also a problem (I understand) with the "Open-Source" aspect that would force drivers to be open to all and some printer mfrs might consider this would give their competitors unfair advantage...etc.....
Personally, I think it's an excuse, as I can't see Cannon trying to break into Lexmarks software - printers we buy "now" are already out-of-date and the Mfr is working on the next model for a year hence. So I vote for the Support issue:- it's not because of popularity.
/
/
Publicity:
Linux could help itself by having a "preferred list of known good printer/peripherals (by popular vote) which have driver work-arounds and which are value-for-money...........
/
Furthermore Linux could stop trying to promote every distro going - it Dilutes effort and Creates confusion IMHO - that's why I'm sticking to Ubuntu - a defined objective in mind and doesn't appear to cause too much confusion, although that isn't an easy task.
- Just read the recent Threads on Partitioning and you get the idea.......if each aspect of difficulty was nailed ( every 6-months=new release) _ then after a little while we'd be trying to put people Off.
/
Do we need a vote on what aspects are perfectly acceptable? I couldn't see why 5.10 introduced some changes - was it they had spare time?
......Do we need to define "minimum hardware" so newbies know they're in with a chance - + some software is becomming a tad fat... (OpenOffice mentioned in the Linux press!), so some software may need "excess" features removed - OO doesn't have to match Microsoft point-by-point does it? A speed advantage would say it all.
/
Regards H.

pegleg
December 29th, 2005, 06:10 PM
The command line is a darn useful tool once you learn it.

hey don't get me wrong... I've use command line interaction since fortran, CPM, basic, amigados, and MS/PC/IBM dos (ie 70's, 80's, and 90's) and still use it often in windows... with time, I will learn it for linux as well... ;)

my point is, linux can be difficult and frustrating... just admit it... many users defend using command line even for simple routine tasks... why should I have to use CLI just to install a program??? it certainly appears at this point that you CAN'T use linux successfully unless you use command line, and 99% of computer users will not go there... the rest of the computer world is moving in the direction of the computer as an appliance (hence the toaster analogy)... linux will have to go there as well if it is going to be widely accepted...

please don't take offence, I'm simply addressing the origninal question...



Re: In your opinion what is the biggest setback that is preventing Linux to widespread?

pplude92
December 29th, 2005, 07:37 PM
I've Read through this thread, and essentially it is a combonation of:

1) Little support for drivers/games

2) MS had come in and took advantage of a new technology, an easy to use GUI before Linux did

3) Because of the MS monopoly, there is no reason for game/software developers to make the apps we need

4) Command Lines and Shells are hard to use for the newbies

5) MS doesn't want anything ported to Lunux, so they sue whenever they can

6) Companys like Dell, HP, etc. computers come with Windows

But, solutions are coming. There is a boom in kernel hackers, which means more drivers/games/apps/file extensions will be supported in Linux. Programs like Synaptic and Autopackage minimise the use of the command line. With the leak of MS Alexa (spyware installed with XP, system file) people are looking for alternitives. Some flavors of Linux are light years AHEAD of MS...with graphical instalations, about 5 years before the Vista Installer. Finally, Dell is starting to see the rise in Linux and if you ask them, you CAN have your new comp loaded with *select, non free* flavors of Linux (Linspire, Xandros, etc). Anyway, I hear the new WinFS is unstable and causes Vista to crash a lot anyway...so I predict in the next 5 years all flavors of Linux will make a MAJOR rise...now if we could only get a standard auto-installing package system...i hate Alien...

chimera
December 29th, 2005, 07:46 PM
I've Read through this thread, and essentially it is a combonation of:

1) Little support for drivers/games

2) MS had come in and took advantage of a new technology, an easy to use GUI before Linux did

3) Because of the MS monopoly, there is no reason for game/software developers to make the apps we need

4) Command Lines and Shells are hard to use for the newbies

5) MS doesn't want anything ported to Lunux, so they sue whenever they can

6) Companys like Dell, HP, etc. computers come with Windows

But, solutions are coming. There is a boom in kernel hackers, which means more drivers/games/apps/file extensions will be supported in Linux. Programs like Synaptic and Autopackage minimise the use of the command line. With the leak of MS Alexa (spyware installed with XP, system file) people are looking for alternitives. Some flavors of Linux are light years AHEAD of MS...with graphical instalations, about 5 years before the Vista Installer. Finally, Dell is starting to see the rise in Linux and if you ask them, you CAN have your new comp loaded with *select, non free* flavors of Linux (Linspire, Xandros, etc). Anyway, I hear the new WinFS is unstable and causes Vista to crash a lot anyway...so I predict in the next 5 years all flavors of Linux will make a MAJOR rise...now if we could only get a standard auto-installing package system...i hate Alien...


From what I've heard, it'll take a looooooong time before Vista is released, which means XP could become an absolete OS before it's succesor is released, which means...get it?

poofyhairguy
December 29th, 2005, 08:08 PM
my point is, linux can be difficult and frustrating... just admit it... many users defend using command line even for simple routine tasks...

Cause its easier to explain what needs to be done that way. Lower margin of error.


why should I have to use CLI just to install a program???

You don't. We have two GUI ways to install apps in Ubuntu. What you are talking about is installing new apps as soon as they come out- only nerds do that.



it certainly appears at this point that you CAN'T use linux successfully unless you use command line, and 99% of computer users will not go there...

YOU can't use Linux without command line work. Thats because you have higher demands than most users. How can I tell? Because you are on a Linux forum posting. That puts you in a group with like 5% of computer users. The rest of the world will never have to see a command line if someone else sets it up for them. And that will happen if they can buy a Linux box. Thats why the ability to buy a Linux box is more important than anything else.

The worst mistake a nerd can make is assume that their troubles applies to most of the computing world that only needs an internet browser, a few card games, a Quicken program (Gnucash), and an Office-ish program. For the majority of business and home desktops, Linux is ready today if that part of the world could by the machine set up correctly.


the rest of the computer world is moving in the direction of the computer as an appliance (hence the toaster analogy)... linux will have to go there as well if it is going to be widely accepted...


Linux is ready for that more than Windows is. Most people do not need to ever see the command line if someone else sets it up for them.

Nerds need new apps. Nerds need the flavor of the month software. Nerds have to deal with the command line then.

Normal users need a system that works. An appliance. Linux can very easily be turned into this if someone else will do the work- and someone would in the case of a home appliance that runs Linux (TiVo anyone?).

mstlyevil
December 29th, 2005, 08:25 PM
Linux is also used in many cell phones and cordless phones not to mention DVD players and other appliances. Poofy, your wisdom always seems to astound me. If linux was setup and preconfigured for the pubilc as Windows is, this debate would not even be happening right now.

bugaman
December 29th, 2005, 09:38 PM
I voted other, because most of the people I know that I've talked computers with (users but not techies) think it's going to be too difficult to use, or say that they're basically "afraid" of doing technical with their computers. I have a friend who bought a Mac because he heard it was so easy to use, and after two years still doesn't have the foggiest notion of what's going on in there. The idea of Linux horrifies him.

I think it might not be a good idea for Linux to change too much in order to convert this type of person, as it would lose much of what makes it great (as he types this on a piece of junk that won't run any m$ OS released in this century). But they are everywhere...

poofyhairguy
December 29th, 2005, 11:12 PM
Linux is also used in many cell phones and cordless phones not to mention DVD players and other appliances. Poofy, your wisdom always seems to astound me. If linux was setup and preconfigured for the pubilc as Windows is, this debate would not even be happening right now.

Thanks.

You are correct. Thats why I think the biggest thing Linux fans can do right now is tell everyone with a TiVo they see that "you know this is a Linux computer?"

Time to get some good concepts of Linux in the public.

DirtDawg
December 29th, 2005, 11:37 PM
Third Party support is a problem, though I'm not sure I would call this exclusively Linux's problem. There's no good reason, for example, Adobe doesn't release Linux distributions of their software.

However, I do wish my Wacom Tablet would behave correctly when I plug it in. Many people, myself included, right or wrong, feel neither motivated nor comfortable with editing files that control the inner workings of the system to get things like tablets working.

Mi too sents.

Cool dude
December 30th, 2005, 01:44 AM
Along with 3rd party support for drivers I would say ease of use is still an issue.

Cd:cool:

Cool dude
December 30th, 2005, 01:55 AM
Why do the nerds insist on castigating anyone who does not use the CLI. All that that they succeed in doing is put prospective users off Linux. Can't they see that. Perhaps they are the biggest draw back.

Cd:cool:

mstlyevil
December 30th, 2005, 02:41 AM
Why do the nerds insist on castigating anyone who does not use the CLI. All that that they succeed in doing is put prospective users off Linux. Can't they see that. Perhaps they are the biggest draw back.

Cd:cool:

I previously posted in this thread that the geeks have the public convinced that you have to learn the command line. This is blatantly false. Suse and other distros out there are designed so that you never have to touch the command line if you are just a regular computer user. I think sometimes the geeks confuse their preference for the command line as a prerequsite to using Linux for everyday task and use. Most computer users just do not tweak their systems and only use it for a few basic functions that most distros provide out of the box. Heck, I added new resources and multimedia codecs including DVD to Suse 10 just by using yast.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 03:20 AM
This is the way it IS, Linux, ANY distro is ALL about the CLI, the rest is just candy.

You want windows or OSX then USE THAT, how hard is that? Linux is NOT WINDOWS and it never ever ever ever ever will be so if you don't like it, shove off and don't come back, the Linux community does not NEED to grow, we don't NEED users wanting to turn it into Win or OSX, we seriously don't care, ask how to do things and DO NOT COMPLAIN when you get a "start terminal, type sudo blah blah blah" it's as fscking easy as just doing just that, how hard IS that, seriously?

If i was developing the first Linux distro i'd call it "for the people who can type stuff and press enter" because that is ALL you have to do, you can find answers to everything in various forums, in fact you can find the reasons for any error code you get in Linux but try typing in a BSOD error code and you will get a general description that basically means "something went wrong".

Documentation on the net, a multitude of resources, man pages, CLI, these are the tools you need to use to use and understand Linux, knowing nothing more than your damn Gnome interface means that you are basically handicapped in this system, eventually it won't matter, those who have the will to learn will stay, those who don't will go back to complaining about how Vista requires a lot more memory than XP did and so on.

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 03:31 AM
If i was developing the first Linux distro i'd call it "for the people who can type stuff and press enter"
If I had to make up such a name for Ubuntu it would be "Linux for people who can copy and paste from their browser and press enter".

mstlyevil
December 30th, 2005, 03:32 AM
This is the way it IS, Linux, ANY distro is ALL about the CLI, the rest is just candy.

You want windows or OSX then USE THAT, how hard is that? Linux is NOT WINDOWS and it never ever ever ever ever will be so if you don't like it, shove off and don't come back, the Linux community does not NEED to grow, we don't NEED users wanting to turn it into Win or OSX, we seriously don't care, ask how to do things and DO NOT COMPLAIN when you get a "start terminal, type sudo blah blah blah" it's as fscking easy as just doing just that, how hard IS that, seriously?

If i was developing the first Linux distro i'd call it "for the people who can type stuff and press enter" because that is ALL you have to do, you can find answers to everything in various forums, in fact you can find the reasons for any error code you get in Linux but try typing in a BSOD error code and you will get a general description that basically means "something went wrong".

Documentation on the net, a multitude of resources, man pages, CLI, these are the tools you need to use to use and understand Linux, knowing nothing more than your damn Gnome interface means that you are basically handicapped in this system, eventually it won't matter, those who have the will to learn will stay, those who don't will go back to complaining about how Vista requires a lot more memory than XP did and so on.


That is your opinion but it is not reality. Just because you prefer the command line does not mean it is necesity to use Linux. If I wanted to use Windows I would. I like Linux and am going to continue to use it weather you like it or not. I am not afraid of the CLI and am willing to use it but I have found in SUSE it is not even neccesary. To tell people that prefer to use synaptic or Yast for that matter to use Windows is just plain rude and ignorant. GUI installers exist in Linux for a reason and they are not at all like Windows Exe files where you click next next next install. A GUI installer in Linux does not have to imitate Windows.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 03:43 AM
That is your opinion but it is not reality. Just because you prefer the command line does not mean it is necesity to use Linux. If I wanted to use Windows I would. I like Linux and am going to continue to use it weather you like it or not. I am not afraid of the CLI and am willing to use it but I have found in SUSE it is not even neccesary. To tell people that prefer to use synaptic or Yast for that matter to use Windows is just plain rude and ignorant. GUI installers exist in Linux for a reason and they are not at all like Windows Exe files where you click next next next install. A GUI installer in Linux does not have to imitate Windows.

My opinion is not reality? Yah, you're a bright one...

I never did say that you can't use Linux even if you like Windows, i say LINUX ISN'T WINDOWS and don't EXPECT IT TO EVER BE WINDOWS.

I typed that slowly just for you.

LOL, ok, in Suse, tell me how you manage permissions with the default desktop, i have 150 folders with 150 subfolders, i'm logged into my account, i want to delete them all, i don't want to use a root account, they are in my account, i could use CLI and type chown -R [top folder] or i could use nautilus to go to the bottom folder and right click every file, do the same in every folder and on every folder until i reach the top level.

You'll have a weeks work with what can be done in less than one minute and you say it is not "neccessary"?

Of course if you were to use KDE, then it's a different story, the option is just removed in Gnome "to not confuse the idiot user".

drogoh
December 30th, 2005, 03:46 AM
This is the way it IS, Linux, ANY distro is ALL about the CLI, the rest is just candy.

You want windows or OSX then USE THAT, how hard is that? Linux is NOT WINDOWS and it never ever ever ever ever will be so if you don't like it, shove off and don't come back, the Linux community does not NEED to grow, we don't NEED users wanting to turn it into Win or OSX, we seriously don't care, ask how to do things and DO NOT COMPLAIN when you get a "start terminal, type sudo blah blah blah" it's as fscking easy as just doing just that, how hard IS that, seriously?

If i was developing the first Linux distro i'd call it "for the people who can type stuff and press enter" because that is ALL you have to do, you can find answers to everything in various forums, in fact you can find the reasons for any error code you get in Linux but try typing in a BSOD error code and you will get a general description that basically means "something went wrong".

Documentation on the net, a multitude of resources, man pages, CLI, these are the tools you need to use to use and understand Linux, knowing nothing more than your damn Gnome interface means that you are basically handicapped in this system, eventually it won't matter, those who have the will to learn will stay, those who don't will go back to complaining about how Vista requires a lot more memory than XP did and so on.

This is the biggest setback to Linux and the open source movement in general. The zealots that will fight tooth and nail, will kill and die, will do everything in their power to not have something that is EASY to use, because in their eyes ease of use is Windows and you *HAVE* to be able to unbreak a broken system blindfolded with your arms lopped off. Hello back there 1970's, it's the year 2005. Come out of your cave and embrace the future.

By the way, my career is Unix systems administration. I learned the CLI and can unbreak a broken system blindfolded with my arms lopped off. I know what I know because I like it, but I also know that ease of use by means of a GUI *CAN* be a good thing. Now you may like beating yourself in the head with a brick. By all means, do that and be merry. Just, uh, learn to eat some of that Ye Olde Tyme Zealotry. It's not healthy to be worked up like that over progression.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 03:47 AM
If I had to make up such a name for Ubuntu it would be "Linux for people who can copy and paste from their browser and press enter".

Too bad they can't delet what they just copied and pasted if it was from a CD to their own desktop, eh?

Well, they can, let's hope it wasn't a big tree because it will take some time to do that in Nautilus, it will take less than a minute in CLI though.

Of course, these are all user friendly things, spending a week deleting a tree is nothing...

Of course, you could always use ANY other file manager, i mean ALL of them support recursive chown, do they not, all except one?

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 03:55 AM
This is the biggest setback to Linux and the open source movement in general. The zealots that will fight tooth and nail, will kill and die, will do everything in their power to not have something that is EASY to use, because in their eyes ease of use is Windows and you *HAVE* to be able to unbreak a broken system blindfolded with your arms lopped off. Hello back there 1970's, it's the year 2005. Come out of your cave and embrace the future.

By the way, my career is Unix systems administration. I learned the CLI and can unbreak a broken system blindfolded with my arms lopped off. I know what I know because I like it, but I also know that ease of use by means of a GUI *CAN* be a good thing. Now you may like beating yourself in the head with a brick. By all means, do that and be merry. Just, uh, learn to eat some of that Ye Olde Tyme Zealotry. It's not healthy to be worked up like that over progression.

I don't get this "setback" issue, if you want windows then for the LOVE OF FSCKING GOD USE IT! If you don't want Linux then DON'T USE IT. I don't understand the damn problem.

The thing is, Linux is better than windows for the same reasons that people want Linux to be like windows, change it into that and it will be a second hand windows and nothing more.

The permissions, the Unix ideology of treating everything as a file, the way to do things, the STRENGTH of Linux lies in knowing your system.

I mean, you set up a firewall in Suse, ok, now you want to secure it because it fscking sucks as it is, you want to set up quotas, you want to encrypt it and you want the keymaster, now please, give me ONE way to do that without consulting the CLI, this is security, it is supposed to be the strenght of Linux in comparison yet most people are unaware of the vulnerabilites of their systems (commonly even worse than windows, a regular Ubuntu or Suse install is most definently worse security wise than a streamlined XP SP2 install).

What is the point of running it if you can't use it's strenght? If you don't understand how IPTABLES works then how are you going to control it? Shorewall, lol, yah... Firestarter? LMAO... seriously....

The point is that Linux has NOTHING to offer over Windows or OSX if you don't get to know your system beyond the GUI that is to Linux what win 3.1 was to dos.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 03:58 AM
Point in case.

Linux should not rise by being almost as good and almost as user friendly as Windows, but free.

It SHOULD rise on it's own merits, it shouldn't steer in that direction, Linux isn't meant to be windows and shouldn't aim to be either, it's never been intended to replace it and it never will.

We don't need a growing user base wanting it to be windows, we need a growing user base wanting it to be Linux.

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 03:58 AM
Too bad they can't delet what they just copied and pasted if it was from a CD to their own desktop, eh?

Well, they can, let's hope it wasn't a big tree because it will take some time to do that in Nautilus, it will take less than a minute in CLI though.

Of course, these are all user friendly things, spending a week deleting a tree is nothing...

Of course, you could always use ANY other file manager, i mean ALL of them support recursive chown, do they not, all except one?What I meant was that with Ubuntu in most cases Joe Average doesn't even have to type manually thanks to the availability of ready commands he should enter to get codecs etc. If he can copy and paste, he can get the basics that will let him survive going. If he doesn't know how to use "rm", well, he doesn't absolutely have to, he can use Nautilus, as you say, but he absolutely needs those codecs.

That's with Joe Average. Those of us who require more power will want to learn the CLI in depth; that's an absolute need for them, and codecs may not be. There's no doubt that the CLI is infinitely more powerful, and that people should make peace with their keyboards and get their hands off that mouse more often, but the extent to which those not in the know must be doing this to survive is less in Ubuntu. A lot of Ubuntu's so called user friendliness lies in the simple documentation and online help for the most common tasks rather than anything it has over Debian if you ask me.

mstlyevil
December 30th, 2005, 04:01 AM
My opinion is not reality? Yah, you're a bright one...

I never did say that you can't use Linux even if you like Windows, i say LINUX ISN'T WINDOWS and don't EXPECT IT TO EVER BE WINDOWS.

I typed that slowly just for you.

LOL, ok, in Suse, tell me how you manage permissions with the default desktop, i have 150 folders with 150 subfolders, i'm logged into my account, i want to delete them all, i don't want to use a root account, they are in my account, i could use CLI and type chown -R [top folder] or i could use nautilus to go to the bottom folder and right click every file, do the same in every folder and on every folder until i reach the top level.

You'll have a weeks work with what can be done in less than one minute and you say it is not "neccessary"?

Of course if you were to use KDE, then it's a different story, the option is just removed in Gnome "to not confuse the idiot user".

I never said Linux should be like Windows and I don't expect it to be Windows. I also never said that the command line does not have any advantages over a GUI installer/Uninstaller. I just stated a fact that you have just made for me with your 150 folder analogy. It may take longer to delete the folders and sub folders but it can be done from the GUI. Besides we are talking about average users not advanced users such as yourself. Really do you think some one is going to have 150 folders and subfolders that they are going to want to delete that only use the computer for web surfing, word processing, multimedia, E-mail, storing photos and a few games? You are confusing yourself with average users and there are more of them using Linux than the advanced users. There is nothing wrong with ease of use and ther is nothing wrong with the CLI. It comes down to ones preferences and Linux caters to both.

poofyhairguy
December 30th, 2005, 04:01 AM
Why do the nerds insist on castigating anyone who does not use the CLI. All that that they succeed in doing is put prospective users off Linux. Can't they see that. Perhaps they are the biggest draw back.


Castigate? Really? I mean sure, often times we only give help in CLI form. But thats because:

A. Thats a strength of Linux.

B. Copying and pasting has a low margin of error.

C. Its easier, the help is free, so you have to take what you can get.

But no one is castigated for it. Heck, Linspire EXISTS to have a distro that does not require commands. But you can't pretend every distro is that one (Ubuntu needs a few commands to set it up nice so its out) and you can't claim that being pro-CLI is the same as being anti-GUI.

People have accused me of that before. Its not black and white, one or the other. You can use BOTH, or use only one. Thats the true power of Linux.

poofyhairguy
December 30th, 2005, 04:03 AM
This is the biggest setback to Linux and the open source movement in general. The zealots that will fight tooth and nail, will kill and die, will do everything in their power to not have something that is EASY to use, because in their eyes ease of use is Windows and you *HAVE* to be able to unbreak a broken system blindfolded with your arms lopped off.

So all the zealots go away- does that magically fix all the problems with lack of software, driver devices, and lack of money for marketing?

No?

Then how is it the biggest problem? People over-estimate how many Linux users are zealots as most (as in 80%+) are not.

mstlyevil
December 30th, 2005, 04:04 AM
Castigate? Really? I mean sure, often times we only give help in CLI form. But thats because:

A. Thats a strength of Linux.

B. Copying and pasting has a low margin of error.

C. Its easier, the help is free, so you have to take what you can get.

But no one is castigated for it. Heck, Linspire EXISTS to have a distro that does not require commands. But you can't pretend every distro is that one (Ubuntu needs a few commands to set it up nice so its out) and you can't claim that being pro-CLI is the same as being anti-GUI.

People have accused me of that before. Its not black and white, one or the other. You can use BOTH, or use only one. Thats the true power of Linux.

Well said.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 04:10 AM
What I meant was that with Ubuntu in most cases Joe Average doesn't even have to type manually thanks to the availability of ready commands he should enter to get codecs etc. If he can copy and paste, he can get the basics that will let him survive going. If he doesn't know how to use "rm", well, he doesn't absolutely have to, he can use Nautilus, as you say, but he absolutely needs those codecs.

That's with Joe Average. Those of us who require more power will want to learn the CLI in depth; that's an absolute need for them, and codecs may not be. There's no doubt that the CLI is infinitely more powerful, and that people should make peace with their keyboards and get their hands off that mouse more often, but the extent to which those not in the know must be doing this to survive is less in Ubuntu. A lot of Ubuntu's so called user friendliness lies in the simple documentation and online help for the most common tasks rather than anything it has over Debian if you ask me.

That's ok, unless Joe Average wants to copy a file and manages to copy a tree from an NTFS partition or a CD/DVD and finds out he can't delete the files he has on his desktop. He can change them one folder at a time, simple as pressing ctrl+a and right click, properties and clicking write for owner, the problem arises when he manages to do that on his top folder only and it's in the wastebasket, then he can't empty it, yikes, and he's downloading this or that and the partition is going to be full...

Of course, an chown -R to his username or a chmod -R to give him writing abilities or if he IS the owner and wants to remove it, an rm -r would do the trick.

This is one thing that everyone will run into eventually and there is no good way of solving that except circumventing the whole permissions ideas.


I would go so far as to say that EVERY user should compile their own kernels, know your hardware, know your software and be in control over it. Knowing Stallman and Torvalds, this is one thing they would both agree upon.

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 04:19 AM
I agree, in a parallel ideal universe. In this one, we have to make tradeoffs in some places; we just have to concentrate on making those tradeoffs make sense. For a distro like Ubuntu compromising the CLI totally in favor of whatever set GUI based practical bypass solutions would lead to a catastrophe. For Linspire (and maybe Suse and Mepis; I don't know them very well) it does not, obviously. I find Linspire lame technically and a Linspire user may find my view an elitist one; it's all OK, the variety is good. I don't have to use Mepis and a Linspire user doesn't have to use Ubuntu, we all have the choice, and Linux, the kernel, isn't affected one bit by this.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 04:19 AM
I never said Linux should be like Windows and I don't expect it to be Windows. I also never said that the command line does not have any advantages over a GUI installer/Uninstaller. I just stated a fact that you have just made for me with your 150 folder analogy. It may take longer to delete the folders and sub folders but it can be done from the GUI. Besides we are talking about average users not advanced users such as yourself. Really do you think some one is going to have 150 folders and subfolders that they are going to want to delete that only use the computer for web surfing, word processing, multimedia, E-mail, storing photos and a few games? You are confusing yourself with average users and there are more of them using Linux than the advanced users. There is nothing wrong with ease of use and ther is nothing wrong with the CLI. It comes down to ones preferences and Linux caters to both.

You would seriously take a week off from work to delete every file in every folder and you would consider that a viable solution?

FSCKING PLEASE!

We are talking about something as simple as copying files from a DVD to your desktop, it's not like it is more advanced than doing ANY of the things you listed.

I am telling you that the strenght of Ubuntu, just like in every other distro lies in the terminal or the bash if you will and i don't believe i'm right about this, i know i am.

Sure, i'll still use KDE for the day to day tasks, but i'll still use bash to do the nitty gritty, i'll still know how to change the startup scripts (in both BSD style as in Slackware and in SysV style as in Ubuntu) and i'll still know how to get that thing working and give support on it to a bunch of people saying... type ten letters, tooooooo hard, i'll go back to windows, download the drivers on another computer, burn them onto a cd, load them into the installation program and i'm good to go.

The sad part is that typing those words would have been easier but CLI is OH so hard for some.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 04:29 AM
I agree, in a parallel ideal universe. In this one, we have to make tradeoffs everywhere. We just have to concentrate on making those tradeoffs make sense. For a distro like Ubuntu compromising the CLI totally in favor of whatever set GUI based practical bypass solutions would lead to a catastrophe. For Linspire ans Suse and Mepis it does not, obviously. I find Linspire lame technically and a Linspire user may find my view an elitist one. It's all OK, the variety is good. I don't have to use Mepis and a Linspire user doesn't have to use Ubuntu, we all have the choice, and Linux, the kernel, isn't affected one bit by this.

You're a smart one, i don't mean that in any way other than just that, you are completely right, the people who want Linux as Linux was intended, we shouldn't wander into the "wannabe windows" community such as Ubuntu, you can read if for yourself, so many users are disappointed that Ubuntu isn't windows, there have been enough threads about it.

I think i'll change my statement to "Linux isn't windows, but ubuntu wants to be".

I have found myself in this position before, i return to Slackware, where the current is more stable than the most stable Ubuntu distro has been yet, where stable means works 100% 100% of the time in all and every application.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 04:38 AM
I agree, in a parallel ideal universe. In this one, we have to make tradeoffs in some places; we just have to concentrate on making those tradeoffs make sense. For a distro like Ubuntu compromising the CLI totally in favor of whatever set GUI based practical bypass solutions would lead to a catastrophe. For Linspire (and maybe Suse and Mepis; I don't know them very well) it does not, obviously. I find Linspire lame technically and a Linspire user may find my view an elitist one; it's all OK, the variety is good. I don't have to use Mepis and a Linspire user doesn't have to use Ubuntu, we all have the choice, and Linux, the kernel, isn't affected one bit by this.

Linspire won't last til the end of '06, Sun will have opened up a full fledged Linux disto at that time and Novell will go where Corel went.

There you have a prediction, Sun has the right idea and the way to implement it just like IBM and HP before them, Novell does not, they are too late into this, most of their previous customers were runnin novell clients on top of windows bases.

There you have my reason.

Ubuntu will still have a large base because it's a good distro, most will install and be happier with kubuntu though, Slackware will still be around 9-10 we all love it because it works, we all hate it because Patrick V is a hardass who won't let anything new into even current without knowing it works.

If anyone is looking for investments i'd say buy shares in Sun in April.

DevilsAdvocate
December 30th, 2005, 04:39 AM
the people who want Linux as Linux was intended, we shouldn't wander into the "wannabe windows" community such as Ubuntu,

Really, and how was Linux intended?

Heck, why bother w/ a GUI at all, why bother w/ an X-server? Why not go back to just CLI? Hey, even better, let's go back to machine code? That would be pure.

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 04:40 AM
the "wannabe windows" community such as Ubuntu,
so many users are disappointed that Ubuntu isn't windows, there have been enough threads about it.
"Linux isn't windows, but ubuntu wants to be".We have such users in just about every distro; if more of them seem to be flocking to Ubuntu it's probably due to the recent hype and aura of user friendliness (not a very well defined term if you ask me) around it, and it's not Ubuntu's "fault" really. Many people come to Linux solely as a reaction to Windows and that's natural given today's conditions, but I don't see Ubuntu making any strategic effort to become "Windows minus the spyware"; it sticks to the ideals of Debian and thus Free Software quite firmly, separates free and non-free components clearly, doesn't compromise the CLI, maintains open debate and development, so on. Just because many users want Ubuntu to "become Windows" doesn't mean it will; its roadmap is quite clearly laid out, and I don't see any Windowsification going on there. Those who want it just won't find it here; they can jump ship if they so desire.

I'd say "Linux isn't Windows, but some Ubuntu users want it to be".

mstlyevil
December 30th, 2005, 04:52 AM
If I remember correctly dos was a command line os. Windows was based on dos until ME. It progressed into a GUI interface and Linux has done so itself. I agree with you Linux Sweede that the CLI is better at some task than the GUI. Linux is about choices and people can choose distros that are more CLI based or GUI based. I am switching back to Kubuntu when I build my new rig this weekend because Suse is too easy for my taste. I am a tinkerer and I love the fact that Kubuntu is not already loaded up with all the packages that are installed in Suse by default. I like the command line myself but I can also place myself in someones shoes that does not wnat to learn it or does not have the time to learn it. People have many reasons for moving to Linux and their reasons are just as valid as those who want to tinker with their os. I have no problem with certain distros being geared towards these people. This does not change the kernel nor does it change the fact there are many distros for those who wish to take a more advanced approach to their os.

You should not feel threatend by these people because the type of Linux you love will continue to exist as long as there is a demand for it.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 04:56 AM
We have such users in just about every distro; if more of them seem to be flocking to Ubuntu it's probably due to the recent hype and aura of user friendliness (not a very well defined term if you ask me) around it, and it's not Ubuntu's "fault" really. Many people come to Linux solely as a reaction to Windows and that's natural given today's conditions, but I don't see Ubuntu making any strategic effort to become "Windows minus the spyware"; it sticks to the ideals of Debian and thus Free Software quite firmly, separates free and non-free components clearly, doesn't compromise the CLI, maintains open debate and development, so on. Just because many users want Ubuntu to "become Windows" doesn't mean it will; its roadmap is quite clearly laid out, and I don't see any Windowsification going on there. Those who want it just won't find it here; they can jump ship if they so desire.

I'd say "Linux isn't Windows, but some Ubuntu users want it to be".

I'm used to the ideals of the Slackware community and i am truly sorry if i offended anyone by this, for some reason, and god knows why, i like ubuntu a lot mor than i like Debian, i can't stand Debian... Strange, huh?

I'll be staying with Ubuntu for some time, at least as the system feels now, it's probably always going to be second best to Slackware for me but hey, i started with Slackware back before it was released to the general public, back in '93 so...

To be entirely honest, i do wish that the Gnome team would retink their strategy and kick the desktop desingers to the curb, if it's one thing Gnome does NOT need it's more limited options, it's bad enough as it is. (thinking about how they removed the direct menu edits and desktop edits and the printing dialogue stuff among other things).

Anyways, this has been a VERY good discussion.

//Patrick

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 05:07 AM
If I remember correctly dos was a command line os. Windows was based on dos until ME. It progressed into a GUI interface and Linux has done so itself. I agree with you Linux Sweede that the CLI is better at some task than the GUI. Linux is about choices and people can choose distros that are more CLI based or GUI based. I am switching back to Kubuntu when I build my new rig this weekend because Suse is too easy for my taste. I am a tinkerer and I love the fact that Kubuntu is not already loaded up with all the packages that are installed in Suse by default. I like the command line myself but I can also place myself in someones shoes that does not wnat to learn it or does not have the time to learn it. People have many reasons for moving to Linux and their reasons are just as valid as those who want to tinker with their os. I have no problem with certain distros being geared towards these people. This does not change the kernel nor does it change the fact there are many distros for those who wish to take a more advanced approach to their os.

You should not feel threatend by these people because the type of Linux you love will continue to exist as long as there is a demand for it.


First of all, just so you know it, the "GUI" you are using is a combo of an x windows server slapped on a native CLI, on top of that is your WM, if you use gnome you have a DE built ontop of your WM too, that means that it's basically not progman on dos but fileman+ie on progman on dos. IOW, Gnome is to Linux as a third party window manager is to progman (Win 3.1) on Dos.

IF you want to get technical we could do this further, you don't have a clue so stop talking.

So you are going to install KDE and be a "tinkerer" i have no idea what that means but if it means getting to know your system, well, seriously...

If you want to get to know your system then install something without a gui, learn how to build things, learn how to configure scripts.

Install something like NetBSD (i didn't say Open for a reason here since it's secure by default) and set it up so hard so you can't even hack it even if you know the weaknesses, let others try too.

Now THAT is tinkering... "installing kubuntu", seriously... lol

arnieboy
December 30th, 2005, 05:17 AM
IF you want to get technical we could do this further, you don't have a clue so stop talking.
knowledge coupled with humility is a great virtue.. try to keep the STFU crap out of this thread.. thats how it works in this forum.

mstlyevil
December 30th, 2005, 05:34 AM
First of all, just so you know it, the "GUI" you are using is a combo of an x windows server slapped on a native CLI, on top of that is your WM, if you use gnome you have a DE built ontop of your WM too, that means that it's basically not progman on dos but fileman+ie on progman on dos. IOW, Gnome is to Linux as a third party window manager is to progman (Win 3.1) on Dos.

IF you want to get technical we could do this further, you don't have a clue so stop talking.

So you are going to install KDE and be a "tinkerer" i have no idea what that means but if it means getting to know your system, well, seriously...

If you want to get to know your system then install something without a gui, learn how to build things, learn how to configure scripts.

Install something like NetBSD (i didn't say Open for a reason here since it's secure by default) and set it up so hard so you can't even hack it even if you know the weaknesses, let others try too.

Now THAT is tinkering... "installing kubuntu", seriously... lol

LOL I can't shut up because this is too fun! I may not have your experience and technical knowledge but my dos analogy was still pretty close to what is happening in Linux. I hate Gnome myself but that is my personal preference. Yes tinkering does teach you about your system and I am not ready yet to take the plunge to NetBSD. Heck, I have only been using Linux for 5 months now.

I will one day get to NetBSD as I learn more about the basics of Linux/Unix based systems. I am just taking baby steps to get to that end.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 05:38 AM
knowledge coupled with humility is a great virtue.. try to keep the STFU crap out of this thread.. thats how it works in this forum.

My last virtue went away with my last wife. :D

How about i tell you to STFU, i think we can work this out without your involvment, does that work for you?

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 05:41 AM
LOL I can't shut up because this is too fun! I may not have your experience and technical knowledge but my dos analogy was still pretty close to what is happening in Linux. I hate Gnome myself but that is my personal preference. Yes tinkering does teach you about your system and I am not ready yet to take the plunge to NetBSD. Heck, I have only been using Linux for 5 months now.

I will one day get to NetBSD as I learn more about the basics of Linux/Unix based systems. I am just taking baby steps to get to that end.

Ok, ok, i know where you are coming from and yes tinkering is the way to learn, i should know, i have no formal education in this area i have just done it since forever.

You have the will to learn, i respect that, A LOT and i will help you out whenever i can.

Sometimes i'm unneccessarily harsh, i apologize for that.

Cool dude
December 31st, 2005, 03:29 PM
Translation: the vast majority of potential Linux users have to install and configure Linux themselves. The vast majority of Windows users have Windows preinstalled and preconfigured for them by Dell and company.


I agree. Thats why we have to do the same. It's no longer a good enough argument to say that pre-configuring software adds bloat. Hard drive space is cheap these days. Shouldn't we be doing what ever it takes to get Linux to the main stream?

Cd:cool:

Cool dude
December 31st, 2005, 03:33 PM
This is the way it IS, Linux, ANY distro is ALL about the CLI, the rest is just candy.

You want windows or OSX then USE THAT, how hard is that? Linux is NOT WINDOWS and it never ever ever ever ever will be so if you don't like it, shove off and don't come back, the Linux community does not NEED to grow, we don't NEED users wanting to turn it into Win or OSX, we seriously don't care, ask how to do things and DO NOT COMPLAIN when you get a "start terminal, type sudo blah blah blah" it's as fscking easy as just doing just that, how hard IS that, seriously?

If i was developing the first Linux distro i'd call it "for the people who can type stuff and press enter" because that is ALL you have to do, you can find answers to everything in various forums, in fact you can find the reasons for any error code you get in Linux but try typing in a BSOD error code and you will get a general description that basically means "something went wrong".

Documentation on the net, a multitude of resources, man pages, CLI, these are the tools you need to use to use and understand Linux, knowing nothing more than your damn Gnome interface means that you are basically handicapped in this system, eventually it won't matter, those who have the will to learn will stay, those who don't will go back to complaining about how Vista requires a lot more memory than XP did and so on.


Yes my dear friend you and people like you really help to win people over!

Cd:cool:

Cool dude
December 31st, 2005, 03:38 PM
If people don't complain then how do we or anything/one for that matter get better? Just do as you are told and be quite eh. Didn't that go out in the 18th century?

Cd:cool:

ATAQ
December 31st, 2005, 03:38 PM
well I think that Linux is just as good in the departments that people think not.
I run Battlefield 2 under Linux, perfect graphics, (cedega 5) so I can't see why *some people can say Linux is bad for graphics, and games, especially when it can perform, and in many cases, outperform windows, and the sound system in Linux is pretty classy too. Well I have no problem in saying the facts, the fact is : Microsoft have a monopoly over OS's, this is because of there ease of use and especially there 3rd party support for drivers.

Idium
December 31st, 2005, 03:48 PM
hello. this is my first post,

one of the biggist setbacks is bad press, one side effect of this was when, "just for fun" i rang my old isp and asked them if i could use there ISP on a LINUX machine there answer was "NO! isnt Linux a HACK-Tool/Virus!" nither the less, i dont use them anymore, and i explained to there telephone sales manager that linux in all its forms is an alternative OS, and not as the idiot sales person said a virus.

TimelessRogue
December 31st, 2005, 04:12 PM
Firstly, let me say that Linux DOES work ... every recent installation I have done has worked "out of the box" so to speak. Without going into details, those installations have been two different laptops and four very different desktops, two of those built from scratch. The only problems I have had were caused by me when I messed about where maybe I shouldn't have been or without having all the info I should have. That said, Linux has come a ways since my first experiences in the early days of RedHat.

If there's a problem, it is that Linux is TOO tweakable ... it can be fiddled with way too much for what has become labeled the "average" user. Let's face it: we're all fiddlers and tweakers. And when we do and it appears to break, we jump and shout and whine until that word gets spread far faster and far wider than when it works just fine.

But ya know what? It is also much more fixable than Windows. Sure I've had problems ... more than once. But I've never had a "crash and burn" that wasn't a relatively easy fix.

So I guess that's my answer: we all fiddle with it and when something goes awry the word goes out that "Linux doesn't work!" And that, in my humble opinion, is a major setback in Linux being more widespread.

'Course then there's the question of how many vendors are selling Linux boxes ... all set up and running just fine ...

lysis
December 31st, 2005, 08:07 PM
People unwilling to put time into learning new ways.

If an application screws up in Windows, they blame the application. If an application screws up in Linux, they blame Linux.
that isn't how it works? =)

qferret
January 1st, 2006, 02:35 AM
The one MAJOR thing that is holding Linux back is.........itself.

There isn't any ONE linux. This is what many of the people that DO use linux like. If there is a feature you don't like, YOU can change it. Unfortunately, this leads to multiple distros and forks in software developement. If manufacturers were to preinstall linux on all of their PC's....which distro would they choose? If there were 30+ flavours of Windows XP out there, all different with the exception of the explorer shell (or kexplorer, or MWindows, or whatever...you get the point), Windows would hav a substantially smaller user base, as it would have the exact issues that linux has now....inconsistency.

Welll....that and dependancy hell ;-)

Mikeynewbie
January 1st, 2006, 04:47 AM
Don't be offended just a little curious. How does Tourette's cause you to type at times offensive and strange things when from my understanding Tourette's is a condition that causes physical and vocal tics. odd keystrokes and mispelling I can understand due to the nature of physical tics. However, I fail to understand how the complex phrases you type can be attributed to tourette's based on the limited information I have regarding Tourette's.

vasudevank
January 1st, 2006, 04:49 AM
it has to be drivers and support from hardware and software companies, just know some companies have begun to support linux, but still linux is growing, so lets hope that companies start the support

TimelessRogue
January 1st, 2006, 05:52 AM
Ah, but qferret there IS only one Linux ... Linus' kernel. There are, however, a goodly number of "strains" if you will ... variations on the theme ... different ways of using that one kernel, of putting it all together. Which is not in an of itself a bad thing ... other that it can lead to some confusion as to which will serve our individual purposes the best ... for there is one that is best of each of us individually ... without being locked into the Master OS.

One advantage to having those variations available is exampled the the mini-Linux packages. Another is the live-cd distributions ... useful not only as a way of trying Linux on both your system and your own self to see if it will work for you and your current configuration but also, as it turns out, to be able to actually run Linux from that cd without needing to install to a harddrive. Yet another is the advantage of being able to do updates, upgrades and complete new kernel installations without HAVING to reboot your system after each and every minor or even major software update.

So ... long live the ONE Linux ... and the constant variations on that theme!

qferret
January 1st, 2006, 06:22 AM
Ah, but qferret there IS only one Linux ... Linus' kernel. There are, however, a goodly number of "strains" if you will ...

bah!...semantics... ;-)

I never said it was a bad thing...just that with all of the choices, there is less "unity" than among Windows users. Everyone has their favorite distro and some even have a tendency to bash other distros (usually RH based vs. Debian based)

I never said that I thought it SHOULD change, just that it is IMO the biggest factor in keeping out of the "mainstream".

Actually, it affects the 3rd party support theory as well. What works on Ubuntu may not work on Slackware/Sarge/RH/Mandriva/etc. Which distro do vendors support? (Bearing in mind that 98% of them aren't going to give us source code to compile from)