Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[chickengirl]

PERSONALY i WOULD HESITATE TO RECOMMEND LINUX because if grandmawants to hook a webcam (for example), there is possibly a few hours of forum time toget it working. With windows( for reasons some else cited) it's just plug and play..

Depends on the webcam. If she buys the right one (or if you buy the right one for her) it could very well be plug-n-play.

I'm sure there are lots of webcams that don't work with macs. Does that mean OS X isn't ready for grandma?

[chaosgeisterchen]

The "Linux is not Windows" article isn't saying "you're not l33t enough for Linux, so **** off." It's saying "Linux fundamentally is not Windows, so if you come to Linux expecting Windows, you will be disappointed. This is what you can expect instead."

It's not elitist, it's just a statement of fact.

I do not negate that. I do say that I do not like the attitude of people trying to bash other people wanting to configure their Linux as near as possible to their old windows settings..

[DoctorMO]

If they wanted a computer like windows why don't they stick with windows? we're not here to pander to peoples personal tastes.

If someone wants a windows clone they can get off their **** and make one, we've given them enough parts to do so.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I, humbled, reappear with my palms out and my tail between my legs.

I THOUGHT, that Ubuntu was a Windows replacement. I THOUGHT that it was RFTW. I THOUGHT that I could take a decade plus of GUI and a few years of command line experience and adapt to Unix in a flash.

I was wrong.

I have read the posts and articles and all the diatribe about Linux and Windows and hobby and Business applications, and studied reviews and Diggs and other opinions, and still want to believe that somehow, someday, some variant of Linux will be truly "plug-n-play" compatible with Windows 98SE/XP...

Sure, put up all the "This is illegal" and "Do not use this in the USA" and all that other crap, and add the Automatix and Easy-Whatever repositories, and then you will have some fey representation of a Windows replacement OS that can be used for both the hobbyists and the Capatalists.

Isn't that the point? Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole Apple vs. PC thing is so last century.

Aren't we ALL trying to accomplish the same thing now? I close my rant with the following question:

Can Ubuntu become a Windows replacement for the masses?

...and if not, why?

MRK

PS: I will continue to dual boot 98SE and Ubuntu, and learn, and read, and promise that from now on, I will only cry for help when I am totally overwhelmed.

No but it can be a great alternative OS for the masses.
Honestly so many people think Linux is a replacement for windows, its not meant for it... its an alternative not a replacement....
Like OSX is an alternative, like BSD or Solaris.

[sloggerkhan]

It's funny. I started on a mac as a kid back in the days of OS 7,8 and 9. Then at school they had apple classics with real floppy disks and some macs. Then the next school had all windows, and next. though I had a mac at home through end of High School, I was also using windows at school and managing a windows laptop the last couple of years of highschool. Then for college I got a windows laptop cause it was cheaper, my family at home moved ot OSX sometime in High School. First year of college, I had a class with some programming and a little command line. Then after a year with windows, I installed ubuntu. For me, the most confusing thing was the hard drive partitioning. Coming from a mac, the cd installer was like nostalgia for the better things in OS 9, and gnome finally showed the DATE and TIME instead of just the time, stupid windows thing. And config aren't too complicated. Really, as long as you can look up what config files do what and modify them to match, the rest of the system takes care of itself.
But I guess I'm kinda weird because I've never had any real trouble using any operating system. I barely use windows these days (I use it for a fallback for those times when I ruin my linux install) and people still ask me for advice about it.

But what's been shocking me lately is this: People who are not computer people probably couldn't instal Ubuntu or Xubuntu or Kubuntu themselves, but if you do it for them, they prefer it to windows.

I still can't believe it, but I've come to the conclusion that if you are dealing with the average person who just wants to IM/Browse Net/Do Email/Word Processor/Use iPod, they genuinely seem to prefer gnome or xfce to windows. They think it's easier and simpler. No joke. The only people in that user class who don't seem to like it are the ones who use iTunes music store....

Now dealing with devoted/longterm/hardcore windows users is a different story... Most of them are looking for problems so they don't have to feel guilty about paying $100-600 for MS office and seem to think that being able to go to the ADD/REMOVE menu to get software is somehow worse than using a CD. (Which tends to be the exact opposite of the regular people who think it's awesome.)

Anyhow, to all the people who say that linux isn't for everyone, I think maybe that's true if you have to install and configure it yourself, but if people can get it installed for them, the semi-clueless users seem to love it.

[bhuot]

The reasons I think Linux is being held back has nothing to do with making Linux work like Windows. I think the interfaces should be radically different in Linux than in Windows as Windows is not easy to use either. I don't think the command line is the problem either - it is a great strength. The problem with the command line is that people are not confident that they can type in everything accurately. Posters who respond with type this at the konsole should make sure people know that they can copy the code from the webpage and paste it into the command line. When I tell people who are afraid of the command line to do this, they are very relieved. Linux should not be made exactly like Windows, but there are many things that Linux is shooting itself in the foot with. First of all standardization of Linux distributions to putting the files in the same place for programs and configuration - I don't see why this is a Linux things to have things incompatible for no real advantage. Make the control panel the same across different distributions - basically people are doing the same things, but they have to re-learn everything each time they switch Linuxes. Programs should be renamed by distributions or desktop environments so people don't have to remember the specific program - example - call it web browser instead of Firefox. Gnome already does this to a great degree. So does Linspire. This is not making things exactly the same as Windows - it is just making things better for everyone.

in fact this is all available in this article

http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/1500

[chickengirl]

Programs should be renamed by distributions or desktop environments so people don't have to remember the specific program - example - call it web browser instead of Firefox. Gnome already does this to a great degree. So does Linspire. This is not making things exactly the same as Windows - it is just making things better for everyone.

Blech. That's one of the things I hated about Linspire. If you want to make it clear that Firefox is a web browser, then file it under "web browsers" in the menu, or call it "Firefox Web Browser". Don't just hide from me what program I'm using -- frankly, I find that insulting.

I don't have a problem with making Linux easier to use, but I disagree with the sentiment that that means everything needs to be dumbed down for "grandma" or "average Joe". Why is everyone so eager to get Joe and Grandma on Linux anyway? If they're happy with Windows, let them use Windows. If they've got virus problems, get them anti-virus, or better, a Mac. Linux is for people who are at least somewhat interested in the workings of their computer and who are willing to learn. Joe and Grandma just want to play poker and email their grandkids (respectively). They don't need Linux. Let Linux be for the people who want to use Linux. If you're going to foist Linux on Joe and Grandma, let it be in the form of some nifty Linux-powered gadget that plays games/does internet/email and that's all it does. Because that's really all they want. Don't stick them with all the other baggage.

Why can't we just concentrate on making Linux the best it can be? Why must we be so obsessed with the Microsoftian ideal of "our OS on every desktop, whether they want it or not"?

[Christmas]

One of the factors can be one the base things Linux is based on, and that is open-source. Probably most of the big corporations developing software don't want to give all their code away so they find a proper medium in Windows. Closed source software, most of it payed, their own licenses and their own ways of protecting the program by making the user to buy a license code to use the program. I think it's a different business model. I'm not an expert but let's take XChat for Windows for example. It is payed, but someone can modify and compile it so he can use it without the need to register it, am I right? So he could give the binary away then, and no money for XChat developers.

[bhuot]

I don't see a problem with distributions or desktop environments making it easier for the average user. The advanced user can use another Windows Manager and not use OpenOffice.org and use an advanced distribution like Gentoo. If you really know all the ins and outs of your computer, then what are you using Ubuntu for? Ubuntu uses Gnome for their default desktop environment to make it easier for the average user. In fact most of the major programs Linux users use are clones of Windows or Mac programs because that is what people want and what developers are interested in designing. The vast majority of users and potential users want things to be easier and so do the developers. For those who want this to be an elitest club should go to a more hardcore distribution where they can have ultimate control. They should also be able to make their own distribution if they are really that advanced.

[chickengirl]

I don't see a problem with distributions or desktop environments making it easier for the average user. The advanced user can use another Windows Manager and not use OpenOffice.org and use an advanced distribution like Gentoo. If you really know all the ins and outs of your computer, then what are you using Ubuntu for? Ubuntu uses Gnome for their default desktop environment to make it easier for the average user. In fact most of the major programs Linux users use are clones of Windows or Mac programs because that is what people want and what developers are interested in designing. The vast majority of users and potential users want things to be easier and so do the developers. For those who want this to be an elitest club should go to a more hardcore distribution where they can have ultimate control. They should also be able to make their own distribution if they are really that advanced.

Excuse me, exactly where did I say that I am Linus Torvalds personified and know everything there is to know about every computer in the world? I wasn't aware that Ubuntu was only for people who have never seen a computer before. I thought it was for human beings. Maybe I was mistaken.

It's not elitist to say that maybe -- just MAYBE -- Grandma doesn't need to be using Linux.

The fact is, "average Joe" and someone like me (and many of the people on this forum) have very different needs. Average Joe could not care less about what OS he is running. He just wants to play some games, surf the web, and write some e-mail. All of the other things that Linux can do would only confuse Joe. So by your logic, we should just cut them out, right? Shoehorn everybody into the lowest common denominator. Hey, if you don't like using a Playskool computer, you can just compile your own distro! Because apparently, in your world, there are only two kinds of people - your grandmother and Linus Torvalds. Absolutely no room in your worldview for someone like me who wants a computer that can do some nifty things, and to be able to mess around a little bit, but who appreciates the convenience that something like Ubuntu offers.

The fact is, Joe would have no use for my ideal setup, and I would have no use for Joe's. But if you got your way, people like me would be tossed out on the street in favor of marketing to Joe, who doesn't care about Linux and would be just as happy with Windows. Charming.