"Linux too geek for desktop" *Fudzilla article*

[MilesRdz]

This morning I replaced the latest version of Ubuntu with the Windows 7 release candidate. I had been running the Windows 7 beta but since this expires next week I thought I would go back to Ubuntu. However it looked like Microsoft's belief that if you give enough people Windows 7 to play with for a while they will not go back proved true in my case.

Source: http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/13917/1/

Discuss?

[Tews]

Bleh ... just more of the same ...

[Tibuda]

Codecs are not shipped because of legal issues, nothing to do with FOSS philosophy.

[caravel]

That article is quite frankly a load of biased bollox, from someone that quite obviously hasn't got a clue.

[cariboo]

This really doesn't belong here, as the above article is not about a users experiences, but those of a journalist.

This thread is closed

[Sef]

1) Moved to Community Cafe and reopened the article.

2) Do not post a whole article on in Ubuntu Forums, unless it is licensed under the Creative Commons License. Some companies can get upset about having too much of their material posted on webistes other than their own because it can affect how many people that they know of see the article.

[Paqman]

I actually agree with his headline: Linux is too geeky for most people. However i'm a geek, and so I like it.

Good on him for having a go with Linux though. We can't please everyone.

[monsterstack]

Again with the slander that avoiding patent licensing issues is evidence of religious mania. There are problems with Linux, but this guy, like so many others, is too slow to realise that many of those problems are not the fault of Linux. Instead of complaining about the things that don't work out of the box in Linux, ask yourself why that is the case. Codecs have patent licensing issues; many proprietary licences conflict with the GPL; retailers are bullied into avoiding selling Linux-based machines. That isn't to say that the problems don't matter or aren't legitimate concerns: they are. But trying to pass them off as the fault of Linux developers alone is pure FUD.

And remember, free software projects can and do give users what they want. Firefox gained so many users in such a small amount of time precisely because it gave users what they wanted, mainly adblockers and pop-up stoppers. It took Microsoft three years to respond to that, but by then IE dominance was no more. Even now Firefox continues to gain users whilst IE loses theirs, and this trend has not skipped a beat since 2004. He praises Mozilla in his little rant. So how is that evidence that Linux projects don't give users what they want?

His only other complaint is about the lack of coherency in the GUI department. But he doesn't give any examples. Hard to judge that one, as there are plenty of poorly-designed apps out there, although I'd say every GUI programme installed in the default Ubuntu desktop looks pretty good. Perhaps, seeing as his entire article is based around the lack of media codecs, he went and installed mPlayer to get his videos working properly. No arguments there: mPlayer is ugly as sin. Perhaps he should have tried one of the frontends such as smplayer.

[hanzomon4]

He's right... It's not fud. A total fud on the codecs part but I'll let that pass. Everything he mentioned I have experienced. Choppy video, foss apps that run better in OSX then they do on the "free" OS, and constant tinkering to get some things to work. I think a lot of it has to do with the attitude of the community. If a frustrated user has a problem you folks are quick to say :insert_snotty_voice: "you didn't pay the devs" or "It's foss so get to work fixing it yourself".

Linux is not just for geeks who speak in binary, but in a lot of ways it's still designed that way. It's like here's something to tweak instead of a fully armed and operational computing package. Ubuntu is pretty close, it's not just a skeleton but it's missing skin, teeth, finger nails, and some other things. The FOSS community could fix all of that if it knew how to take criticism. The community is a whiny bunch whenever someone points out how Linux ain't the greatest and in fact sucks at a few things.

So for those that want the year of linux on the desktop, or whatever, stop burying your heads in your ideological sandbox whenever non foss-geeks point out something, they have no intention of fixing, that's broken or ugly. Feedback is feedback, negative... positive.. whatever. It can be a greater asset then code.

[perroazul]

And remember, free software projects can and do give users what they want. Firefox gained so many users in such a small amount of time precisely because it gave users what they wanted, mainly adblockers and pop-up stoppers. It took Microsoft three years to respond to that, but by then IE dominance was no more. Even now Firefox continues to gain users whilst IE loses theirs, and this trend has not skipped a beat since 2004. He praises Mozilla in his little rant. So how is that evidence that Linux projects don't give users what they want?

is a pity that it is not possible to give thumbs up, or stars to a comment like you do in youtube. this one deserves :KS:KS:KS:KS:KS:KS:KS:KS

[nmccrina]

Ubuntu is not geeky enough. What's that guy talking about? :???:

[monsterstack]

He's right... It's not fud. A total fud on the codecs part but I'll let that pass. Everything he mentioned I have experienced. Choppy video, foss apps that run better in OSX then they do on the "free" OS, and constant tinkering to get some things to work. I think a lot of it has to do with the attitude of the community. If a frustrated user has a problem you folks are quick to say :insert_snotty_voice: "you didn't pay the devs" or "It's foss so get to work fixing it yourself".

The vast majority of poor video playback is down to lousy drivers. Now consider that most modern graphics sets have completely closed drivers maintained only at the whim of the manufacturers. What, exactly, do you want Linux developers to do about that? And seriously, when was the last time you were told to RTFM or write your own codecs around here? I don't think I've ever seen such arrogance from developers on this forum. I'll say it again: developers aren't God-like; there are some things they simply cannot do because of external factors beyond their control.



Linux is not just for geeks who speak in binary, but in a lot of ways it's still designed that way. It's like here's something to tweak instead of a fully armed and operational computing package. Ubuntu is pretty close, it's not just a skeleton but it's missing skin, teeth, finger nails, and some other things. The FOSS community could fix all of that if it knew how to take criticism. The community is a whiny bunch whenever someone points out how Linux ain't the greatest and in fact sucks at a few things.

Have you looked at any bug-trackers lately? Have a look at these bugs for VLC (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/+bugs?field.searchtext=VLC&search=Search+Bug+Reports&field.scope=all&field.scope.target=) [launchpad.net], for instance. I'd argue that developers can take criticism, and most of them do their very best to improve their software because of it.


So for those that want the year of linux on the desktop, or whatever, stop burying your heads in your ideological sandbox whenever non foss-geeks point out something, they have no intention of fixing, that's broken or ugly. Feedback is feedback, negative... positive.. whatever. It can be a greater asset then code.

Nobody expects normal users to be geniuses who can fix anything. That's one of the reasons we have these forums. Look, people are proud, and nobody likes being told their software sucks. I've heard of people tagging bug reports with "SHE HAS FOUND A BUG! I HATE HER!" It's only natural. But you can't say the developers then go right ahead and bury their heads in the sand. Maybe some do, but I'd argue for most of the popular apps, there is a determination to get things right. In that environment, criticism is welcome. I just don't think the arrogance and belligerence you seem to feel is infectious within FOSS is even all that prevalent.

[Tipped OuT]

And remember, free software projects can and do give users what they want. Firefox gained so many users in such a small amount of time precisely because it gave users what they wanted, mainly adblockers and pop-up stoppers. It took Microsoft three years to respond to that, but by then IE dominance was no more. Even now Firefox continues to gain users whilst IE loses theirs, and this trend has not skipped a beat since 2004. He praises Mozilla in his little rant. So how is that evidence that Linux projects don't give users what they want?



Maybe because... Linux doesn't have that many users? And isn't really gaining any, at rapid rate, like Firefox? :? Because if Linux did give users what they wanted, there would be a lot more users then there is now, and be a possible threat to Microsoft.

I think that's what he's trying to point out? I don't know, I didn't read the article, just your comment.

[Paqman]

Now consider that most modern graphics sets have completely closed drivers maintained only at the whim of the manufacturers. What, exactly, do you want Linux developers to do about that?


That's not the point. The point is that the drivers are lousy, and that sucks for the user. Hence the oft-repeated claims of "Not ready for desktop" (whatever the hell that means).

New users don't really care why we have crummy Flash and bad video card drivers. They just want their hardware to perform the way they're used to having it perform. I don't actually think that's an unreasonable expectation at all.

[monsterstack]

That's not the point. The point is that the drivers are lousy, and that sucks for the user. Hence the oft-repeated claims of "Not ready for desktop" (whatever the hell that means).

New users don't really care why we have crummy Flash and bad video card drivers. They just want their hardware to perform the way they're used to having it perform. I don't actually think that's an unreasonable expectation at all.

Of course it isn't. These are real problems that need to be addressed. What I don't like is people like him shifting the blame entirely on to developers and maintainers of free software. It's complete nonsense that tarnishes the good work many have already achieved.


Maybe because... Linux doesn't have that many users? And isn't really gaining any, at rapid rate, like Firefox? :? Because if Linux did give users what they wanted, there would be a lot more users then there is now, and be a possible threat to Microsoft.

I think that's what he's trying to point out? I don't know, I didn't read the article, just your comment.

Yeah, Linux as a whole doesn't give users what they want in terms of compatibility. As far as software goes, however, I'd say my most favourite apps that run natively on Linux do a pretty good job. Many of them run on Windows, too, but that isn't the point. Evolution/Thunderbird, Firefox, VLC, Eclipse, InkScape, OpenOffice are apps Linux can run right now and many people are using them, even if many of them are Windows users. The major problem is the hardware issue and proprietary bits and blobs. Yes, these are problems. Yes, it would be great if we could solve all those issues right now, but we can't. That's been my point the entire time. Getting hardware manufacturers to change their ways and supporting free alternatives to proprietary bits and blobs is what people should be doing if they want desktop Linux to improve, not berating developers for problems they cannot possibly fix.

[PirateChef]

Maybe because... Linux doesn't have that many users? And isn't really gaining any, at rapid rate, like Firefox? :? Because if Linux did give users what they wanted, there would be a lot more users then there is now, and be a possible threat to Microsoft.

Whenever I read articles like this, I have to chuckle. What makes the author think that Linux is trying to beat Microsoft? That would make sense if GNU were a for-profit company; but since they aren't, it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges. I see Linux more like an educational project, like something a university would do to enrich life and increase knowledge. Windows is a slick, glitzy OS with a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

As long as MS leaves us alone (e.g. quits pushing for software patents), who really cares if we're #3? I certainly can't speak for any developers, but I would think they're more concerned with writing good code, not staying up nights dreaming of ways to topple Microsoft.

[Tipped OuT]

Whenever I read articles like this, I have to chuckle. What makes the author think that Linux is trying to beat Microsoft? That would make sense if GNU were a for-profit company; but since they aren't, it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges. I see Linux more like an educational project, like something a university would do to enrich life and increase knowledge. Windows is a slick, glitzy OS with a multi-million dollar ad campaign.

As long as MS leaves us alone (e.g. quits pushing for software patents), who really cares if we're #3? I certainly can't speak for any developers, but I would think they're more concerned with writing good code, not staying up nights dreaming of ways to topple Microsoft.

The article is not even about that. It's about how Linux still isn't ready for the desktop. And as I stated in my post, when I wrote that, I didn't read the article, I just made assumptions.

Anyways, we all have our opinions. :)

[paddydd]

I think UBUNTU is ready for the desktop but maybe it needs a little help from family support(meaning me) every now and then. Then again I have yet to see people around me not need help with windows. I just moved in to a new neighbourhood and when people find out I am a tech they ALL line me up to help them with WINDOWS and then there's my family. So I am the support. Here's a question: which OS is easier to support?


So let's look at some of the tradeoffs.

There might be a little more work to buy the codecs from Canonical for $40 and install but then again let's compare that to installing software from MS of a third-party on windows. I didn't see any difference.

Does UBUNTU work with video - sure... Audio - sure -- bunches of other stuff -- sure. I don't see any difference. Might there be issues... maybe but it's not like I didn't see issues in Windows.

So I had to install a java applet into fire-fox - something you might have to do in windows. How about flash? I know that I had to install or update on windows several times the way you do on Linux.

What is easier to deal with - a MS Service Pack -- or the patch updates that come via the UBUNTU system?

Software install and updates are way easier with package mgt and repositories in UBUNTU than anything I ever saw in windows.

It's way more likely that you get malware or an attack in the windows OS.

So my conclusion... I'd rather they use UBUNTU because it's my time when I am supporting them. But I don't force them -- I encourage them to try UBUNTU (live disk) and if they like then install. Once they have it I'll probably have to iron out an issue every now and then. I just think the issues will be much less in quantity and intensity with UBUNTU.

Paddy

[Regenweald]

He's right... It's not fud. A total fud on the codecs part but I'll let that pass. Everything he mentioned I have experienced. Choppy video, foss apps that run better in OSX then they do on the "free" OS, and constant tinkering to get some things to work. I think a lot of it has to do with the attitude of the community. If a frustrated user has a problem you folks are quick to say :insert_snotty_voice: "you didn't pay the devs" or "It's foss so get to work fixing it yourself".

Linux is not just for geeks who speak in binary, but in a lot of ways it's still designed that way. It's like here's something to tweak instead of a fully armed and operational computing package. Ubuntu is pretty close, it's not just a skeleton but it's missing skin, teeth, finger nails, and some other things. The FOSS community could fix all of that if it knew how to take criticism. The community is a whiny bunch whenever someone points out how Linux ain't the greatest and in fact sucks at a few things.

So for those that want the year of linux on the desktop, or whatever, stop burying your heads in your ideological sandbox whenever non foss-geeks point out something, they have no intention of fixing, that's broken or ugly. Feedback is feedback, negative... positive.. whatever. It can be a greater asset then code.

I don't know if you have ever had a developer bite your head off, but in my opinion, our developers always seem eager to please. Someone is always announcing a new package and asking for user feedback. What I HAVE noticed in my 14 odd months of Ubuntu, are very passionate community members, not devs, quick to defend our developers.

In most cases, with good reason, it is only so many times someone can read the: 'this didn't work for me, I hate linux' post from some noob and not feel the need to speak up. It is very true that many aspects of the Linux desktop need to be improved, but it is also true that almost all of the key areas are in constant, heavy development.

The: 'i've now used linux for a few days, here is my essay on it's shortcomings' post, is especially irksome. Most of these contain 'issues' created out of user ignorance, and the few actual worthwhile observations are, well, already known and in progress. User input is one of our most powerful tools, the quality of the input however, often leaves much to be desired.

[schauerlich]

I accidentally too geek for desktop. Is this bad?

[SunnyRabbiera]

Fudzilla is such an appropriate name...

[dspari1]

The author of the article is very ignorant.

Ubuntu doesn't come with all of the various components out of the box not because of some religious belief, but because Canonical would be sued if it was included.

Other distros that do include these components get away with it because they are based in a foreign country that don't enforce patents/copyright, and because they are not legal entities or corporation that could easily be targeted.

Windows does have these because it is included in the price when your purchase your copy.

He clearly didn't go here:
http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=244

or here:
http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=243

[don_quixote]

I'm a mid-range user, not sure I'd call myself a geek. I don't deal with programming, outside of some basic scripting. I switched to Linux primarily because I didn't see the need to pay for the next generation of Windows when I can get an OS for free. It also didn't help that I didn't feel right about using pirated GIS software, which Linux had for free (well, I guess, Windows has the same software but still, I guess I'd rather experience it on its 'original' platform), and it did everything I need it to.

I guess I'd call myself a power user, not a geek. I like apt-get because it's effective and highly usable. I don't need to be on the 'bleeding edge' and I see no reason to compile my source code. I don't want to follow a handbook to install my OS, or sit for a day while it compiles. But Linux doesn't have to be that. Ubuntu recognized all my hardware; it had trouble with the graphics card (would cause freeze ups) and it won't work with my laptop's sleep function. But it took me a whole of three days to figure these things out by googling around. So, I don't think it's really only for geeks, but it perhaps isn't for rank novices either (but, really, no system is truly 'friendly' to rank novices).

[b@sh_n3rd]

Well..his argument is sound in some areas. Ubuntu does need some work but it has definitely improved with Jaunty. I say that even though I started with Hardy. Some strange things though are that Ubuntu in this case works better on some hardware, and doesn't work well on others. For example, I installed Jaunty on a Dell OptiPlex GXa first, which is an 11 year old PC with an Intel Pentium II 266MHz processor and upgraded with, 386MiB RAM and a 15GiB HDD.

Now, this PC boots faster on Jaunty than on XP even though XP was fast (I'd say about 30-40s). The PC maybe old but it's the best and most reliable in my fleet. It boots in 31.11 seconds (data from bootchart) on Jaunty though I find it quite suprising that some find it booting in upto 50 seconds on newer PC's?

About other applications working slow on Ubuntu, it's either architectural issues with X Server or GNOME? We all know that the Ubuntu project doesn't really compile/make the GUI along with the OS but only integrate it and make it work in the best configuration on Ubuntu. Either way, Karmic Koala would certainly prove anything with the new kernel and if used, the newer version of X Server.

[Chame_Wizard]

I read the article,I find it bullcrap.ALL diehards Winblah people,say negative things about Linux/BSD aka FLOSS EVERYDAY.


One of my biggest problems with Ubuntu is that it sells itself as a desktop system for ordinary people. However things like graphics codecs and software that ordinary people use are not installed out of the box due to some stupid free software religious attitude that does not interest ordinary people.
Of course we know we are not perfect,at least we ARE a community,who choose for freedom and to learn things.




Windows 7 however did everything I want, looked nice, ran straight out of the box. The only time it took me to install anything was to replace all the proprietary stuff I don't like such as Internet Exploder. It seems to me that even if I desperately want Linux systems to replace proprietary software, desktop packages simply are not user focused enough to make it happen. In the end Microsoft and Apple will win because they give the users what they want.
They give user what they want?Sure,cause they don't know anything better than stupid proprietary software.


The problem is a lack of commitment from the Linux crowd to the desktop and a lack of drive to produce things for the great unwashed.Integrate software better with the GUI like Microsoft does. Then perhaps Linux will be king.

OOh please,stop it already and go suck Ballmer tiny.****.
That person need a gunshot:popcorn:.

Did he forget that a large part of the software everyone use are OSS?Heck,BSD was the one who invented a TCP/IP stack,which is a standaard for everyone(M$ also integrated it,in WINDOWS),UNIX made it all possible(40 YEARS ago).

Without it,the Internet won't be big for the past 40 YEARS NOW.
Integrating software with the GUI?No,thank you, i rather have it seperated.Balance between good and bad software is always important for me,you learn something from it.

[Delever]

blue = best

[michaeldt]

Author of the article expected either Windows 7 or Mac OS X for free. But Linux tries to be neither of those. He seems to focus purely on GUI and codecs, which are in the former case, opinionated and in the latter case, covered in legal issues.

I prefer my Linux GUI to windows. None of my apps run slow under Linux, and some things, like Wow, run better under Wine than in Windows. It's cherry picking. He expects Linux to give him MORE than windows or OSX and for free. But that's not what Ubuntu is about.

Linux has it's problems, but so does Windows. It's just that Windows users are so used to dealing with Windows' problems that they almost forget they are problems in the first place. But when they find a fault in Linux it's the end of the world!! People simply have higher expectations form Linux than they do from their usual OS.

In all honesty, it sounds like the author was a bit daunted by Linux, in a way, too scared to move out of his comfort zone. And thus is trying to justify his dependence on windows.

[blairm]

Is Linux too geeky for the desktop? Depends on the user.

My parents, who are 63 and 73, use their computer for about 30min a day for email, browsing, word processing and a bit of photo editing.
For their purposes, Ubuntu is perfect; since I set them up with it a couple of years ago they have called only once for help (they'd heard about something called rss and wanted advice on a feed reader) and they haven't touched XP, which I also installed on the machine for them.

But for the large number of people who use their computer more that that, most of whom have been using windows all their lives, it is still an os that has a pretty significant learning curve.

We're getting there, but there's a ways to go yet,

[Screwdriver0815]

This morning I replaced the latest version of Ubuntu with the Windows 7 release candidate. I had been running the Windows 7 beta but since this expires next week I thought I would go back to Ubuntu. However it looked like Microsoft's belief that if you give enough people Windows 7 to play with for a while they will not go back proved true in my case.

congratulations! Who cares? No-one ;)


Ubuntu's latest release was like going back to XP for me. It looked and felt terrible after six months with Windows 7. Also I had to spend a day fiddling with it to get all the various components that I needed installed. If Ubuntu shipped with what ordinary people want, rather than what a religious belief in open source says they SHOULD want, it would have been easier.
ROFL :D

so all the applications shipped with Ubuntu is bloatware, right? Its really annoying that you get a whole office suite (which costs btw around 100 euros at Microsoft) and all this other stuff... what do these Ubuntu guys think they are??!!??


OK, I had time and enjoyed the experience and satisfaction, but I doubt many people could be bothered. And, after I had wasted the day doing all that, the result was frankly dull, clunky and lacking imagination. Linux people will point out that my beef is with the interface – Gnome. However it is not just that. Ubuntu installed and boots up much faster than Windows 7, but software running within it does not. Video playback was terrible when the same Open Source software running in Windows 7 was really good.
ah, ok... so the video player in Windows does not just show a video? What does it do additionally? Serving beer and Chips? LOL!


I have a good spec machine but there were so many things that Ubuntu could not run graphically. Even with all the eye candy switched on there was little to draw me in. One of my biggest problems with Ubuntu is that it sells itself as a desktop system for ordinary people. However things like graphics codecs and software that ordinary people use are not installed out of the box due to some stupid free software religious attitude that does not interest ordinary people.
ah ok... so when I purchase a purely naked Windows... thats what I did with my last Windows XP... it can not play videos either. Even if now lots of people stand up and scream that this is not true... this doesn't anything to the truth: a naked windows without any software can NOT play videos which need special codecs.
So you have to install either the codecs or software like Power DVD to get the videos working.
Moreover: this stupid windows media player pops up and asks if it should install missing codecs... and (surprise?) it fails all the time you try it. Try this with Totem, the videoplayer in Ubuntu... and (surprise?) its successful all the time... whats that? Ah, yes, opensource software is so bad. It really sucks. LOL! And its religious when something just works.


Windows 7 however did everything I want, looked nice, ran straight out of the box. The only time it took me to install anything was to replace all the proprietary stuff I don't like such as Internet Exploder. It seems to me that even if I desperately want Linux systems to replace proprietary software, desktop packages simply are not user focused enough to make it happen. In the end Microsoft and Apple will win because they give the users what they want. This is tragic because Open Source should be whipping Microsoft and Apple into a coma on the desktop in the same way it has been doing on the servers. Mozilla has shown the sort of direction that the desktop needs to take if it is going to unseat anyone.
ah yes, it ran nice and gave him what he wanted. He just had to uninstall all the bloatware he didn't want and to replace it with the stuff he wanted... great!
This is much better than doing the same in Ubuntu ...
what an idiot.


The problem is a lack of commitment from the Linux crowd to the desktop and a lack of drive to produce things for the great unwashed. Open source is supposed to bring together a great flowering of creativity and yet it is only a mathematical form which is being expressed. Linux desktops are the tool of an archetypal geek which sees functionality over form.

So rather than beating up people who say that the Open Source movement needs to look to designers and other who will make their product look and feel better, it is time that the movement took a leaf from the proprietary companies' book.
Form projects with decent designers that focus on the user – like Apple does. Integrate software better with the GUI like Microsoft does. Then perhaps Linux will be king.
so if a developer develops software for Linux because he wants to do it, this lacks of commitment? Did I get this right?
I always thought that a person who actually WANTS to do things and not does things because he MUST do it, the commitment is at maximum?
There is such a huge amount of really good and nice opensource software out there. And the only thing which is warmed over all the time is photoshop and gaming. This is so boring.

So if the Linux desktop is ugly this is really a show-stopper, right? Because it doesn't matter if it works, as long as it looks good! It doesn't matter if you could customise your machine in each and every detail.
And the most important thing is: this guy tells us how a desktop looks nice. The Windows and the Apple Desktop looks good.
So what if I feel that the Windows and Apple Desktop is the most f****** ugly stuff I have ever seen? Do I need a brainwash?

So the best, a opensource developer deserves is that thousends of people tell him how much his app sucks? And the best we could do for Linux on the desktop is praise Microsoft and Apple for their good and stylish products? I don't get the psychological background for that.
But anyway: there is not many people who care for Linux on the desktop.
Why should they do that?
What benefits does a community like Debian have when there pops up a bunch of biased windows lusers who do not understand why in Linux certain things work like that which in windows work opposite?
What benefits does a Linux company have who sell their services to big companies who actually rely on the reliability of Linux machines from a bunch of Windows lusers who critisise the video play in Linux?
What benefits does the Linux community get from windows lusers who say that in photoshop the button "create photo" is in the right-upper corner and in Gimp this button is on the left-lower corner and that this is not acceptable?

I think that most of the people who come from Windows to Linux MUST understand that Linux is NOT Windows and that Linux does not want to be Windows.
It is not that Linux does not want to be userfriendly because it is actually. But userfriendly is not: doing everything like in Windows.
Just because lots of people have learned over YEARS how to use Windows this does not mean that Linux has to do it the same. When you start with Linux, you are a beginner like you were before as you started with Windows.

This is the important thing, people have to realise. Stupid comments how un-useable Linux is because it is different are simply not useful.

this is my 2 cents

[JohnFH]

^^^^ What he said! ^^^^

That's very well put and well argued, Screwdriver. Do you have a blog? If so, publish something like this if you haven't already done so. Or post a reply to the original article.

[richg]

Yes, Linux is too geeky. Windows is too geeky for most people. Developers of Cloud technology are recognizing the problem and are looking into dumbing down the software. Keep watching tech news on the Internet.

Rich

[Bodsda]

*yawn* getting bored of articles constantly saying Linux is geeky, erm.. thats how a lot of people like it... not ready for the desktop is a matter of opinion, not ready for averge joes desktop is also a matter of opinion, not ready for average I_dont_want_to_know_joe's desktop sure.

[Therion]

The problem is a lack of commitment from the Linux crowd to the desktop and a lack of drive to produce things for the great unwashed.
Wow. And what, exactly, have YOU produced lately that even begins to compare?


Open source is supposed to bring together a great flowering of creativity...
You're saying it hasn't?


and yet it is only a mathematical form which is being expressed. Linux desktops are the tool of an archetypal geek which sees functionality over form.
You say that like it's a bad thing...

[SomeGuyDude]

Didn't read the article. I'm guessing it's a whole bunch of nonsense that could be distilled to "I'm lazy and think anything that doesn't function exactly like Windows is bad".

I once had someone tell me Openbox's right-click menu was stupid, for no reason I can think of beyond it's a big adjustment after living with a "start" button for about 15 years.

[northwestuntu]

i agree in the fact that ubuntu isn't really for newbies.

i have given a live cd to several people and most of them didn't know how to get the video to play or get the flash installed. they didn't know how to get there graphics driver going and gave up until i had to show them.

some people are so used to windows where everything is setup up out of the box. well except anti virus, anti spyware, flash install, firefox, extra codecs.

[Tibuda]

Didn't read the article. I'm guessing it's a whole bunch of nonsense that could be distilled to "I'm lazy and think anything that doesn't function exactly like Windows is bad".
Are you a genius or something like that? That's exactly what the article is about.

[monsterstack]

i agree in the fact that ubuntu isn't really for newbies.

i have given a live cd to several people and most of them didn't know how to get the video to play or get the flash installed. they didn't know how to get there graphics driver going and gave up until i had to show them.

some people are so used to windows where everything is setup up out of the box. well except anti virus, anti spyware, flash install, firefox, extra codecs.

Ha ha. That's a good point, actually. The last time I installed XP, I remember having to set up the wireless, endure three hours of Microsoft updates and multiple reboots, install a bunch of extra drivers for my graphics card, remove all of the crufty programmes supplied on the OEM XP disc, set up the printer, install anti-virus, install Firefox (and then adblock, noscript, British English dictionary, downthemall, downloadhelper, in that order), install Spybot (and then update and run it), install Ad-Aware, fiddle with the power settings, change the default blue theme to classic theme, modify the start menu to classic mode as well, install Foxit, install Flash, install Winrar and 7z, install Java, install OpenOffice, install a bittorrent client, install VLC, run WIndows update one more time, and then reboot just one more time.

[HappyFeet]

Linux has it's problems, but so does Windows. It's just that Windows users are so used to dealing with Windows' problems that they almost forget they are problems in the first place. But when they find a fault in Linux it's the end of the world!! People simply have higher expectations form Linux than they do from their usual OS.



Exactly. I think people are more willing to put up with familiar problems than new ones.

[don_quixote]

Exactly. I think people are more willing to put up with familiar problems than new ones.

Indeed.

Someone unfamiliar with computers is unlikely to find one much easier than the other. Give Aunt Mae a CD with Vista and a PC with no OS, and then tell her GO. It likely won't be a good experience. It doesn't happen, either, because Windows always comes preinstalled. But if I gave a rank novice a preinstalled version of Ubuntu, all set up, and bug free, I'd argue they actually might have an easier time with it than with Windows.

[Screwdriver0815]

i agree in the fact that ubuntu isn't really for newbies.

i have given a live cd to several people and most of them didn't know how to get the video to play or get the flash installed. they didn't know how to get there graphics driver going and gave up until i had to show them.

some people are so used to windows where everything is setup up out of the box. well except anti virus, anti spyware, flash install, firefox, extra codecs.
And? What in your opinion should Ubuntu resp. Linux do? Setting it up like in Windows or doing it their way because it is the better way?

Its not Ubuntu's nor Linux's fault when someone does not find something specific with one mouseclick.
Its the fault of the users who are just too lazy to do some research on the things they want to do.
When someone wants to use a technical appliance like an Operating System, he or she needs to have certain knowledge on how some things work and what to do to get the expected results. Thats why Google exists, the internet and forums like this one.

once again:

People have to realise that Linux is NOT Windows

I have no clue how to set up a WLAN connection in Windows. What does this mean? Does it mean that I am too stupid or does it mean that Windows is not userfriendly?
For me it the second answer: its just not userfriendly. Because in Linux I can set up a WLAN connection within 5 minutes. So I am a professional in WLAN, right?
So I sit back and scream out loud what a f****** stupid system Windows is... and I would look like an idiot. Moreover: nearly everybody would tell me that it is like it is and that I should do some research and learn how to fix it.
So I could (no: I should ) do some research on it to find out how it works. After that I still could complain that the setup in Windows sucks like hell because its not the same like in Linux.
And to top this all: I could scream that Ubuntu sucks too but not as much as Windows because the setup of the WLAN in Mandriva is much more easy...

What about the Apple stuff? In Apple you have only one mousebutton. What the hell is that?? How can anybody be so stupid?
In Macs OS you have these ugly icons and everything feels like chewing gum.
I wonder how it is to set up a WLAN connection or to install my printer. For sure it sucks because its not the same like in Ubuntu.

Does anybody see the stupidity in argueing that something sucks when it is not exactly like something from a totally different corner of the software-planet? And that all this argueing that windows is better has nothing to do with "newbie friendliyness" and "userfriendly" but with open minds, choice and freedom to do what ever one likes?

[SomeGuyDude]

LOL, that's a good point, too.

Since I haven't used Windows in over a year, I totally don't remember how to deal with Windows-related issues. So when I'm confronted with them now I keep trying to Linux my way through and find myself going "dammit if I could run this through the terminal it would be VERY HELPFUL."

Windows is, in no way, objectively more user-friendly than the simplest Linux distros (I'm talking Mint, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS types). Not in the SLIGHTEST. But people LEARN on Windows so, for example, hunting down something in the Control Panel becomes second nature.

I'm comically more efficient than I ever used to be, but I had to be willing to LEARN.

[Screwdriver0815]

... and because I am in the mood now, the next rant :D

regarding all these "the Linux Distros do it like they do it and not like Windows does it because they are too stupid":

Does anyone think for example the guys at Canonical or at Debian don't know how Windows works?
Of course they do.
This is the reason why they do certain things different. Because they think it is better doing their way. If someone disagrees: fine! Just keep on using Windows!

This brings me to the next thing:
all the time when someone quits using Linux he says: "it doesn't work for me thats why Linux fails on the desktop." Wrong!
Nobody cares if and why some User who has switched 3 weeks ago from Windows to Linux, goes back to Windows.
And additional to that: for Linux it is not important to be the winner on the desktop. If Windows wins or Apple... so what?
Linux exists 18 years now. And as far as I know there never was one year in which Linux usage decreased. It always increased. The Companies who make a part of Linux, who earn their money with Linux do it with solutions and offers which the customers want.
So if now a bunch of ex-Windows-users complains about some Codecs or that the shutdown button is yellow instead of red... nobody gives a damn.

Because the majority of Linux users wants it like it is. Or they change it on their own. Its just not important to Linux and its ecosystem to suit the taste of users who switched 3 weeks ago from another operating system.
Linux also exists without them. It always has existed without 90% of the computer users.

Linux is not just one company where one can send a complaing letter and whine like a child that it does not fit to his attitude. Linux is a ecosystem consisting from different streams where the developer does it like he thinks it is okay, with respect to the majority of user-requests. And if the developer does not care about the users... okay, just ignore his software. This is freedom!

Thats what people have to realise.

[Screwdriver0815]

LOL, that's a good point, too.

Since I haven't used Windows in over a year, I totally don't remember how to deal with Windows-related issues. So when I'm confronted with them now I keep trying to Linux my way through and find myself going "dammit if I could run this through the terminal it would be VERY HELPFUL."

Windows is, in no way, objectively more user-friendly than the simplest Linux distros (I'm talking Mint, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS types). Not in the SLIGHTEST. But people LEARN on Windows so, for example, hunting down something in the Control Panel becomes second nature.

I'm comically more efficient than I ever used to be, but I had to be willing to LEARN.
its the same at me. I don't remember anything how to fix stuff in Windows. I needed 2 months before I did the switch to Linux. I have read thousands of lines to prepare myself for the switch.
I had to learn and to open my mind.

Thats what many people don't do.

[northwestuntu]

And? What in your opinion should Ubuntu resp. Linux do? Setting it up like in Windows or doing it their way because it is the better way?

Its not Ubuntu's nor Linux's fault when someone does not find something specific with one mouseclick.
Its the fault of the users who are just too lazy to do some research on the things they want to do.
When someone wants to use a technical appliance like an Operating System, he or she needs to have certain knowledge on how some things work and what to do to get the expected results. Thats why Google exists, the internet and forums like this one.

once again:

People have to realise that Linux is NOT Windows

i was just passing on what happened to some people who i gave some live cds to. i think it's fine the way they have it now.

although for newbies to ubuntu i think it would be good to have a notification to install flash and java just like they do with the graphics drivers.

that was the #1 thing i kept hearing was "i can't see any flash on web sites" they didn't know how to get that going.

yes they could google or go to ubuntuforums, but i don't think they should have to for something very basic like flash. if were trying to get more people on ubuntu we need to make things a little ..... and i know people will hate this, but "easier"

ubuntu is pretty close, but need to adjust some things to really convert some windows users.

[northwestuntu]

Ha ha. That's a good point, actually. The last time I installed XP, I remember having to set up the wireless, endure three hours of Microsoft updates and multiple reboots, install a bunch of extra drivers for my graphics card, remove all of the crufty programmes supplied on the OEM XP disc, set up the printer, install anti-virus, install Firefox (and then adblock, noscript, British English dictionary, downthemall, downloadhelper, in that order), install Spybot (and then update and run it), install Ad-Aware, fiddle with the power settings, change the default blue theme to classic theme, modify the start menu to classic mode as well, install Foxit, install Flash, install Winrar and 7z, install Java, install OpenOffice, install a bittorrent client, install VLC, run WIndows update one more time, and then reboot just one more time.


yes!! no doubt!! i spend way way way more time setting up windows out of the box then i do with ubuntu. not to mention all that crap software the hp's, dells, come with.

[Screwdriver0815]

i was just passing on what happened to some people who i gave some live cds to. i think it's fine the way they have it now.

although for newbies to ubuntu i think it would be good to have a notification to install flash and java just like they do with the graphics drivers.

that was the #1 thing i kept hearing was "i can't see any flash on web sites" they didn't know how to get that going.

yes they could google or go to ubuntuforums, but i don't think they should have to for something very basic like flash. if were trying to get more people on ubuntu we need to make things a little ..... and i know people will hate this, but "easier"

ubuntu is pretty close, but need to adjust some things to really convert some windows users.
so how does it work in Windows to get Flash?

when I remember right, I had to install Flash with a downloaded .exe file.
If now someone switches to another OS he/she should know that .exe files are windows-specific and do not work in Linux (for example).
So this person could think: "okay, no exe-stuff, what do I have to do to install it?" Because thats what he/she did in windows too - some years ago!
After thinking, Google comes to mind and with it the solution.

Because in Windows you also don't get a notification that you have to install Flash if you want it.

Don't get me wrong, I do not say "easing stuff for the users is ****" because my opinion is also that the easier it is the better. But there is a minimum requirement of cooperation and action to be fullfilled by the user. And when it is on the same level as in windows, but different, then it is not dfficult - just different.

Another thing is the graphics drivers. Installing a graphics driver in Linux is a walk in the park compared to Windows. Even in Debian where you have to hack exactly 4 lines into the command line, and you are done, after pressing enter.
Its just different. Not difficult.

[northwestuntu]

well the difference in flash install in windows. you go to a web site and it directs you right to the adobe flash site. where it says download.

in ubuntu. you go to a site without flash and it says you need to download flash. then what? how is someone going to know how to install that?

sure you say google it, not everyone knows how to use google for everything. they might not get the right instructions or get old ones.

[northwestuntu]

Another thing is the graphics drivers. Installing a graphics driver in Linux is a walk in the park compared to Windows. Even in Debian where you have to hack exactly 4 lines into the command line, and you are done, after pressing enter.
Its just different. Not difficult.

sure easy for you, but were talking about someone who's coming from windows. who doesn't use a command line. you have to think about the massive amount of people who won't know how to do that and give up over something so simple.

[Viva]

well the difference in flash install in windows. you go to a web site and it directs you right to the adobe flash site. where it says download.

in ubuntu. you go to a site without flash and it says you need to download flash. then what? how is someone going to know how to install that?

sure you say google it, not everyone knows how to use google for everything. they might not get the right instructions or get old ones.

Firefox gives you an option to install flash

[Viva]

sure easy for you, but were talking about someone who's coming from windows. who doesn't use a command line. you have to think about the massive amount of people who won't know how to do that and give up over something so simple.

I have an nvidia card and I have never used command line to install drivers until Jaunty(Decided that I'm too cool not to use cli:p)

[northwestuntu]

Firefox gives you an option to install flash

i dont think it works though.

[northwestuntu]

I have an nvidia card and I have never used command line to install drivers until Jaunty(Decided that I'm too cool not to use cli:p)


i don't either. unless im installing straight from nvidia.

[Viva]

i dont think it works though.

I think it works if all repositories are enabled. Not really sure about it though, since I install it through restricted extras package.

[northwestuntu]

I think it works if all repositories are enabled. Not really sure about it though, since I install it through restricted extras package.

yeah same here. i never got it to work for me. though i haven't tried since maybe 8.04.

[Screwdriver0815]

well the difference in flash install in windows. you go to a web site and it directs you right to the adobe flash site. where it says download.

in ubuntu. you go to a site without flash and it says you need to download flash. then what? how is someone going to know how to install that?

sure you say google it, not everyone knows how to use google for everything. they might not get the right instructions or get old ones.
this direction from the site where flash is required also works in Firefox. But it is not recommended. So we all use the restricted package.

As I tried Debian and the installation of the Nvidia driver, I also did not have any clue about this. I searched a while and I found what I wanted: 4 commands for the terminal.

Anyway: what is the alternative if a user does not want to google and collect knowledge about the new OS?
That he/she sticks with the old one.

Fine, where is the problem? Thats what I am asking all the time. All the time I say: if someone wants to use Linux, he/she has to collect knowledge how to do certain things and how to accomplish certain goals.
If he/she does not want to do this it is not recommended to use Linux. Just stay with Windows then!
Linux as the whole will never be like Windows, just to serve some people who do not understand that Linux is NOT Windows and therefore does NOT act like Windows. Its just not necessary for Linux to be like that.

[northwestuntu]

im saying though if you want to convert mass amounts of users from windows. which is the plan. it doesn't need to be done the windows way. it just need to be shown in a little more easier way

you can't just tell people google it for everything. i should be able to hand someone a live disc and they should be able to get the basics of the net pretty easy.....without googling it.

maybe some kind of walk through right after the install which tells you how to do things would be good.

ubuntu and others linuxs distros are making great progress, but not quite there.

[Tipped OuT]

im saying though if you want to convert mass amounts of users from windows. Which is the plan. It doesn't need to be done the windows way. It just need to be shown in a little more easier way

you can't just tell people google it for everything. I should be able to hand someone a live disc and they should be able to get the basics of the net pretty easy.....without googling it.

Maybe some kind of walk through right after the install which tells you how to do things would be good.

Ubuntu and others linuxs distros are making great progress, but not quite there.
+1

[SunnyRabbiera]

i dont think it works though.

No it does with Ubuntu, at least with my installation it did.

[Screwdriver0815]

im saying though if you want to convert mass amounts of users from windows. which is the plan. it doesn't need to be done the windows way. it just need to be shown in a little more easier way

you can't just tell people google it for everything. i should be able to hand someone a live disc and they should be able to get the basics of the net pretty easy.....without googling it.

maybe some kind of walk through right after the install which tells you how to do things would be good.

ubuntu and others linuxs distros are making great progress, but not quite there.
who has this plan?

okay there is Bug #1 but it only says that the market dominance of Windows should be broken.
This means that the pre-installed Windows systems on new PC which are now nearly the default will become a minority.

It does not say: "we need to convert all the windows users". Because this simply will not happen.

A user has to WANT it. Then he will also work and cooperate, ask questions in Forums, google certain things etc. Because this is the right way.

There is a walkthrough. Its called "Help" and you can open it by clicking on the lifebelt-icon.
There is also a default startsite in the Firefox which directs you to the Ubuntu-wiki and to the ubuntu forums. There the user can ask and he always gets answers.
Everything is prepared so that the new user can easily get involved into the Ubuntu community. And the Ubuntu community is very helpful and a new user always finds a solution on his problems.

The user just needs to want it.

Isn't that enough?

If someone needs a wizard, which opens automaticly because he is whining around that he can not watch youporn... the wizard is connected to the internal microphone because it has to switch on automaticly as you can not require the user that he at least clicks on something to get help...

is it right to have such dumb users who do not actually want to use the system in the Linux community? Wouldn't it be the same as Microsoft does? Threating users who do not actually want to use the system?

I mean, as I have posted before: I also say that the easier is the better. But somewhere you have to draw a line. Windows also draws a line. Apple too.
And the entrance into a new operating system is nowhere as easy as in Ubuntu. Even Windows is harder for beginners!

So why should there be improvement even when the existing possibilities are not fully used?