Is user friendly the right way to go?

[Bodsda]

With all the posts flying about concerning Linux not being ready for the desktop due to it not being very user friendly I start to wonder if that is really the direction we want Linux to go.

I am specifically talking about Linux here and perhaps Gnome + KDE, everything needs its noob angle, for Linux its Ubuntu (no disrespect intended) and thats great, without Ubuntu I would not have even bothered with Linux.

But I think Ubuntu and Gnome are as user friendly as they need to be, in fact I think Gnome has gone too far. Do we really want to brainwash every single user from here onwards into thinking that computers do things by magic and if they go wrong the wizard will make it all better again? I for one prefer to know why something has gone wrong and how to avoid it rather then being shielded by my system.

I understand that to many new users Linux is a scary place and even the prospect of looking at a terminal can be scary, but is hiding them from it really what they need, or should more effort go into educating new users?

What do you guys think?

Regards,

Bodsda

[Dr Small]

Worse is better.

[NightwishFan]

If I can 'not think' why should I want to 'think' about problems?

[dmizer]

The really great thing about Linux is ... if you think that Ubuntu's focus on user-friendly isn't the way to go, you can join up with a distribution like Arch or Vector which focus more on the Linux power user.

With so many distributions out there, I can say with a great deal of confidence that you should be able to find something which suits your ideals, assuming that Ubuntu doesn't offer a satisfactory compromise.

[caravel]

"User friendliness" needs a clear definition. There is "user friendliness" in terms of "it works like Windows", there is true "user friendliness" and there is the tacky and obstructive "are you sure you want to... / windows has prevented you from harming yourself" user friendly.

The way I see it, powerful GUI tools and configurators are a good thing, but some of the "user friendliness" in OSes like Windows is very questionable. There should be a balance. Yes automate certain tasks but ensure that power users aren't forced to navigate around a tacky and cumbersome UI loaded with prompts, warnings, bubbles and background bloat.

The problem with an OS that holds the users hand at every turn, is that when something inevitable does go wrong, they have no idea as to how to resolve it. An I'm not talking complex problems, I mean minor issues like not being able to locate a file because they're used to it popping up, or not understanding Windows file extensions because MS thought it would be a great idea to hide them by default. I work in a semi support role and I see such problems daily. It's an utter pain in the **** trying to get an inexperienced user to do a simple file operation in XP and especially Vista - because of how the OS has been designed to be "user friendly".

So for me it's true "user friendliness" all the way and not "the Windows way".

[mikewhatever]

Is user friendly the right way to go?

Yes and yes. For most people, computers are tools rather then hobbies. Methinks educating by means of user unfriendliness would be extremely counter productive.

[Paqman]

As a user, i'd advise all OSes to be as friendly to me as they can. It will greatly lengthen their life expectancy.

People often compare Linux's user-friendliness with that of Windows. FWIW I find Windows to be slightly less friendly to use. It has the undesirable trait of having a more annoying way of handling very common tasks than Ubuntu does (eg: installing software, handling multiple windows, copy/paste, etc).

[skillllllz]

The really great thing about Linux is ... if you think that Ubuntu's focus on user-friendly isn't the way to go, you can join up with a distribution like Arch or Vector which focus more on the Linux power user.

With so many distributions out there, I can say with a great deal of confidence that you should be able to find something which suits your ideals, assuming that Ubuntu doesn't offer a satisfactory compromise.


+1 IMHO, this is yet another facet that makes Linux truly stand out.

[H2SO_four]

I agree with the previus posts, there needs to be a comprimise in user friendliness. I'm not sure we're there yet though. With a post like this I believe its safe to assume you aren't one of the people wondering why Linux doesn't have a 40% market share for desktop PC's. People make this great OS for as many people to use as possible. I think that the elitist mentality doesn't fit with Ubuntu, as it is the most "noob" friendly. I'm not sure where you draw the line on system automation and ease of use. Personally, I think we are close. I like that I have to learn about my OS to use it. Not every user thinks that way.


just my $0.02

[ThinkBuntu]

User-friendly is always the way to go, be it in the GUI or the terminal. I appreciate the usability of a shell tool like Mercurial as much as a well-designed GTK interface. Such an interface does not necessarily imply obstruction of the user or complication of the activity at hand.

You have made the mistake of confusing overly-simplified tools for elegant simplicity. To remove the command line would be a huge usability loss, for example. And there's nothing preventing you from administering your machine from the command line which is what I do 90% of the time on this Ubuntu box and my Mac.

[ZackM]

User friendly is important for a lot of people. Not everyone is technologically advanced as some of the people on this forum. Pointing and clicking is the extent of some users as it is. Looking around this forum you can see that. Point-click and go is what most people want. Now, for people like me or like some of you; you want to get into the terminal. You want to get your hands dirty and install applications with a more hands-on approach. And that's great! However, we can't expect everyone to do that.



So for me it's true "user friendliness" all the way and not "the Windows way".

I agree with this!

[Delever]

User-friendly is important even between command-line tools.

So yes yes yes.

[Bodsda]

The really great thing about Linux is ... if you think that Ubuntu's focus on user-friendly isn't the way to go, you can join up with a distribution like Arch or Vector which focus more on the Linux power user.

With so many distributions out there, I can say with a great deal of confidence that you should be able to find something which suits your ideals, assuming that Ubuntu doesn't offer a satisfactory compromise.
I like Ubuntu, I like the package manager and the sheer volume of packages I can choose to install, what I don't like is the way it tries to shield me from everything by default. I know that changing this would be extremely counter productive to helping new users so I understand why its there.


"User friendliness" needs a clear definition. There is "user friendliness" in terms of "it works like Windows", there is true "user friendliness" and there is the tacky and obstructive "are you sure you want to... / windows has prevented you from harming yourself" user friendly.

The problem with an OS that holds the users hand at every turn, is that when something inevitable does go wrong, they have no idea as to how to resolve it. An I'm not talking complex problems, I mean minor issues like not being able to locate a file because they're used to it popping up, or not understanding Windows file extensions because MS thought it would be a great idea to hide them by default. I work in a semi support role and I see such problems daily. It's an utter pain in the **** trying to get an inexperienced user to do a simple file operation in XP and especially Vista - because of how the OS has been designed to be "user friendly".

So for me it's true "user friendliness" all the way and not "the Windows way".
I agree totally that things should be user-friendly but not in the windows sense.

Yes and yes. For most people, computers are tools rather then hobbies. Methinks educating by means of user unfriendliness would be extremely counter productive.
I never said educating by means of user unfriendliness, just by means of wrapping them in bubble wrap so they cant get a bruise.


I agree with the previus posts, there needs to be a comprimise in user friendliness. I'm not sure we're there yet though. With a post like this I believe its safe to assume you aren't one of the people wondering why Linux doesn't have a 40% market share for desktop PC's. People make this great OS for as many people to use as possible. I think that the elitist mentality doesn't fit with Ubuntu, as it is the most "noob" friendly. I'm not sure where you draw the line on system automation and ease of use. Personally, I think we are close. I like that I have to learn about my OS to use it. Not every user thinks that way.


just my $0.02
Yeah, I dont really care about the market share, that doesnt bother me, as long as I have the choice and no one is imposing somebody else's choice on me then I dont mind. But Windows imposes the use of their software on people, and Ubuntu imposes that I confirm choices I made in case the choice I made was actually a choice I didnt want to choose, if I make a choice of course I want that choice, what I dont want is another annoying prompt making sure I want that choice.

User-friendly is always the way to go, be it in the GUI or the terminal. I appreciate the usability of a shell tool like Mercurial as much as a well-designed GTK interface. Such an interface does not necessarily imply obstruction of the user or complication of the activity at hand.

You have made the mistake of confusing overly-simplified tools for elegant simplicity. To remove the command line would be a huge usability loss, for example. And there's nothing preventing you from administering your machine from the command line which is what I do 90% of the time on this Ubuntu box and my Mac.
what do you mean by "i have mistaken over-simplified tools for elegant simplicity." ? I dont get it.

Regards,

Bodsda

[anthony62490]

I agree with Dmizer on this one. Linux is not one entity like Microsoft. We have the freedom to use any distro we want. If someone wants a Linux OS that feels like Windows, then they should be able to obtain it. Like it or not, people trust Windows. That's where they are comfortable. If Linux is going to have any chance to succeed, it needs to make the transition from Windows to Linux as clean and easy as possible.

Let's look for a moment at (arguably) the greatest video gaming company of all time: Nintendo. The Nintendo Wii is the most popular console of this generation BY A LANDSLIDE. Nintendo achieved this by pandering to the casual gamer (and even the parents and grandparents) as opposed to Microsoft, who continued to feed the hardcore gamers. I believe this philosophy is applicable to Linux as well. If the casual user wants an OS that does everything for them, then maybe that's exactly what they need to get.

Power users deserve their place in the Linux family, but remember, they ALWAYS have the choice of using a power-friendly distro. Right now, only geeks use Linux. Just like back in the 80's only geeks used computers. We need to attract the casual user as well as the power user.

[H2SO_four]

Yeah, I dont really care about the market share, that doesnt bother me, as long as I have the choice and no one is imposing somebody else's choice on me then I dont mind. But Windows imposes the use of their software on people, and Ubuntu imposes that I confirm choices I made in case the choice I made was actually a choice I didnt want to choose, if I make a choice of course I want that choice, what I dont want is another annoying prompt making sure I want that choice.


Are you sure you want to perminanatly delete those files? That one bugs the hell out of me. I haven't looked into how to disable it yet. I just got the prompt for shutdown disabled not too long ago. I'm with you on the prompts, if I ask the computer to do something, I don't want a conversation about what my intent was. Just do it.

H2SO4

[tjwoosta]

I think its good that there are linux distros like ubuntu that are focused on user friendliness. Without "user friendly" distros many users would never realize the potential of a linux system. Its good at opening peoples minds and introducing them to the world of open source. Showing them what its capable of.

On the other hand I also think its great that there are linux distros focused on power users. Thats the beauty of linux, just because one distrobution does something doesnt mean the others have to. There will always be a linux distro for power users, thats just the nature of the beast. Now there will also be a distro for everyone else, as a sort of easy to use alternative to windows or mac. We are expanding our horizons and thats a good thing.

Soon we will have all aspects of computing covered, which is something windows and mac will never have. They focus everything on "user friendliness", where linux on the other hand covers all fields from extremely user friendly and flashy systems that require many resources, to extreamly light weight CLI systems that can run with less then 16mb ram.

[Stitz]

you're all right! :p I'm no new user by any means, but I want the same thing that most new users want, especially Windows converts...to be able to do EVERYTHING with the mouse and not touch the keyboard unless typing a post on my favorite thread. This is true user-friendliness, and should be the one simple way of measuring it.

I am glad that I can open a terminal and check/fix just about anything I want to, with the help of my local community forum. This knowledge is something that is great to have when needed, but shouldn't be needed very often.

With this said, my vote (in response to the thread title) is an absolute "YES".

[doas777]

With all the posts flying about concerning Linux not being ready for the desktop due to it not being very user friendly I start to wonder if that is really the direction we want Linux to go.

I am specifically talking about Linux here and perhaps Gnome + KDE, everything needs its noob angle, for Linux its Ubuntu (no disrespect intended) and thats great, without Ubuntu I would not have even bothered with Linux.

But I think Ubuntu and Gnome are as user friendly as they need to be, in fact I think Gnome has gone too far. Do we really want to brainwash every single user from here onwards into thinking that computers do things by magic and if they go wrong the wizard will make it all better again? I for one prefer to know why something has gone wrong and how to avoid it rather then being shielded by my system.

I understand that to many new users Linux is a scary place and even the prospect of looking at a terminal can be scary, but is hiding them from it really what they need, or should more effort go into educating new users?

What do you guys think?

Regards,

Bodsda

if you want oss to take off, yes, it must be user friendly. you CANNOT educate all the users. if you try you will fail. Remember dominance means user lockin. if we are sucessful at promoting OSS and linux to the same extent that MS has with windows, the users won't have a choice aobut it. they'll be "forced" to use whatever came on the Pc, just as they are now with windows. it won't be somthing that a hobbiest picks up but everyone else whose timid on PCs will avoid.

Linux will either remain niche (read: being ignored by all vendors of popular products like games), or it will shield the user from their own foolishness. you can't have both. I love the CLI, but to be mainstream, there needs to be an easily accessible GUI for basically every task.

[SunnyRabbiera]

This will certainly touch on the old wounds of GUI vs CLI and Hardcore linux users vs desktop linux users.
There are many linuxers out there who say that all distros should abandon all forms of GUI, and go back to the days of compiling and command line.
But there is the faction that thinks linux can be made for everybody, I am one of them.
I think the more GUI tools the better, a GUI for administration access, a gui for monitor config, a gui for package management, etc.
Most desktop linuxes are aimed at people with little knowledge of CLI, to go back to the old days is impossible.

[kk0sse54]

User friendliness is a subjective term and it's actual effect on productivity varies for each person. I think it's good that there are distros who focus on being user friendly however some people get carried away with it sometimes *cough*linspire, xandros *cough* to the point where you start doing stupid things like disabling sudo. Also while some distros might make it their goal to be user friendly please don't assume that of all linux distros. Don't ever complain that distros like Slackware, Arch, Gentoo. or crux etc etc should be more user friendly because that's not their purpose. For me this so called user friendliness and the fact that the user needs their hand held every step of the way was one of the main reasons why I left Ubuntu (that and I don't like Debian based systems :p).

Personally I see user friendliness rather as how easy it is to understand the underlying base system of an OS. OSs like NetBSD are the most user friendly for me because they're simple, minimal, straight forward, and easy to understand requiring the user to do everything thus granting complete control. OSs like Windows I see as the exact opposite as in their quest to make everything user friendly and dumb it down for the average user it's anti productive to me. Under the hood everything is hidden from the end user thus over complicating things. Simplicity and quality are key.

Definitions aside, in attempts to increase linux user friendliness do we really want to draw in more people? Personally I think linux will remain a niche and I could care less about increasing linux market shares.

[madjr]

User friendly means being your friend

the OS needs to be your friend by:

-Informing you whats going on (don't keep secrets from you). the notification system does it's job here

-Educating you (tours, tutorials and examples how to do what you want to do, like url to video tuts , etc.)

-Live support (first boot live irc chatting, like linuxmint 7 implemented in their welcome screen)

-trouble shooting wizards (when few things go wrong)

-auto-backup / restore (like time machine; when big things go wrong). The installer could even have an option to create a seperate partition just for backups (if you got the hd space go for it, would be cool if it prompted you)

-the OS shouldn,t also look ugly or boring (even small eyecandy makes you enjoy/outlast the beginner experience )

userfriendly = your pc , your os, your friend

and you feel the same way :)

it should act as humanly as possible and auto help you with the most common issues you read about in the startup/newbie forum

you shouldn't need to ask another person help to TAME your OS. it shouldn't be a wild beast where you need hours and hours of research when you got a simple issue or bug

[khelben1979]

Yes.

I believe in a Linux distribution which is user friendly for all users and that the distribution can be configured in such a way that this is possible.

A distribution which is limited in choices and where much of it's configurations are locked is a bad distribution, according to my opinion.

If the user/users are unable to make smart choices within the operating system which would mean that it would get damaged, then the only cure for this is education.

[Delever]

There is no "vs" between CLI and GUI - both can be user friendly, in their own ways.

[doas777]

There is no "vs" between CLI and GUI - both can be user friendly, in their own ways.

true, but only one of them could be considered at all "intuitive".

[dmizer]

true, but only one of them could be considered at all "intuitive".

Intuitive is also subjective. By "intuitive", most people mean something like "I don't have to learn anything in order to make it work the way I want it to". Problem is, most people on this forum have spent years, if not decades, learning how to use computers (Windows, Mac, Linux, or otherwise). So very few people sit down at a Linux computer with zero experience.

Furthermore, if you actually watch someone who's literally never used a computer before in their life, and never watched someone else use it, I assure you that "intuitive" would not be part of their description regarding it's usability.

Granted, that same user would have just as much difficulty with a CLI, but I suspect that if taught the CLI, they would eventually find it to be fairly intuitive. Conversely, if they were taught the GUI instead, they would eventually find the GUI to be fairly intuitive.

[Delever]

true, but only one of them could be considered at all "intuitive".

lets see :p

If i know the name of CLI program, but don't know how to use it, what do I do?

I type "program -h". If it can't display help, it is less intuitive.

Then I may type "man program". If it does not have man page, it is again less intuitive.

If program can't handle parameters in any order, it is less intuitive.

If program is "apt-get", and to install something with it I would have to type something like "apt-get -i -n -Kjf now --r gnome", it would again be less intuitive.

[aysiu]

The really great thing about Linux is ... if you think that Ubuntu's focus on user-friendly isn't the way to go, you can join up with a distribution like Arch or Vector which focus more on the Linux power user. Yeah. Why do all Linux distributions have to agree on one "right way to go"?

Ubuntu wants the consumer market.

But plenty of other distros have no interest in that whatsoever.

If you don't believe in user-friendliness as a goal, you don't have to stay with Ubuntu. You can use whatever distro you want. And you don't have to use Gnome or KDE. You can just ditch X altogether and use a command-prompt.

[MikeTheC]

Yeah. Why do all Linux distributions have to agree on one "right way to go"?

Ubuntu wants the consumer market.

But plenty of other distros have no interest in that whatsoever.

If you don't believe in user-friendliness as a goal, you don't have to stay with Ubuntu. You can use whatever distro you want. And you don't have to use Gnome or KDE. You can just ditch X altogether and use a command-prompt.

Nailed it in one, aysiu.

Now, that being said, I believe that for the purposes of gaining significant market share from "the general public", Linux had darned-well better get with thinking through user friendliness. This also extends to the various visual refinements, such as when you open a dialog box you don't have to manually resize the dialog box just to see what all is in it (Gimp, I'm looking at you.)

There's just lots and lots of these things that no matter the cause and no matter how hard core enthusiasts in the community might want to think about them, they take away from the "professionality" of the Linux experience.

[CJ Master]

Ubuntu should be the most user-friendly operating system in the world.

For everthing else, there's arch.

(Or Gentoo or slackware or what have you.)

[gymophett]

Yes.
Linux.. is Linux.
You can do whatever you want with it. If you want it complicated, get it complicated. If you want it easy, get it easy.
Try giving a Windows switcher a Gentoo, Arch, or Slackware CD.
Bet they'll enjoy that. :D

[MikeTheC]

Try giving a Windows switcher a Gentoo, Arch, or Slackware CD.
Bet they'll enjoy that. :D

That's a bit like putting a cardboard standup of your favorite person in front of a store, arm raised and hand held out flat, with the caption "Your I.Q. must be this high to enjoy this store."

Mind you, I like your style. I'll have to try that sometime. Heh heh heh...

[gymophett]

That's a bit like putting a cardboard standup of your favorite person in front of a store, arm raised and hand held out flat, with the caption "Your I.Q. must be this high to enjoy this store."

Mind you, I like your style. I'll have to try that sometime. Heh heh heh...

Mind me? Oh no, no, no. Mind you Mr.Mike The Telephone Booth Man.
*That wasn't weird Gavin, breath in, breath out, okay... go!*
:P

[Dimitriid]

Usability ( or user friendliness ) is not incompatible with stability or resource efficiency. So no reason not to support good interfaces.

[lisati]

Problem is, most people on this forum have spent years, if not decades, learning how to use computers (Windows, Mac, Linux, or otherwise). So very few people sit down at a Linux computer with zero experience.
That's easy to forget, and it's also easy to assume that someone else has similar knowledger and/or experience.



I type "program -h". If it can't display help, it is less intuitive.

Then I may type "man program". If it does not have man page, it is again less intuitive.

Perhaps more education on using progname -h, man progname, or even pressing F1 or clicking on a menu option for help would be useful, especially in computer courses. That's assuming the relevant help entry has been written.

Usability <snip>
That's it in a nutshell.....

[handy]

With all the posts flying about concerning Linux not being ready for the desktop due to it not being very user friendly I start to wonder if that is really the direction we want Linux to go.

The wonderful thing about Linux is that there are so many flavours. :)

I agree that Ubuntu (actually Mint does a better job for the new Linux user) needs to be as user friendly as possible. This is the reason why it sits at the top of the pops most of the time.



I am specifically talking about Linux here and perhaps Gnome + KDE, everything needs its noob angle, for Linux its Ubuntu (no disrespect intended) and thats great, without Ubuntu I would not have even bothered with Linux.

There IS a need for the easiest option possible, when people start with Linux.



But I think Ubuntu and Gnome are as user friendly as they need to be, in fact I think Gnome has gone too far. Do we really want to brainwash every single user from here onwards into thinking that computers do things by magic and if they go wrong the wizard will make it all better again? I for one prefer to know why something has gone wrong and how to avoid it rather then being shielded by my system.

Many computer users do not care to know, nor do they have any desire to investigate how an operating system works.

They have a task to accomplish & it, unfortunately for them requires an OS to host their application(s).



I understand that to many new users Linux is a scary place and even the prospect of looking at a terminal can be scary, but is hiding them from it really what they need, or should more effort go into educating new users.

No, if a user is the type that wants education they will seek it out. If a user finds after some months of using Ubuntu or Mint, that they want to have a look at some of the other distro's/BSD's then they will start to hop, they may quickly hop back to where they came from, or may hop along until they find a distro' that suits them perfectly, at least for a while, & there they will stay.

So, yes we need a Linux distro' that is absolutely as simple as possible for new Linux users, beyond that there are so many choices, which is one of the wonders of Linux. Not that the commercial software houses necessarily agree with that statement yet. :)

[Jestersage]

I think it depends on what one means by User-friendly. If user-friendly equal to "windows", no. If user-friendly means "OS X", yes.

Obviously, if one actually think about it, Linux is basically "Mac with not as nice sounding folder names". or the other way around — because both are Unix, and I find that any users in general find that it is easier to understand the file system tree. Windows is user-friendly until something break, then it become a pile of tar waiting to trap the sysadmin.

The only thing that I see Windows got it "correct" is the start menu, but that was already available in GNOME and KDE. And that is still a huge argument point.

The other issue, as someone point out, is that with so many distros available, some are design for all out command line, some are for GUI; some are for cutting edge, some are for stability. Thus, let's focus on Ubuntu.

The only issue that I can see may be claims for non-userfriendly (in Ubuntu) are of follows:
1) One must login with user name and password in GNOME, Kubuntu sucks, I do not want auto-login as I share machine with others.
2) I have to sudo everything! didn't I tell you I cannot remember my password?

However:
Answer to 1): If you are sharing machines with others, you may as remember your password. You do nto want your machine mate to look at your hentai folder, right?
1a) Subsection to Kubuntu: If the OEM does everythign correctly, your KDE will not be that bad, either.
answer to 2): So does Mac and Vista.
Alternative answer: Go with openSuSE or Fedora. Their community is just as good, and eventually will be as stable as Ubuntu over time.

Should Linux be more user friendly? The answer is it depends on the distro.
Should Ubuntu be more user friendly? Yes, of course — since Ubuntu is about giving computers to everyone.

[nmaster]

Just because Ubuntu is "user-friendly" doesn't mean that its any less of a distro. You can still have all the power of linux behind you its just easier to get user to. I don't see how that could really be a problem. Linux shouldn't be an exclusive club. Ubuntu is all about helping others. I agree with others that if you don't like this idea, then you can use a different distro that is less concerned with support.

[handy]

Ubuntu is all about helping others. I agree with others that if you don't like this idea, then you can use a different distro that is less concerned with support.

There is an enormous amount of support provided by quite a few other distro's. But (arguably) all of them require more Linux knowledge than Ubuntu, or Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/). So they are more difficult for the Linux beginner.

Having said that, that is not to infer that Ubuntu or Mint are any less powerful than other distro's. They just try to satisfy as many users as possible, which of course means that they are heavy & therefore slower (Ubuntu is slower than Mint from my experience) than most of the other distro's out there.

Some distro's such as Arch (http://www.archlinux.org/), will be running later versions of the kernel & X, & most everything else; though to get Arch set up, you have to follow the Beginners Guide (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide), using the Terminal to make your Core set up, followed by the Terminal to upgrade your set up, (if you did a core install from CD) & then continue setting up your your sound, X, GPU drivers, desktop/window manager, app's, & all this installation is accomplished (very simply I might add) via the Terminal.

All of which is not hard, provided you follow the Beginners Guide to the letter & aren't one of the unlucky ones with unsupported hardware, though this problem diminishes with each passing day, for Linux users thankfully.

What percentage of those brand new to Linux are going to be ready for that lot (a full Terminal installation & set up). Only a fraction of 1% by my reckoning.

Even so, Arch has brilliant documentation on their wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Table_of_Contents_%28English%29), & if a search of the Arch forum (http://bbs.archlinux.org/) doesn't supply your answer, then posting your question will provide answers to your problems, though it won't usually be as fast as the Ubuntu forums due to the smaller Arch user base.

Anyway, the above was basically to state that there are other distro's out there that offer superb support, but they also require more research for the new user than Mint or Ubuntu do.

There really is a need for the Mint & Ubuntu distro's as they are the best introduction to Linux currently available, from my experience anyway. :) Apart from them being great working distro's for the advanced user as well. ):P

[dmizer]

The Telephone Booth Man.

That's not a telephone booth, that's the TARDIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS) :)

/offtopic

[Bodsda]

The only issue that I can see may be claims for non-userfriendly (in Ubuntu) are of follows:
1) One must login with user name and password in GNOME, Kubuntu sucks, I do not want auto-login as I share machine with others.
2) I have to sudo everything! didn't I tell you I cannot remember my password?

However:
Answer to 1): If you are sharing machines with others, you may as remember your password. You do nto want your machine mate to look at your hentai folder, right?
1a) Subsection to Kubuntu: If the OEM does everythign correctly, your KDE will not be that bad, either.
answer to 2): So does Mac and Vista.
Alternative answer: Go with openSuSE or Fedora. Their community is just as good, and eventually will be as stable as Ubuntu over time.
.
1) Disable auto login
2) Increase the sudo timeout

There is an enormous amount of support provided by quite a few other distro's. But (arguably) all of them require more Linux knowledge than Ubuntu, or Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/). So they are more difficult for the Linux beginner.

Having said that, that is not to infer that Ubuntu or Mint are any less powerful than other distro's. They just try to satisfy as many users as possible, which of course means that they are heavy & therefore slower (Ubuntu is slower than Mint from my experience) than most of the other distro's out there.

Some distro's such as Arch (http://www.archlinux.org/), will be running later versions of the kernel & X, & most everything else; though to get Arch set up, you have to follow the Beginners Guide (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners_Guide), using the Terminal to make your Core set up, followed by the Terminal to upgrade your set up, (if you did a core install from CD) & then continue setting up your your sound, X, GPU drivers, desktop/window manager, app's, & all this installation is accomplished (very simply I might add) via the Terminal.

All of which is not hard, provided you follow the Beginners Guide to the letter & aren't one of the unlucky ones with unsupported hardware, though this problem diminishes with each passing day, for Linux users thankfully.

What percentage of those brand new to Linux are going to be ready for that lot (a full Terminal installation & set up). Only a fraction of 1% by my reckoning.

Even so, Arch has brilliant documentation on their wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Table_of_Contents_%28English%29), & if a search of the Arch forum (http://bbs.archlinux.org/) doesn't supply your answer, then posting your question will provide answers to your problems, though it won't usually be as fast as the Ubuntu forums due to the smaller Arch user base.

Anyway, the above was basically to state that there are other distro's out there that offer superb support, but they also require more research for the new user than Mint or Ubuntu do.

There really is a need for the Mint & Ubuntu distro's as they are the best introduction to Linux currently available, from my experience anyway. :) Apart from them being great working distro's for the advanced user as well. ):P
Looks like il have to give Arch a go, cheers :)


That's not a telephone booth, that's the TARDIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS) :)

/offtopic

There is an uncanny resemblance though :)

[mikewhatever]

I never said educating by means of user unfriendliness, just by means of wrapping them in bubble wrap so they cant get a bruise.




Why not just say what you mean in plain English? Ubuntu/Gnome is very user friendly, but there is still room for tweaking, so where is the bubble rap you are talking about?

[Dimitriid]

The only issue that I can see may be claims for non-userfriendly (in Ubuntu) are of follows:
1) One must login with user name and password in GNOME, Kubuntu sucks, I do not want auto-login as I share machine with others.
2) I have to sudo everything! didn't I tell you I cannot remember my password?

I
Well you could get a finger print scanner and set that up for gui applications and login in. They are not too expensive although I haven't try to find one that works on Linux.

[NightwishFan]

My OS is my only friend. Too bad that it is windows and it abuses my trust, and is generally unreliable. I must be a glutton for punishment.

[Bodsda]

Why not just say what you mean in plain English? Ubuntu/Gnome is very user friendly, but there is still room for tweaking, so where is the bubble rap you are talking about?

An analogy 'is' plain English. I meant that Ubuntu/Gnome tries to cater for every possible user error and by doing so it obstructs me from doing what I want, as quickly as I want.

[MikeTheC]

That's not a telephone booth, that's the TARDIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS) :)

/offtopic

+1 to dmizer... You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.

(But don't worry, I won't tell anyone.)

[gymophett]

+1 to dmizer... You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.

(But don't worry, I won't tell anyone.)

Mr. Tardis Man.. :)

[mikewhatever]

An analogy 'is' plain English. I meant that Ubuntu/Gnome tries to cater for every possible user error and by doing so it obstructs me from doing what I want, as quickly as I want.

You keep being rather vague (which I am getting used to), but I suspect, whatever problems you may have had with Ubuntu/Gnome, they had nothing to do with user friendliness. You didn't tell anything specific, so I am simply guessing it could be a personal preference or the lack of familiarity. Call it what you like, but just because you felt bubble wrapped can't possibly mean user friendly is not the way to go.

[Dark Aspect]

User friendliness != Idiot proof

Having said that, I think making stuff user friendly is fine. Provided we don't destroy the Linux experience with things like the Microsoft office assistant that tells users what to do. There should be balance between usefulness and user friendliness.

For anyone who disagrees, I recommend freebsd :popcorn: