PDA

View Full Version : What if Linux Came First?



EnderTheThird
August 18th, 2005, 11:44 PM
I just installed Ubuntu last night, which is my 2nd time doing so but this time it was with a bit more determination to get comfortable with it. I realized that I really love the interface, much more than that of Windows. So that got me thinking, what if someone was introduced to Linux before Windows? Have any of you set up someone with a Linux distro who has never had prior experience with Windows or computers in general? I was just wondering how they adjusted and what happened when they came across Windows later on.

It seems like those types of users would be prime candidates for Linux, or Ubuntu to be more specific. They have less to worry about with regards to security, stability, and privacy, and if they only need it for Internet, e-mail, documents, multimedia, and messaging, I think it can be more user friendly than Windows. After discovering apt-get/Synaptic this time (I barely ever used Ubuntu on my 2nd computer when I installed it, but now it's on my main computer), I think it's easier to obtain updates and software using that interface. Everything is all in one place and you don't need to search download.com for a simple program that should be freeware, but instead is only available as a castrated 14 day trial version.

I'm sure this line of thinking is nothing new to most of the experienced users of Linux, Ubuntu, and this board. In fact, I hear it brought up all the time in reviews and/or editorials about Linux. But, I was just hoping some of you guys might have some actual experiences with this type of situation to satisfy my curiosity. And... well, I'm bored at work right now so I can't be working with my computer trying to get the wireless adapter, sound, and back button for the mouse working. ;-)

xequence
August 18th, 2005, 11:51 PM
That would be cool to try out. Though, as much as I like linux, windows is still in my opinion easier to start out with.

I just cant immagine trying to explain apt-get and other commands to people who have never used a computer before. New users want to install a program by pressing an exe and clicking next 10 times.

Though I must say explaining synaptic would be easier. It would be really interesting to see someone with alot of linux experience try windows. They go on a windows help site "Where is the terminal? I want to install XFCE! Why can I only have one toolbar? What is this blue screen supposed to do?"

lyam_kaskade
August 18th, 2005, 11:56 PM
Looking at the title of this thread gave me a thought: What if there were an alternate universe where open source software became popular long before proprietary software? And then Windows would just be an alternative to the immense open source software market. Do you think Microsoft would even survive in a world like that? Who would pay for software they can get for free?

Of course, the open source movement happened in part because of programmer's frustration with proprietary software, so a world like that might not even be possible. (Proprietary software would have to come first).
[/rambling]

Back on topic. I haven't met anyone with a desire to use computers that hasn't used Windows first. Maybe i'll try it on my dad sometime.

weasel fierce
August 19th, 2005, 12:00 AM
"Where is the terminal? I want to install XFCE! Why can I only have one toolbar? What is this blue screen supposed to do?"

"and why the hell is there a little bouncing gorilla on my screen, saying its my buddy?"

krusbjorn
August 19th, 2005, 12:03 AM
"and why the hell is there a little bouncing gorilla on my screen, saying its my buddy?"

lol

i seriously cant stop laughing

aysiu
August 19th, 2005, 12:08 AM
I just cant immagine trying to explain apt-get and other commands to people who have never used a computer before. New users want to install a program by pressing an exe and clicking next 10 times. New users don't know about .exes and clicking next. New users know nothing. That's the beauty of the question--without all the prejudices that come with long-time Windows experience, how would people approach Linux? I think the answer is simple--it would come as second nature to them. People do with what they have. When they had DOS, DOS was good. Nobody complained about DOS. When manual transmissions were more popular in the US, everyone who drove drove stick shift. That's all they knew. No one complained because that's the way it was. Now US drivers have gotten lazy, and a lot of people are frightened of driving stick shift--but almost every other country in the world has ordinary people still driving stick-shift.

allans
August 19th, 2005, 12:21 AM
Now US drivers have gotten lazy, and a lot of people are frightened of driving stick shift--but almost every other country in the world has ordinary people still driving stick-shift.

Why are automatics so popular in the US? I don't get it! Back on topic, I think Windows wouldn't stand a chance. Most of the people who complain about linux, in my experience anyway, nearly always compare it to how much easier it is in Windows.

If you gave them linux first, I'm confident it would be the opposite. It's not like microsoft keep the interface constant from one release to the next anyway - just look at the control panel in xp, the first thing I do is set it back to "classic" view, because that's what I'm used to.

Allan

aysiu
August 19th, 2005, 12:33 AM
Why are automatics so popular in the US? I don't get it! I think--and I was only a wee tot in the 70s, so I'm guessing--it has to do with our gas prices being so damn low. Automatic transmissions are notorious gas guzzlers. Even now, Americans are complaining left and right about gas prices going over $3.00/gallon. This is a lot more expensive than what we're used to (I remember just ten years ago paying a little over $1.00/gallon), but it's still a lot cheaper than England. Last time I was in England, petrol was something like 88p per litre. That roughly translates to about $5.50/ gallon. Ah, we whiny Americans...

GreyFox503
August 19th, 2005, 12:39 AM
Looking at the title of this thread gave me a thought: What if there were an alternate universe where open source software became popular long before proprietary software? And then Windows would just be an alternative to the immense open source software market. Do you think Microsoft would even survive in a world like that? Who would pay for software they can get for free?

Of course, the open source movement happened in part because of programmer's frustration with proprietary software, so a world like that might not even be possible. (Proprietary software would have to come first).
[/rambling]

Back on topic. I haven't met anyone with a desire to use computers that hasn't used Windows first. Maybe i'll try it on my dad sometime.

From what little of know of CS history, free software DID come first. A lot of software written at Universities in the 60s and 70s was distributed freely; people didn't even think about trying to "protect" their source code. But sometime around then it became popular to use software in the commercial sense, and of course its easier to make money when you don't give out the source along with the software.

After all, Richard Stallman was already used to the idea of free software. If I remember correctly, before he founded the FSF, one day he wanted to add a new feature to a printer driver he was using. He asked the guy who wrote the driver to see the source so he could improve it, who basically told him NO. He was not happy about this and it was one small incident (of several, I assume) that caused him to pro-actively campaign for free software.

Anyone who knows more about this than me please add to or correct me. :smile:

EnderTheThird
August 19th, 2005, 02:19 AM
Yeah. Not to menion if Linux became more of a standard on pre-configured/built desktops sold by the major brands... and people had to WORK to get Windows installed. I've installed Windows countless times, and I'll agree with all of you that the installation process is no easier than for Linux. It's an interesting scenario, because our current situation is entirely subjective anyway. Everything about Linux feels natural to me except for where it differs from Windows, which in many cases is still in a positive way.

If their roles were actually reversed, Microsoft would never stand a chance. With people all over the world working together to improve OSS, it's just ridiculous for them to pay for a different proprietary OS over which they have no control.

On a somewhat related note, just imagine what would happen with regards to spyware, viruses, and other security issues that Windows faces now. Would hackers still be targeting Linux, and with so many different distros, would they be able to find weaknesses that are widespread enough for it to cause any real damage? With programmers constantly looking to improve the OSS, the risks would probably be negligible anyway as long as some manner of auto-update system was in place that was actually effective. But would the hackers even get the same sort of satisfaction, seeing as there would be no Bill Gates whose billions of dollars could do nothing to subvert their viruses and worms? I'd imagine part of their determination is a result of sticking it to "the man" but that wouldn't really be possible with widespread Linux. It would just be a minor blip that would be easily fixed within a few hours. When you expand the conversation to this level, it gets a whole lot more interesting huh? Well, at least in does in my opinion. But, like I said, I'm bored at work! :grin:

benplaut
August 19th, 2005, 02:32 AM
"and why the hell is there a little bouncing gorilla on my screen, saying its my buddy?"

that

is

hilarious :grin: :grin:

xequence
August 19th, 2005, 03:01 AM
It does get annoying on CNN its always about how their gas prices are record breaking. Us Canadians have higher! Then in europe even higher!

Our prices in american dollars are about 3.50 a gallon.




I still stand to my word that a .exe install wizard is easier then installing a tarball thingy =P Though Synaptic is still easier then both.

bored2k
August 19th, 2005, 03:10 AM
It does get annoying on CNN its always about how their gas prices are record breaking. Us Canadians have higher! Then in europe even higher!

Our prices in american dollars are about 3.50 a gallon.
Hello Dominican Republic. I'm not sure, but I'm almost 100% sure our gas price reach or come close to 5 US dollars.



I still stand to my word that a .exe install wizard is easier then installing a tarball thingy =P Though Synaptic is still easier then both.Add to Ubuntu the capability of double clicking a .deb, throwing it your password and the deb gets installed with dependencies and you can say bye bye to any advantage .exe might have. Oh right, if you work for Gator *cough*Microsoft*cough*, you'd want .exe so you could get crapware in them right ? For that .exe are better.

xequence
August 19th, 2005, 03:12 AM
Hello Dominican Republic. I'm not sure, but I'm almost 100% sure our gas price reach or come close to 5 US dollars.

Add to Ubuntu the capability of double clicking a .deb, throwing it your password and the deb gets installed with dependencies and you can say bye bye to any advantage .exe might have. Oh right, if you work for Gator *cough*Microsoft*cough*, you'd want .exe so you could get crapware in them right ? For that .exe are better.

xe.com currency converter and 1 US gallon = 3.7854118 litres if you use litres there like in Canada.

.deb does sound good. Id love for ubuntu to work with it then =P

bored2k
August 19th, 2005, 03:14 AM
.deb does sound good. Id love for ubuntu to work with it then =PUbuntu has been working with .deb (Debian packages) from day one. It was built on top of them. If you're using UBuntu, you already have hundreds of debs installed O_o. I simply a "double click -- passwd -- confirmation -- install" procedure.

xequence
August 19th, 2005, 03:18 AM
Add to Ubuntu the capability of double clicking a .deb, throwing it your password and the deb gets installed with dependencies and you can say bye bye to any advantage .exe might have.

To me that implied that if you add it it would take away any advantages of .exe, not that it is already there. Well, ill guess this probably makes things quite a bit easier now :P

macgyver2
August 19th, 2005, 03:26 AM
Automatic transmissions are notorious gas guzzlers.
Is that really the case today, though? I'm not an auto mechanic...but I do remember reading a couple months ago (though now I can't remember where and am in a bit too much of a hurry to google for it right now) that there are now 6- and 7-speed automatics hitting the market. The purpose of adding more gear ratios, from what I remember, is that it basically provides a wider variety of speeds at which the engine is kept in the torque "sweet-spot" which also happens to be the most fuel efficient place.


New users don't know about .exes and clicking next. New users know nothing. That's the beauty of the question--without all the prejudices that come with long-time Windows experience, how would people approach Linux? I think the answer is simple--it would come as second nature to them. People do with what they have. When they had DOS, DOS was good. Nobody complained about DOS. When manual transmissions were more popular in the US, everyone who drove drove stick shift. That's all they knew. No one complained because that's the way it was. Now US drivers have gotten lazy, and a lot of people are frightened of driving stick shift--but almost every other country in the world has ordinary people still driving stick-shift.
I think you said that in an excellent way. Sometimes it's hard, near-impossible, for people to see a situation "from the outside looking in", as the saying goes.

aysiu
August 19th, 2005, 03:48 AM
Is that really the case today, though? I'm not an auto mechanic...but I do remember reading a couple months ago (though now I can't remember where and am in a bit too much of a hurry to google for it right now) that there are now 6- and 7-speed automatics hitting the market. The purpose of adding more gear ratios, from what I remember, is that it basically provides a wider variety of speeds at which the engine is kept in the torque "sweet-spot" which also happens to be the most fuel efficient place. If you trust this source (http://www.adquest3d.com/content.cfm?BRD=418&PAG=31):

"Automatic transmissions generally degrade fuel economy."

I'm also speaking anecdotally, as I've driven both manual and automatic transmission cars. Maybe some of the newer automatic transmissions are better about gas mileage--I don't know.

poofyhairguy
August 19th, 2005, 08:38 AM
I think--and I was only a wee tot in the 70s, so I'm guessing--it has to do with our gas prices being so damn low. Automatic transmissions are notorious gas guzzlers .

Thats why they took off. It doesn't describe how they stayed (and got so well developed) when the 55 mph limit is long gone nationally. Automatics continue to be popular in the U.S. (this is my opinion) because they make it easier to do other things than drive your car while driving you car: hold your cell phone and talk on it, mess with iPod/ Cd player, eat something, drink something, make rude hand gestures to other drivers, squeeze your girlfriend, throw water balloons at other cars, hold a book to read (yes I know people that drive and read), hold a gun to shoot animals (yes I know people that shoot guns while they drive...sigh...), pull out your wallet, fix your make-up, shave before work, etc.

Now for something more on topic, Unix came first and Linux was based on Unix....so its not that hard to imagine. What Windows did was create a desktop platform for PCs. Its hard to pick out exactly what was done right. Revisionist history is hard.

Synaptic is easier than exes if you ahve broadband (IMHO).