PDA

View Full Version : What is preventing linux mainstream adoption?



ICEcoffee
November 22nd, 2007, 06:36 PM
What do you think is preventing the Linux desktop being adopted as a mainstream OS?

There was a similar Question with accompanying poll, but that was back in 2005, but everything has moved on since then, a lot. Linux has come on leaps and bounds and we have a more discerning user base.

I think Linux is fantastic, and open source is a life line to anyone who cares about the evermore regulated and wholly unjustifiably restricted OS alternatives. The good news is that it has become more user friendly, easier to install, and now comes with masses of eye-candy. It has always been very secure and you can run it on lesser powered machines than the Windows OS with a similar feature set. However, whilst Linux has made great improvements in the past 3-4 years, the same ol' problems are the reason, I believe, continue to prevent it's up-take en masse. These problems can be summerised thus:

1. A Lack of high end web development equivalent software (dreamweaver, flash etc)

2. A Lack of high end video editing software

3. Games

4. Hardware manufacturer support

5. Lack of awareness by the general public that Linux exists.

I have seen probably hundreds of posts about the above issues, what do you think? can Linux make it into the big time? if so, what is it gonna take?

boast
November 22nd, 2007, 07:55 PM
instead of having two good programs... we choose tons of buggy ones.

SomeGuyDude
November 22nd, 2007, 08:00 PM
The good news is that it has become more user friendly, easier to install, and now comes with masses of eye-candy.

This is true... in comparison to itself. You compare the user-friendliness of the easiest Linux distro with OSX or Windows and it's not really close. You still have to do a fair amount of choosing in order to get everything in line.

Besides, there's one thing no one's picking up on... who would sell Linux PCs?? There's no money from a retail perspective in it. Sure they could sell machines, but they can't sell software (we're going FOSS here), they can't sell security suites, OS upgrades...

If Best Buy or Circuit City went the FOSS/Linux route, they'd annihilate their own computer section. "Here you go, a $500 PC that'll never need upgrading. Naw, the software's free. No, you don't need an anti-virus. Sure, if you want another version of the OS you can just download it."

Linux won't hit mainstream mostly for business reasons. Not quality.

gn2
November 22nd, 2007, 08:06 PM
What do you think is preventing the Linux desktop being adopted as a mainstream OS?


The fact that all major PC/laptop manufacturers are in league with the evil empire.

They will only switch when it becomes more profitable to do so.

_sAm_
November 22nd, 2007, 08:07 PM
What do you think is preventing the Linux desktop being adopted as a mainstream OS?

-To hard to use.
-Lack of programs

SomeGuyDude
November 22nd, 2007, 08:09 PM
The fact that all major PC/laptop manufacturers are in league with the evil empire.

They will only switch when it becomes more profitable to do so.

Yes, how dare those businesses have a profit motive! Why aren't they more selfless! They should stop trying to make money! That's not why they started! :lolflag:

SunnyRabbiera
November 22nd, 2007, 08:17 PM
1. A Lack of high end web development equivalent software (dreamweaver, flash etc)

firstly not our fault, blame adobe for not porting this stuff as we speak, however getting flash and dreamweaver can be installed if you knew how to


2. A Lack of high end video editing software
It is getting there, there a few programs i have seen that seem pretty decent


3. Games
Okay seriously not our fault, blame the game makers not linux


4. Hardware manufacturer support
see above


5. Lack of awareness by the general public that Linux exists.
this is getting there, Dell is the start to a possible revolution in awareness, give it time.


-To hard to use.
-Lack of programs

this depends on who you ask though, really if you had issues on using your system you should have asked.

DeadSuperHero
November 22nd, 2007, 08:37 PM
Actually, what I think Linux REALLY needs is:

- A standardized package manager that can also do some sort of easy compile, and have Alien built in.

- More native commercial games (There's been quite a lot of progress on this, though.)

- Less elitism.

- Promote open codecs more.

-precaching things before login/bootup. (things like compiz fusion --replace, emerald --replace, the OO.O suite, OpenGL etc)

-merge bootscreen with GRUB and GDM/KDM/etc, with some nice graphical transitions from one to the next.

-A good movie editor.

-More plugins for F-Spot and Evolution

That's about it, I think. Oh yeah, and functional eyecandy, can't go wrong with that.

Those are just some things I'd personally like to see.

ICEcoffee
November 22nd, 2007, 09:59 PM
Glad to see some serious posts in response to a serious question.

I have to say, whilst I acknowledge it is a real boon for Microsoft to have OEM versions of their OS installed in the vast majority of new PC's, I do believe that if Linux was not only a 'drop-in' replacement for WinXP or Vista, but the general public new the benefits, I believe a substantial portion would quite happily install Linux over the top of whatever OEM was installed.

Plus, we could always be entrepreneurial like Apple, and sell purpose built Linux PC's and sell them directly to the public.

perce
November 22nd, 2007, 10:42 PM
The only things Linux would need is a big hardware manifacturer behind. Do you remember how many programs did OS X run in 1997? or how much hardware it supported? None, zero, because it didn't exist yet. And though people bought it, and programs were ported because it had Apple behind. Linux's position now is much better of the position of the Macs just before OS X was released, but with word of mouth we will never reach 1% of the market share.

spamzilla
November 22nd, 2007, 11:01 PM
- Not user friendly

- (in my case) My wireless drivers keep disappearing however sometimes they reappear and decide to work. Also graphics card drivers (x3100) work, but you can't use video and compiz at thye same time. If you can't get the drivers right (this goes for the devs,the hardware manufacturers and anyone else), then ubuntu will never take off as "joe blogs" won't want to use something which won't fully utilise their machines hardware, or even work. (these two problems may make me give up my 2 year struggle with ubuntu :/)

- updates occasionally break peoples system and we all know that not everyone backs up their data...

- not enough gui's to make the new users feel at home with the OS (ties in with not user friendly)

I really like ubuntu, but i just wish the effin drivers would do as they should...

perce
November 22nd, 2007, 11:23 PM
Also graphics card drivers (x3100) work, but you can't use video and compiz at thye same time.


Have you tried to go to System > Preferences > Multimedia system selector > Video and choose X windows (no Xv) as output?




- not enough gui's to make the new users feel at home with the OS (ties in with not user friendly)


What exactly couldn't you do with a GUI?

qazwsx
November 22nd, 2007, 11:37 PM
Lack of preinstalled systems (alltough there are some but you generally have to search for it).

NJC
November 22nd, 2007, 11:53 PM
Lack of preinstalled systems

x4,394. This is THE crux of linux mainstream adoption. MS doesn't have desktop domination through technical excellence.

frup
November 23rd, 2007, 12:06 AM
We can complain and complain yet linux adoption still steadily increases and the system still steadily gets better.

Dimitriid
November 23rd, 2007, 12:07 AM
Lack of preinstalled systems (alltough there are some but you generally have to search for it).

+1. This is the main and most important reason for end users.

kopinux
November 23rd, 2007, 12:25 AM
because the 86pc(32bit) is already an established system, you cant destroy the great wall of MS. linux should no longer care about it cause the 86pc(32bit) is long overdue, it will die soon. lets head over 64bit and other devices, cell-be, robotics, phones, consoles, portrables, servers, routers, supercomputers, military etc. and take the lead from there.

bruce89
November 23rd, 2007, 12:50 AM
People thinking the command line is bad.

stinger30au
November 23rd, 2007, 12:59 AM
linux seems to be too diversified.

if everybody got behind one version and pushed it, it would go a long way.
dos not matter what distro or how good/bad it is.
look at MS stuff to prove this.

bruce89
November 23rd, 2007, 01:02 AM
linux seems to be too diversified.

if everybody got behind one version and pushed it, it would go a long way.
dos not matter what distro or how good/bad it is.
look at MS stuff to prove this.

One choice and it's bloody awful.


Townsville, Australia

Great town name. At least it isn't nicked from here.

pdwalpole
November 23rd, 2007, 03:49 AM
What is preventing linux mainstream adoption? Perhaps just time. Think how absurdly far Ubuntu has come in such a short time. We are in the middle of things now and want everything faster and cleaner and better and delivered right now (I know I do --it's only natural!) but step back a moment and consider the success of Linux on the server side, and the elegance and power of desktop distributions when fifteen years ago Linus was just dinking around in his dorm room. I imagine that in six years, eight years (I know -- an impossibly long time in computer years, but not so very long in the rest of the wide world) you will see a consistently growing adoption trend for Linux. Yeah, we need a video editing program, and ever greater stability & simplicity, but these things will come in, uh, time . . .

rfurman24
November 24th, 2007, 06:28 PM
I am not sure I want linux mainstream. It will surely bring on other problems. I do get tired of hearing people complain about how difficult linux is compared to windows. How many of these complainers have actually installed windows and tried to get everything set up and working? To me linux is much easier in most cases. Every time I have installed windows I have had to search and search for drivers and for me linux has always worked out of the box. I know this is not always the case. In my opinion in order for linux to become mainstream will require a major computer manufacturer to start installing and actually pushing linux such as apple with OSX. Then software companies such as Adobe making professional software for it. As far as making money for the computer retailers the hardware will always need to be upgraded so computers sales for the most part would not be affected. Not much money is probably made on the os itself currently so selling a computer with linux and selling support packages would be just as profitable if not more so. Windows is "easy" because in most cases it has been pre-configured as is the case with OSX.

Mateo
November 24th, 2007, 06:49 PM
Lack of large company backing it.

toupeiro
November 24th, 2007, 06:51 PM
What is preventing linux mainstream adoption? Perhaps just time. Think how absurdly far Ubuntu has come in such a short time. We are in the middle of things now and want everything faster and cleaner and better and delivered right now (I know I do --it's only natural!) but step back a moment and consider the success of Linux on the server side, and the elegance and power of desktop distributions when fifteen years ago Linus was just dinking around in his dorm room. I imagine that in six years, eight years (I know -- an impossibly long time in computer years, but not so very long in the rest of the wide world) you will see a consistently growing adoption trend for Linux. Yeah, we need a video editing program, and ever greater stability & simplicity, but these things will come in, uh, time . . .

I couldn't have said it better myself. I agree wholeheartedly with this outlook.

intelligentfool
November 24th, 2007, 06:55 PM
I know for me personally, i've had a few different experiences when trying to get people to use linux.

1. older IT guys that had tried linux 5 or 10 years ago, saw that it was near impossible to use for anyone other than elite programmers, and had since written it off as unusable. (these guys usually tend to be the decision makers too..... and important fact)

2. people that could care less what OS they use, so long as they can check their email/myspace/youtube etc etc (these tend to be the easiest to convert, at least in my experience)

3. people that simply do not want to learn a new OS. my mom being a good example. her laptop is constantly having problems, programs crashing, various spyware/virus infections that i dont have the time or patience to fix... and yet she refused to use linux because it would involve some investment of time learning something new... computer's aren't everything to her, and she'd rather deal with known windows headaches than new linux headaches.

as i've gotten more involved in the linux community over the past few months (i've been using it on my desktop for about 2 years now)... i've started to realize there is a huge amount of room for improvement as far as the 'normal' user is concerned. the bright side is that things seem to be improving in orders of magnitude faster than in the windows world... so in my mind, its just a matter of time before linux 'catches up' with the proprietary world.

In addition, i've also gained an increasing amount of curiosity and desire to help out the open source ecosystem. It seems to me that if I can gain the programming skills necessary to help out with OSS apps, that will make me more attractive on the job market. Companies want to save money on their internal IT costs, so if someone has the skills and knowledge to save them several million dollars a year, they will gladly pay me a respectable salary in return. Its a win-win for everyone. And I would expect that a certain percentage of linux users would feel the same as I do, so as adoption increases, so does the body of programmers adding to and improving the whole system.

madscientist032
November 24th, 2007, 06:58 PM
1. The stereotypical image for Linux - writing and editing code lines.

2. Time. As I always say, "wait for it....wait for it!"

3. Public awareness (or lack thereof.)

Mateo
November 24th, 2007, 07:52 PM
Actually I think the OS is becoming utilitarian. Once upon a time thought Linux needed something really innovative to get people to come over to the good side. Something like Project Looking Glass that gives consumers a reason to make the switch (I never thought consumers would switch for security and other "back end" reasons. People are too comfortable in their ways, they only change when they really really want to). However, the complete and total failure of Vista has made me rethink this. Vista tries really hard to be "edgy" and "hip" with its interface. I would normally think this sort of thing would work, but it hasn't. Some will point to the many faults of Vista (such as compatibility issues and bloated hardware requirements), but I really think that people just don't care about flashy interfaces in OSes any more.

I think the OS has become a tool on your utility belt. The OS is supposed to get you to the real hip stuff, such as mobile devices and web applications (like Facebook and Flickr). That's where the money is being made these days, not with OSes. So I think Linux will eventually win out because it is the most safe, reliable, and "utilitarian" of all the OSes out there.

Of course, this could be accelerated if a popular and innovative company backed linux in a significant way for the desktop (I'm looking at you Google). If Goobuntu was given a slick user interface and marketing was put into it, it along with OSX would force Microsoft to fight a war on two fronts and over a shorter period of time Windows would be dethroned. But I don't think that's going to happen because, again, the OS is not where money is to be made these days. That's with mobile devices and web 2.0 applications.

argie
November 24th, 2007, 08:01 PM
I think it's the cows. Every time they moo, another Windows user is born. At this rate there is little we can do.

tuque
November 24th, 2007, 08:39 PM
It's not in your High Street stores because there isn't any profit for a retailer.
Because there is no profit it's not advertised.
No advertising means the majority of people have never even heard of it.
There is a lot of hardware for which no manufacturers drivers are available.
There are few manufacturers drivers available because the market share of Linux users is still relatively small.
People are generally lazy and have no desire to learn things new and give up at the first problem.

gn2
November 24th, 2007, 09:01 PM
What exactly couldn't you do with a GUI?

I've yet to find a GUI drive/partition mounting tool in Ubuntu.
When I used PCLinuxOS there was a very simple GUI point-and-click tool for changing drive/partition properties.

Grub editing. There is GrubEd, but it's not part of the distro.
(at least it wasn't the last time I looked for it in Synaptic)

money2themax
January 4th, 2008, 11:55 AM
The only things Linux would need is a big hardware manifacturer behind. Do you remember how many programs did OS X run in 1997? or how much hardware it supported? None, zero, because it didn't exist yet. And though people bought it, and programs were ported because it had Apple behind. Linux's position now is much better of the position of the Macs just before OS X was released, but with word of mouth we will never reach 1% of the market share.

we are at 1~2% as of now

allforcarrie
January 4th, 2008, 12:09 PM
I would say OEM's not pre installing Linux on their computers.

bufsabre666
January 4th, 2008, 12:13 PM
I would say OEM's not pre installing Linux on their computers.

+1
but thats getting better

hyper_ch
January 4th, 2008, 12:14 PM
3. people that simply do not want to learn a new OS. my mom being a good example. her laptop is constantly having problems, programs crashing, various spyware/virus infections that i dont have the time or patience to fix... and yet she refused to use linux because it would involve some investment of time learning something new... computer's aren't everything to her, and she'd rather deal with known windows headaches than new linux headaches.
Stop your windows support for her ;) That's what I did for my mom... I had to do a lot of support in the first two weeks but haven't heard anything of her ever (which is now almost a year) except for the one time when I changed my root server provider and her email didn't work ;)

Sef
January 4th, 2008, 12:21 PM
Lack of large company backing it.

Not true. IBM, Sun, and other companies spend lots of money on GNU/Linux or open source software.


I would say OEM's not pre installing Linux on their computers.

Not true. Dell, HP, and Lenovo all install GNU/Linux on some of their lines. It's not all, but it is happening.

Also lower end computers are moving to GNU/Linux as their operating system, e.g., Asus Eee PC, and Everex's TC2502 gPC.

bufsabre666
January 4th, 2008, 12:28 PM
Not true. Dell, HP, and Lenovo all install GNU/Linux on some of their lines. It's not all, but it is happening.

Also lower end computers are moving to GNU/Linux as their operating system, e.g., Asus Eee PC, and Everex's TC2502 gPC.

true but inform me when hp/compaq, acer, toshiba, samsung, asus (real laptops no eeepc's) and all other big brands have more then just 2 or 3 that are sold in store

the only one ive seen in store in the everex models and ive used thier os and its garbage compared to mint or gutsy, or fedora

Nunu
January 4th, 2008, 12:41 PM
1. Hardware compatibility
2. Mainstream Games like from EA
3. Marketing.

Blindraven
January 4th, 2008, 01:09 PM
Wow, I'm quite surprised by the responses I've been reading in this thread.

Everyone seems to think Linux (which, can I just state, is just the cogs, not the ticker) needs to be heading in some direction comparatively with MS. Why do you all feel this way?

I am extremely happy Linux is not mainstream (in some areas) and I am overwhelmed with the amount of work that has been put in to the many projects already maintained. Sure, there are things which do not compete, but then why should they have to? Why should Linux do everything Windows can do, and then, if you wanted Linux to run everything Windows can, then why the hell are you even running Linux? to kid yourself in to thinking you are a power-user? I don't know - You tell me?

To me, Linux is about choice and control, not just as simply implied, but in all aspects of the experience.
I do not have to subscribe and conform to the DRM of time and its proprietary cousins. Everything, and I really want to put an emphasis on : "Everything" that I put it, I get back out. Period.

I see many hippy ideals based around the fact that everything has its place, and I'd put to you the difference between a place made and a place forced.

I don't impose my views on others unless they are genuinely mislead and consumerised in to the belief they are getting a premium experience at the price of their privacy and freedoms.

I am happy with where Linux is, and if it stayed here, in terms of popularity (even if it got less) but stayed on par with new technologies, I'd never wish for, nor change a thing. I think of it much like the music I find from time to time that no one else knows about, its my baby, I preview it to friends and their reactions are all positive, and it goes on and on until I'm somewhere I really don't want to be around people I really don't like 6 months later and guess who's singing it? the entire room. It used to be awesome, it used to be mine - but now its the norm and I don't want it. Wheres my fix now?

Eh, I can only understand your points on a pure technical advancement level, all the people whining about popularity and blaming that and only that on its reasons for advancing at a slower rate need to wake up and smell the mentors freshly cooked beans, then, when you're done with that, grab a book and learn how to contribute, you know, other than whining on a forum and calling it distro activity. (The only way to say that was to be a hypocrite, better left unsaid? I think not.)

-edit-

Honestly though, I'm not directing this at everyone, just anyone that thinks growth is reliant only on popularity and nothing else.
That and the people that think Linux should be competing with Apple/MS.

Good stuff.
Tony.

Nunu
January 4th, 2008, 01:37 PM
Wow, I'm quite surprised by the responses I've been reading in this thread.

Everyone seems to think Linux (which, can I just state, is just the cogs, not the ticker) needs to be heading in some direction comparatively with MS. Why do you all feel this way?

I am extremely happy Linux is not mainstream (in some areas) and I am overwhelmed with the amount of work that has been put in to the many projects already maintained. Sure, there are things which do not compete, but then why should they have to? Why should Linux do everything Windows can do, and then, if you wanted Linux to run everything Windows can, then why the hell are you even running Linux? to kid yourself in to thinking you are a power-user? I don't know - You tell me?

To me, Linux is about choice and control, not just as simply implied, but in all aspects of the experience.
I do not have to subscribe and conform to the DRM of time and its proprietary cousins. Everything, and I really want to put an emphasis on : "Everything" that I put it, I get back out. Period.

I see many hippy ideals based around the fact that everything has its place, and I'd put to you the difference between a place made and a place forced.

I don't impose my views on others unless they are genuinely mislead and consumerised in to the belief they are getting a premium experience at the price of their privacy and freedoms.

I am happy with where Linux is, and if it stayed here, in terms of popularity (even if it got less) but stayed on par with new technologies, I'd never wish for, nor change a thing. I think of it much like the music I find from time to time that no one else knows about, its my baby, I preview it to friends and their reactions are all positive, and it goes on and on until I'm somewhere I really don't want to be around people I really don't like 6 months later and guess who's singing it? the entire room. It used to be awesome, it used to be mine - but now its the norm and I don't want it. Wheres my fix now?

Eh, I can only understand your points on a pure technical advancement level, all the people whining about popularity and blaming that and only that on its reasons for advancing at a slower rate need to wake up and smell the mentors freshly cooked beans, then, when you're done with that, grab a book and learn how to contribute, you know, other than whining on a forum and calling it distro activity. (The only way to say that was to be a hypocrite, better left unsaid? I think not.)

-edit-

Honestly though, I'm not directing this at everyone, just anyone that thinks growth is reliant only on popularity and nothing else.
That and the people that think Linux should be competing with Apple/MS.

Good stuff.
Tony.

I think the post was aimed at a more general idea like what people think would make it a more popular OS. The question was what is preventing Linux from going mainstream and not really what we want from Linux. I agree with you in what you are saying, and i have to be honest when i say that i do have mixed emotions when it comes to the growth of Linux, Yes in the one hand i would love to walk into a PC shop and buy a Linux bases game for it, but on the other hand i love the "Freedom Fighter" feeling that I get from using it.

forrestcupp
January 4th, 2008, 03:16 PM
I just can't believe that this thread has been going on for a month and a half and no one has moved it to the Recurring Discussions sub-forum. If this isn't a recurring discussion, I don't know what is.

fuscia
January 4th, 2008, 03:39 PM
in my view, as an end user, there is a huge lacking of instructions that the average end user can grasp. even when there's a decent amount of documentation for an app, that does address the basics in a clear way, those instructions will still assume a proficient knowledge of anything peripheral. one thing apple and microsoft have going for them is that they treat their customers like complete idiots and make their instructions painful to wade through, unless you're in over your head and you actually need to figure something out.

icett
January 4th, 2008, 04:28 PM
The most important solution is the full commercialization of Linux Operating System or Systems. The second is that there should be only one company promoting the Linux OS as strong as MS. Alternatively, there should be a single platform upon which all the Linux distros should be developed. All other problems would get solved when these two suggestions are implemented. Hardware/Software/Games manufacturers would begin support for Linux as with robust advertisement it would be used by more and more people. A single commercial Linux OS company or companies with a single platfrom would make their OS very user friendly as that would be in their interest. Also in the earlier commercial versions Linux should resemble Windows as much as possible for people to convert to Linux easily. It doen't matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice as Deng said. Moreover, the commercial Linux company or companies should follow Micorsoft and Apple business policies in order to succeed though immoral but it takes poison to kill poison. They should also spread illegal commercial torrents of their OS or OSes in order to popularize Linux. Only this way Linux would become a mainstream OS.:)

bapoumba
January 4th, 2008, 05:47 PM
I just can't believe that this thread has been going on for a month and a half and no one has moved it to the Recurring Discussions sub-forum. If this isn't a recurring discussion, I don't know what is.
Moved :KS

Riffer
January 4th, 2008, 08:53 PM
I don't think linux needs to do anything other then whats its doing now. Yep its a little buggy, but so is Windows and Mac. What's Ubuntu and linux has done is provided a viable alternative desktop. You can see this in how many new users are coming onboard.

Big companies are beginning to see this and are beginning to adjust their marketing. I think they don't like having Microsoft as the only OS, and by using Linux it allows them to move more stock (lower end machines). I also think big software companies are beginning to port over and that in the next couple of years you will see the big names having Linux ports of their software.

What we have to remember is that Linux is a revolution/evolution process. As the constant improvement comes about (evolution), More and more users will try and stay with linux (revolution). You can almost foresee MsOffice being ported to Linux:).

popch
January 4th, 2008, 08:59 PM
You can almost foresee MsOffice being ported to Linux:).

This appears to be a rarely used meaning of the word 'almost'.:)

money2themax
January 4th, 2008, 09:13 PM
This appears to be a rarely used meaning of the word 'almost'.:)
yea it's call openoffice.org

Riffer
January 4th, 2008, 11:00 PM
This appears to be a rarely used meaning of the word 'almost'.:)

LOL yeah my tongue was in my cheek. But I think the point is valid, as the numbers go up with linux based computers sales major software companies will be taking note. What was it for the Wal-Mart sales, 300,000? Those are numbers hard to ignore. And IMHO they will just keep going up, where theres money to made people will go for it.

Do you think that Adobe will sit on the side lines if there is a million comps (or ALOT more maybe millions) sold every year that can't run there products and "shutter" they have alternatives that they are becoming branded too? As another post said "OpenOffice" instead of MsOffice. Can't you imagine 3/4 years down the road when Linux is viewed by the computing world as a very valid OS and has a large well established market share of new comps, that Microsoft won't port apps over? I can.

PS I do use OpenOffice.

alecz20
July 18th, 2008, 08:14 PM
Besides many already mentioned things:

1. Install/uninstall software.

Except for what you can find in the Add/Remove pretty much all FOSS is offered as source code that needs to be compiled by the end-user. Installing and uninstalling debian packages is already "difficult" enough. Compiling and making your own package is really not user-friendly.

2. Popular media support not included by default.

What's wrong with including xvid codec in the default Ubuntu installation? (It is Open source but also offers a binary, maybe that's why)

3. Many essential features are CLI only. For example changing permissions to folders. When I installed K9Copy, the program was complaining about permissions in my Home directory, I had to fix these via the CLI, why can't I fix via the GUI and be prompted for sudo password?

clanky
July 18th, 2008, 08:42 PM
To some extent all of the above, but the hardware support is the big issue. People can accept the fact that they won't be able to play top end games (most people have playstations etc. anyway), high end video editing software is not a huge issue for most computer users.

The fact that once linux is installed, many peoples' wireless cards do not work without having to search through loads of info on here is a huge issue, the fact that for many people 3D graphics suck is a huge issue, the fact that many people cannot simply go on-line and view flash videos is a huge issue, yes I know there are solutions to these, and that most things can be made to work with a little effort, but the fact is that people simply don't want to search the internet for a solution and then have to start entering code into an unfamiliar interface to make their system work.

I started using linux because I work on a ship which has linux computers running navigation systems and I wanted to learn how linux worked, so for me the whole process of making everything work and learning how to use the CLI was part of the whole learning process and was the whole point of me using linux, but for most people it is just too daunting.

alecz20
July 19th, 2008, 08:07 AM
If I may add... ridiculous bugs!

I have found several and many of them were, of course, reported, but the developers ignored them.

There are not "hard to detect" bugs, but stuff I've found while doing the regular stuff.

The example that bugs me right now is the Search function in Nautilus.
I open a folder that has sub-folders and various file types. I start searching for files but nothing is EVER found! While using Places->Search for Files works fine!

Is this stupid or what? This bug has been around for about a year!
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/148701

fiddledd
July 19th, 2008, 09:08 AM
It's all been said before I'm afraid. But I think Linux needs to stop being compared with Windows, it needs to stand on it's own merits. It doesn't need to work with all hardware, no OS does. If you have an old Computer with < 1gb ram you'll have trouble running Vista, but that doesn't worry Microsoft. They know that most users (maybe not in this Forum, but the average "buy a PC/Laptop for home or for the kids user") will buy a new PC every year or so to try and keep up with the latest Games/Software.
The only way Linux will reach the goal (not everyone agrees with this goal) of Mainstream Adoption is when I can go into PC World, Currys, Comet (in the UK) and have a choice of either a preloaded Linux PC or a preloaded Windows PC. And that PC will run the Software I want/need and the Games the kids want. Yes I know I can buy an UMPC, but I don't want one, and if I did want one I'd still want a proper PC/Laptop.

Anyway, just my opinion. Unfortunately there are loads of opinions, but not really any answers.

Jim!
July 19th, 2008, 09:20 AM
The only way Linux will reach the goal (not everyone agrees with this goal) of Mainstream Adoption is when I can go into PC World, Currys, Comet (in the UK) and have a choice of either a preloaded Linux PC or a preloaded Windows PC. And that PC will run the Software I want/need and the Games the kids want. Yes I know I can buy an UMPC, but I don't want one, and if I did want one I'd still want a proper PC/Laptop.

Anyway, just my opinion. Unfortunately there are loads of opinions, but not really any answers.

I agree, thanks to PC manufacturers like Dell this is starting to become a reality, with some of the directions linux distributions are taking (Like Ubuntu and OpenSUSE) I believe linux Operating Systems have a strong chance of becoming mainstream, of course I don't think all the correct steps are being taken to make linux 'mainstream' but it's certainly well on it's way - the question now is, which linux OS?

rated727
July 19th, 2008, 10:59 AM
This is true... in comparison to itself. You compare the user-friendliness of the easiest Linux distro with OSX or Windows and it's not really close. You still have to do a fair amount of choosing in order to get everything in line.

Besides, there's one thing no one's picking up on... who would sell Linux PCs?? There's no money from a retail perspective in it. Sure they could sell machines, but they can't sell software (we're going FOSS here), they can't sell security suites, OS upgrades...

If Best Buy or Circuit City went the FOSS/Linux route, they'd annihilate their own computer section. "Here you go, a $500 PC that'll never need upgrading. Naw, the software's free. No, you don't need an anti-virus. Sure, if you want another version of the OS you can just download it."

Linux won't hit mainstream mostly for business reasons. Not quality.

As a person who once worked for a LARGE computer retailer I'll agree loudly here.
Retail stores have a very small profit margin on computers.
They have a very large profit margin on software and peripherals/accessories.
Retailers will not willingly give away one of their most productive "cash cows".

rated727
July 19th, 2008, 11:28 AM
in my view, as an end user, there is a huge lacking of instructions that the average end user can grasp. even when there's a decent amount of documentation for an app, that does address the basics in a clear way, those instructions will still assume a proficient knowledge of anything peripheral. one thing apple and microsoft have going for them is that they treat their customers like complete idiots and make their instructions painful to wade through, unless you're in over your head and you actually need to figure something out.

Do I understand correctly that you believe that Linux requires a person to use the brain in their head, but Microsoft and Apple allow a person to sit on their brain?

(I am joking)

The majority of computer users don't know about or need to change Windows or Apple OS in ways that a "power-user" would want. Their comuter is supposed to do the tasks that they know they want to do.

Similarly, most drivers don't want to make "hot-rod" changes to their cars. But, some of us are "gear-heads" who ... (see the preceding paragraph and watch as I go 95 MPH through a 50 MPH corner)

alecz20
July 30th, 2008, 08:38 PM
I want to add that, for new users, some operations are a nightmare to do under Linux. Take for example formatting your USB key in FAT32 file system and giving it a label.

While I know gparted does a nice job, the default Ubuntu GUI does not help.

Windows users are used to: 'My computer' -> 'right click on drive' -> 'select format' -> chose filesystem.

I know there is the command line option of doing things but if you don't know the commands (like new linux users) then you are in trouble, and end up googling for solutions.

Again, I know Linux has come a long way, but maybe the Gnome guys (or nautilus, whoever is responsible) just didn't think about it.

Mount/Unmount is similar, and even if it's not supported in Windows, we can do better than that: have the option on right-click to mount ISO images... that would be AWSOME!

Point is, we CAN make a difference with Linux, because it's OSS, so... why not?

my 2 cents!

Edit: you might want to check the instructions on this page to compare Linux vs Windows Method of making bootabe DSL USB key:
http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/Installing_to_a_USB_Flash_Drive

original_jamingrit
July 30th, 2008, 08:52 PM
I blame the Illuminati. Those guys are just jerks.

money2themax
July 30th, 2008, 10:26 PM
people, timing, businesses, a way to prove to the simpletons that they need it, and make it look and feel friendly, oh yes and it has to play all the latest games with the minimum amount of effort on their part.

alecz20
July 30th, 2008, 10:48 PM
Speaking of games... I tried the Linux version of Heroes 3 and I had terrible sound. It was interrupting all the time like someone was pressing a "mute" button every 1/2 second.

I didn't try to troubleshoot, I just un-installed. This kinds of things should NOT happen.

chris200x9
July 30th, 2008, 11:24 PM
I blame the Illuminati. Those guys are just jerks.

haha

articpenguin
July 31st, 2008, 03:34 AM
the GPL

nochids
February 3rd, 2010, 12:13 AM
I find it very frustrating that certain websites dont work with Ubuntu.

For example:

http://www.pchlotto.com/Path/PCHLotto/Home.aspx?&cm_mmc=PCH-_-lotto-_-Newsletter-_-Feb2


If linux is to become competitive in the mainstream market, stuff like this HAS to work.

yester64
February 3rd, 2010, 12:41 AM
and what did not work there? I did not want to click anything, but it works so it seems.

thatguruguy
February 3rd, 2010, 12:43 AM
I find it very frustrating that certain websites dont work with Ubuntu.

For example:

http://www.pchlotto.com/Path/PCHLotto/Home.aspx?&cm_mmc=PCH-_-lotto-_-Newsletter-_-Feb2


If linux is to become competitive in the mainstream market, stuff like this HAS to work.

Because the average user goes to the Publisher's Clearing House site on a daily basis?

nochids
February 3rd, 2010, 03:12 AM
First of all, thatguruguy, the 'average user' is not going to put up with a browser or OS that does not work with every site that they do visit - whether it is pch daily (which I do) or www.citicards.com on a monthly basis - go ahead and let the page load, I end up with a blank page after it all loads. The workaround? hit escape before the page finishes loading - but the AVERAGE user will not put up with that, and THAT is what this thread is about.
As for yester64's page working, I dont know... I know there is supposed to be a set of "lotto tickets" where I only see blue sky - thus there is no game to play and no way to enter to win the PCH sweepstakes, because I just might be that 1 out of 750MM. (fingers crossed :) )

Nonetheless, the topic is what is preventing mainstream adoption? For me it was my absolute dependence on Quicken that keeps me on Windows - mine just happens to run on VMWare/Win2K. This browser glitch is certainly not the only answer, or even a major one, but it is stuff like this that keep me from putting it on machines of family members that are not advanced users, they are AVERAGE users.

I like to consider myself somewhat more advanced than most 'average' users, and switching to linux was really a pain in the **** and continues to present challenges that quite frankly I just dont have time to deal with. Just because I CAN figure it out and configure and install and debug and deal doesnt mean that I WANT to. I just want the damn thing to work, and that is what Windows provides that linux does not. I run Ubuntu 8.04 on my laptop, desktop, and server, and I have had different challenges and problems on each of them.

Twitch6000
February 3rd, 2010, 03:19 AM
What do you think is preventing the Linux desktop being adopted as a mainstream OS?

There was a similar Question with accompanying poll, but that was back in 2005, but everything has moved on since then, a lot. Linux has come on leaps and bounds and we have a more discerning user base.

I think Linux is fantastic, and open source is a life line to anyone who cares about the evermore regulated and wholly unjustifiably restricted OS alternatives. The good news is that it has become more user friendly, easier to install, and now comes with masses of eye-candy. It has always been very secure and you can run it on lesser powered machines than the Windows OS with a similar feature set. However, whilst Linux has made great improvements in the past 3-4 years, the same ol' problems are the reason, I believe, continue to prevent it's up-take en masse. These problems can be summerised thus:

1. A Lack of high end web development equivalent software (dreamweaver, flash etc)

2. A Lack of high end video editing software

3. Games

4. Hardware manufacturer support

5. Lack of awareness by the general public that Linux exists.

I have seen probably hundreds of posts about the above issues, what do you think? can Linux make it into the big time? if so, what is it gonna take?

1. True

2. I have heard from ma few places that there is acually professinal grade movie editing stuff for Linux. I will get back to you on that

3. Again true

4. This isn't really a linux problem pre say. It is just devs not seeing linux worth coding for.

5. Hah have you seen all the stories about people forcing ubuntu on people. Also spreading so much fud about it? I think they know about Linux,but probably hate it after what they have dealt with and I do not blame them.

yester64
February 3rd, 2010, 03:45 AM
I find it very frustrating that certain websites dont work with Ubuntu.

For example:

http://www.pchlotto.com/Path/PCHLotto/Home.aspx?&cm_mmc=PCH-_-lotto-_-Newsletter-_-Feb2


If linux is to become competitive in the mainstream market, stuff like this HAS to work.

I assume you use Firefox. Check if you have flash installed. If not there is an flash in the software center. Or get it from Adobe.
Check if you have Java installed also. Or disabled. And/or Javascript.
Thats just a couple of things i can think of. Because i have nothing additionally installed.
But i can assure you, that i can view the page or the other mentioned a couple of replies down.

jrusso2
February 3rd, 2010, 03:48 AM
Site works fine just needs flash and scripting.

yester64
February 3rd, 2010, 03:49 AM
First of all, thatguruguy, the 'average user' is not going to put up with a browser or OS that does not work with every site that they do visit - whether it is pch daily (which I do) or www.citicards.com (http://www.citicards.com) on a monthly basis - go ahead and let the page load, I end up with a blank page after it all loads. The workaround? hit escape before the page finishes loading - but the AVERAGE user will not put up with that, and THAT is what this thread is about.
As for yester64's page working, I dont know... I know there is supposed to be a set of "lotto tickets" where I only see blue sky - thus there is no game to play and no way to enter to win the PCH sweepstakes, because I just might be that 1 out of 750MM. (fingers crossed :) )



Just to say. I remember that IE froze on me a lot of times. So thats for quality of a browser.

If you only see something blue, then the flash does not work. My best suggestion is to check or reinstall flash from adobe.
I have Shockwave Flash in my Firefox Plugins. So check that and if missing, install it. It should solve the problem. :)

kfcrosby
March 21st, 2010, 05:46 PM
I want to throw an observation in here. An apology for the long post, but I have a story to tell. I've heard all of the old tried and true arguments that Linux is:
-To hard to use.
-Lack of programs
-Not user friendly

This was true when I started with RedHat 12 years ago or so but I truly believe this is going away quickly with each new release.

Now on to MY observation.

I recently had the opportunity to take several 6 year old Dell machines out of service at a company I do work for. Naturally they had WinXP loaded on them and like most companies had misplaced their proprietary driver CD. These machines were in relatively good condition and had been updated with a larger hard drive, memory, DVD drives etc., so I knew they would make great starter machines for someone. I took them in and gave them a fresh load of Ubuntu, which naturally installed all of that pesky proprietary hardware (NIC, Video, Sound). Load up a bit more software from the package manager and I am off to donate these machines.

Got them installed in their new homes, people were using them, getting photos and music collections organized, playing with the Open Office suite etc. Then it came time to connect to the Internet. Piece of cake right? NO. Here in Memphis, TN we have the privilege of having two choices for affordable Internet, AT&T or COMCAST cable. I had new users on both. AT&T refused to talk to my user if they were not running a version of Windows. LINUX is not supported by AT&T, and they will have to load a copy of windows before they can get Internet thru AT&T and not only does MUST it have Windows, one MUST use IE, no exceptions, no discussions. COMCAST, same thing, although they did have Apple MAC support. Now imagine the frustration, the anger; “What kind of POS have you given us that will not connect to the Internet?”

This is the type of behavior by these large companies that is going to have to go away before LINUX desktop can flourish. I understand the additional technical support required to support another operating system, but to tell a user that their machine “will not work” because it is running LINUX is totally inappropriate.

My new users are now happily up and running on their LINUX boxes after a visit from me, and hour on the phone with the various tech support clowns, and my portable netbook running, you guessed it, Win 7.

This to me is clearly where the focus need to be placed to get LUNIX more widely accepted.

Thanks for indulging me, and again I apologize for the length of this post.


Kevin


Kevin

gsmanners
March 21st, 2010, 07:27 PM
Now on to MY observation.

...

Corporate collusion like that is generally frowned on, especially when one of the perpetrators is a repeat offender (i.e. Microsoft). Make sure you file the appropriate complaints with your local AG there, or else you are permitting a crime to take place.

Post Monkeh
March 21st, 2010, 08:12 PM
I want to throw an observation in here. An apology for the long post, but I have a story to tell. I've heard all of the old tried and true arguments that Linux is:
-To hard to use.
-Lack of programs
-Not user friendly

This was true when I started with RedHat 12 years ago or so but I truly believe this is going away quickly with each new release.

Now on to MY observation.

I recently had the opportunity to take several 6 year old Dell machines out of service at a company I do work for. Naturally they had WinXP loaded on them and like most companies had misplaced their proprietary driver CD. These machines were in relatively good condition and had been updated with a larger hard drive, memory, DVD drives etc., so I knew they would make great starter machines for someone. I took them in and gave them a fresh load of Ubuntu, which naturally installed all of that pesky proprietary hardware (NIC, Video, Sound). Load up a bit more software from the package manager and I am off to donate these machines.

Got them installed in their new homes, people were using them, getting photos and music collections organized, playing with the Open Office suite etc. Then it came time to connect to the Internet. Piece of cake right? NO. Here in Memphis, TN we have the privilege of having two choices for affordable Internet, AT&T or COMCAST cable. I had new users on both. AT&T refused to talk to my user if they were not running a version of Windows. LINUX is not supported by AT&T, and they will have to load a copy of windows before they can get Internet thru AT&T and not only does MUST it have Windows, one MUST use IE, no exceptions, no discussions. COMCAST, same thing, although they did have Apple MAC support. Now imagine the frustration, the anger; “What kind of POS have you given us that will not connect to the Internet?”

This is the type of behavior by these large companies that is going to have to go away before LINUX desktop can flourish. I understand the additional technical support required to support another operating system, but to tell a user that their machine “will not work” because it is running LINUX is totally inappropriate.

My new users are now happily up and running on their LINUX boxes after a visit from me, and hour on the phone with the various tech support clowns, and my portable netbook running, you guessed it, Win 7.

This to me is clearly where the focus need to be placed to get LUNIX more widely accepted.

Thanks for indulging me, and again I apologize for the length of this post.


Kevin


Kevin

tbh, i can understand their position.

if they have a support system designed to work on internet explorer, then that's how their support system works. did they have websites you had to visit to diagnose the connection? maybe those websites are specifically designed around features of internet explorer, or maybe it's a case that they just don't work on some other browsers? you can't expect the world to do you a favour all the time, while i can see how frustrating that can be, companies have a certain support procedure and if it has been designed around a certain piece of software that 98% of people have access to then it's just bad luck for the other 2%.

they're simply working to suit the widest userbase possible, and unfortunately they can get away with it because there aren't too many alternatives, but i'd say it's more laziness than any underhanded motives.

kfcrosby
March 21st, 2010, 09:25 PM
I can understand this from that type of support, but in this situation I was being asked to:
a: create a user account
b: give said user account a password
c: supply user account information, address and the like.

My way of thinking is that this is pure laziness on their part. When I got back to the configuration of the router, any ole web browser would suffice. So these corporations are limiting the user base to "just" Windows, going back to my original statement of why LINUX is not and cannot be more mainstream until this situation is eliminated.



tbh, i can understand their position.

if they have a support system designed to work on internet explorer, then that's how their support system works. did they have websites you had to visit to diagnose the connection? maybe those websites are specifically designed around features of internet explorer, or maybe it's a case that they just don't work on some other browsers? you can't expect the world to do you a favour all the time, while i can see how frustrating that can be, companies have a certain support procedure and if it has been designed around a certain piece of software that 98% of people have access to then it's just bad luck for the other 2%.

they're simply working to suit the widest userbase possible, and unfortunately they can get away with it because there aren't too many alternatives, but i'd say it's more laziness than any underhanded motives.

MobiusJedi
March 22nd, 2010, 01:45 AM
My Ubuntu CD sat unopened for months because I didn't have disk space, but once I decided to try it out (and suddenly my new driver-less wireless card worked) I eventually just wiped XP so Ubuntu could fit somewhere on my drives. I think that's really all that's standing in the way of mainstream adoption: people just haven't tried Linux.


1. A Lack of high end web development equivalent software (dreamweaver, flash etc)

2. A Lack of high end video editing software

3. Games

4. Hardware manufacturer support

5. Lack of awareness by the general public that Linux exists

1 and 2 are in the neighborhood of one of my drawbacks with Linux. While audacity makes a great replacement for cakewalk, I somehow doubt it measures up to pro tools. Lmms (linux multimedia studio) makes a poor substitute for fruity loops - or ableton, et al. No high end sound editing and/or sequencing.

3 is a big one, except for people whose gaming library is singularly composed of WoW - my buddy runs WoW on his linux machine just fine.

4. . . really? Does manufacturer support actually outweigh the benefits of open-source? I wasn't aware worthwhile (which to me should mean hassle-free with no added fee) manufacturer support is out there...

5 is interesting because, while I'm sure most people are indeed oblivious to the existence of Linux, a lot of people do know it exists, but don't know what it is beyond a vague concept, how it's different, or what open-source fully means. My first impression of Linux carried the assumption that it didn't have a GUI (this was years ago, so maybe it was true then) like a more advanced DOS or something, and for whatever reason just seemed too complicated to draw my interest. The whole fear of the unknown thing will keep people from trying a new OS when the one they're used to works well enough most of the time.


I think, and I hope, that it's only a matter of time before Linux makes it big. Short of a funded campaign, the best way to raise awareness of Linux is to be our own street teams; hand out Live CD's to friends and acquaintances. Windows and Mac users have nothing to lose just to try Linux without making any changes to their computer. Another helpful notion of mine is that making the switch to Linux was rougher than it should be. In my case, there's a liscencing issue with the chipset on my soundcard that keeps me running Intrepid if I want sound, at least until I learn how to compile my own kernal (joy). For a lot of migrating users, it would be nice to have a consolidated begginner's page with lists of basic how-to's, helpful hints, useful lists, etc., like an expanded FAQ that would actually preempt common questions and problems. (what's this terminal thing? how do I use it? how do I install this program? what program can I use in lieu of the program I usually use? what keyboard commands are different?) Then again, the Ubuntu IRC channels can get that kind of help from real live people.

Of course, a lot of the problem with a certain (presumably large) group of non-Linux users is that it's simply not easy, nor is it just a few clicks, to switch over to a different OS. That is, one can't just install Linux, install wine, migrate settings, and go on using all the same programs as before.

Shining Arcanine
March 22nd, 2010, 01:57 AM
What do you think is preventing the Linux desktop being adopted as a mainstream OS?

In one word, Microsoft.

fidelandche
March 22nd, 2010, 05:44 AM
For me, I think one thing is that most people see Linux still as a hackers tool/OS until that view is changed/challanged the up take to Linux will be slow.

But for me I have used windoze for a few years and also used Apple, but I like the ease of use of Ubuntu and I am not a computer wiz!! I changed over because I was fed up with Vista not working and I wanted a OS that just looked good

Chame_Wizard
March 22nd, 2010, 06:10 AM
My Ubuntu CD sat unopened for months because I didn't have disk space, but once I decided to try it out (and suddenly my new driver-less wireless card worked) I eventually just wiped XP so Ubuntu could fit somewhere on my drives. I think that's really all that's standing in the way of mainstream adoption: people just haven't tried Linux.



1 and 2 are in the neighborhood of one of my drawbacks with Linux. While audacity makes a great replacement for cakewalk, I somehow doubt it measures up to pro tools. Lmms (linux multimedia studio) makes a poor substitute for fruity loops - or ableton, et al. No high end sound editing and/or sequencing.

3 is a big one, except for people whose gaming library is singularly composed of WoW - my buddy runs WoW on his linux machine just fine.

4. . . really? Does manufacturer support actually outweigh the benefits of open-source? I wasn't aware worthwhile (which to me should mean hassle-free with no added fee) manufacturer support is out there...

5 is interesting because, while I'm sure most people are indeed oblivious to the existence of Linux, a lot of people do know it exists, but don't know what it is beyond a vague concept, how it's different, or what open-source fully means. My first impression of Linux carried the assumption that it didn't have a GUI (this was years ago, so maybe it was true then) like a more advanced DOS or something, and for whatever reason just seemed too complicated to draw my interest. The whole fear of the unknown thing will keep people from trying a new OS when the one they're used to works well enough most of the time.


I think, and I hope, that it's only a matter of time before Linux makes it big. Short of a funded campaign, the best way to raise awareness of Linux is to be our own street teams; hand out Live CD's to friends and acquaintances. Windows and Mac users have nothing to lose just to try Linux without making any changes to their computer. Another helpful notion of mine is that making the switch to Linux was rougher than it should be. In my case, there's a liscencing issue with the chipset on my soundcard that keeps me running Intrepid if I want sound, at least until I learn how to compile my own kernal (joy). For a lot of migrating users, it would be nice to have a consolidated begginner's page with lists of basic how-to's, helpful hints, useful lists, etc., like an expanded FAQ that would actually preempt common questions and problems. (what's this terminal thing? how do I use it? how do I install this program? what program can I use in lieu of the program I usually use? what keyboard commands are different?) Then again, the Ubuntu IRC channels can get that kind of help from real live people.

Of course, a lot of the problem with a certain (presumably large) group of non-Linux users is that it's simply not easy, nor is it just a few clicks, to switch over to a different OS. That is, one can't just install Linux, install wine, migrate settings, and go on using all the same programs as before.
Not not knowing the other/illiteracy,can give people very bad views(like the health care for example:P)

dsiembab
March 22nd, 2010, 09:09 PM
linux is already mainstream if you run servers.

kfcrosby
March 22nd, 2010, 10:07 PM
Point taken, Maybe change the Thread Topic Title to Desktop/Workstation Mainstream Adoption for the masses.


linux is already mainstream if you run servers.

lklk
March 22nd, 2010, 10:12 PM
Linux isn't that hard to use now. A few years ago I left the Ubuntu live CD in the computer when I shut it down. The next morning my mom (who only knows how to use email and surf the web) turned on the computer and it booted into Ubuntu. Then she just used Firefox normally without needing help from anyone. She latter told me what happened and was happy she did something computer related without anyones help. Now my parents have Ubuntu installed so they don't have to worry about Anti-Virus scans, defrags, ect. In fact when I was home a few days ago I accidentally left the computer on Windows after gaming and my mom told me to switch it to Ubuntu so she could use Skype even though it is installed on Windows as well.

MasterNetra
March 23rd, 2010, 12:36 AM
For me, I think one thing is that most people see Linux still as a hackers tool/OS until that view is changed/challanged the up take to Linux will be slow.

But for me I have used windoze for a few years and also used Apple, but I like the ease of use of Ubuntu and I am not a computer wiz!! I changed over because I was fed up with Vista not working and I wanted a OS that just looked good

lol most hackers & crackers use windows. All the ones I know or knew personally do anyway. but sense most people use windows, its probably a safe bet to say the majority of hackers use it too. But sense I got no data to back me up I digress.

xhalarin
March 23rd, 2010, 02:38 AM
- Less elitism.
Amen. This is a question I ponder more frequently than I would like and inevitably this answer come to the top of the list.

Too often, Windows users make an attempt at switching, run into a limitation (missing feature, software doesn't work the way they think it should, etc), and are told they just need to use it the way it is. This seems like it is a big reason for users getting fed up and leaving.

I believe if the community wishes to be successful, it needs to be more open minded and listen to the valuable feedback that these newcomers bring. While the development teams may not always see eye to eye with them, if we can find good working solutions to their problems or at least find some middle ground that could make a world of difference.

gymophett
March 23rd, 2010, 04:43 AM
@kfcrosby

I set up AT&T internet fine with Ubuntu. :/
It let me set up my router via internet browser.

aviedw
March 23rd, 2010, 05:11 AM
Amen. This is a question I ponder more frequently than I would like and inevitably this answer come to the top of the list.

Too often, Windows users make an attempt at switching, run into a limitation (missing feature, software doesn't work the way they think it should, etc), and are told they just need to use it the way it is. This seems like it is a big reason for users getting fed up and leaving.

I believe if the community wishes to be successful, it needs to be more open minded and listen to the valuable feedback that these newcomers bring. While the development teams may not always see eye to eye with them, if we can find good working solutions to their problems or at least find some middle ground that could make a world of difference.

I agree that newbie feed back is very important. But newbie willingness to learn something new is also necessary. I rather move at a slower rate of adoption than trade the essence of linux for a larger user base of people who dont learn to appreciate linux or the open source community as a whole.

Psumi
March 23rd, 2010, 08:25 AM
What I think:

Because Windows was adopted first as mainstream.

What everyone else thinks:

Because of everything else: Games, etc.

Maju
March 23rd, 2010, 09:30 AM
I got into Linux accidentally: the cheapest computer of the market (about 1/3 the price of others, an AMD Athlon 64) came with Ubuntu Hardy by default. I actually wanted Windows in order to be able to play silly Korean online games but somehow I got sold this.

This is what I see after almost a year with Ubuntu:

1. Wine is not good enough (in fact I haven't been able to run anything on it at all). In other words: compatibility with the mainstream OS, aka Windows.

2. Bugs in "silly" things that do matter. Even Firefox (excellent in Windows) is buggy in Linux.

3. You always seem to need to use the command line. I'm not against the possibility of using command lines, I actually took all I could before upgrading from Windows 98 because I was used to be able to mess around with MS DOS. But GNU is not what I'm used to, so I have to copy-paste every single line from some instructions page for dummies (and remember that paste in the terminal window is not ctrl-V but ctr-shift-V). Most of the time it works but I can't imagine the typical PC user bothering about that but rather running to the store panicked and spending a lot of money in Windows 7.

4. An immense list of repository programs that do not actually work or are in alpha stage. The end user "naturally" expects that most will work and be "finished" and that, if anything, the "junk" for beta-testers and smart geeks is in a separate list of some sort with a big pop-up warning message in red capital bold letters.

5. Games. Sure: it's game makers' fault but I can imagine that if there would be a standard of some sort for this issue across platforms (or at least across mainstream platforms) they could consider bothering about Linux compatibility. However each platform (and version of them) seems to need a slightly different tweak, making things too difficult for such a small market share. Games are in any case one of the main attractions for a large sector of the mainstream public, specially youth (which are also the most flexible to learn new things and the ones who can be interested in whatever options).

6. Upgrading takes too long and happens too often (twice a year). But if you don't upgrade you are rather limited. That's why I'm still with Intrepid, when I should be using Lucid... because I don't want my PC to be blocked for three days or so, while downloading one upgrade after the other.

7. Too difficult to install in parallel to Windows in the same computer. One could want to have Ubuntu (or some other Linux OS) for some stuff and also Windows for some other stuff, like gaming, however this is hardly as simple as choosing an option from a menu while installing (which should be the case by law).

In other words: compatibility, bugs, games and interface for dummies. It has gone a long way in this direction, I understand, but it still needs a lot to be done.

My two cents anyhow.

del_diablo
March 23rd, 2010, 06:12 PM
4. An immense list of repository programs that do not actually work or are in alpha stage. The end user "naturally" expects that most will work and be "finished" and that, if anything, the "junk" for beta-testers and smart geeks is in a separate list of some sort with a big pop-up warning message in red capital bold letters.

Wait wait wait? Who shipped the computer with non-working repos?


1. Wine is not good enough (in fact I haven't been able to run anything on it at all). In other words: compatibility with the mainstream OS, aka Windows.

What Graphic Processing Unit?

gvernold
March 23rd, 2010, 07:00 PM
My own personal opinion:

Linux has got worse not better. I have used Linux for 13 years. I'm no command line junkie as I always needed a system that just worked and I could plug software into; usually way too busy to start fiddling around with drivers, app configuration and so on. That was good for me around Ubuntu 8.04. I took 9.10 off my machine this morning because it became so slow, from booting up to loading applications. I also had a lot of GUI problems in 9.10 with Gnome. Bluefish suddenly became graphically corrupt and Totem had it's issues too. So I tried 10.04 Beta. Just typing this on it now. And it will be removed very, very soon.

I understand beta software is not perfect and to expect a few glitches here and there, but this software is going to be released to the public in 5 weeks, and personally I don't think it's ready. I have a standard Intel based desktop with Intel everything in it. No Radeon cards, no separate sound cards.... everything integrated onto a two year old mainstream Intel board.... I had to load the installer 3 times to get off a black screen with flashing cursor. Firefox takes 11 seconds to open. Thunderbird is an absolute joke - too many things wrong to write them down. Evolution crashes after the first "start a new mail account" window. Flash was a 60meg download and seems to have problems. The package manager crashed twice trying to download gnome-themes-extras. Django installation doesn't work. All this in three hours use. But no worries.... it will be perfect in 5 weeks I'm sure!

So, if Ubuntu has turned it's programmers on to eye candy instead of a simple clean interface and working applications which other distros can we look too?

Fedora - when it finally lets you have permission to do something maybe it works real nice.

Slackware - Used it for years but got fed up of configuring everything everytime a new release came out.

Arch - developers couldn't be bothered to fix essential Gnome desktop issues..... FOR TWO YEARS!

Opensuse: Used Suse in the early years and it was great. Just doesn't seem to carry it's weight on anything other than office machines these days and the repos are limited for some users.

Mint: - Had loads of problems with drivers and trying to configure a webcam (which works on Slack no probs)

All of these kind of problems are the sort of things we ditched Windows for in the first place. I hate trying to get virtual web servers and some programming platforms working nicely in Windows but for the first time in 13 years I'm actually considering going back if not just for the usability of the desktop and having a nicely finished application that I can just install.

Linux had the opportunity of mainstream adoption and we've gone straight passed it, trying to compete with stupid graphics that our Windows colleagues leathered their desktop with. For the likes of more stable distros unfortunately they are still stuck with the command line and a bloated kernel underneath and most likely will never move on from there.

kfcrosby
March 24th, 2010, 03:17 PM
@kfcrosby

I set up AT&T internet fine with Ubuntu. :/
It let me set up my router via internet browser.

Setting up the router was not the problem, it was establishing a new USER account with AT&T that one apparently has to use windows/IE for their active script to function. After jumping thru those hoops is was just a matter of using the browser to finish the setup.

The CSR's script at AT&T evidently states that the Linux OS will not work on their network. This is the main statement I have issue with.

I guess it is going to take IBM, Novell, Canonical, RedHat and the like to "nudge" these other corporations into submission.

IF Linux is going to target the Cloud, one has to be able to get to the cloud.....

del_diablo
March 24th, 2010, 09:27 PM
Arch - developers couldn't be bothered to fix essential Gnome desktop issues..... FOR TWO YEARS!

Ain't that GNOME's own damn job as Archlinux is distro without a default desktop enviroment?

beetleman64
March 24th, 2010, 10:28 PM
I think the major problem is fragmentation. When you look at Linux, you see Ubuntu, Ferdora, SuSE, Mint, Debian and 300 others. All this succeeds in doing is confusing people.

Let's imagine that there was one Linux OS, it was free and by going to Linux.com you could download it. That would make things better. Many people have heard good things about Linux and want to try it out and then suddenly realise that there are over 300 different distributions with little to no standardisation and they run off back to Windows or Mac OS X.

scottuss
March 24th, 2010, 10:47 PM
1) Manufacturers of hardware selling on MS software
2) Goto 1
3) Seriously, goto 1....
4) :p and the fact that a lot of people don't see much of a reason to switch. Sure they have issues with their PC, but in their head there is an alternative, and that's a Mac. Too expensive / time consuming though.

Education is the key, although there will be some people that won't care, and that's OK ya know. Not everyone needs converting.

scottuss
March 24th, 2010, 11:16 PM
"Arch - developers couldn't be bothered to fix essential Gnome desktop issues..... FOR TWO YEARS!" Broken stuff is "The Arch Way"

(Flame proof jacket at the ready) Seriously though, that's one of the many reasons I've stopped using Arch entirely. Although I do have to admit, I did submit bug reports but I never actually attempted to fix bugs myself, something I should probably have at least attempted

fatum
March 24th, 2010, 11:53 PM
I didn't have time to read all the replies to this topic so I apologize if I repeat to many things. This is my list and I know some are repeats

1. Usability- The people using and therefore programming for Linux are mostly geeks (lets be honest.) But the people that need to use Linux are not, so for the average person things need to be easy. I have been running Ubuntu since 2005 on at least one machine in my home. Many of the problems that I have experienced have been taken care e.g. hardware drivers and detection, graphic user interfaces for common tasks (more for the beginner), battery life on laptops, printer support. But it is more than just hardware that needs fixing.

2. Awareness- I have many friends that use Android phones yet have no clue what it is. But they see the customization that it gives them and I have gotten a couple of them to try out Linux on the desktop because of it. For the most part no one knows what it is.

3. Philosophy- Customization of programs is great (for the geeks) but it only adds to confusion for the average person. When they need a program to do X and they have a list of 20 programs to choose from they get overloaded. The average person is not going to research which programs are which and which do better at X than another. Simplicity is key. Each Linux distribution needs to come with standard programs to do the everyday things. My list of programs each should come with are

Browser, Email, Calendar, Task Manager, Personal Finance, Media Player, Word Processing, Bibliography Creator, Spreadsheet, Presentation, Audio Editor, Video Editor, Photo Editor, Instant Messenger, Dictionary, and Thesaurus, Program Launcher

Yeah most of them are covered but some are not.

4. Hardware support- It has come a long way in the years I have had it but there needs to be longer support in the kernel. Linux is great for older computers, especially lately, with the resources staying the same or improving with a bunch of new features and faster booting. But why does a graphics card, sound card, networking card that is only two years old lose support with a new kernel release?

5. Default Installation- Lets make it easier on everyone that uses a computer since most do not back up their systems. Every Linux distribution should create different partitions automatically for root, applications, swap and home folders. If the system needs to be reinstalled the user will be up and running with all their documents applications and settings the way they left them. Of course it would be better to always have backups of everything.

6. Consistency with settings- If I have nautilus set to NOT show hidden files then they should not show up in open or save dialog bozes. If I start OpenOffice and choose open new file hidden files should not show up. It adds confusion. This is also noticed with folder sorting. If I have "sort folders before files" turned OFF in nautilus then the open dialog should not sort folders first.


Those reasons I believe to be the most important. On each one of them there have been progress since I have used Linux. With little improvements Linux will become well known to the general public. With Countries now adopting it as their OS of choice it is only going to take time.

del_diablo
March 25th, 2010, 02:11 PM
I think the major problem is fragmentation. When you look at Linux, you see Ubuntu, Ferdora, SuSE, Mint, Debian and 300 others. All this succeeds in doing is confusing people.

You see, there may only ever be 1 manifactor of tools EVER. Having more than one would confuse people, same with car brands. More than 1 car brand will confuse people. Etc.......
So get an proper argument.


1) Manufacturers of hardware selling on MS software
2) Goto 1
3) Seriously, goto 1....
4) :p and the fact that a lot of people don't see much of a reason to switch. Sure they have issues with their PC, but in their head there is an alternative, and that's a Mac. Too expensive / time consuming though.

Education is the key, although there will be some people that won't care, and that's OK ya know. Not everyone needs converting.

+1

gvernold
March 25th, 2010, 07:07 PM
Ain't that GNOME's own damn job as Archlinux is distro without a default desktop enviroment?
Err, no it wasn't Gnomes job as Gnomes backend worked with every other distro and didn't with Arch.

del_diablo
March 25th, 2010, 09:15 PM
Err, no it wasn't Gnomes job as Gnomes backend worked with every other distro and didn't with Arch.

Source please? I guess might have been before my time around.

bk109
March 25th, 2010, 10:34 PM
What do you think is preventing the Linux desktop being

1. A Lack of high end web development equivalent software (dreamweaver, flash etc)

2. A Lack of high end video editing software

3. Games
Yep,this thing makes adoption slow to nonexistent in my generation, because the average teen wants his games
4. Hardware manufacturer support

5. Lack of awareness by the general public that Linux exists.

I have seen probably hundreds of posts about the above issues, what do you think? can Linux make it into the big time? if so, what is it gonna take?
1. <<< Not that important to the average consumer

2. <<<Ditto

3. <<<Yep,this thing makes adoption slow to nonexistent in my generation, because the average teen wants his games

4.<<<Not that much of a problem,but from time to time....

5.<<<More like - Misunderstanding the nature of current gen Linux distros. Frankly, most people when they see my Ubuntu(due to p3 a secondary OS for me) install, they're always surpised that it has a GUI. They all thought it was more like shell only

And I'd add perceived complexity in installing/maintaining a Ubuntu installation

aviedw
March 26th, 2010, 05:53 AM
I truthfully never fully understand the whole gaming aspect on computers in this day in age. With the wii, the xbox and the ps3 why would someone spend 300-400 dollars just for a graphics card and then games and then high end memory and then spend even more money on a high end graphics card. And then when microsoft decides to release a new directX engine and new games are created under it, you have to then upgrade your graphics card to meet those new requirements.

I guess that's why linux is a much better fit for me because im not really a gamer. I do it to kill time but its not a daily ritual. I did have a Sims binge in college but i've attended the meetings and im not addicted anymore lol.

But seriously that is just so much money to keep a gaming rig up to date.

Frak
March 26th, 2010, 06:57 AM
6. Pandas

Crunchy the Headcrab
March 26th, 2010, 07:12 AM
A lot of it is probably just ignorance. I had no idea Linux was used as a desktop os until I started playing around with it at University. I always figured it was probably more trouble than it was worth and therefore would only be useful for servers and stuff where you wanted to save money.

It turned out that a lot of the usefulness of Linux comes from learning what open source programs you enjoy. As a result of my tinkering around in Linux, I am now more proficient with computers in general and I've learned to work much more efficiently on a Linux desktop than on a windows one.

Again this comes down to finding applications that work for ME. In my case Gnome DE is gold. Love the gedit. Love AWN. Love Evince as opposed to Acrobat Reader, etc.

madscientist032
March 26th, 2010, 06:20 PM
A lot of it is probably just ignorance.

I agree with Crunchy - alot of it is based on ignorance and whatnot. The majority of people that I know seem to believe in the stereotypical image of Linux - no GUI, no mouse. Just a keyboard, a monitor, and a bunch of command lines appearing on the screen. They also don't believe me when I tell them that because Linux is open-source, it is free.

I've gotten responses from people saying stuff like "is that a pirated version of Windows?" or "Wow - he has a mac on his PC!" when I run ubuntu on my T400 with compiz. :p

del_diablo
March 26th, 2010, 09:51 PM
I truthfully never fully understand the whole gaming aspect on computers in this day in age. With the wii, the xbox and the ps3 why would someone spend 300-400 dollars just for a graphics card and then games and then high end memory and then spend even more money on a high end graphics card. And then when microsoft decides to release a new directX engine and new games are created under it, you have to then upgrade your graphics card to meet those new requirements.

I guess that's why linux is a much better fit for me because im not really a gamer. I do it to kill time but its not a daily ritual. I did have a Sims binge in college but i've attended the meetings and im not addicted anymore lol.

But seriously that is just so much money to keep a gaming rig up to date

Why are you pointing at an idiots work?
You get an SSD for the most required, got a cheap big disk for normal storage of p0rn, get a cheap AMD CPU that is insane bang for the bucks, get 2-3 gigs of RAM........... And then get a working GPU, upgrade each 3rd generation unless you got enough cash to just upgrade each generation.
Disk is mostly cheap
The CPU and motherboard is more than affordable, x86 is stagnated anyhow
The PSU needs to be good, unless you don't care
The RAM does not have to be wannabe-1337, 3 gigs = all you will ever need unless you are an abuser of ramdisks
The GPU and SSD are the only components costing a lot, but they are the main power regardless. SSD can be dropped in favour of ramdisks since they are quite neat, but a small cheap SSD for just the OS and your core applications will be worth da buck.

Another point: There is not going to be a major PC game requirement upgrade, the PS4 and Wii 2 and Xbox720 needs to happen first. Unless you are talking about something that wants to looks 1337(crysis fapping).
Sure there are a few rare DX-11 games, but at the same time they are like Crysis and really nothing new or noticeable.

Now, the people who gets new GPU's are either upgrading for the kick of it or they just so happen to got the money to spare. Or they had 3 generation old ones.
Well, regardless the next consol generation will be quite enjoyable:
*There WILL be major porting problems from the consol to the PC due the waistly superior CPU
*The GFX will get dated after 1 generation, but the CPU will stranglehold that so it won't be an issue regardless
*A lot of markedding ********, and wannabe fancy motioncontrol gimmicks that may or may not be ejoyable at all.

MisfitI38
March 27th, 2010, 02:49 AM
..Arch - developers couldn't be bothered to fix essential Gnome desktop issues..... FOR TWO YEARS!...

I'd be interested in exactly which issues you are referring to.

handy
March 27th, 2010, 03:08 AM
My own personal opinion:

Linux has got worse not better.

It surely has kept on getting better for me, with only the occasional temporary regression?



Arch - developers couldn't be bothered to fix essential Gnome desktop issues..... FOR TWO YEARS!


I was initially using Gnome on Arch over two years ago, & used it for about 6 months before moving to Openbox. I didn't have any problems with Gnome at all. My understanding is that the Arch dev' team only make any changes to packages when there is no other choice, as it goes against the Arch way. If they didn't fix your mysterious problem, then I suspect that very few people had the displeasure of experiencing it.


...
All of these kind of problems are the sort of things we ditched Windows for in the first place.

Some of us initially ditched windows for other reasons, such as our distaste for greedy monopolies & all of the secretive things that go with such things.



I hate trying to get virtual web servers and some programming platforms working nicely in Windows but for the first time in 13 years I'm actually considering going back if not just for the usability of the desktop and having a nicely finished application that I can just install.

Good idea, if your not happy using what you are using, keep changing what you are using until you can find satisfaction. Best of luck, as it seems to be easier for some than others.



Linux had the opportunity of mainstream adoption and we've gone straight passed it, trying to compete with stupid graphics that our Windows colleagues leathered their desktop with. For the likes of more stable distros unfortunately they are still stuck with the command line and a bloated kernel underneath and most likely will never move on from there.

I disagree completely with what you say above.

Go & find satisfaction somewhere?

~sHyLoCk~
March 27th, 2010, 03:10 AM
Why blame Arch devs for gnome issues? :D
Where the problem lies:

1. Bugs in Gnome
2. You're doing it wrong

Possible solution:

1. Report Bugs upstream
2. Learn by reading wiki and forum

pbpersson
March 27th, 2010, 03:16 AM
3. Philosophy- Customization of programs is great (for the geeks) but it only adds to confusion for the average person. When they need a program to do X and they have a list of 20 programs to choose from they get overloaded. The average person is not going to research which programs are which and which do better at X than another. Simplicity is key. Each Linux distribution needs to come with standard programs to do the everyday things.

When I started on Linux this was my biggest problem - along with the fact that many of the offerings are very buggy which someone else pointed out.

thenailedone
March 27th, 2010, 03:34 AM
"Mainstream adoption"... well in the server world Linux has been "adopted" for many a year now...

Companies like Canonical has shown the world that there is alternatives in the desktop environment and people are switching daily... I can't see a single thing stopping anyone from using Linux.... except choice...

handy
March 27th, 2010, 05:38 AM
...
Companies like Canonical has shown the world that there is alternatives in the desktop environment and people are switching daily... I can't see a single thing stopping anyone from using Linux.... except choice...

There are a couple of things that come to mind here that should be accounted for I think.

1. For whatever reason, some people have a gross dislike or inability, to put the effort into learning something new.

2. There are those that have difficulty with technical things & truly need other people to help them or do it for them. (Most lawyers & car salesmen come to mind ;)) There is some overlap between points 1. & 2.


Such people are no less valuable (hmm, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned lawyers & car salesmen :lolflag:) than tech' heads (though some tech' heads seem to think that they are superior to the those that don't think the same way? Unfortunately that is just their usually immature tech' head ego getting in the way of the truth).

For those that are not technically oriented I always recommend OS X. It is still by far the easiest system to do most everything on for those that have a job to do. Be it connecting to & using the web, office work, graphics work, video, sound or whatever.

My experience over the years with my wife who depends on computers for her business affairs has shown me empirically the huge differences in the ease of use between the two systems windows XP pro & OS X Panther.

Her use of OS X, has shown & proven this to me (apart from my own experiences with OS X).

There is next to nothing that she needs my help with, whilst using OS X. That is most certainly a far cry from how it was when she was using windows XP Pro.

I now all but never have to administer to her system. As she installs peripherals; drivers; software; software updates/upgrades whatever.

On windows I most certainly had to do all of that stuff & a whole lot more.

Linux is out of the question for her for the following reasons:

1. The software that she relies on is not available on Linux.

2. The ease of use & the ensuing comfort that OS X, has provided for her would be very difficult for her to let go of.

3. Why spend the energy becoming comfortable with a completely new system when the one you are using is perfectly satisfactory?

4. Why would I (if the appropriate Linux software solutions even existed for her) move her from a system that she can completely administer herself (over 99% of the time) to one where I would have to be involved quite often? Be it Linux or a version of windows?

Frak
March 27th, 2010, 05:48 AM
6. Pandas
I agree.

handy
March 27th, 2010, 06:00 AM
6. Pandas

I agree.

Go & put your dress on & stop talking to yourself!?

Frak
March 27th, 2010, 06:14 AM
Go & put your dress on & stop talking to yourself!?
Frak does not know what you are talking about.

handy
March 27th, 2010, 06:54 AM
Frak does not know what you are talking about.

You may have to use interrogation to get the other Frak to crack?

scottuss
March 27th, 2010, 12:57 PM
It surely has kept on getting better for me, with only the occasional temporary regression?



I was initially using Gnome on Arch over two years ago, & used it for about 6 months before moving to Openbox. I didn't have any problems with Gnome at all. My understanding is that the Arch dev' team only make any changes to packages when there is no other choice, as it goes against the Arch way. If they didn't fix your mysterious problem, then I suspect that very few people had the displeasure of experiencing it.



Some of us initially ditched windows for other reasons, such as our distaste for greedy monopolies & all of the secretive things that go with such things.



Good idea, if your not happy using what you are using, keep changing what you are using until you can find satisfaction. Best of luck, as it seems to be easier for some than others.



I disagree completely with what you say above.

Go & find satisfaction somewhere?

All I'm saying is, I had massive issues with Gnome on Arch too. I know about it being bleeding edge etc etc, so I didn't make a massive fuss, but to totally discount the fact that problems DID and DO still exist in Gnome on Arch is foolish. Especially when these issues didn't appear on other distros.

Just sayin'

handy
March 27th, 2010, 01:14 PM
All I'm saying is, I had massive issues with Gnome on Arch too. I know about it being bleeding edge etc etc, so I didn't make a massive fuss, but to totally discount the fact that problems DID and DO still exist in Gnome on Arch is foolish. Especially when these issues didn't appear on other distros.

Just sayin'

What I was saying, is that there are very few packages that are changed by the Arch dev' team.

What Arch uses is basically native, so if there are problems, they come from upstream with very few exceptions, & when the Arch dev's do something & they get it wrong, it is usually fixed pretty quickly.

So Gnome's problems don't belong to Arch, they belong to Gnome. :-k

MisfitI38
March 27th, 2010, 02:00 PM
All I'm saying is, I had massive issues with Gnome on Arch..

Again, what issues? I'm curious.

scottuss
March 27th, 2010, 04:46 PM
Again, what issues? I'm curious.

Just one from the top of my head that caused me some issues was the bug where DVDs or other removal media would show the "This medium contains images" or whatever bar about 4 or 5 times, which was not only unpleasant to look at, but it took up loads of screen space. I stopped using Arch at some point, but stayed subscribed to the bug. About a year later, a fix was committed.

Oh and don't get me started on HAL.

handy
March 27th, 2010, 05:17 PM
...
Oh and don't get me started on HAL.

You don't have to use HAL. I only recently started using HAL again after well over a year without it. If I use it, in combination with udev, I don't need to have an xorg.conf.

If I don't have the HAL daemon running then I have to have an xorg.conf.

I think HAL's days are numbered though. From memory, udev will end up superseding HAL altogether.

scottuss
March 27th, 2010, 06:30 PM
You don't have to use HAL. I only recently started using HAL again after well over a year without it. If I use it, in combination with udev, I don't need to have an xorg.conf.

If I don't have the HAL daemon running then I have to have an xorg.conf.

I think HAL's days are numbered though. From memory, udev will end up superseding HAL altogether.

Maybe now you can live without HAL but back when I was trying Arch as my main OS, the only real option that seemed to work half decent was HAL.

Anyway, I'm not trying to turn this into an Arch bashing thread!

handy
March 28th, 2010, 12:19 AM
Maybe now you can live without HAL but back when I was trying Arch as my main OS, the only real option that seemed to work half decent was HAL.


I'm sure many users can't do what they need to without HAL. My needs are simple & I use Worker the DOpus clone, as my prime method of interfacing with the system; it is extremely configurable, so I have a button set to mount the selected device & another to eject optical media & such. So I could easily do without HAL. I've posted an image of it in case you haven't seen it, though I doubt anyone else's looks quite like mine. :popcorn: Some of the buttons (dog eared) have associated RMB functions hiding underneath.



Anyway, I'm not trying to turn this into an Arch bashing thread!

I realise that. :)

It is interesting how a distro will install & function faultlessly on one set of hardware/peripherals & then on another quite similar it will be nothing but trouble.

This problem which still exists with the distro's is a major issue that is preventing Linux mainstream adoption.

Look at that, back on topic. ;)

santq
April 12th, 2010, 08:59 AM
When they finally figure out the mess with audio, Linux will explode in to people's mind and will take over the world in one night!

Just look at that mess: http://www.tuxradar.com/content/how-it-works-linux-audio-explained

itreius
April 12th, 2010, 12:07 PM
lack of user friendliness, lack of apps which are used by significant portions of PC users, lack of refinement