PDA

View Full Version : What's the deal breaker for (potential) new users of Linux?



MaverickCoast
September 10th, 2008, 03:55 PM
I've almost migrated over to using Linux as my primary OS, but have thought of a few things along the way when I wondered to myself whether Linux is ready for someone like me.

1) For me, the first major hurdle was trying to figure out the file structure of how Ubuntu sets itself up on the hard drive. I was going to install Ubuntu along side XP (a dual boot) so I had XP as a safety net. Unfortunately, trying to figure out how to partition your hard drive proved challenging, particularly with a dual boot. While there were a number of explanations of different ways to set up the partitions, it became less clear when you began the installation. I intended to split up my Master hard drive for both XP and Ubuntu. As it turned out, I let Ubuntu take care of partitioning and it took the liberty of NOT using my master and instead used another hard drive.

2) The installation of programs were the next curious obstacle to overcome. Where were the .exe files that you could just double click on? What programs do I need? Which ones are compatible? Where are they stored once they are installed? HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU INSTALL A "TAR.BZ" FILE? (Still haven't figured that out, yet! I stick with the deb files, if possible)

3) E-mail. If you can't use AND BACKUP your e-mail that's an IMMEDIATE deal breaker. Although I've transfered messages from Outlook Express to Evolution, I'm still uncomfortable about how and where the saving of my Evolution messages and settings are done and kept. I'm still on the fence on this one. Ideally, a program like Outlook Express allows you to define where to keep you messages and settings, even to a different drive!

4) Backing up files and folders is my BIGGEST CONCERN. If you can't backup critical files it's a NO-GO.
I've read quite a few posting on how to backup up Ubuntu and (I think) individual files, and it MAKES YOUR HEAD SPIN! The coding is complicated and how do I change it to reflect where I want to put the files? How do I change the code??? It's impossible unless you understand the Linux coding! UNTIL A PROGRAM IS DEVELOPED TO EASILY BACKUP FILES AND FOLDERS TO A DESTINATION OF CHOICE, Linux will be considered inadequate to POTENTIAL new users.

5) Setting up the extras such as networking, printers, dual monitors. This is self-explanatory. Setting up those items were challenging and NOT nearly as easy as in a Windows environment.

I know that some will say that this is Linux, not Windows. Linux is supposed to be different from Windows. I agree, but 99.9% of the new Linux users are going to come from Window environments. The transformation has to be as friendly as possible for people to make the move. I believe that the issues I've listed above are obstacles to overcome to make the move from Windows to happen.

I'd like to know what the rest of you think and how you have overcome these issues. I'd like to know what your issues were (are). I'm still looking for answers to #3 & #4. Particularly #4.

Having said all that, kudos to all those who have done the "hard work" on Linux and have brought it to this point for new users. I've been playing with different versions of Linux for awhile now and feel that Ubuntu has addressed MOST issues concerning new users. Oh, so close!

Thanks!

Mav

LaRoza
September 10th, 2008, 04:05 PM
1) For me, the first major hurdle was trying to figure out the file structure of how Ubuntu sets itself up on the hard drive. I was going to install Ubuntu along side XP (a dual boot) so I had XP as a safety net. Unfortunately, trying to figure out how to partition your hard drive proved challenging, particularly with a dual boot. While there were a number of explanations of different ways to set up the partitions, it became less clear when you began the installation. I intended to split up my Master hard drive for both XP and Ubuntu. As it turned out, I let Ubuntu take care of partitioning and it took the liberty of NOT using my master and instead used another hard drive.

Dual booting isn't something inexperienced computer users do. I have no problems doing it, because I know what I am doing.



2) The installation of programs were the next curious obstacle to overcome. Where were the .exe files that you could just double click on? What programs do I need? Which ones are compatible? Where are they stored once they are installed? HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU INSTALL A "TAR.BZ" FILE? (Still haven't figured that out, yet! I stick with the deb files, if possible)

First, Ubuntu is much better than Windows in this respect. You have the package manager and the repositories for one. Then, you have .deb's, which do not require millions of clicks to get through. Then you have the .tar.gz files (which is how I distribute apps). The way you use those depends on the program, so you read the "readme" in them, or don't use them. The same one can be used on Windows usually, so it is not Linux specific. Source releases are just uncommon for Windows because everything is usually proprietary.



3) E-mail. If you can't use AND BACKUP your e-mail that's an IMMEDIATE deal breaker. Although I've transfered messages from Outlook Express to Evolution, I'm still uncomfortable about how and where the saving of my Evolution messages and settings are done and kept. I'm still on the fence on this one. Ideally, a program like Outlook Express allows you to define where to keep you messages and settings, even to a different drive!

That is not Linux specific, but an IM client issue. Outlook isn't for Linux (not Linux's fault) and Evolution is available for Windows. (This is why I use web mail)



4) Backing up files and folders is my BIGGEST CONCERN. If you can't backup critical files it's a NO-GO.
I've read quite a few posting on how to backup up Ubuntu and (I think) individual files, and it MAKES YOUR HEAD SPIN! The coding is complicated and how do I change it to reflect where I want to put the files? How do I change the code??? It's impossible unless you understand the Linux coding! UNTIL A PROGRAM IS DEVELOPED TO EASILY BACKUP FILES AND FOLDERS TO A DESTINATION OF CHOICE, Linux will be considered inadequate to POTENTIAL new users.

What Code?

Have you ever editted the registry of Windows?

Here is a system restore program for Linux (note, most of that is in development, but the latest version will work, see last few posts) http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=678665&page=26



5) Setting up the extras such as networking, printers, dual monitors. This is self-explanatory. Setting up those items were challenging and NOT nearly as easy as in a Windows environment.

Not sure what you mean. All of my stuff works out of the box in Linux. Windows was the pain.



The transformation has to be as friendly as possible for people to make the move. I believe that the issues I've listed above are obstacles to overcome to make the move from Windows to happen.

Actually, it doesn't. Most people don't install their own OS and do not have technical skill. Windows is harder to install than any Linux distro (and takes a lot longer). For getting new users, OEM installs are needed, not making things dumb enough so you don't have any choices. I really don't like seeing people trying to do things they obviously don't know how to do because the inevitably mess up, blame Linux instead of themselves, and get angry.

Canis familiaris
September 10th, 2008, 04:09 PM
@OP:
For Problem #1, isn't there Wubi already to help users?



(This is why I use web mail)

Why not use Opera and IMAP? /off topic

powerpleb
September 10th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Windows is harder to install than any Linux distro (and takes a lot longer).
I think Gentoo would probably be more difficult and take longer to install than any Windows.

The problems with Linux tend to arise when it comes to hardware that doesn't have support. Then it can become a bigger chore than Windows. Try running a USB sound card or something like that on Ubuntu, it's almost enough frustration to make you want to boot up Vista.

vrangforestillinger
September 10th, 2008, 04:20 PM
4) Backing up files and folders is my BIGGEST CONCERN. If you can't backup critical files it's a NO-GO.
I've read quite a few posting on how to backup up Ubuntu and (I think) individual files, and it MAKES YOUR HEAD SPIN! The coding is complicated and how do I change it to reflect where I want to put the files? How do I change the code??? It's impossible unless you understand the Linux coding! UNTIL A PROGRAM IS DEVELOPED TO EASILY BACKUP FILES AND FOLDERS TO A DESTINATION OF CHOICE, Linux will be considered inadequate to POTENTIAL new users.

For backup, I recommend "Simple Backup Solution". You can find it in the package manager (synaptic) as sbackup. When it is installed it will show up in the administration menu (or was it preferences?)

I've been using it for some time. You can setup incremental backup, backup at specific times etc.

aaaantoine
September 10th, 2008, 04:30 PM
3: Evolution stores all its information, including downloaded emails, in ~/.evolution (that's /home/username/.evolution). If you want to back up your mail, back up that entire directory to a secondary device.

As for the actual backing up...

4: The big awesome backup/synchronization application of the GNU/Linux environment is rsync. There are graphical front ends available for this flexible application, but it doesn't hurt to learn it yourself so that you don't have to depend on a potentially buggy shell. Look around the forums for more information on rsync.

I use rsync to back up my /home folder. Speaking of which, I should go grab my backup drive and give it a run now.

airjaw
September 10th, 2008, 04:43 PM
Its always funny to read these kinds of posts, from very smart, bright, and knowledgeable Ubuntu users no less, because they obviously believe in what they're saying. I will not disagree or agree with you. I will just attempt to bridge the communication gap here.



1) For me, the first major hurdle was trying to figure out the file structure of how Ubuntu sets itself up on the hard drive. I was going to install Ubuntu along side XP (a dual boot) so I had XP as a safety net. Unfortunately, trying to figure out how to partition your hard drive proved challenging, particularly with a dual boot. While there were a number of explanations of different ways to set up the partitions, it became less clear when you began the installation. I intended to split up my Master hard drive for both XP and Ubuntu. As it turned out, I let Ubuntu take care of partitioning and it took the liberty of NOT using my master and instead used another hard drive.


Dual booting isn't something inexperienced computer users do. I have no problems doing it, because I know what I am doing.

LaRoza, you're right that dual boot is not something inexperienced users do. The point however, is that in order for Maverick to make the transition to Ubuntu, he wants to install dual boot. Why? Many reasons. Not everyone has two hard drives (like how I did it). He needs to keep Windows for safety and backup purposes. Etc. He made the reasons clear. Also, I believe Ubuntu users encourage newcomers to try dualboot. Therefore, it makes sense to make the dualboot setup as simple as possible, if users are going to be encouraged to migrate to Ubuntu that way.


2) The installation of programs were the next curious obstacle to overcome. Where were the .exe files that you could just double click on? What programs do I need? Which ones are compatible? Where are they stored once they are installed? HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU INSTALL A "TAR.BZ" FILE? (Still haven't figured that out, yet! I stick with the deb files, if possible)




First, Ubuntu is much better than Windows in this respect. You have the package manager and the repositories for one. Then, you have .deb's, which do not require millions of clicks to get through. Then you have the .tar.gz files (which is how I distribute apps). The way you use those depends on the program, so you read the "readme" in them, or don't use them. The same one can be used on Windows usually, so it is not Linux specific. Source releases are just uncommon for Windows because everything is usually proprietary.
Better is subjective. I believe it makes sense for you, but not for a Windows user. He is coming from a .zip and .exe world. It probably makes no sense to him for things to be packaged in tar.gz when they could be packaged in .zip.


3) E-mail. If you can't use AND BACKUP your e-mail that's an IMMEDIATE deal breaker. Although I've transfered messages from Outlook Express to Evolution, I'm still uncomfortable about how and where the saving of my Evolution messages and settings are done and kept. I'm still on the fence on this one. Ideally, a program like Outlook Express allows you to define where to keep you messages and settings, even to a different drive!


That is not Linux specific, but an IM client issue. Outlook isn't for Linux (not Linux's fault) and Evolution is available for Windows. (This is why I use web mail)

Well this is not really any fault of Linux. Different programs... on different OS. Its hard to transfer all your messages from Outlook to Evolution. Then again, the usability and design of applications on Linux is part of the overall package and experience, so should not be discounted. Linux may be the bestthing in the world but if there is no good word processing program, many people will not use it.
What Code?


5) Setting up the extras such as networking, printers, dual monitors. This is self-explanatory. Setting up those items were challenging and NOT nearly as easy as in a Windows environment.

Not sure what you mean. All of my stuff works out of the box in Linux. Windows was the pain.

I think the point is not that you had no trouble but that he had trouble. I had trouble myself so I know that its not some aberration. Twinview, xinerama, etc. etc. If you dont' know what you're doing it can be pretty scary, especially with the risk of messing something up with xorg.conf and having only to work with a terminal.

As for some of the other things.. well that can be chalked up to him needing to do research. As some users have posted already, finding where evolution stores mail and finding a good backup program for Ubuntu just takes a bit of effort.

airjaw
September 10th, 2008, 04:46 PM
3: Evolution stores all its information, including downloaded emails, in ~/.evolution (that's /home/username/.evolution). If you want to back up your mail, back up that entire directory to a secondary device.

As for the actual backing up...

4: The big awesome backup/synchronization application of the GNU/Linux environment is rsync. There are graphical front ends available for this flexible application, but it doesn't hurt to learn it yourself so that you don't have to depend on a potentially buggy shell. Look around the forums for more information on rsync.

I use rsync to back up my /home folder. Speaking of which, I should go grab my backup drive and give it a run now.

Helpful post, I think I will go investigate rsync as well! Thanks

Tatty
September 10th, 2008, 04:57 PM
It will always take time to learn a new OS, especially if you do something as radical as moving from a Microsoft based OS to a UNIX based OS.

2. Using the repositories should really be your first port-of-call when installing software, and manually downloading a .deb should be your fallback for when you cant find something in the repos.

A bit of a hard habbit to crack for people coming from windows (took me ages) was to realise that the latest version of software isnt always the best. The latest version of proprietry software will (should) be stable enough for end-users to just use. However in the open source community the latest version is usually the current "working-copy" of the code, so there is no guarentees that it will work.

That is why you should always stick with the repos, its "usually" guarenteed to work for you, and any important patches will get pushed through automatically for you.

I have been using linux as a primary OS for almost 2 years now, and Ive only just really felt confident enough to install from source code for a couple of things i needed. But I only do this when i cant find it in the repos or a .deb.

https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/add-applications/C/index.html This page may help you.


4. With backup, it depends what you mean. I find that usually the most reliable form of backup is to plug in an external drive, copy the files across myself, unmount and detach the drive. That way i know it has been done, and i can see that it has worked.

However, if you are after a more automated backup system, there are plenty of backup programs in the repos, Just go to Applications->Add/Remove and search for them.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BackupYourSystem This page may help you.


Finally, it sounds like you have been getting rather frustrated trying to figure out a lot of these things, you should always feel free to come and post on the forums to ask for help - for most problems there is someone who has gone through it already and knows the answer. Thats what makes the Ubuntu community so strong :popcorn:

LaRoza
September 10th, 2008, 05:14 PM
LaRoza, you're right that dual boot is not something inexperienced users do. The point however, is that in order for Maverick to make the transition to Ubuntu, he wants to install dual boot. Why? Many reasons. Not everyone has two hard drives (like how I did it). He needs to keep Windows for safety and backup purposes. Etc. He made the reasons clear. Also, I believe Ubuntu users encourage newcomers to try dualboot. Therefore, it makes sense to make the dualboot setup as simple as possible, if users are going to be encouraged to migrate to Ubuntu that way.

I don't see how Ubuntu could make is simpler...



Better is subjective. I believe it makes sense for you, but not for a Windows user. He is coming from a .zip and .exe world. It probably makes no sense to him for things to be packaged in tar.gz when they could be packaged in .zip.

So? What do you want? Linux to work just like Windows? It is something based on entirely experience, so that is no basis for judging the technologies. The point is moot. It would be as silly as me saying Windows is bad because it doesn't support .deb (or Red Hat is bad because it doesn't support .deb...)

Arguing using one's own inexperience and lack of knowledge is pointless.

HermanAB
September 10th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Well, there is a distribution that caters to everything you are concerned about:
1. Dual boot - Mandriva will do that by default and will handle the partitioning for you.
2. Migrating your Windows data - Mandriva has a wizard for that.
3. Backup - Mandriva has a wizard for that too.
4. Installation of programs - all versions of Linux have wizards for that.
5. Setting up extras - Mandriva and Suze have wizards for eeeeeverything...

Sooooo, your main problem is that you selected the wrong Linux distribution. Ubuntu is NOT the easiest Linux. It is kind-of midrange in terms of ease of use.

If you want a super easy Linux with wizards for everything under the sun including the kitchensync (yes, that is a program!), then you need to look at the older distributions, such as Mandriva and Suse. Ubuntu will eventually have all that, but it will take a few more years to catch up.

Cheers,

Herman

testLED
September 10th, 2008, 07:11 PM
I installed Ubuntu 8 on my machine 3 days ago. I didn't worry about files and emails etc etc..... I just bit the bullet and wiped windows from my life. Different it is and I dont see that as a bad thing. I never really learned anything from windows other than pointing and clicking. I think the issue is the simplicity of things which make the deal in some respects. My wireless USB is not working and I have done the lot every forum every piece of info I can find I have carried out to no avail. Windows would have picked it up and I would be off running. Because of this I will have to revert. I know this is probably down to knowledge, which is the thing you dont need alot of it to work with windows.

My only real bug bearer is the visual side not being very modern..but thats just me.

clanky
September 10th, 2008, 07:13 PM
For me the major hurdles so far have been:

- Figuring out the whole iso image thing, sorting out what software I needed to do it and getting it to work. I eventually got advice from a friend how told me of a good burner and basically gave me step by step instructions on how to burn the image.

- Getting my wireless to work, this was sorted out on here and although the information was there it took a while to figure out what was applicable to me, and even what people meant by some of the instructions. For me this was OK, but I can see why people would get frustrated especially those who weren't particularly computer literate.

- 3D Graphics, took ages to get it to work with an ATI radeon, and it is still not fantastic.

- Command line, even after a few months I still do not like the command line, it is less intimidating now than it was, but I still don't like having to figure out code to make things work.

The easy bits were:

- Installing software, just went to the repos and picked what I wanted, easy to install and easy to get rid of again when some of it wasn't what I wanted.

- Printing, HP Photosmart worked like a plug and play printer in Windows, if all new hardware installation was like this then Linux would be much more successful.

The big stumbling block for me not using Linux 100% of the time is that there is no good CAD package for Linux, qCAD is getting there, but still has a long way to go and even if it becomes technically as good as AutoCAD the fact that AutoCAD prawings cannot be edited in qCAD and vice versa is a huge issue.

On the whole I would say that my experience has been mostly positive, but there have been enough negatives to mean that I only carried on with Linux because I wanted to make it work, if I had just been giving it a try to see what it was like I may have given up.

Tatty
September 11th, 2008, 04:40 AM
My only real bug bearer is the visual side not being very modern..but thats just me.

By default Ubuntu keeps things nice and simple to give you a practical machine. If you want more eye candy there are plenty of ways to spice it up. Just look round these fourms for "eye candy" and for screenshots of desktops. Then ask around to see how to get the bits you like the look of.

IMHO linux is usually ahead of the main proprietry OS's in terms of eye candy, it just doesnt get excited and shout about it too much.

revleo
September 11th, 2008, 05:13 AM
i personally am a full on ubuntu user got tired of microsoft crashes and their so called updates but my wife who thinks it is a great OS and all that cannot switch thanks to one item and one item only "GAMES" she is hooked as i used to be on directX online games her words on the subject "when i can play EQ and nine dragons and second life and rappelz and all my other online games i will switch " she does use a lot of OSS on her windows machine firefox and gimp ecetera but till the game issue is solved no ubuntu for her

Scruffynerf
September 11th, 2008, 06:38 AM
For me, when I began my transition over (still dual boot, but only for games and MS-Access work) my 2 biggest bugbears were:

1) CLI
-Still getting used to it.

2) Manually editing configuration files for stuff to work.
-This was in Edgy, and mainly the Xorg graphical display system. Thankfully this hasn't been needed since Hardy came on scene.

One other thing that I will mention - I'm one of those that tend to play around with their systems. With Windows, I could play around a lot and not significantly break the OS. With linux, there is a much greater potential for someone who doesn't know exactly what all those "-v && --df" switches do, or what that funny named app in the repos actually does, to hose a system up.

powerpleb
September 11th, 2008, 08:07 AM
With Windows, I could play around a lot and not significantly break the OS.
That's it though. Windows is a nanny OS. It asks you patronising questions every step of the way but doesn't let you do anything meaningful.

Starting out on Linux can feel a little like trying to get across a field of nasty bear traps. If you do anything too technical with it you're often forced to make decisions that are make or break for your system. It can be a lot steeper learning curve. With that, in my opinion, come greater rewards though.

Scruffynerf
September 11th, 2008, 11:02 AM
That's it though. Windows is a nanny OS. It asks you patronising questions every step of the way but doesn't let you do anything meaningful.

Starting out on Linux can feel a little like trying to get across a field of nasty bear traps. If you do anything too technical with it you're often forced to make decisions that are make or break for your system. It can be a lot steeper learning curve. With that, in my opinion, come greater rewards though.

How very true.

clanky
September 11th, 2008, 12:37 PM
That's it though. Windows is a nanny OS. It asks you patronising questions every step of the way but doesn't let you do anything meaningful.

Starting out on Linux can feel a little like trying to get across a field of nasty bear traps. If you do anything too technical with it you're often forced to make decisions that are make or break for your system. It can be a lot steeper learning curve. With that, in my opinion, come greater rewards though.

The problem is that for many people the perceived rewards are not worth it. Many new users do not realise the benefits of Linux and many do not want them. There is always a lot of talk on these forums about market share and popularising Linux etc. but the only people who are going to "try to get across a field of bear traps" are those who are determined to use Linux because they want the benefits that Linux brings.

The vast majority of computer users only use their PC for web browsing, e-mailing and possibly word-processing, even leaving aside the gaming issue if Linux wants to be competitive against Windows then it has to be straightforward (i.e. work without having to edit configuration files or use the terminal) up to the stage where people can do these basic things.

If Linux where to compete against Windows on an even platform then in my opinion it would win hands down, but the problem is that people think everything just works because they bought a computer with Windows pre-installed and all the Windows drivers pre-installed. People compare this experience with installing Linux from the internet and having to cut firmware for drivers to get wireless internet to work etc, and think that Windows is better.

With the advent of things like the Eee PC and the netbook which have Linux pre-installed basic computer users might start to find Linux as easy as Windows.

Trail
September 11th, 2008, 12:44 PM
Even today, I still don't get why people need graphical programs to manage their backups. How hard can a backup be to require external help?

Just copy-paste files you are interested in somewhere else. HDD, DVD, FTP, whatever you see fit.

Also, as I recall Evolution (when I used to use it) has a little menu choice of backing up your settings and mail. I had used it once (transferring to another PC), and it worked very well. I've also used Kmail's backup, and importing between those two, which also worked very well. The uncompressed, unbacked up files are on ~/.evolution, so if you copy-paste the whole folder it should work. If you don't understand the filepath "~/.evolution", you *should* look it up.

Concerning software acquisition and updates, this is infinitely better than windows. No contest there.
Your problem probably arises from the Windows habit of searching for zips (.tar.gz etc) on the web, then trying to install those a-la-installer.exe-style. Which is not recommended; you should use your distribution's package manager if available. Zips on the web are usually bleeding-edge developer versions, on SOURCE-CODE format, which you have to compile yourself. Which is not meant for beginners. (Remind me the last time you compiled a program on windows? thought so). (And btw, compiling on linux is also a lot easier than on windows). You should use synaptic, or .debs. Which also have more advantages over compiling source-code (versioning, dependencies, etc).

Concerning the filesystem structure on Linux, I find it perfectly fine, and well organized. If you are trying to *guess* how it works and you fail, it's no one's but yourself's fault. Look it up. But you are probably going to need a bit of getting used to it, regardless.

amac777
September 11th, 2008, 01:48 PM
Helpful post, I think I will go investigate rsync as well! Thanks

Just wanted to say that after you've figured out rsync and have totally fallen in love with it because it is great for *copying files* (because it only needs to transfer the files that actually changed), go check out rsnapshot for your *backups*.

"Rsnapshot" uses rsync so it's just as fast and only needs to copy the files that have changed, but it also preserves hourly / weekly / monthly / yearly backups (you can easily configure how many - I only use weekly / monthly and yearly) in separate directories and all without wasting any disk space for files that are the same. Once you understand how to rsync, you're only one step away from understanding rsnapshot and how you can get actual backups of your data instead of a synchronized copy. "Backups" of data mean that even if you just change a file, you can still get the old version of that file from your backups. Also, if you accidentally delete a file you need, but you don't realize that you need that file for a long time, you can still go find it from your backups. If you just use rsync to synchronize your files to an external usb drive (for example), files that you change will get overwritten, and files that you delete will also get deleted on your usb drive too if you have rsync configured with the --delete option.

Anyway, just a friendly suggestions to check out rsnapshot for backups! If you like rsync, you're sure to like rsnapshot.