Hardy Heron Making Linux Ready for the Masses?

[ghoti]

"Is Linux ready for the masses? Is Linux really being targeted towards the 'casual computer user'? Computerworld thinks we're getting there, talking of Linux 'going mainstream 'with Ubuntu. 'If there is a single complaint that is laid at the feet of Linux time and time again, it's that the operating system is too complicated and arcane for casual computer users to tolerate. You can't ask newbies to install device drivers or recompile the kernel, naysayers argue. Of course, many of those criticisms date back to the bad old days, but Ubuntu, the user-friendly distribution sponsored by Mark Shuttleworth's Canonical Ltd., has made a mission out of dispelling such complaints entirely.'"

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9076879&intsrc=hm_list


Anyone who tells you Linux is hard to install or use has clearly not seen Ubuntu lately.

[SlinkyMike]

Honestly, this comment has been bandied about with just about every distro.

People have to change in order for OSS to be embraced in in its entirety.
I think we sell ourselves short accepting the k@k we do from the likes of MS (Vista ...*spit*), people are conditioned to believe its just easier to pay the money than to figure it out yourself.

It will require a paradigm shift for 'the masses' to adopt OSS solutions.

The real question is: are the masses ready for Linux?

[Gothan]

Well i cant wait for the 24th to upgrade my 7.10

People will always be resistant to change, I remember when I went from dos to win95, and absolutely loathed this newfangled os. In dos, I could flippen put my games where I wanted, now an uppity OS, wanted to install everything on its own, and in some new fangled things called "folders"!!

[milomak]

One of the advantages Winodws has is that the majority of people typically don't have to install it. Thus Linux is on the back foot in that people have to take an active step to put it onto their desktop. From my experiences it is no more harder of easier to install than Windows.

Although I suppose installing from a LiveCD (which is something I don't do for any distro), makes it much easier than Windows given (I assume) that you have access to the Internet at the same time.

Being that as it may, Ubuntu installs are no different from Fedora, SUSE or Debian installs in my experience.

[SlinkyMike]

One of the advantages Winodws has is that the majority of people typically don't have to install it. Thus Linux is on the back foot in that people have to take an active step to put it onto their desktop.

As the argument goes (and I for one agree with it) having the choice of what to install and doing it yourself is empowering, not to mention the financial aspect. I'd say that my new laptop would have been in the region of 3k less expensive had it not had Vista pre-installed. I'd have trotted off to the local toaster burnt a copy of the latest distro and Robert would have been my mothers brother ;)

[chiskop]

The real question is: are the masses ready for Linux?

QFT.

That is exactly what I was going to post. (Except for gaming) linux is easier, more efficient, and more secure. And obviously cheaper.

Its just hard for people to consider breaking out of their comfort zones. Although IMO, the biggest obstacle is still the fact that you will struggle to buy a computer without windows pre-installed.

[ghoti]

QFT.

That is exactly what I was going to post. (Except for gaming) linux is easier, more efficient, and more secure. And obviously cheaper.

Its just hard for people to consider breaking out of their comfort zones. Although IMO, the biggest obstacle is still the fact that you will struggle to buy a computer without windows pre-installed.

Yeah, its sad that the market is so badly manipulated by Microsoft :( ... and people dont know any better.

[Skeptik]

Yeah, its sad that the market is so badly manipulated by Microsoft :( ... and people dont know any better.
It is less about manipulation than it is about support. There are so many variations in Linux, how could a retailer offer support for them. They would have to stick to one distro. Even then, imagine all the calls from users requiring support. If I had trouble re-installing imagine how hot the supprt line would get!!

The technicians would all require training in Windows and Linux.

[orin76]

It is less about manipulation than it is about support. There are so many variations in Linux, how could a retailer offer support for them. They would have to stick to one distro. Even then, imagine all the calls from users requiring support. If I had trouble re-installing imagine how hot the supprt line would get!!

The technicians would all require training in Windows and Linux.

Are the different distros really all that different with regards to support. In my experience (limited as it may be), if you can configure devices using the command line in distro A, the same procedure will work for distro B,C etc. 99% of the time. I only run into trouble when I need to use GUI tools, because those vary from distro to distro. If your techie knows linux shell commands well, he/she should be able to support multiple distros.

[ghoti]

It is less about manipulation than it is about support. There are so many variations in Linux, how could a retailer offer support for them. They would have to stick to one distro. Even then, imagine all the calls from users requiring support. If I had trouble re-installing imagine how hot the supprt line would get!!

The technicians would all require training in Windows and Linux.

Our linux stalker :D Skeptik, one day when you have a real point and an informed opinion I will respond to you.. but right now you are stalking and trolling in this section like you did in the VC section. Enjoy!

[milomak]

Are the different distros really all that different with regards to support. In my experience (limited as it may be), if you can configure devices using the command line in distro A, the same procedure will work for distro B,C etc. 99% of the time. I only run into trouble when I need to use GUI tools, because those vary from distro to distro. If your techie knows linux shell commands well, he/she should be able to support multiple distros.

95%+ of solutions for a distro will work for another. I would like to think having used SUSE, Mandriva, Fedora, ()ubuntu and Debian that I can make such a statement. And where there are differences, they are minor and can be resolved pretty easily and quickly in my experience.

agree with the command line statement as well.

[SlinkyMike]

It is less about manipulation than it is about support. There are so many variations in Linux, how could a retailer offer support for them. They would have to stick to one distro. Even then, imagine all the calls from users requiring support. If I had trouble re-installing imagine how hot the supprt line would get!!

The technicians would all require training in Windows and Linux.

True, support is a burgeoning market for Linux enthusiasts but this is solely in the business sphere.

Certainly, you cannot be arguing that Microsoft has good support for home users?
Ubuntuforums is all I have ever needed to sort out kinks with my Linux boxes. to this day I have issues with my Windows machines that I have resigned myself to whining about, secure in the knowledge they will never be fixed (yes, I did just install Vista SP1 before you ask :o).

[Skeptik]

Our linux stalker :D Skeptik, one day when you have a real point and an informed opinion I will respond to you.. but right now you are stalking and trolling in this section like you did in the VC section. Enjoy!
Oh, another attack the person reply.

I predict that as with many UBUNTU releases, with this Hardy Heron carp you won't notice much difference at all.

[ghoti]

True, support is a burgeoning market for Linux enthusiasts but this is solely in the business sphere.

Certainly, you cannot be arguing that Microsoft has good support for home users?
Ubuntuforums is all I have ever needed to sort out kinks with my Linux boxes. to this day I have issues with my Windows machines that I have resigned myself to whining about, secure in the knowledge they will never be fixed (yes, I did just install Vista SP1 before you ask :o).

I have never got a single bit of support from MS... like ever, and I have being using MS since Windows 3.0 days... no wait, I was using DOS3 as well. I imagine something like windowsforums.org would be a colossal failure if it was supported by microsoft as the complaints would be endless.

I love my new supported system :D

I am really excited about this new version of Ubuntu... but imagine where it is going to be next year!!! w00t!

[SlinkyMike]

...some of the new tweaks sound really useful - pausing copy / move operations is a totally new functionality AFAIK.

[The_Librarian]

The only differences I have picked up between ubuntu and suse is the way packages are managed and installed.

Gnome and KDE - well, different desktops, but the same basics apply to both. If you have used KDE then you'll be able to use Gnome, and vice-versa. The thing here is to choose what you're comfortable with.

In the command-line environment you get all the same utilities - but some of these require a slightly different syntax than the other, but all of these does the same job.

Like I've said before, download a couple of up-to-date distributions, try them out, and stick with the one you'll really like.

It's only a person who's really close-minded who'll give up in disgust and go back to windows (and have fun with viruses and trojans) :D

The only time I phoned M$ was to reactivate a copy of WindersXP :D

[SoftDux-Rudi]

I think we sell ourselves short accepting the k@k we do from the likes of MS (Vista ...*spit*), people are conditioned to believe its just easier to pay the money than to figure it out yourself.

It will require a paradigm shift for 'the masses' to adopt OSS solutions.

The real question is: are the masses ready for Linux?

Regardless of what OS the mases use, this will be a problem. Even after a user has spend R3k on office, he'll still phone you 20 times a day to find out how todo this or that.


QFT.

Its just hard for people to consider breaking out of their comfort zones. Although IMO, the biggest obstacle is still the fact that you will struggle to buy a computer without windows pre-installed.
Why? Do you remember the good 'ol PC Dos, Easy123, Test Drive1, etc days? People can & will accept change. Teaching my mom to use a mouse on Windows 98 from a DOS bases system was a big challenge, yet she's used to it now. In a few years time I'll probably have to teach her to use a virtual headset instead of the mouse ;)


It is less about manipulation than it is about support. There are so many variations in Linux, how could a retailer offer support for them. They would have to stick to one distro. Even then, imagine all the calls from users requiring support. If I had trouble re-installing imagine how hot the supprt line would get!!

The technicians would all require training in Windows and Linux.

Yes, and no. Even @ MS, the tech's are all trained in, and support specific stuff. For example, a office tech won't have a clue on how to support a SQL problem. Same thing here. Only difference is that Linux support staff often come in cheaper, since the training is cheaper (no licences, free stuff on the net, etc)


Are the different distros really all that different with regards to support. In my experience (limited as it may be), if you can configure devices using the command line in distro A, the same procedure will work for distro B,C etc. 99% of the time. I only run into trouble when I need to use GUI tools, because those vary from distro to distro. If your techie knows linux shell commands well, he/she should be able to support multiple distros.
Again, yes & no. If everyone standardize on say KDE or Gnome, the support will be similar. With the exception of stuff like YaST on Suse, or other control panels in other distro's. IMO even though {}buntu is easy to install, the control panel is limited and crap. I've setup Suse & Fedora Core servers for client who are very computer illiterate, yet when I tell them, "click here, click there, do this", they can do it quickly. The base Linux's can differ a bit, but for a desktop it shouldn't. Stick a GUI and users will work with it. And they love the kewl gamez :)


True, support is a burgeoning market for Linux enthusiasts but this is solely in the business sphere.

Certainly, you cannot be arguing that Microsoft has good support for home users?
Ubuntuforums is all I have ever needed to sort out kinks with my Linux boxes. to this day I have issues with my Windows machines that I have resigned myself to whining about, secure in the knowledge they will never be fixed (yes, I did just install Vista SP1 before you ask :o).
Yes, but MS also had to build up their support base over the past 10 - 15 years in order to support the various products, mockup and messups they have.

I worked @ netactive many years ago as support engineer, and I had 1 Linux, 1 Windows 3.0 & 1 MAC call every 3 months or so. I was the only one could support it back then, but it was fun knowing that a user on the other side with different needs can get support.

Who do you think supports Mainframes, Linux & UNIX servers, and POS systems, which often run Linux as well?

[chiskop]

Why? Do you remember the good 'ol PC Dos, Easy123, Test Drive1, etc days? People can & will accept change. Teaching my mom to use a mouse on Windows 98 from a DOS bases system was a big challenge, yet she's used to it now. In a few years time I'll probably have to teach her to use a virtual headset instead of the mouse ;)


Ah, Test drive. :)

The thing is that very few people ever installed an OS themselves. As they bought new computers, they adapted to the new OS -the same as what's happening with XP -> Vista.

Sure, a small minority take control and install their choice of OS but most will adapt to what is on their new computer.

[SoftDux-Rudi]

true. Do you see MAC people complaing about their MAC's, even thought it's preinstalled? Not really. But, they won't change cause it's a good product.

So, start shipping PC's with Linux, and you'll soon see the masses use it, regardsless of what the sceptics have to say. Dell already does, I know some online PC shops also ship PC's with Ubuntu, the the Asis EEE laptop is Linux :)

[chiskop]

I think you misspelled Skeptik. :D

[jaarik]

So, start shipping PC's with Linux, and you'll soon see the masses use it

Totally agree. Good point. Linux shall dispel the fear of the unknown pertinent to the masses as soon it gets shipped to the masses pre-installed. 90% of the users will never bother to switch to Windows if they can play free-cell, type their documents in OpenOffice and surf the internet out of the box.

If they then ever learn to install an operation system themselves, they will realize that the one starting with W* is not what they really need.:)

[.Froot.]

I have moved through the Windows ages all the way from DOS to a short stay in Vista-land. Each time, however, I've found Linux a little closer to the heart. It has gone a long way since being non-user friendly (according to other people, I may mention) to what is now arguably a lot better than Vista could ever be. Hardy is pretty much the same as Gutsy- an upgrade to the previous version. That is what it is supposed to be. Imagine it to be a service pack to your favorite version of Windows (mine would have to be 2000 or XP, they have the least amount of crap inside of them), except that this service pack would be in a fully working condition (sorry M$ but your Vista SP is kind of in dire need of a scrapping and complete overhaul).

I reckon that Hardy would be a pretty good competitor to the resource-happy Vista when it is released. Yes, of course Linux is strange to the average guy that is used to Windows, but how long did it take any of us to get used to the new version of Windows, or the first time we even set our eyes upon it? You only judge Linux as a geek-os because you are used to the way Windows works and because M$ have the masses in their control... total world domination. Remember that the war is not won by the big lumpy giant army, but rather by the unsuspecting virus (except in this case it's actually a good virus ridding the world of the evil giant). Yeah, sure Linux is a lot more complex than Windows. But that's because it's actually a lot more powerful. Hence the reason of non-root administrators and the sudo command....

Final word... Ubuntu is a friendly OS that is easy and fun to use.

[jaarik]

I reckon that Hardy would be a pretty good competitor to the resource-happy Vista when it is released.

That's the secret, put just enough hype into the business (Microsoft has been doing it for decades), and Canonical can make "just another distro" look more competitive than others.

I don't mind. Some unified effort to promote a distro with greater power is bound to bear fruit eventually.

The same as some aspects of having to use sudo, good to and secure, well, but even though it's a pain in the as* sometimes, it is gracefully tolerated because of all the positive hype.

I like the Ubuntu hype, and even actively support it :)

[.Froot.]

The same as some aspects of having to use sudo, good to and secure, well, but even though it's a pain in the as* sometimes, it is gracefully tolerated because of all the positive hype.

I actually enabled root login and now I use the root account as my own. It is not recommended and I wouldn't recommend it to an inexperienced Linux user, but it is a lot nicer to use for someone using root commands and scripts almost every minute of the day.

[milomak]

why not just have a console running and do a sudo -i (i think that is the command) when you need to do root stuff?

[.Froot.]

i do a crap load of root stuff. and i need root for some of the specific settings I run.

[chiskop]

I actually enabled root login and now I use the root account as my own. It is not recommended and I wouldn't recommend it to an inexperienced Linux user, but it is a lot nicer to use for someone using root commands and scripts almost every minute of the day.

That's what you think until you make a mistake...

[.Froot.]

I've been using Linux for around 6 years now. I think I know better than to make a "mistake". Anyways, i reckon pretty much anything can be fixed in Linux.

[chiskop]

Why would you want/need to run as root almost every minute of the day?

[.Froot.]

apart from being completely free from the annoying sudo, its fun. I don't have to type in my mother of a password each time I change something in i.e. the System Settings.

[Beta]

Busy training for RHCE right now, logged in as root on a seperate Fedora box. If I had to "su" all these times, or worse more enable sudo, I think I would go crazy! I see his point, if he is real busy. Keep in mind using "su" to switch to root, you must "su" or "su -c '<command>'" every single time, including password entry, unlike the "sudo" grace period.

[chiskop]

Sure, but how often do you actually need to do that? (apart from when you're training for RHCE)

I can't remember the last time I needed sudo on this computer - once it's set up, it's set up.

[ghoti]

Busy training for RHCE right now, logged in as root on a seperate Fedora box. If I had to "su" all these times, or worse more enable sudo, I think I would go crazy! I see his point, if he is real busy. Keep in mind using "su" to switch to root, you must "su" or "su -c '<command>'" every single time, including password entry, unlike the "sudo" grace period.

or just type "sudo su" ... once.

Also, once you get used to using the command, it becomes second nature to type sudo... and I often find myself typing sudo when logged into root based systems.

Another thing.... why do you have to type sudo the sudo password everytime? If I open a terminal, it normally only asks me once.

[Beta]

w1z4rd- I was talking about Red hat based systems where "su" is employed and "sudo" is considered a security risk, hence "sudo" is not included by default in cent-os, Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The risk being the grace period sudo allows to anybody who happens to walk up to the computer to execute commands as root, not good. So I assume the gentleman is talking about an rpm based system.

chiskop- you get some busy blokes out there.

[ghoti]

w1z4rd- was talking about Red hat based systems where "su" is employed and "sudo" is considered a security risk, hence "sudo" is not included by default in cent-os, Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The risk being the grace period sudo allows to anybody who happens to walk up to the computer to execute as root, not good.

chiskop- you get some busy blokes out there.

I realized that too late. Sorry. I should be bed *puts beers away*

[Beta]

Now, before you blush too much, nmap'ing cia.gov? Was the for a laugh or what? Got me laughing.

[ghoti]

Now, before you blush too much, nmap'ing cia.gov? Was the for a laugh or what? Got me laughing.

For fun and the screenshot.

[Beta]

2 ports open, 80 and ssl... what more would you suspect I guess. Possibly a root shell on 666?
Anyways, fun stuff.

[nocilah]

People have to change in order for OSS to be embraced in in its entirety.

actually the OS needs to change for people to use it.

Ubuntu is widely used in my office by the tech heads who do real development with java etc Of course having M$ as a client we get to see the best and the worst of both worlds.

The biggest issue with Ubuntu is the badly designed GUI (Graphic User Interface) and take it from someone who makes money doing this, Ubuntu is childs play when compared to the likes of M$ and Apple.

Prob is like every other development project on earth. When you are done you start to realize 80% of most code is developed to deal with user stupidity, which is why Linux at the moment is the most streamlined OS on earth... cuz it has a tech savy user base. Once it has reached the stage where it is ready to be used by 90% of the computer literate population it WILL be as big, bloated,buggy and need of many patches as OSx and windows [insert windows version here]

[Kasyx]

actually the OS needs to change for people to use it.

Ubuntu is widely used in my office by the tech heads who do real development with java etc Of course having M$ as a client we get to see the best and the worst of both worlds.

The biggest issue with Ubuntu is the badly designed GUI (Graphic User Interface) and take it from someone who makes money doing this, Ubuntu is childs play when compared to the likes of M$ and Apple.

Prob is like every other development project on earth. When you are done you start to realize 80% of most code is developed to deal with user stupidity, which is why Linux at the moment is the most streamlined OS on earth... cuz it has a tech savy user base. Once it has reached the stage where it is ready to be used by 90% of the computer literate population it WILL be as big, bloated,buggy and need of many patches as OSx and windows [insert windows version here]

I'm sorry to point this out, but do you have any idea what you are talking about?

You do realise that Ubuntu doesn't have a set "GUI", right? One is able to choose different Window Managers, each of which give one a different "GUI" experience. Ubuntu wasn't part of the GUI design phase, it uses Window Managers currently available, many of which have been under development for quite some time (KDE was first released in 1996).

Clearly you are just pulling facts out of thin air and actually have no idea what you are talking about. Go read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments ), and then you can come back once you have even the slightest idea of what the Ubuntu GUI actually is.

[nocilah]

I'm sorry to point this out, but do you have any idea what you are talking about?

You do realise that Ubuntu doesn't have a set "GUI", right? One is able to choose different Window Managers, each of which give one a different "GUI" experience. Ubuntu wasn't part of the GUI design phase, it uses Window Managers currently available, many of which have been under development for quite some time (KDE was first released in 1996).



I am talking about the Ubuntu GUI's that I have seen. I know there are thousands of alternatives available for Linux (yet another reason why it will not work commercially)

And your opinion vs my opinion around GUI's are like light and dark - cuz trust me - you prolly use a couple of GUI's i have designed in your daily life ;)

When you cyber janitors decide to come out your dark hole with a different attitude of Linux - Maybe one of how can we present this to the world in a tangible and slicker offering you may succeed, but i have realised you are just users of the OS - ie admins that can never really offer any real value.

ie - the wrong people to talk about improving a product for the masses.

[detritus]

Well i cant wait for the 24th to upgrade my 7.10

People will always be resistant to change, I remember when I went from dos to win95, and absolutely loathed this newfangled os. In dos, I could flippen put my games where I wanted, now an uppity OS, wanted to install everything on its own, and in some new fangled things called "folders"!!

And long filenames, I swear they used them all over just to show them off. 'Program Files' ? Why not just 'Programs' or 'Applications'? And don't get me started on the the whole 'My <stuff>' naming convention for things. At least they ditched that in Vista.

[icyrus]

And your opinion vs my opinion around GUI's are like light and dark - cuz trust me - you prolly use a couple of GUI's i have designed in your daily life ;)


Like...?

[nocilah]

Like...?

various online share trading websites, 2 south african banking sites, 1 mobile network website, Gui for mobile dashboard software, GUI for an MES system.

It is what i do for a living.

[icyrus]

various online share trading websites, 2 south african banking sites, 1 mobile network website, Gui for mobile dashboard software, GUI for an MES system.

It is what i do for a living.

Ok thanks for that.

So what part of linux's GUI do you find inadequate and why?

[nocilah]

Ok thanks for that.

So what part of linux's GUI do you find inadequate and why?

I think alot of the times the icons (that I have seen) have not been refined are clunky and child like. I feel certain naming conventions are not adequate enough. Colour usages have not been considered. My biggest problem with Linux is the varying Gui's out there which means there is zero consistency.

What makes OSx and Windows great is the consistency. Sure you can skin them and change them, which is fine for any advanced user.

Understand when i making these judgments I have the common layman in mind and not admins who obviously know their stuff.

So for the sys admin who has a great understanding of Linux they can explore various GUI options etc. Like an advanced windows user may do. Strangely enough I have seen very little happening on the OSx skinning side, but it is my belief that apple carry possibly the best GUI on earth due it's simplicity and the fact they seem to be a step ahead of everyone in that regard.

The common computer user needs silly things like: My Computer, My Programs ect.

Once there is a level of consistency/standard it becomes easier for support documentation ect - cuz an average user needs to point n click.

So dont get me wrong. I am 100% certain Linux kicks the lights out of windows when it comes to technical applications. Well I think it is proven time and time again.

However where windows and osx win is the standardisation and cohesive GUI. If open source developers were to pick up on a single GUI to bring Linux to the world it would undoubtedly succeed.

The ONLY reason why i utilise windows is because I need to use certain applications in my daily life that are ONLY windows and MAC based.

Sure I could maybe use a windows emulator for Linux ect - but is that not just complicating my life?

Users want uncomplicated lives.

I would like to see Linux gain greater momentum because it would mean M$ will need to run to the hills to start deliverign quality products and not beta's packaged as finals. ;)

And for sys admins, plz understand I only joke when i call you cyber janitors. If it weren't for you guys the world would be a mess. IE you ensure things work! So thanks. :)

[icyrus]

I think alot of the times the icons (that I have seen) have not been refined are clunky and child like. I feel certain naming conventions are not adequate enough. Colour usages have not been considered. My biggest problem with Linux is the varying Gui's out there which means there is zero consistency.

What makes OSx and Windows great is the consistency. Sure you can skin them and change them, which is fine for any advanced user.

Yeah that is a valid point. One of linux (and most OSS) longest standing problems was that while there are plenty of coders willing to distribute their work for free there aren't many designers who share the same ideology and hence you often got engineers designing interfaces that that make sense to them and designing icons and graphics with their limited skill sets.

Also the GUI toolkit differences have long been a pet peeve of mind with linux on the desktop. Fortunately distros lile ubuntu have taken this a step forward with unified themes for Qt and GTK but its still not sufficient. It would be nice to standardize on one of them, but I don't see that ever happening so the best we can hope for is better interoperability, which is happening - slowly.

[Kasyx]

And for sys admins, plz understand I only joke when i call you cyber janitors. If it weren't for you guys the world would be a mess. IE you ensure things work! So thanks. :)

Chances are I administer some of the servers your fancy GUIs run on ;)

There's no point decorating a house if the foundations haven't even been laid :D

I must agree on the naming conventions. Sometimes icons are unclear and the wording can be misleading. I have never used OSX so I can't really comment on its usability. I have found that KDE and even Gnome do take some tweaking before they are ready for my exceptionally brilliant usage :D But then again, I do the same with XP when I have a fresh install of it.

Perhaps someone just needs to design a "noob-GUI" that one can throw over KDE or Gnome which makes things easier. Kinda like the Asus eeePC has on it.

[Moederloos]

I've been using Linux for around 6 years now. I think I know better than to make a "mistake". Anyways, i reckon pretty much anything can be fixed in Linux.

Famous last words.

[ghoti]

I dont know what distributions the people here are using but I have KICK ASS icons. Guess some people just have out dated data or systems.

http://www.kde-look.org/index.php?xsortmode=high&page=0&xcontentmode=22x27

Theres thousands of really good icon sets there.

Vista cant compare to Ubuntu with visual look. Vista is so limited, boring and just dull. Perhaps some members here should look at the Linux screenshots in the other threads?

Im more than willing to have a vista vs linux desktop show down when it comes to visual appeal and eye candy. We can run a poll or something :) Lets see which OS can create the desktop with the best looking "bling".

If anything... Vista has boring limited choices in icons.

However, like icyrus said, the world of linux has long being only populated by the less than exciting programmer people. It seems people who like visual style are starting to make the code of those programmers finally come to a more... colorful life.

[nocilah]

Lets see which OS can create the desktop with the best looking "bling".

you missing the point.

It is not bling factor. I am 100% certain there are some pretty outstanding Gui's available for Linux. But for Linux to succeed on a commercial level, and that means catering to the avg user who doesnt want to go 'under the hood' there needs to be a unified, standard and consistent GUI. And that means choosing the coolest most functional GUI out there and distributing it with ONLY that.

Currently what Linux is suffering from is the VCR factor. Every VCR worked differently when it came to programming it. Because every manufacturer had their own idea. Same thing is apparent on TV's. So it is difficult to work some electronic devices without using the manual.

Once again you are making this an anti-windows debate where i am debating how to improve Linux to make it a commercially viable product to the masses and how it is directly related to the current problem of too many choices as your link illustrates.

Windows and OSx limit how a user can change the GUI for a reason. Not because the OS is incapable, but because there needs to be a consistency in order for it to succeed and currently they are winning hands down in terms of popularity in the market. <-- this isnt my oppinion either, its the basics of any GUI design philosophy.

[nocilah]

Perhaps someone just needs to design a "noob-GUI" that one can throw over KDE or Gnome which makes things easier.

A noob GUI that is a standard world-wide would win hands down and launch Linux into a greater popularity. Corel tried but failed. And just cuz its noob doesnt mean it cant look good. And just cuz its noob doesnt mean one cant change it either or expand on it.

[ghoti]

you missing the point.

It is not bling factor. I am 100% certain there are some pretty outstanding Gui's available for Linux. But for Linux to succeed on a commercial level, and that means catering to the avg user who doesnt want to go 'under the hood' there needs to be a unified, standard and consistent GUI. And that means choosing the coolest most functional GUI out there and distributing it with ONLY that.

Currently what Linux is suffering from is the VCR factor. Every VCR worked differently when it came to programming it. Because every manufacturer had their own idea. Same thing is apparent on TV's. So it is difficult to work some electronic devices without using the manual.

Once again you are making this an anti-windows debate where i am debating how to improve Linux to make it a commercially viable product to the masses and how it is directly related to the current problem of too many choices as your link illustrates.

Windows and OSx limit how a user can change the GUI for a reason. Not because the OS is incapable, but because there needs to be a consistency in order for it to succeed and currently they are winning hands down in terms of popularity in the market. <-- this isnt my oppinion either, its the basics of any GUI design philosophy.

Okay... by "under the hood" are you reffering going to "add/remove" programs, selecting whatever theme or icon pack you want you want, and then clicking "apply" ? Because thats how easy it is....

Its a helleva lot easier than windows. How am I making my comments "anti-windows"? Am I not allowed to make a single comment without that silly line thrown in? I use Windows daily at work, and dont have a problem with what I need it for. I will point out its flaws when I come across them, just like I would any OS including Linux. Perhaps your perspective is a bit defensive?

Or is your comment about linux icons, now "anti-linux? Common, please. ... and I hope you can see the hypocrisy. (IE... you believe its okay to criticize the icons, but are not happy about my comments about the vista icons (all of a sudden I am anti-windows...wtf?).. if you cant see the hypocrisy in that you surely are blinded.

[nocilah]

Its a helleva lot easier than windows. How am I making my comments "anti-windows"?

of course you are - it's a free world. you also allowed to call me a hypocrite and you can also call me blind.

you can also try and presuade me that Linux is easy too use hence its world-wide success in the market :rolleyes:

At the end of the day I was making a comment on how to improve Linux to make it a commercial success so please do not preach to me about blinded hypocrisy when it is painfully evident you are not interested in viable options to actually make Linux a success.

Choice overload is not the best option and at times standardisation , ergonomics and consistency will bring succes to anything that a large majority of individuals are going to use. As windows and OSx have proved.

[ghoti]

of course you are - it's a free world. you also allowed to call me a hypocrite and you can also call me blind.

I was trying to point out the hypocrisy, but if the shoe fits and you want to play the defensive roll go for it. I am an equal opportunity offender, I criticise linux publicly for its weaknesses, and and support other OS`s for their strengths. Each has their strengths and their weakness`s.


you can also try and presuade me that Linux is easy too use hence its world-wide success in the market :rolleyes:

The new linux desktops are easier to use and I am not the only one saying. Computer world and many independent organizations, companies and people are saying the same thing now... and you are completely ignoring the hardware vendor lockins and anti competitive behaviour of Microsoft (which have been discussed and explained ad naseum in this forum) in a rather disgusting way. .. I was kinda hoping you knew more about how the industry worked, and how other OS`s were pushed out by MS in the past, and how MS practices its business. This also ties into your firefox/ie comment. If you want, I can give you the links and information you might need because you dont seem to be getting this basic but major point. 90% of people get Windows because it comes with their hardware, and not because of choice.


At the end of the day I was making a comment on how to improve Linux to make it a commercial success so please do not preach to me about blinded hypocrisy when it is painfully evident you are not interested in viable options to actually make Linux a success.

That comment is childish so its not worth a response. (NOTE. I said that comment.. not you.. before you take that the wrong way as well)


Choice overload is not the best option and at times standardisation , ergonomics and consistency will bring succes to anything that a large majority of individuals are going to use. As windows and OSx have proved.

Choice overload? Thats a legal term or marketing term?

Strange, in the telcoms market we are fighting for choice, but you would rather people have have less of it? :confused: Personally.. more choice = better, and I couldnt find "choice overload" on wiki to understand what that is, or what kind of professional research has gone into that. When one buys a game.. and theres a large amount of games to chose from.. Do they suffer from "choice overload"? Or is that a term we only apply to OS`s? :confused:

And you say Mac OSx and Windows have "proved"? Proved what? That they can be good desktops? Sure, each has had their time, and each has being in the market for 20+ years.. Well linux has proved that it can dominate the server market and has only recently gone in the right direction for desktops.

Mac used to be the best OS for the PC, but then got out performed by Windows when Bill Gates provided a more functional OS for business than Steve Jobs was able to. While Steve Jobs`s old OS looked pretty, it was not functional enough to beat the IBM/Microsoft partnership. History repeats itself. Linux now has the functionality and the bling... when it gets the software and hardware vendors... times will change.

The great thing about having such a competitive OS such as linux now entering the desktop market and pushing Vista back, it that Microsoft are really going to have to pull their thumbs outta their bums to make sure they have a comeptitive OS with Windows 7.

I am glad I have choice, and I am glad I can use more than one OS for my different needs.

[nocilah]

I was trying to point out the hypocrisy, but if the shoe fits and you want to play the defensive roll go for it. I am an equal opportunity offender, I criticise linux publicly for its weaknesses, and and support other OS`s for their strengths. Each has their strengths and their weakness`s.



The new linux desktops are easier to use and I am not the only one saying. Computer world and many independent organizations, companies and people are saying the same thing now... and you are completely ignoring the hardware vendor lockins and anti competitive behaviour of Microsoft in a rather disgusting way. I wonder how much a soul costs these days.. I was kinda hoping you knew more about how the industry worked, and how other OS`s were pushed out by MS in the past, and how MS practices its business. This also ties into your firefox/ie comment. If you want, I can give you the links and information you might need because you dont seem to be getting this basic but major point. 90% of people get Windows because it comes with their hardware, and not because of choice.



That comment is childish so its not worth a response. (NOTE. I said that comment.. not you.. before you take that the wrong way as well)



Choice overload? Thats a legal term or marketing term?

Strange, in the telcoms market we are fighting for choice, but you would rather people have have less of it? :confused: Personally.. more choice = better, and I couldnt find "choice overload" on wiki to understand what that is, or what kind of professional research has gone into that. When one buys a game.. and theres a large amount of games to chose from.. Do they suffer from "choice overload"? Or is that a term we only apply to OS`s? :confused:

And you say Mac OSx and Windows have "proved"? Proved what? That they can be good desktops? Sure, each has had their time, and each has being in the market for 20+ years.. Well linux has proved that it can dominate the server market and has only recently gone in the right direction for desktops.

Mac used to be the best OS for the PC, but then got out performed by Windows when Bill Gates provided a more functional OS for business than Steve Jobs was able to. While Steve Jobs`s old OS looked pretty, it was not functional enough to beat the IBM/Microsoft partnership. History repeats itself.

woteva w1z4rd. you win. hope you happy.

[ghoti]

woteva w1z4rd. you win. hope you happy.

Cop out. Let me know when you want to discuss this further, because for both you and I... the veils of ignorance can only be lifted with dialog and understanding.

[nocilah]

Cop out. Let me know when you want to discuss this further, because for both you and I... the veils of ignorance can only be lifted with dialog and understanding.

no thank you.

bye.

[SoftDux-Rudi]

My biggest problem with Linux is the varying Gui's out there which means there is zero consistency.

What makes OSx and Windows great is the consistency. Sure you can skin them and change them, which is fine for any advanced user.


What consistency, exactly???

If you've worked on Windows since Windows 1.2, then you'll know what Windows has gone through, even Windows 3.1 was different than 3.0, 98 different than 95, ME ........ (don't even go there), NT 3 & NT4 differs, 2000, XP & Vista ALL differ. There's no consistency. I have some users who refuse to work on Windows Vista for this exact reason, they get used to something (takes them ages), and BAM! Something new comes out.

The different GUI's you talk about are different Shells' - hence the differnce. But, look @ KDE, Gnome, even blackbox & Enlighment - and you'll see they've all be very sparingly / marginally in changes. So, get one you like and stick to it. Heck, I can change my Windows XP to look like 3.1 as well :)




Understand when i making these judgments I have the common layman in mind and not admins who obviously know their stuff.

So for the sys admin who has a great understanding of Linux they can explore various GUI options etc. Like an advanced windows user may do. Strangely enough I have seen very little happening on the OSx skinning side, but it is my belief that apple carry possibly the best GUI on earth due it's simplicity and the fact they seem to be a step ahead of everyone in that regard.


My 60+ year old mother in law uses Opensuse (easy to support, and has plenty games:) ), I have many non-technical clients who use Linux (a doctor, some schools, a travel agency, etc) and they love it. It works, it's stable and it's consistent. Sure, the graphics (colors, icons, etc) change a bit from time to time, but not as drastic a windows' does.



The common computer user needs silly things like: My Computer, My Programs ect.

Once there is a level of consistency/standard it becomes easier for support documentation ect - cuz an average user needs to point n click.


Sure, they do :) You could ask any of my clients where to setup the ADSL, or configure user accounts, or even upgrade Open Office, and they'll tell how...




There's no point decorating a house if the foundations haven't even been laid :D



Nice quote!

[nocilah]

its weird.

i am talking about how to make Linux more accessible, better and more appealing to the mass market but of course because I am pointing out current flaws that can easily be improved i get labeled an M$ fanboi and hypocrite.

and i am only saying this because it is what i do for a living, and i do it well. But woteva... pointless trying to debate.

I do however appreciate Icyrus for understanding what i was trying to say.

[chiskop]

Was just wondering halicon, is your sig a reference to your experience with ubuntu? :D

And, btw, I do appreciate what you've been saying in this thread.

[jaarik]

Was just wondering halicon, is your sig a reference to your experience with ubuntu? :D


o my word! are you one of those reading the fine print? :p

i read that, too, and i think you are good with verbal imaging. well done!

[.Froot.]

Our sig's are often just a representation of what we feel or want to tell the world or maybe we're just BS'ing everyone. Who knows?

--World Linux Occupation and Domination since 1969.... muhahaha--

[talon]

its weird.

i am talking about how to make Linux more accessible, better and more appealing to the mass market but of course because I am pointing out current flaws that can easily be improved i get labeled an M$ fanboi and hypocrite.

and i am only saying this because it is what i do for a living, and i do it well. But woteva... pointless trying to debate.

I do however appreciate Icyrus for understanding what i was trying to say.

As a non linux user, I think I get your point. The Macdonalds principle of providing a simple choice of say 1 . 2 or option 3 obviously works.

Someone walks into a store to buy a new flat screen tv. They are bombarded with tech talk regarding this and that, which is like listening to a greek lecture for half an hour. Faced with so many choices, and now feeling uncertain as to which decision is correct. And end up walking away feeling completely dumdfounded.

The average user likes to make simple choices, anything slightly more complex which may to you or me seem simple, means fear to them. Fear of making a mistake, fear of losing something. Fear of messing things up.

So what do they do, they stay with what they have. Most of you will argue with me that making changes to the gui is a simple process. To the average user, nothing is simple when it comes to a computer.

I speak from years of experience in dealing with the "average" user, I am very impressed with the way that linux has evolved. And I forsee it replacing windows in the future. As most young people of today grow up with a PC, they become comfortable with the technology. Learning and experiencing all the time, they don't have the same fear I'm talking about.

I think this is the point you are making, correct me if I'm wrong. :)

[ghoti]

Now we are comparing OS`s not to VCRs.. but McDonalds? Oh well, if we are, and Vista is the "McDonalds" of the world, then you can be sure you are getting no nutritional value from your operating system :D Which sounds about right..

If Vista is McDonalds (with limited choice) then Linux is a Woolworths food shop with all the choices for a healthy balanced diet... which one will get you further in the long run?

[.Froot.]

Now we are comparing OS`s not to VCRs.. but McDonalds? Oh well, if we are, and Vista is the "McDonalds" of the world, then you can be sure you are getting no nutritional value from your operating system :D Which sounds about right..

If Vista is McDonalds (with limited choice) then Linux is a Woolworths food shop with all the choices for a healthy balanced diet... which one will get you further in the long run?

I think Woolworths trumps McDonalds on this one, ie Linux is wiping itself with Vista.

[jaarik]

I think Woolworths trumps McDonalds on this one, ie Linux is wiping itself with Vista.

Except for maybe that you go to a grand food shop to satisfy your gastronomic cravings for free... :D

[.Froot.]

Ok, so that part of the whole thing doesn't work out to great. Imagine Woolworths was really cheap (yet still had good food) and McDonald's was really expensive (yet still has really crappy food).

[jaarik]

Ok, so that part of the whole thing doesn't work out to great. Imagine Woolworths was really cheap (yet still had good food) and McDonald's was really expensive (yet still has really crappy food).

Exactly. Nod.