Linux is not hard, it's ignored - Column

[Tassidar]

i dont quite understand how people can bash things they know nothing about , iam sure its quite easy when you've been on one side of the stick, but iam pretty sure everyone on this tread that is backing up linux and is a user , migrated from windows , so they stand on pretty firm ground when debating comes into play.so try it . be that as it may. if you like windows stick with windows , if you like linux stick with linux , the last thing we need is to convince people that linux is better and for a linux take over , all that will happen is that the developers most of which work for free will get lazy

For my own part, I'm not trying so much to convert people to linux - that is very much their choice. However, I hate watching the same old (untrue) myths being sprouted about Linux. All I want is for Linux to be given a fair chance.

 

[Avenue]

The world also runs on products where my mother can ask the tannie next to her how to save her email attachment, or to make her new printer the default. Is Linux simple and uniform enough to work for the majority of pc users - who are computer illiterate?

I can say that with ubuntu 9.10 yes- I dont think I would have said it with 8.10... you must remember though that people are used to windows, but getting used to it took time and effort. Linux is no different. its not that its any more complex, only that there are different ways of doing some of the things. For example in windows you can just save everything to c: drive etc, in linux your user directory is in /home/username. Small things like this.
I would say for an average user- such as the tannie in your example, ubuntu is easier to use than windows- mostly because of the software center.

 

[eix-sync&&emerge]

as far as ubuntu is concerned, it has a copy and paste guide to pretty much everything , tannie wont have to go next door https://help.ubuntu.com/9.10/index.html

 

[Avenue]

For my own part, I'm not trying so much to convert people to linux - that is very much their choice. However, I hate watching the same old (untrue) myths being sprouted about Linux. All I want is for Linux to be given a fair chance.

+1
I find the same thing- a friend wanted to buy MSoffice so that she could create a simple spreadsheet for her little beeding company.
I suggested she look at open office, rather than shell out 1000 bucks or whatever
what happened?
she purchased MSOffice because... wait for it... she would rather not take a chance with free software because she could get a virus or get into trouble.

 

[LCBXX]

Guys you are missing the point here - No one is actively dissing Linux or open-source. Those who do, are poepholle.

The point is that, for anything open-source to be a financial success like Apple/Microsoft, open-source needs to get structured, formalized, categorized and marketed within those different buckets. From there it can be sold to the public and the revenues will enable the generation of better types of open source programs. I have to admit I find the concept difficult to grasp, especially considering that an open source developer would have spend $300m on developing an fantastic application, only to leave it's source code open for other to make with as they see fit for their benefit. However, that takes away the benefit of open-source in the fact that it is generally considered that open-source should be free software.

Perhaps semi-open source is the answer? One cannot get away from the fact that this is a capitalist world and people want to make money at the end of the day. Perhaps open-source should stick to what it is good at: Providing the casual computer user with a cheap/free alternatives to, lets say Office 2007, since the casual user only wants to type up letters, work with basic spreadsheets or burn the occasional DVD with pics of his kids at the dam. Leave the big guys like Apple and Microsoft to cater for the business end of computing in general? Maybe even collaborate with them to exclusively supply the entry-level/basic computer market?

Wonder what Microsoft's next move is? MS Security Essentials was a very basic but, IMO, significant and very underrated step in the right direction for them, all the while people like us bicker at how good/bad Linux/Microsoft is for the world...

 

[undesign]

I can say that with ubuntu 9.10 yes- I dont think I would have said it with 8.10... you must remember though that people are used to windows, but getting used to it took time and effort. Linux is no different. its not that its any more complex, only that there are different ways of doing some of the things. For example in windows you can just save everything to c: drive etc, in linux your user directory is in /home/username. Small things like this.
I would say for an average user- such as the tannie in your example, ubuntu is easier to use than windows- mostly because of the software center.

Agree, but uniformity in GUI, operations etc is important for widespread take-up by the not so savvy computer users. I'm not trying to bash linux at all, just saying that much of Windows' success is due to the fact that everybody's OS essentially looks and operates the same - it is therefore, to a degree, easier for lay people to sort out basic problems between themselves. The tannie doesn't have to ask my mom which distro/version/flavour/gui she is using (hmmm...go to "begin", right-click...wait, mine says "start"...).

There you go, a very non-technical explanation.

 

[Avenue]

Guys you are missing the point here - No one is actively dissing Linux or open-source. Those who do, are poepholle.

The point is that, for anything open-source to be a financial success like Apple/Microsoft, open-source needs to get structured, formalized, categorized and marketed within those different buckets. From there it can be sold to the public and the revenues will enable the generation of better types of open source programs. I have to admit I find the concept difficult to grasp, especially considering that an open source developer would have spend $300m on developing an fantastic application, only to leave it's source code open for other to make with as they see fit for their benefit. However, that takes away the benefit of open-source in the fact that it is generally considered that open-source should be free software.

Perhaps semi-open source is the answer? One cannot get away from the fact that this is a capitalist world and people want to make money at the end of the day. Perhaps open-source should stick to what it is good at: Providing the casual computer user with a cheap/free alternatives to, lets say Office 2007, since the casual user only wants to type up letters, work with basic spreadsheets or burn the occasional DVD with pics of his kids at the dam. Leave the big guys like Apple and Microsoft to cater for the business end of computing in general? Maybe even collaborate with them to exclusively supply the entry-level/basic computer market?

who would have thought that Google could make the money that they have, by offering free services, then coining it with advertising revenues.
As such I dont think charging for linux is the only solution- remember that red hat tried this and failed. When you go up directly against the likes of microsoft, you going to have to have a lot of financial backing.
they going to have to find creative ways of generating income... ubuntu for example is offering
ubuntu one- free for 2 gigs, pay for more.
they offer paid technical support.
it looks like they are looking to open their own music store like itunes, that syncs directly with ubuntu.
They make money, just in a different way.

I do agree however that not everything should be opensource, as I stated before I would happily pay for a linux version of adobe premier for example.

 

[ponder]

what happened?
she purchased MSOffice because... wait for it... she would rather not take a chance with free software because she could get a virus or get into trouble.

As jy dom is moet jy maar kuk & betaal.

 

[Edduck]

I think Linux, in all it's glorious flavours, will only become mainstream once they have addressed i.m.o is the biggest problem, user friendlyness. If I can't teach my mom, girlfriend and even a few guy friends who think they know something about PCs to install a program on WINDOWS then how the heck are they ever going to cope with linux. Ubuntu might have an awesome visual interface but it is just not streamlined like windows. Linux (and especially ubuntu) needs to shift their focus toward the laymen who don't want to have to fiddle before it will work.

Besides that the speed argument always pops up, do you really think my mom will care if her desktop boots in 20 or 120 seconds? Or that memory management is going to allow her to have 24 open programs and encode HD video? NO no no no no!

I am a tinkerer and I think I'm pretty good at fixing software and hardware issues but I can not get my head around how linux works (don't start me on the console). When I switched from XP to Win7 I was blown away by the automation and how easy it was to get everything working, without even asking 7 to do it. Not until linux can do that PROPERLY will I consider switching.

 

[Avenue]

Agree, but uniformity in GUI, operations etc is important for widespread take-up by the not so savvy computer users. I'm not trying to bash linux at all, just saying that much of Windows' success is due to the fact that everybody's OS essentially looks and operates the same - it is therefore, to a degree, easier for lay people to sort out basic problems between themselves. The tannie doesn't have to ask my mom which distro/version/flavour/gui she is using (hmmm...go to "begin", right-click...wait, mine says "start"...).

There you go, a very non-technical explanation.

agreed- most people dont want to learn a new way of doing things- they just want to pick something up and have it work.

I personally feel that in order for linux to grow they need to
1) get into schools, so that people are trained how to use it from an early age
2) get into government- the more users they can get, they more likely companies are to create software and officially supported drivers
(both of these are currently happening I am happy to say)
3) need to put a lot of time/resources into opengl so that gaming can return to being cross platform.

 

[porchrat]

I think Linux, in all it's glorious flavours, will only become mainstream once they have addressed i.m.o is the biggest problem, user friendlyness. If I can't teach my mom, girlfriend and even a few guy friends who think they know something about PCs to install a program on WINDOWS then how the heck are they ever going to cope with linux. Ubuntu might have an awesome visual interface but it is just not streamlined like windows. Linux (and especially ubuntu) needs to shift their focus toward the laymen who don't want to have to fiddle before it will work.

Have you ever heard of package files and an app called Alien? If not please look them up and then tell me this problem has not been addressed. Developers just need to start packaging their software into these packages like is done for a windows installer .exe package. The system is there already.

Honestly it is like you people live on Mars or something. Software in Linux is in packages similar to those in Windows, it has been standardised for quite a while now and most of the popular distros possess programs that will automatically unpack and install the darn things in the same way that the installShield wizard thing in Windows.

 

[Tassidar]

Have you ever heard of package files and an app called Alien? If not please look them up and then tell me this problem has not been addressed. People just need to start packaging their software into these packages like they do windows installer .exe packages. The system is there already.

Honestly it is like you people live on Mars or something. Software in Linux is in packages just like in Windows, it has been standardised and most of the popular distros possess programs that will automatically unpack and install the darn things in the same way that the installShield wizard thing in Windows.

Quite honestly, I think most of the people who comment on Linux have never used it, or tried it briefly for half an hour until they encountered their first problem, then complained that it was impossible to use, and then have the arrogance to consider themselves experts.

 

[Edduck]

Well I couldn't find for the life of me how to install a program that I downloaded from the internet!

Have you ever heard of package files and an app called Alien?

<<< this is exactly the problem with linux, I don't want to have to download a another app which can manage my package files! I couldn't figure out the repository system either, all that I could see is that you could choose programs from very long list which I think needed to downloaded off the net. What if I don't have internet access?

I am not dissing linux, I would love to use it and not have to pay for it, it just needs to be refined so that I can use it without scratching my head every five minutes!

 

[Edduck]

I just installed virtual box and i'm downloading ubuntu from my local varsity mirror. If you can tell me how to install and uninstall programs from the internet and how the repository system works then I will eat my words!

 

[porchrat]

Well I couldn't find for the life of me how to install a program that I downloaded from the internet! <<< this is exactly the problem with linux, I don't want to have to download a another app which can manage my package files! I couldn't figure out the repository system either, all that I could see is that you could choose programs from very long list which I think needed to downloaded off the net. What if I don't have internet access?

I am not dissing linux, I would love to use it and not have to pay for it, it just needs to be refined so that I can use it without scratching my head every five minutes!

Again you tend to lose the plot. You don't need to install anything. Do you need to install the InstallShield Wizard when you use Windows? The program that handles debian packages is called "dpkg" and it comes with the OS as far as I recall. It functions in pretty much the same way as the InstallShield Wizard.

Besides when you don't have something that you need to install something you are generally informed of what you need and then asked if you would like to install the additional packages required. How is this difficult?

If you don't have internet access then go to a friend's place and download the packages that you need to a flash disk, take it home and install it from there. Problem solved. Besides if you don't have internet access and you install XP how are you going to get a word processor or something similar? Linux comes with those sort of simple apps that you need and IMO Linux comes with a far greater amount of software than a fresh Windows install does. The "no internet connection" story is a problem for all OSes, not just Linux.

 

[porchrat]

I just installed virtual box and i'm downloading ubuntu from my local varsity mirror. If you can tell me how to install and uninstall programs from the internet and how the repository system works then I will eat my words!

If you are a new user I recommend you start by using the Ubuntu Software Centre as with synaptic package manager you need to be a lot more specific about what you need. (apparently synaptic will soon be removed from Ubuntu which I think is a mistake as I really like it, but whatever)...apparently they are chucking out Rhythmbox too.

You will find the Software Center at the bottom of the "Applications" menu in the top left of the Desktop. Just type in the name of the program you want from the repositories into the search bar and then select it and press install and bob is your uncle it will install.

 

[Edduck]

I understand your viewpoint and yes I can do all those things. But still can you imagine someone who knows NOTHING about computers to install linux and not run into problems?

I just downloaded the 9.10 netbook remix and I must say I am very impressed with the new streamlined interface. From this I think it is huge step up from previous GUIs and I hope future releases build on this. I am going to tinker a bit on virtual box and see if I can figure it out.

 

[porchrat]

Quite honestly, I think most of the people who comment on Linux have never used it, or tried it briefly for half an hour until they encountered their first problem, then complained that it was impossible to use, and then have the arrogance to consider themselves experts.

Meh. I have been using Linux for quite a few years now and I don't consider myself an expert at all. I always see guys on the net with answers that make me go...

Sure I can do a bit of bash, run some little servers, force a driver install if something really stupid is happening to the machine... normal stuff like that that I don't consider to be very advanced at all compared to what some of these people are doing on their machines. I don't even have a formal Linux qualification.

I think becoming a true expert takes years of dedication and I just haven't been alive that long. I don't consider myself a Windows expert either in fact it is remarkable how quickly you forget where everything is in Windows once you stop using it. I didn't even know XP had a system recovery thing, that thing is moerse useful.

 

[porchrat]

I understand your viewpoint and yes I can do all those things. But still can you imagine someone who knows NOTHING about computers to install linux and not run into problems?

I just downloaded the 9.10 netbook remix and I must say I am very impressed with the new streamlined interface. From this I think it is huge step up from previous GUIs and I hope future releases build on this. I am going to tinker a bit on virtual box and see if I can figure it out.

Could you imagine a new user installing Windows and not running into a single problem? I mean someone who has never used Windows before. No experience on previous versions, no nothing.

Linux is not difficult, it is just different and takes some getting used to. Most people jumping onto Windows have used it at school, or have used previous versions so the interface is already pretty familiar, this is not the case with Linux and a lot fo users find that disturbing. Once you get over that initial shokc and start using it day-to-day you realise that yes some things are moved around but Linux and Windows still perform the same functions, they just go about them in different ways. Assuming no bugs occur (and this can happen regardless of the OS) Linux is a great experience.

There are helpful guides out there to show new users how to operate Linux, especially in the case of Ubuntu. The community down at ubuntuforums.org is also one of the most welcoming I have ever encountered and they are all more than happy to help new users I know because I once in a while have done so myself.

 

[Avenue]

I think Linux, in all it's glorious flavours, will only become mainstream once they have addressed i.m.o is the biggest problem, user friendlyness. If I can't teach my mom, girlfriend and even a few guy friends who think they know something about PCs to install a program on WINDOWS then how the heck are they ever going to cope with linux. Ubuntu might have an awesome visual interface but it is just not streamlined like windows. Linux (and especially ubuntu) needs to shift their focus toward the laymen who don't want to have to fiddle before it will work.

Besides that the speed argument always pops up, do you really think my mom will care if her desktop boots in 20 or 120 seconds? Or that memory management is going to allow her to have 24 open programs and encode HD video? NO no no no no!

I am a tinkerer and I think I'm pretty good at fixing software and hardware issues but I can not get my head around how linux works (don't start me on the console). When I switched from XP to Win7 I was blown away by the automation and how easy it was to get everything working, without even asking 7 to do it. Not until linux can do that PROPERLY will I consider switching.

I dont really understand what everyone finds so difficult- I have included a few screen grabs just to give a bit of perspective to the linux is difficult argument.

http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac138/ave3/Screenshot-1.jpg
http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac138/ave3/Screenshot-2.jpg

1) this is a typical desktop- as you can see programs are easily accessible, and automatically sorted into category with entries like sound and video, games etc.
2) bottom bar contains open windows- currently active desktop and recycle bin
3) top bar contains programs, short cuts, date/time, volume controls and a "shutdown/switch user etc" menu

the second image shows the common preference settings menu.

http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac138/ave3/Screenshot-UbuntuSoftwareCenter-1.png

this is a look at the software center- to access it you click on applications, ubuntu software center- installing programs is so straight forward.

http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac138/ave3/Screenshot-images-FileBrowser2-1.jpg

this is a typical file browser- like when you click on my computer
1) tabbed windows- you can open multiple locations in the same window
2) this is what you click on to unmount a flash drive, eject cd rom etc
3) some files appear as preview thumbnails- eg jpg/ txt / pdf etc
4) quick access to your most common directories as well as custom ones

this is just a simple over view for those who have never seen linux, but come on, how easy can you get