Bravo. Finally a voice of reason in the world of geekdom!

Listen up Linux community. Microsoft is moving into their famous embrace and extend mode... beware.

Slightly off track but IMO solid point: There is lack of good development tools on Linux to attract "morts". There are about 10M developers out there who may never write for Linux ever because Linux doesn't have anything that can match the luxury of Visual Basic style development environments. These guys are usually the people who spread the word at large to home and business users.

Another thing is the aged archirectures that underlies Linux and even Firefox. I was shocked to know that Firefox developers choose to copy Microsoft's COM specs interface by interface and label it as their XPCOM platform. I even heard few people braging about XPCOM as "next generation" platform on which everythig will be built on!! Guys, (1) it's outdated technology that even VB developer will refuse to depend on(2) open source doesn't have mean reverse engineering. Invent something!

Let me put it this way, Linux isn't for Windows...

Now what I mean

I don't think Linux SHOULD be made to cator to the windows people, Im sorry, but I don't see a problem with a clear seperation between those that want to use Linux, or BSD, or whatever other OS is out there, and those that use Windows and OS X. In all honesty, I don't think the masses will EVER move from something besides OS X and Windows, thats just how it is. Unless They go out of business, its just not going to happen.

Excellent points on linux. I'm a big linux fan and have felt for a while that despite the recent windows-esque distros, it's still far from desktop worthy. I also took your points about simplicity to heart. I am designing software with a couple friends and had planned on include a plethora of options, however after reading your points I realize that many of those features can be left out. Thanks for the guidance.

WWWAAAIIITTT...!!! So, you are saying that the object is to ATTEMPT to become the exact thing you're trying to replace?!?! That is clearly not innovative thinking at all. That's "let's work around our shortcomings of user interfacing and cheat a little bit" thinking.

I highly agree with some of your points, especially the migration. The rest of them can be summed up as: "Copy Windows". It's a good thing there are strong Linux supporters to shut you people the hell up before you ruin another perfectly good operating system.

Linux has the perfect amount of users: just enough to get widespread usage, active updating, and plenty of great software without having enough technically lacking end users so that the programmers have to spend time accomodating to people who "just love solitaire." Ever stop to think it might be purposefully complicated? That maybe they don't want everyone in the entire world to switch? There's a name for people who think like you: sellout. Get bent.

IMO THE REAL reason hold Linux back is that the major OEMs Like Dell, HP, and Gateway

that do not offer Linux to CONSUMERS.

These major computer suppliers are still protecting Microsoft's monopoly.

I've been using Linux for 11 years now.

I've never gotten a virus with Linux.
I've never used any anti-virus software with Linux.

Many Linux distros are dead simple to install.
Many Linux distros have superior package management.

All of this "Linux is not ready" is crap.

IMO the MAIN thing holding Linux back
is the anti-competitve, anti-consumer-choice computer suppliers.

ok... I wrote an article a while back in my blog about what's going to happen in the future... but it's just how I see it now... for reading that article, you have to be on my position (as a human I mean) which is:
- I belong to a third world country (Ecuador), where money for the individual is a real issue and we dont have the power of adquisition as other countries...
- most common architecture for PC; the most common used here (and probably most of Latin America and the world) is the i686 architecture... in the US the most common is PowerPC (correct if I'm wrong)...
- culture; we, the ecuadorians, are not looking for new tech, nor doing researches for what is best for us all, and this is because we either dont have money nor support, or most of us are not planning to change from one common tech to a new revolutionary tech (we're conservative on that aspect, well most of us, I'm not one of them)...

so, here's the article (for those who know spanish)... I'll translate it any of these days...

http://djmafia.blogspot.com/2005/06/bored-as-hell.html

In general, I agree with your points. I don't think the migrating is as important, except for easily transferring documents. After all, when you get a new Windows computer, it doesn't automatically transfer settings and preferences for you, either. The Macintosh has started doing this, however.

Other than interoperability with Windows, particularly with Windows printer sharing over networks, and having a clipboard that is common to all applications, there is one big category that I think you should add
to your list of four, and that is:

Discoverability.

This is not my idea, I'm not that smart, but something I picked up from an outstanding article online about the inadequacies of the CUPS web-based interface.

Discoverability means that menus and choices are so clear that, with a little fiddling, a naive user can figure out how it all works without a manual. Anyone who has used the CUPS web interface can see that it teaches absolutely nothing. It might be more convenient than editing a configuration file manually, but it is no more helpful for understanding the choices than the configuration file itself would be. Actually, some of those configuration files are well-enough documented that they are probably better than the CUPS web interface.

A lot of Linux is the same way. Sure, people can figure out the start menu, since it's just like Windows, but what about the control panel? There's no way that it can teach you anything, whereas Windows is almost annoyingly helpful with little messages that ask opinions and outline choices. Some Linux applications are similarly lacking in Discoverability.

VCRs were successful because

1. Everyone knows how to turn on the TV.
2. Everyone can figure out how to insert a tape into the VCR, which turns itself on, switches from whatever input source to tape, plays the tape, rewinds the tape, ejects the tape, and turns itself off.
3. No one cares if it flashes 12:00 forever.

The 'basic knowledge necessary' is 'turn on the TV' and 'insert the tape'.

The rental store will gladly guide you through the process of removing and returning the tape.

One may rebut: But a computer is a slightly more complex piece of hardware

To which I reply: Yes, but its the same people who use VCRs.

-jmr

What about OS X? There is no easy way to migrate your Windows settings over to your Mac. There is a significant difference in the way applications are installed/configured, yet people switch to it.

The simple reply is that:

A) Linux is not Windows, just as OS X is not Windows nor should it aspire to be.

B) Linux is designed to let it be what you want it to be. If I want my workstation nothing but a command line, I can choose to do that. If I want what you seem to, I can run something like Linspire, which is nothing but a click on a website to install something. Personally, I am a Gentoo user, its all about choice and Linux should never compromise on that, thats why most of the people who switched from Windows did it to begin with.

C) If you feel Linux is not ready, thats ok with me. But I use Linux for my desktop so its ready as far as I need it to be. Everyone has a different opinion as to what it needs to do to be "ready", my opinion is that the person needs to be ready for Linux, not the other way around.

Every few months there is another one of these articles.

Well, my points.

Why do we _want_ GNU/Linux to be a desktop OS. It's a server/workstartion OS in my opinion and not the domain for "regular people". Sure it can move in that direction but why do we care if it's not ready? Who said it had to be?

linux always ends up compared to windows and windows apps when talking about the desktop world. And normally it is a case of people wanting linux to be more like windows (ie dumb). Why is this the case, why is the writer advotating system bloat over some basic education of the user. Why not educate windows idiots to use linux productively instead of trying to dumb down linux to the windows level.

How hard really is it for a "regular person" to type one command line, or click a few buttons to install a required library. Once they have grapsed the concepts of a library, or dependencies, you are home free.

Try giving a blank system and a fedora DVD to Mum and see what happens. Then try with windows. How does it go? Now that is a basis for an article. Not some opinion on what you think normal people want.

If it's one thing we have learned is that regular people don't know what they want and are pretty much happy being fed any old junk. Sure let's try and build an easy to use system. But if that ends up meaning we create an ugly system to compensate for the lowest common denominator user then we have gone in the wrong direction.

God, look at American TV for an example.

Decided to write a comment ... ended up in a rant/troll ... so posted in my blog at http://www.micheldonais.com/?p=172

Basically, am saying that all the "desktop" problems are the same as the "shell" problems, with examples from my Linux/BSD learning experiences. Mostly has to come with people thinking they are holier than thou, and want to recreate the wheel ... and be better than everyone else.

Great article, Asa.

I have been saying this for a while, Even when my store was open (The Open Store). One of my personal projects have been to resolve some of these issues. I think portage would do well in this, we could set it up with other distro's i am sure. It handles adding software quite well, better than most. Problems with linux is and almost all Operating Systems, is its designed from an engineers point of view of whats simple. My father played with "computers" at MIT in the 50's, he has trouble working with XP. I like what apple has done to make the software simple. But seriously computers are difficult even with XP for most users. One thing Linux has done well in recent years is Hardware configuring. Think Knoppix. Well I will comment more later.

Matthew M. Conley
SimonTek

A nice looking, easy to install, easy of use media player would win the hearts of many. I find myself always going back to windows because all the media players for linux bites.

I think the folks who claim that the "big, Evil Corporations" like Dell are the only reason that windows has a near monoply on the desktop need to wake up. I am developer and I have played with linux myself and but for work I use windows. I also have several acquaintances, developers like myself, who have experimented with linux. But we all wound up back on windows for home desktop use. Why? Because linux is not our hobby. None of us wants to spend the weekend figuring out how to compile the latest version of.... whatever, or hunting for a stable driver for the soundcard. Its just a PITA.
Asa has it right. And if BECs aren't selling linux on the desktop it is because they know that they will need to support the morts and ... its just a PITA. Its a PITA on windows too but its just not as big a PITA. The improvements mentioned here would be good start towards fixing the PITA factor.

Asa, what you're talking about is Fedora Linux, not "Linux". You say Linux is not ready for desktop use but mean Fedora. I'm not an Ubuntu fanboy so don't understand this as "hey look my distro is better than yours", but (in reply to your complaints about simplicity) in Ubuntu I don't have to choose between a desktop environment, I get Gnome, which is a very simplistic and clean desktop (with a few exceptions like GEdit, which will hopefully be replaced with something lighter, for example Leafpad). The Games menu is in the 5th position, Office, Graphics, Internet is placed above it. In the multimedia menu, there is "Totem video player", "Music player" (Rhythmbox) and a simple CD player. No Helix, no choice between twenty different media players, and all titled very clearly.

Ubuntu is not shipped on 3-5 CD's, it's a single 586MB ISO. There's one application for each area. A text editor, Firefox as browser, Evolution as Outlook replacement, Rhythmbox as music library (though Muine would've been a better choice, in my opinion, but relies on Mono), Gaim, a Gnomeified OpenOffice. The software archive can be accessed through the "System" menu, new software can be installed with a few clicks, updates with about 3-4 clicks.

I could agree with you on the migration part, but that would be an enormous task. Even if only concentrating on MS products, and not all those other very popular Windows applications.

Ubuntu is not perfect, it still lacks graphical tools for some system administration stuff (new tools can be expected in Breezy Badger, version 5.10), but (in my opinion) to date it is a far better choice for a newcomer than other distros with a similar target group - due to its non-confusing simplicity. Just like Firefox.

The biggest problem still appears to be hardware support, WLAN for example. Though I personally don't have any problems with my hardware, which includes a GeForce, a Canon Powershot, a Soundblaster, a HP PSC, a USB stick, MP3 Player, ... Even a suitable application opens when I plug in an external device or insert a CD. (Photo import, file manager, burner, etc.)

You can argue Linux versus Windows all you want, but if you look at pirated software, you see the real story.

Linux is free, but, every day, people all over the world use pirated copies of Windows instead. Open Office and Gimp are free, but every day, people all over the world use pirated copies of Microsoft Office and Photoshop instead.

When Linux and Windows are put on a level playing field (Linux = free / pirated Windows = free) people choose Windows.

I think a lot of the inital assessment made was not informed enough. I migrate offices from Win to open source software and it can be a royal pain true enough. Without repeating some really well (and really crappy) written comments here I just wanted to let Asa know that FC4 is no way to judge what is open source software. Linux is the kernel, KDE and Gnome (or IceWM, Fluxbox etc...) are your window managers and then comes all the software (free no less) that is being either hailed or bitched about.

When we migrate an office, bookmarks, email (all of it), My Documents , My Music and My Pictures all make it over just fine. No they are not called My anything but it's all there, it all works and people are pretty happy.

These are computers Asa, not televisions. Firefox is great ( I crash it daily), Thunderbird is too (daily crasher as well) but mother of babbling god! Do you think OS migration is going to be as easy as sucking bookmarks? I myself, I don't think so. You make some good points, points I deal with on a daily basis. Thats why technical people get paid.

The main reason I'm still on Windows, and I'm sure this applies to a huge percentage of other Windows users, is the simple fact that games are designed for Windows. I don't have much use for a PC with 3GHz processor, a x800 or 6800 graphics card, when I can't play most games on it.

Not everyone is a gamer, and not everyone plays games all the time. Of course I use my PC for other things, e-mails, projects, research or just general Internet surfing. But I'm not about to sacrifice my games just to switch to Linux.

Oh and by the way, I did try using OpenOffice on a fresh installation of Windows. I tried my best to live with its shortcomings, but after a month or so, I gave up and returned to MS Office. Just trying to do simple bulleting and indentations left me feeling frustrated, which would have been simple in MS Office. I am never going back to OpenOffice, at least not until a few major releases.

Maybe linux shouldn’t spend time doing that because it’s a *really, really big job* that would involve uniting a ton of disparate groups. Maybe linux should continue to be a server and a workstation for those who want to own and configure their own computer. Or those who need their computer to be a versatile tool. Or those who hate large corporations. Or whoever wants to take the time, because it’s a little difficult.

I think linux would be available to the public here's why:
for linux to run you need people who know linux. This costs money, however not using commercial software doesnt cost money. Now its just a question of the right mixture: Linux Admins(uber geeks)/normal computer people -or- Less admins/Computer literate users. I think a linux training course would be very profitable and well if I ever make a business I'll make damn sure im running something free.

I am constantly amazed by the head in the sand attitude of the general Linux user/advocate, eg.

"Linux shouldn't sacrifice what it is for uptake."

Say what?

Usability > *

That's it!

If windows does something better then either emulate that or come up with something better again, eg. mount/umount.

With the tiny price of very large hard drives I do *not* want to worry about reusing packages that just make installing a nightmare. aptget, yast, et al, are all rubbish, a single self installing executable is vastly more useful especially given today's fast internet.

If you don't 100% agree with the OP author, then you are likely a Linux 'Elitist' in that you *want* it to be harder to use to make yourself seem clever.

ASA -

Excellent post, we need more people thinking clearly about Linux on the desktop. What we have right now isn't a good solution. Linux server side is great, but if it would make a ton of sense to do desktop linux right!

Why do people switch to firefox??
I didn't switch to firefox because it was just like IE... I switched because of, tabs and the find bar (THE BEST!!). I had a google popup blocker and I don't click on crap that runs active x on my machine so the only reason I needed to switch was a BETTER way of doing things, make me more productive and I will switch. I am not sure if I am a "regular user" but I think this is why people switch--if you see something that makes your work faster or something that makes you feel good (eye candy, asthetics, comfort) then you will want to switch.

So applying this theory to the desktop means linux must have better ways of interfacing with users, make them more productive, and make them feel good.

I'd say copy OS X to a large degree. This means pick one desktop (GNOME or KDE). Add OpenGL compositing / Luminocity, make it feel good. Then add the comfort and simplicity by supporting a good set of applications that people can use out of the box. And add features to the desktop to make them more successful / productive (e.g. Beagle for file management etc....)

I recently bought a mini mac to just try out Tiger and it's amazing. I'm amazed at stupid little eye candy tricks that actually help me understand what is going on. (Genie effect, it tells me where I need to look to find that application again...) Also the dock. It's nice and simple. I think menus are the wrong way to go, maybe it's not perfect but it's simple and that is where linux and windows are missing the point.

If someone (Novell / Redhat?) built a linux distro that had everything OS X has out of the box and it was free and didn't have all the virus / spyware / security issues windows has they would win the desktop market (corporations / schools / and even home users eventually).

Novell is even taking it a step further and creating a development environment that may rival vs.net / windows rad development tools that have created millions of lock in applications that tie enterprises to the windows desktop cause they can't run their custom software on anything else!

I ran a Cyber cafe of 15 diskless workstations running KDE on GNU/Linux for one year in a university town. Nobody every had a useability question for the desktop (honestly). Problems could be summed more or less about like this:

(1) printer problems (~70%)
These were two Brother 1440 laser printers under regular heavy use. They just didn't hold up very well at all.. Paper jams, paper out, toner out, or somebody printer a million page document and didn't know how to cancel it (putting a desktop icon up for clearing all user print jobs solved this problem). Also, it's important to install Adobe acrobat reader and set it as the default for PDFs, because the open source versions don't render properly, every now and then.

(2) Mozilla crashing (~20%)
We tried numerous versions of Mozilla... Thunderbird was the best for a while but nothing worked even reasonably well until firefox came along. When you have numerous desktops running with Mozilla all day and late into the night, you get really sick of how often it freezes--and freezes up a whole user account, not just Mozilla itself. Firefox is *reasonably* stable but frequently has these brief moments of unresponsiveness. Konqueror was far better in the senses of speed, responsiveness, and that it never crashes a whole user session, but it had some rendering issues and took a lot of initial tinkering to get fully functional with Java, flash, etc. Recent versions have pretty much put the rendering problems to rest, but I've yet to see a distro that has it fully configured for web browsing out of the box. I think it has far more potential, but just lacks the TLC it needs to be the better browser.

(3) how to use a particular web site (~5%)
It's amazing how people sometimes blame the computer for badly designed or buggy web sites.. Or expect our staff to know how to use every web site on the Internet.

(4) how to connect to AOL or MSN instant messenging (~5%)
Kopete and Gaim seem to work generally ok, but people don't like the fact that the lack some of the features people are used to. I am not big on IM, myself, so I am not going to elaborate on this one.

I should also note that people seemed to take two different reactions to OpenOffice: (1) refuse to even try using it; or (2) play with it for about 5 minutes and do just fine with a few common questions like, "Where is the word count?". For OpenOffice, we installed all the Microsoft compatible fonts, set the default font to Times New Roman (or something very like, I forget exactly) and set the default saves to export to Office 97. Otherwise, you'll have seriously problems with people.. They do their homework or what not and freak when they find it coming up in a bizarre font or not openning at all, because it's not in Word format.

But, again, people have no problems with word processing, spreadsheets, or presentations if they are willing to give it a try. I think somewhere around half just refuse to try at first site, for some reason.

It's funny to be asked, "What version of Windows is this?". People tend to find things just fine on the menus and you see them playing the various games and exploring... finding features like multiple-copy/paste.. Xeyes, etc.. They tend to have fun, and sometimes you here them exclaim (excitedly), "This is Linux!".

Matthew

Linux is not attempting to be windows, its an operating system that's all, to expect a win XP clone when u install is absurd. windows require office, nero and many other 3rd party products to even get close to functionality of a FREE distro of linux such as fedora and the cost is excessive. I was a sworn ms user untill i came accross fedora and will NOT look back, i taught myself howto use it and accepted that it is not windows, and now its my 1st preference.
Can windows import settings from linux during a standard installation?? You ppl are typical of MS users, put useless crap all over my machine and numerous unneccessary registry entries throughtout my system for the purpose of easy to use unstable garbage of an OS... time is valuable so i'd rather spend an extra 30 mins installing something that works stably as opposed to reducing install time in favour of the famed blue screen of death or having explorer die on me daily for no apparent reason.
Don't get me started on security...

I am not convinced by your article.

First issue (migration):
Basically you're saying that if you can't move settings from Windows to another OS, then that makes it not ready for desktop? What if you started afresh? Does that make your desktop ready then? MacOS can't be ready for desktop, because Windows settings don't go over perfectly.

2nd issue (stability):
Most distros solve this problem with apt-get, certainly not Fedora based on what you have described. It basically downloads your package and all its dependancies in one step doing all the stuff behind your back. This gives you the benefits of reusing shared libraries while making it easy. This is the same as if you tried to download the lastest version of DirectX. It gives you a program that downloads all the stuff behind your back and installs it.

3rd issue (simplicity):
WinAmp, Excel, Access wouldn't have made more sense if I didn't know what they were. And Quicktime doesn't tell the time??? GEdit has a billion options is rather an application preference, not really a Linux not ready for desktop issue. People will use GEdit like a text editor with out touching any preferences much as you never touch the preferences for notepad. Only those who wish to do more than simple word processing will ever touch preferences.

4rd issue (comfort):
There was a research in Thailand where a group of people who've never touched a computer before actually found Linux to be easier (more confortable) to use. OK and Cancel buttons being reversed has nothing to do with any OS's being ready for the desktop or not. Mounting the drive is just as confusing to a newbie as the A: C: D: E: drive (where's B: ?). In fact, in Windows, you actually have to unmount a Usb drive before removing it. Macs aren't ready for the desktop because you drag the CD into the garbage can to eject it.

Your article seems to be more of a "Linux is not ready for becoming Windows" rather than it not being "ready for desktop". You focus too much on the fact that Linux doesn't operate exactly like Windows rather than it being not ready for desktop. I think issues such as lack of documentation, GUIs for the configuration files, and lack of software support from companies (Adobe, Game companies) are more important for Linux development on desktop rather than swapping positions of two buttons.

I am completely against making Linux more like Windows - unless your plan is to wait until "enough" people have migrated, and then Linux can go its own way. Why make Linux look, taste, and smell like Windows? Wouldn't it then just be - Windows? Linux is not like Mozilla. Instead, Linux is to computer hardware as Mozilla is to operating systems. When you see it like that, then Linux is just as successful as Mozilla. Linux has a lot to learn about usability for the average user - but in the world of enthusiasts (and this world continues to grow) - Linux rules. I agree about the problem of having the correct linked libraries consistent accross distros, but really, this is the 21st century, and disk space is so cheap that it no longer makes as much sense to have shared libraries. If an application vendor wants an app to run on as many Linux distros as possible with the least amount of fuss, then maybe they should think about statically linking the exact libraries that make this version work.

The problem with Linux and the desktop market is that Linux is not the same tool as other desktop OS's. Sure it can do a lot of those things (like help you read email, and compose presentations for work) but it can doa whole lot more. If the goal of Linux was to be a desktop OS then it is failing. But I really don't think that's the goal. If you want a 100% desktop OS that "everyone" can use, then look elsewhere. If you are a software vendor and you want the largest possible userbase, then you should continue to make your software work on Linux, becasue afterall, enthusiasts are part of the market also.

Linux is a kernel, it makes no sense to say that Linux should provide a way to migrate configuration from Windows to Linux (Imagine yourself asking that feature to Linus Torvalds and you'll see that it makes no sence). So, comparing Linux to Windows is like comparing apples to chairs.
Now a more useful comparition is KDE+Linux or KDE+FreeBSD or Gnome+OpenBSD vs Windows or just the desktop, KDE vs Windows (after all, when you say Windows you mean the desktop part, almost nobody means the the web server or some other thing which might run on Windows).
Having agreed on that, codding something to import config from Windows to KDE or Gnome would be so hard and useless (because Windows is so different to KDE and Gnome that only little bits could be imported) that would make no sense. Even migration between Gnome and KDE is so hard it is not worth it.
The main reason why people are slower at adopting Linux+KDE/Gnome as the desktop is because installing it means either getting rid of Windows or performing some operations that could corrupt the Windows install. That is different for Firefox. ***I wonder how many people would be using Firefox if the easy way to install would mean deleting IE (even with your conf migrations) or there's a harder way in which you may not delete IE, but you have to be an expert or you would scrow it up***
My answer: Firefox would have even less users than Linux. Comparing Firefox's success to Linux+KDE/Gnome's success on the desktop is comparing apples with chairs.

This is sad. Truly.

Windows users who haven't been exposed to other OSes will never understand. Windows has about a billion UI flaws. It's *not* intuitive. It's what Microsoft has forced down it's users throats and most Windows users can't figure out other OSes because "everything *else* is backwards".

Why do you think Apple never Windows-ized Mac OS? Could it be they might have had a few better UI designs?

Now to say that Linux has great UI is a difficult topic, considering one has the *choice* of UI they'd like. I won't tread too far here, because of the choices that are available... However, to say that Linux needs to reverse OK and Cancel buttons shows just how Windows-ized your brain is, and you should probably try to think outside of the 'box' you've been squared in to.

The argument for easier software installation? Really? Doesn't Windows-easy software installation equal virii propogation? Doesn't it equal malware and spyware? Doesn't it euqal an administrators nightmare? I think Windows "ease of system screwup" is a high point that Linux can ignore, actually.

Erm, simplicity is there as much as it is in Windows. Again, check the Windows UI quirks before spouting off on another OS'es UI. Don't tell me the Windows Control Panel is intuitive. Don't tell me Windows software is intuitive. It may be dumbed-down to hell, but that doesn't it make it intuitive.

I think a big point here too is that Linux doesn't need Windows users who just can't grok anything but Windows. We may have the greatest thing since sliced bread, but most Windows users enjoy being told what they should like, and Linux ain't it.

Lastly, to all the microwits out there who make GIMP and Photoshop comparisons - think before you speak. If you paid even a DIME for the GIMP, perhaps you could make your uninformed and ignorant comparisons. But, since you paid nothing for the software, and you gave nothing to further the GIMP project by spewing nothing but hot air, perhaps you could just hold that hot air in, hmm?

For the price of Photoshop, it *should* kick everything else's ass. Hope you didn't steal your copy.

Hi. I'm Massimo, the author of the original OSNews article. I'm amazed at how cite me, but you clearly did NOT read my article (and the previous blog post), because I just addressed what you say on my article.

To put it simply:
The first issue, migration, is pretty serious.For "Regular People" to adopt Linux (which usually means leaving Windows) Linux is going to need a serious migration plan. It will need to install on machines next to Windows...

That's why i proposed a standalone,ready-to-go machine like the TuxMini. People use Macs, yet they don't install MacOS next to Windows, isn't it?

When Regular People fire up the Linux desktop for the first time, the browser, office suite, email client, IM client, file manager, etc, each need to carry over as much as possible of the Windows application settings and all or very nearly all of the user data. Without this, the hill is just too steep to climb and Regular People will not make the climb.

Very few people I know re-import settings when reinstalling Windows. Let alone new MacOS users. About user data:
-copy user data on temporary storage
-copy data from temporary storage to /home
-you're ready
Or, if you're dual-booting
(1)-copy data from your windows partition to /home
(2)-go and look in your windows partition, perhaps symlinking it from /home (you can do it from Konqueror,so no "cryptic" CLI is needed. just as easy as creating a link in Windows)

I'm talking about a stable API that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from download.com. A user should be able to install Fedora Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever.

Package managers already take care of this issue. If you somehow don't like them, static binaries are the ready-to-go solution, as I proposed here.

Just because you can include a feature doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can provide a user preference doesn't mean you should. I don't want to start a desktop war but I really gotta say to the distros, pick a desktop and be happy. Regular People shouldn't have to (guess or learn enough to) choose between Gnome and KDE when they're installing your product

The whole point of my OSNews article is: WE'RE NOT TARGETING REGULAR PEOPLE STILL. NOT YOUR GRANDMA, NOT MY GRANDMA. WE'RE TARGETING NON-GEEK BUT SOMEHOW SKILLED COMPUTER USERS LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT COMPOSE A LOT OF THE FIREFOX USER BASE. I'm sorry I'm going to scream this, but I have obviously the need to, since you didn't understand what I wrote on OSNews (that could be my fault, of course). These users are IMHO absolutely capable to understand what the existence of 2 desktop managers mean. Nevertheless the distro could install one of default, and leaving the other as an "advanced" option. Just as almost all desktop-oriented distros do now.

Gedit has about 30 user preferences spread across 5 tabs in a preferences window -- Notepad has about three.

That's why Notepad sucks. And stop treating users as complete morons. We're talking of a clever niche, here, so your arguments don't apply.

Linux must feel comfortable to Windows users. Most people using computers today have been at it for a while now and they've been at it on Windows. Don't mess with their basic understanding of how things work.

Linux is really comfortable from the GUI point of view to Windows users. I know, I put a lot of windows-only people in front of KDE on Knoppix and in 5 minutes they were productive. They just told me "oh,ok, the menu is that K. where is word? ah,openoffice writer? uh,ok,it's just like word. cool."

Regular people do not know what it means to "mount a drive" and they shouldn't have to.

There should be automount for all, of course. But knowing the concept is a useful plus and it's damn easy to understand.

Regular People don't want two clipboards that seem to constantly overwrite each other.

This is really something that must be fixed. One good point, at last!

Anyway, what have you said? The bazillion banalities I read everyday on /. and OSNews comments. I at least suggested we can win a significant niche by re-focusing our targets (young curious people, looking for coolness, cheapness stability and comfortable when working with PCs - this DOES NOT MEAN GEEKS. this means for example most students.) and building a winning product. You -like a million people,it seems,sadly- still want to start from a hacker system to go directly to grandmas and the 100% battle. Hmmm, how realistic are the aims of the Linux community.

Start to value what the community has done until now. Start to do marketing about it, like Mozilla Firefox did.

And, oh, I WAS NOT COMPARING FIREFOX TO LINUX. Of course if Linux was as easy to adopt as Firefox (that's essentially click-and-go) it would be already on much more desktops than now. It is just that Firefox teached us what's the right users niche. But, again, you did not read my article.

Massimo, I did read your article, several times. I think your "magic bullet" plan of just get it on a system and people will like it is a no go. Heck, we were just a browser and we couldn't get bundled on any major OEMs. I disagree with you that package managers solve the problem that most Windows users want solved -- the ability to download and install software from a site like download.com. Nor do I think that users are complete morons. We didn't design Firefox for morons. We designed Firefox for the 95% case (IE users) which bridge the full spectrum from my grandmother to a university computer science student. We didn't tackle a "niche" and I thikn if that's where Linux is going, it's going to be wiped out. Linux needs to make some big gains and fast. Linux already has a desktop nich with geeks. It doesn't need another one. It needs to break into the mainstream.

And if you really think that "Linux is really comfortable from the GUI point of view to Windows users." then I guess we're at a fundamental disagreement that underlies both of our entire posts so I sort of have to just disagree and give up trying to convince you of anything.

- A

Hold on... I want my applications to re-use code libraries. I want the APIs of those libraries to be dynamic and change quickly as the need arises, rather than stagnating for years like their Windows counterparts (or (cough)X-Windows!(/cough)).

Making Linux "familiar" to a Windoze user seems a lot like removing the engine from a car because it's too loud for someone who's used to a bicycle.

I agree that better migration should be implemented, but there will also come a point when this migration is like providing a "push pedals option", when you have the accelerator right there in front of you.

If these were the only impediments, Linspire would sell through the roof. There is one major obstacle and only one that prevents anyone else from competing in a Windows world and that is simply compatibility. Firefox works the same way on a users PC as Internet Explorer. It is compatible with the same websites, and as far as the user is concerned it is simply and upgrade of the web browser that they currently use.

If Linux could run all of the users software, as simply and easily as Windows it could be a viable alternative. And of course, it must come pre-installed on the PC. A user is simply not going to install another OS if they have already paid for Windows.

Of course, the "Microsoft Tax" is a whole different issue entirely...

Craig

I really use GNU/Linux since years. Now I use gentoo because it is the *only* OS on that I really feel comfortable. Redhat and derivates are a rpm nightmare; debian and debian-based liked for years but no more after I knew about gentoo.
But comparation between my linux system and windows is easy:

-K3B for burning cd-dvd. It works. no more scsi emulation. it works very very fine.
-Stability. Windows crashed every day. I thought it could be a hardware problem, but I saw it is not. With this system --never-- crashes.
-Software. I really DO NOT need to go to a stupid download.com site. All I have to do is an emerge *package* and thats all.
-Power. I control everything that runs on my machine. and it is optimized for my CPU.

But unfortunately, this system could not be administrated by anyone of my family windows users because this needs some knowledge.

May be someday will appear a new GNU/Linux based OS (or a libre OS) that can be used by everyone.

Anyway: windows cannot be used by anyone. I have *always* to advice them: do not use internet explorer. update your antivirus. Dont download software!! do not open office files from emails!! no! you cannot do that you are not Administrator...

Maybe linux is not ready for the desktop. but I've seen windows that makes me cry: full of spyware, virus, adware..... "my machine is very slow" well f*ck you... use legal software or opensource software. and stop downloading stupid software from download.com!!!

i see your points and they are pretty valid. apart from the ok/cancel arguement. if a person gets confused by that and runs crying back to windows, all the better. all they end up doing is bringing the reputation of the OS down by being idiots eg running as root and shutting off all security measures. let MS keep them. they can bring down windows. i feel that linux is a better option than windows for the cusaul user who just browses the internet or uses office suites as these come preinstalled: firefox and openoffice. the gimp is for graphical editors, IM clients come standard and media players too. i will concede that mplayer needs to be downloaded and installed since the kaffiene player is buggy on SuSE 9.3 but RPM files are an excellent addition to linux. these are even more simple than .exe since you click them and install them with YaST all in the GUI. if the casual user switches to linux then they will almost certainly have a more advanced friend helping them. this friend would be able to tell them that linux can view the windows partition and cop files from it. viola! no file loss.

to the guy saying that linux cannot play MP3 files, the reason is because of legal requirements. they have to pay to offer software to read it and this is the problem. since they are non-profit (mostly) they cannot offer the capability out of the box. however for CD rippage they offer ogg which is a superior format (don't argue, it is).

As a long time Linux user, I think the article was quite good. For me, Linux is actually working the way I want it to, but I can see (from your article) how the environment looks to a non-technical user and to some extent i think you are correct in your statements. However I think that the suggestions that you are talking about should be implemented on a "Distribution" basis. I think part of the reason Linux and BSD are able to move ahead so much in terms of features, security, speed etc.. is their lack of stable API. So most distributions , or most existing Linux users aren't going to be happy with a stable API. There needs to be a distribution which is geared mainly for ex-windows users, which does have a stable API and does have apps which are available from say download.com. It can have buttons around the wrong way etc..
(Maybe linspire can take on these recommendations).

That way, existing Linux users aren't loosing what they love about Linux, and that is the choice. I also have a machine which shipped with OSX, but now runs Linux. Now there is nothing wrong with OSX, and its arguably one of the better interfaces out there for new and existing users. But I like my desktop to work the way "I" want it to, something OSX doesn't allow. Loosing the ability to do this under Linux isn't something that should, or is, going to happen with any of the communities of major Desktop Environments. No one codes things they don't use.

my 2c

A very good point of view, but please do not put KDE and Gnome on the same plate.
In my experience, with "cluster" customers (finance, government with thousands of workstations) has showed Gnome is a piece of nice toy: Windows users move with less effort to Linux + KDE and do not like Gnome.
Their judice was: the graphic of Gnome is better, but with KDE we are able to perform all the task we are used with Windows. Try to associate an extension to a program or define a new type of extension to figure out why Windows users prefer KDE!
Despite KDE is less beatiful, in my opinion is still better than Gnome that seems to be something for "I'm use only Linux" users.
But a lot of work must be done, and that's not so easy; I think X architecture is one of the milestones and one of the bigger obstacles on the Linux development path. Probably it's not a case Mac OS X does not use X! Will Cairo solve some annoying issues? Will Cairo, for example, allow a decent integration between an application (Firefox?) and printing applet/panel, just for the sake of an example?
But applications, Firefox too, might be better starting from today, for example releasing KDE and/or Gnome specific versions will be integrated by Linux distributions, but it seems no one want to choose!
A good example of "technological battle" is Kontact vs. Evolution! More applications should choose a desktop manager or support all.

Yeah right! 'Helix' is unknown to people. The same people remember 'Nero' means CD Burner software, right? Also, why should each and every piece of software be downloadable from download.com? Why isn't a packaging system good enough for mom and dad? Something like 'synaptic' is a gazillion times more trustworthy than a link which appears in mom and dad's email screaming 'Download the latest firefox for your PC now!!'

So tired of this clipboard whining.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~njl98r/clipboard/

If you find applications that are buggy, tell the author, don't write blog posts whining about how Linux "isn't ready" like some OS News newbie. It's hard to imagine that someone who presumably doesn't like "Firefox is junk" posts that ought to have been Bugzilla submissions would do something like this, but there you are...

Nick, actually, I would much rather see a blog post saying "Firefox is junk" than a bug in bugzilla saying the same thing. I'd much rather see almost all reports of Firefox issues going through all of the other available channels besides Bugzilla. We've got Hendrix for general feedback, Reporter for broken websites, the MozillaZine forums for bug, feature, and build discussion and we've got a handful of blogs for other discussion.

Also, I'm not whining at all. I'm just offering up my view of what needs to happen for Linux to gain more widespread adoption. Take it or leave it.

- A

Well written Asa, I totally agree.

Ubuntu Linux is going in that direction.

Shital Shah : there is an equivalent to Visual Basic for GNU/Linux, Gambas ( http://gambas.sourceforge.net/ )

Just wanted to point out how the installation of programs is much simpler and easier in linux than windows:

windows: every app is different. Some come .exes, some with .msi, some ask me where I want to install, some don't. More than that, uninstalling is a big pain.
To uninstall Word, I need the installation disk.
To uninstall Norton Antivirus, I need the original media. WTF?
windows: if you remove the uninstall file, you're fuxxored. If you accidentally remove the program files, you are fuxxored as well. I am left with a half-dead NAV because I could not uninstall it (no installation media) and removed it by hand. I still have to press ok 15 times when starting Word because it could not run the antivirus to check the doc.

linux: in gentoo: emerge whatever. Upgrading: emerge -u whatever. Removing: emerge unmerge whatever. Then remove the .whatever dir in /home.

I've been using computers since 1979, when the physics lab had an IMSAI 8080 set up that used paper tape to boot to dual 8 inch floppy drives. The IMSAI 8080 ran CP/M and it was simple and straightforward to use. You fed in the paper tape, then you made sure the 8 inchy floppy boot disk was in the A: drive, and then you typed in commands into the terminal once the system came up. It worked. You didn't have to worry about stuff.

My first computer, an Apple II+, also just worked. The machine booted from ROM and gave you a prompt. It just worked.

My first IBM PC was pretty much the same deal as the Apple, except that you had to have a DOS boot disk in the A: drive when you turned on the IBM PC. Then you typed commands in when the system came up from the floppy drive. It was all straightforward. It just worked.

I've been trying to learn linux and haven't gotten anywhere. Linux doesn't work. Let me give you 6 simple examples: [1] AbiWord. It doesn't work. It's broken at a basic level. To print you have to mess with CUPS. And CUPS is a disaster. I was never able to get CUPS to work. Apparently CUPS works something like sendmail, and you have to tell the printer to LISTEN to some cockamamey IP address before you can get it to print. What I want to point out here is how insane that idea is. The notion that, first, you assume the default is a network with 10,000 computers hooked up to another network of 10,000 printers, so you have to default all the printers to ignore whatever you print until you turn one specific printer on. That's crazy. An individual user will NEVER have a setup like that. NEVER. *Ever*. Period. And the notion that, second, you are lying to the user. Linux implies that when AbiWord tells the printer to print, then it will print. You'd think. Wouldn't you? Why else have a menu that you can use to print stuff? But no. It's all a lie. Turns out that when you send a print job to CUPS, you get nothing, even after configuring the printer, unless you do a lot of complicated mumbo-jumbo that I never was able to figure out. That's insane. It's like setting up a car to start only after you turn the ignition key _and_ get out and open the trunk _and_ slam the rear left door twice _and_ honk the horn 3 times in a row _and_ switch the headlights on and off 7 times. It's stupid. No sensible person would expect a car to work that way, and no sane person would set up a car so it would only start if you followed that procedure. To start a car, you turn the key in the ignition. (On really old cars, you press a button while pulling the choke lever. But same idea.) To print in linux, you should tell linux what printer you have and then choose PRINT from the menu in AbiWord. If it doesn't work that way in linux, it's broken. It works that way on the Mac in OS 9 and it works that way in Windows. Linux has broken printing and it lies to me. I don't like functions in computers that are broken (like the early Windows 1.0 that shipped word processors but had no printer drivers -- remember that winner?) and I especially don't like a computer to lie to me. I won't even go into the issue of how on linux everything emulates postscript, including a dot matrix printer driver. That's so crazy it sounds like something from the chill-out tent at Burning Man. I won't even discuss that, it's too ludicrous.

[2] Installing new software. I began to see a common pattern in all linux operations when I tried installing new software. Linux lied to me once again. To install software on every other computer I ever used for the past 25 years, I copy the software onto the system disk and then use the software. On every other computer, that works. But not on linux. In linux, if you copy software onto your linux drive and double click on it you get nothing. Drop to the command line and tell the software to run. Nothing. Instead, you have to do crazy pointless things like download libs. Why? What was the developer doing instead of putting together a program that worked...smoking dope? On every other computer, the developers include everything a program needs to run -- not on linux. On linux you download the program, then you get dependency hell. This is a euphemism. "Dependency hell" is a fancy way of saying "The linux programmer was too stupid or too careless or too incompetent to actually include all the stuff the program needs to run. So you have to clean up the stupid ignorant incompetent linux programmer's mess." I don't like cleaning up a programmer's messes. When I did that I was called a supervisor and I got paid for it. I'm not being paid to run linux as an end user. So I'm not interesting in cleaning up programmer's messes. I also don't like being lied to. Even when I was getting paid to clean up programmer's messes, I wouldn't stand for some programmer lying to me. When a program gets distributed the obvious and sensible conclusion is that it's ready to run. You download it, you figure it will run. Guess what? In linux, it usually doesn't run. And so, when you find out the program doesn't run because it's missing libgetc and blah blah blah, you realize...hey. Looka this! You've been lied to. Yes, this program is ready. No, it isn't, hahahaha, we lied. Look at the silly expression on your face, you luser. Oh? Look at this. It's my ass leaving linux behind. Now who's the luser?

[3] Linux seems built on a simple philosophy -- find out what the user needs to do and prevent it. Case in point: I downloaded a big application package, Planet CCRMA, and followed the directions for installing it. Didn't work. The instructions included a lot of arcane shell commands to install the software. After I ran the shell commands, nothing was installed. Nobody could explain this. You go online and tell people, "Those commands don't work," and you know what you get? Laughed at. "Ask for a refund," they giggle. Funny. Meanwhile, nothing works, and none of the so-called linux "gurus" can explain why. So I tried a bunch of stuff. I tried using a linux text editor to edit the config files. Whoops! YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ACCESS THIS FILE. What the hell is that? Let's think about this. You have a config file and you have a text editor, and you cannot use the text editor to edit the config file. That's insane. That's not just hard to use, that's actively _user-hostile_. That's finding out what the user needs to do and actively *preventing* it. Around this time I started to get a grasp on the linux way of doing things. First, lie to the user. Second, tell the user "in order to do X, you must first do Y" -- then prevent the user from doing Y. Third, make fun of the user when s/he points this out. There's a word for that: evil. Linux is evil. And the linux user community seems to have come straight out of the movie THE EXORCIST. The only thing that surprises me about the linux online community is that when a n00b asks for help, their heads to don't rotate 360 degrees while spitting up pea soup. Linux seems *designed* to frustrate you. And you have to admire the ingenuity with which linux is designed to frustrate you. I'm not a complete novice. You'd think I'd be able to figure out how to get linux to do *something.* But I never could. The people who designed linux must have spend millions of man-hours figuring out all the possible ways of getting something done in linux, and then carefully deducing out with diabolical ingenuity how to block the user and stymie the user and smack the user down hard when the user tries every one of those myriad ways of getting something done. That's pretty impressive, when you think about it. Just imagine all those combinatorial ways of combining commands, and yet linux manages to make sure they all give an error message. Every since combination. Every single option. All designed to block the end user. That's an amazing achievement, in a perverse sort of way. Admirable -- but sick. And crazy.

[4] Command line. Look, I started with a command line. It was okay. In 1979. We didn't have anything better. The command line is still the best way to do some types of tasks. Batch jobs, for instance. If I want to rename or delete or copy every file with the extension *.mp3 on my drive, you can bet I don't want to clik on all 57,291 of those icons. But we are not living in 1979 anymore. The idea that you have to drop to the command line to do anything significant, like install software, is insane. That's 25 years out of date. Every time I use linux I feel like I'm back in the physics lab with a monochrome screen and an all-uppercase terminal. Linux should come with 8 inch floppy drives and a paper tape reader to boot the 8" drives. This idea of typing in arcane commands to do everything is nuts. Whoever dreamed that up was drunk or stupid. That may have been fine for 1970, or even 1979, but it's the 21st century, and let me tell you, I've gotten use to installing software by double-clicking it, or installing printers by scrolling down a list and choosing one, or setting up a sound driver by popping in a CD and letting it autoplay and autoinstall. If linux can't do that, what the hell is it good for? I'm not interested in living in 1979. Been there. Done that. I was using computers then. I don't want to go back to 1979 and I don't think any other users do either, except for some linux geeks who seem to love memorizing and typing 59-char-long strings of gobbledygook.

[5] Mount and umount. What is this? Look, if there's one thing I hate, it's being lied to. When a machine tells me DO X AND Y WILL HAPPEN, and I do X and Y doesn't happen, it's baseball-bat time. I get lied to enough by people. Just turn on the news from Washington. Ever work for a boss? People lie to you all the time, that's bad enough. I don't need to be lied to by my machines. Think about this -- how far would you get if your car had a fuel gauge that read HALF FULL when it was actually EMPTY? Your ass would wind up stranded on the freeway in the middle of nowhere. You'd be walking home. Linux does the same thing. Linux lies to me, and it lies to me *constantly*. Linux presents me with a bunch of nice icons of disk drives. But when I click on one, guess what? It's not mounted! So I can't write to it! I can't read from it! This is insane. I know the reasons for this, I understand that in linux everything is treated like a file -- I just don't care. If a hard drive icon shows up on my desktop I should be able to read from it and write to it. If I can't, don't show it to me. The idea that you have to MOUNT and UMOUNT something like a CD-ROM drive to read from it is beyond crazy. It's socipathic. There's no point to it. If you need to mount and umount in linux, make it transparent to the user. If you can't make it transparent to the user, then you're an incompetent programmer and you need to get a real job fixing parking meters or cleaning toilets.

[6] File permissions. This is intolerable. Look, linux has a long history of running on large computer systems, there are good historical reasons for su and blah blah blah, fine, but there should at least be two basic installs of linux. One in which you don't have to jerk around with file permissions because you're THE ONLY USER and another install in which you have the normal infuriating pointless linux file permissions and user/superuser hierarchy and all that headache. The headache stuff is necessary for a computer used by many people, or for a big network. Here's a news flash: most computers in America are used by one person. Most people with a desktop box in their den do not run a network of 28,000 machines. In fact, I would venture to say that no people with a desktop box in their den _ever_ run a large network. So all this user permission crap is lethal. I got to the point with debian where every time I su'd to do anything I was getting asked my password. I would have to type in my passwrod 50, 70, 80 times a day. Enough. I don't need that garbage. It's like going into the kitchen with your wife and having her shout "Who are you? How did you get here?" That's not an operating system, it's Alzheimer's. Within 3 days I got so sick of it I never wanted to see Debian again. Ever. Red Hat wasn't any better. More su, more demands for my password. Then a couple of weeks went by and the ulimate betrayal, the ultimate slap in the face -- I tried to log on and couldn't remember my password. Here was MY computer in MY house refusing to let ME, the owner, log on. I wiped that linux distro. One thing I won't tolerate is a machine that refuses to let me use it. Lawn mower doesn't want to start? Throw it out. Get another one. Computer won't let me log on? Wipe the hard disk, get another operating system.

The pimple-faced 14-year-olds will be out in force giggling over what a moron I am and how clueleess I am and how I'm not a 1337 haxx0r and a hopeless n00b and [fill in the infantile insult]. I don't care. I know computers inside and out, I've been using 'em since long before there was a Windows or there was a Mac OS, let alone a Mac OS X, and if I can't get anywhere with linux, no one can. The linux people need to shape up and get some basic stuff done.

First, stop lying to the user. If a drive icon shows up, let 'em read from the drive. That's basic. if you click print, the goddamn document should print. Don't lie to the user and tell the user you're PRINTING and then not print. Second, the linux people have GOT to get a one-click application install working. That's basic. You've already done that with linux installs. (I'm not talking about Gentoo here, Gentoo is an exception.) Red Hat has essentially a once click install. Debian is essentially a one-click install. Ubuntu is a one-click install. Puppy Linux is a zero-click install -- Puppy Linux just works with nothing to configure! So if the linux people can do all that with something as complex as an OS install, they've G*O*T to be able to get a one-click application install going. It can't be impossible. Windows does it, the Mac does it, for god's sake even CP/M did it under GEM back in the day. You want to explain to me why linux is lagging behind CP/M? Third, stop frustrating and blocking the user. If a user needs to do something, don't EVER give a message like YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ACCESS THIS FILE. Goddammit, it's my computer and I'm just trying to use it, what the hell's your problem, linux? Fourth, ditch the command line except for exotic special circumstances. I really have to harp on this one. This bugs me. We got away from DOS allegedly because it was hard to use. I never found it that hard to use, but, the command line did have some big limitations. When it came to graphics programs or music programs or certain types of word processing functions like italicizing a big block of text, I learned to love a GUI in a hurry. Asking a user to go back to the year 1970 in order to use linux is unacceptable. We're beyond that. Get rid of the command line, it's over, done, stick a fork in it, the command line is toast. Fifth,
hide the mount and umount crap. I don't want to deal with mounting anything, not even a horse. I don't need it, and the OS should be smart enough to realize that if I click on a drive icon, I want to read it or write to it and the computer should do mount it or umount it automatically and transparently. Don't give me a set of complicated and long-winded and incoherent reasons why you can't do that. Other computers manage it. When I click on the D: hard drive in Windows, I can move files and read from 'em, when I click on the MY HARD DRIVE icon in Mac OS, ditto. Why can't linux do that? mount and umount is stupid, it's pointless, get rid of this mount and umount garbage. And the last is the worst. For single-user dekstop computers there is NO REASON FOR FILE PERMISSIONS. At all. Period. Windows and Mac users and even old CP/M users back in the 1970s didn't have to jack around with file permission crap. There should be an install on linux that gets rid of this time-wasting frustrating file permission insanity. When it's a one-user computer on one desktop that's not part of a big network, file permissions are demented and counterproductive. As a computer user in my own home, I never ever ever want to be told YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO [do X]. When I get told that, I shut the computer down and wipe the hard drive and replace the OS with another operating system that doesn't jerk me around and tell me I can't do the things I need to do.

Linux has a lot of great features. But the 6 problems above made it unusable for me. Until linux fixes these basic problems, I'm never to go beyond Puppy Linux running from a CD or Knoppix booting off a CD, and those are toy hobby distros. They're okay for surfing the net, but because you don't have a big writeable disk with an active filesystem, you can't do much.

It needs a real Office suite.

The biggest problem to me is simply that some things are fundamentally unusable. In particular, I'm looking at you, OpenOffice 1.x. I've tried to like it, but it's so bad for what I do (both word processing and spreadsheets) that I'm forced to maintain a Windows box as well. I do my science on two wonderful, stable, lovable linux boxes that have been running for almost a year without reboot, and I write my articles on Windows while leaking memory like a sieve. It's pathetic. I'm willing to search for preferences if I have to, but if I can't embed a graphic in a document and have it stay where I put it when I save the document*, I just can't use linux. End of story. And Office-type suites are the backbone of corporate use.

I cannot stand Windows much longer. The sad thing is, linux just doesn't meet all of my needs. It's so bad that I'm seriously considering OSX, which I don't like for its own reasons.

But, a nicely written article. Asa, of your four points, I have to say migration seems like a less-than-horrible problem and stability is pretty good with Ubuntu, my current distro of choice (and the 11th I've used). Lack of simplicity in preferences is still a bear, and this contributes to comfort problems as well.

* Yes, I know this only happens when saving as a .doc, and yes, I know this isn't fair. Tough. No one in the real world takes .sxw's. If I were religious, I would pray that OpenOffice 2.1 works absolutely flawlessly on the soon-to-be open-source MS document format.

GAV - if you do not want to care about share libraries, then next time a vulnerability is found in one of the critical components, you will have to go and DONWLOAD A NEW VERSION OF EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF SOFTWARE that uses that component.
If you don't do that, you will be open to attacks. Your computer may be overrun and used to send spam or harvest mails or compute ballistic trajectories for WWIII.

So you being a responsible user, will try to do your best to get new versions of all the software that was affected. Now, some of those software you have to update will NOT HAVE a newer version YET because its developer is lazy. Or drunk. Or dead. Or something. Others will be commercial and do not give a damn for you, just their profits. What will you do?

Do you really want everything to be statically built now?

Thanks for this review, Asa. I have tried to find good pro and con Linux articles, but they have always been technical jargon to me. Your article is exactly what I needed. I am a pretty sophisticated computer applications user, but not technical enough to figure out new OS's reading technical documents on my own. I don't know what "mounting a drive" is, and don't want to know. I have no idea what library files are for Linux that you apparently need to install application; I want my software downloads to just download, install and work, so I can mess with the software application instead of the OS.

I fully agree with ASA but there is, I believe also another reason. Behind an OS there are applications. I am an application developper. I use Linux 24/7 but I also run vMware and W2K in it. I know that what I develop on W2K will run for my clients from W98 to W2003.

Apple did several fantastic machines but failed to deliver simple to use development environment so typical Mac users are Graphics designors in the main. Not really mainstream.

Developping on Linux is not that hard, except that you have to spend a hell of a lot of time to make your own environment. To me, small software house, time is money I do not have a massive R&D budget. And then I'll have to worry about setting up my client's Linux desktop with all the right librairies, making sure I do not destabilise what they've got.

On Linux I cannot fireup my favorite Delphi (I am yet to find a development environement as afficient as Delphi or even (arrrgh) VB) , spend a few hours or days to put together that much needed application my customer wants, and email an EXE at the end of it. (probably with some SQL script provided he's got the database already installed). I cannot, or at least I have not found how.

If we want the Linux on the desktop to take off, we need to have tools for the millions of developpers out there, even if they have to pay for a product, or for the support and training of it or ... whatever the licencing will be available.

mclaren is one of the best trolls i've ever seen. or one of the best morons.

asa: you can't start from a clone of UNIX and suddenly want to conquer all desktops. we must do it by enlarging our geek niche to our next fellows. we must do it slowly and seamlessly NOW, not waiting to have "linuxOSX", because by that time we will be dead.

all your "we need a breakthough now" stuff is just science fiction. we must use a rational approach. I estimate we have 10% of users ready. now. let's conquer them NOW,because WE CAN DO IT NOW. they will help pave the way to the other. it would lead wide commercial application support, for example. a 10% of desktops would immediately convince Adobe to port its things on Linux, I think. and hardware producers would take it much more seriously.

Excellent, every time I have mentioned these issues it was considered a declaration of war. The bottom line here is that computers are/were meant to make life easier, your not supposed to have a degree in computer science in order to be able to use it. One of the things I also find annoying is that, under Windows, I run setup.exe and it installs the software I want with minimum hassle. I cant do the same under Linux, I generally have to hunt around and get the correct versions of libraries - I have 25 years in the computer industry, my granny (which should always be considerd as the Regular User) doesnt.

Well your point are valid, but there is one thing to consider, Firefox, Thunderbird, and mozilla on the linux platform suffer most of the problem you noted.
They are a world apart from the main DEs (kde and even gnome) they aren't able to communicate even between themselves, so maybe you too should do a step forward and start to support the increasing number of tecnologies avaiable for the linux desktop (most of them proposed by freedesktop.org) like dbus for example, don't talk, you raised a well known problem, please act, mozilla software is a good part of most modern linux desktops, please help this desktop to improve too.

Open source software on Windows is probably the way to go now, for a lot of non-geek people. It provides a transitional path to a complete free system: it will reduce the educational and migration costs. We have to fullfil a parallel effort: open source software on Windows (to pave the way) and Linux polishing (to have the great target).

Linux Market Share Debate — Why it’s Irrelevent

I have read numerous articles spanning many sites, blogs, eZines, etc., all telling the Linux developer community what to do to get more people to use Linux. What to do to “grab the desktop market”, what to do to get “Regular Users” to make the switch. And I’ve noticed several opposing schools of thought.

1. Make Linux function like windows so more windows users will make the switch.
2. Make a few improvements to some core ideals, but not necessarily make them windowsy.
3. Make the entire universe learn the ways of Linux.
4. Keep “Regular Users” as far away from Linux as possible.

Sadly there is quite a bit of flaming on the forums and blogs that choose to talk about this topic, and I think this is due to people not understanding under what school of thought a given post was made, or from posting without understanding what your school of thought poses for the Linux community in general.

I consider myself outside this debate, as I don’t really care if Linux is used by billions or by hundreds, but I would like to comment on a few things.

I don’t believe that the Linux Operating System will ever be on the majority of desk tops. There is a certain psychology to the Linux user that most people do not posess. And trying to modify Linux to fit another is well within the realm of a distribution, but not the Linux community in general. That having been said, here are some ideas on each school of thought as it applies to gaining market share.

The first school of thought, make it like windows, is flawed from the perspective of Hardcore Linux users that like their abstracted and elegant file systems, that like writing their own scripts to automount drives, that enjoy making complicated partitioning schemes, that are in general, Geeks. These guys and gals don’t want anything to function like windows. This is why they chose Linux as an operating system in the first place, and they have a point.

These sublime geeks also make a valid point when they say, “If you like windows, why would you switch from windows to something that acts like windows, but is not windows?” Sure some would, but many wouldn’t, so why bother making Linux more “Windows friendly.”

If you are trying to gain desk top market share, there might be a point to it. It would be a free atlternative to windows, that might be more stable. That in and of itself would be worth it. What a lot of the forum flamers don’t seem to realize is that Linux in general is not hurt by having distributions out there that try to emulate the windows experience.

Far from it, the users that do migrate to these systems usually do one of three things, none of which hurt the hardcore Linux-Geek. They see that Linux holds some great possibilities and they migrate to some of the more Unix-y distros where they either wash out after a few weeks or days or stick around and learn something. Or they like the Windowsy distro, say Lindows, and they stick with it, in which case they probably won’t be in any arena to piss off the hardcore Linux-Geek. Or they go back to windows. No lasting harm done at all.

The second school of thought, involving making improvements to some parts of the Linux experience in order to seduce potential Linux users to make the switch, has several points, but Package Management seems to be their central theme. And it’s a damn good one. But…

What this school of thought doesn’t seem to understand is that true, universal package management, across all distros, would require several key shifts in the way that Linux software is developed.

Code re-use is a prime consideration when developing linux software. When you install Linux, you get all these libraries sitting around that your applications make use of. Considerate developers re-use code from libraries that are stable and likely to already reside on a given user’s system. It seems like quite a few developers would rather link to the latest nightly of the newest version of the badassest library available.

Both approaches have their merits. The considerate approach will probably produce very stable software that almost any distribution can install and run. The other approach produces software that is bleeding edge, introduces new features, and takes advantage of advanced functions. The considerate approach sacrifices speed, new features etc, for wide availability, while the second approach sacrifices wide availability for new features, speed, and very probably more bugs.

All of this is ok if you stick with one or the other. Use the unstable branch or the stable branch of a distribution and don’t install software that conflicts with these libraries, and you’re set. However, if your trying to get windows users to migrate, this is in total conflict with how they are expecting to be able to install software. And it is not likely to change

To change this, Linux developers would have to rethink the current model of code re-sue and include all sorts of libraries with the packages they put together, which sounds alright at the outset, but the consequences of such behavior negate the good things about the code re-use philosophy. Namely we’d have bloated code, and more disk space being taken up by the same libraries, or different versions of the same library, being installed over and over again every time you installed an application.

And in fact this is exactly what does happen when you install a new package that requires a different version of the same library that already exists on your system. Which is why it’s best to choose a stable distro or an unstable distro and stick with it. Or, best case scenario, choose a distro that allows you to seperate stable from unstable packages in the package manager and you may use them both. Of course you’ll have two or more versions of all the libraries on your system, but at least they will be organized.

The point made by the people looking to increase the Linux user base is that no one should have to think about any of that crap I just said. As a long time Linux user, I’m used to it…But, there are days when I don’t want to fuck with it either; I just want to install some damn software and not think about it. I realize however, that this is not something that is likely to change in the near future, or any future. And in terms of getting as many new Linux users as possible migrating from their old operating systems, this is all bad. But like it or not, it’s the way Linux is built. A migrating user that loves the benifits that running Linux has, will eventually learn to conquer these things, and for people who don’t want to think about it — there is windows. Linux is supposed to be about choice. Windows is a choice.

There are third party (partial)solutions to the package management problem, like Autopackage and Klik, and the concepts are wonderful. The caveat is… in order to achieve the sort of interoperability between new and old that Regular User is looking for, everyone developing Linux software would have to make use of these technologies. And therein lies another problem technologies, plural…no one, single system of package management that all developers and distros adhere to.

The net result of all of this is the occasional screwed dependancy problem for a veteran Linux user and total chaos with a new user who is likely to try to install any package they want without knowing the possible pitfalls.

The third school of thought, that all users in the universe should Learn, Live and Love Linux hardly merits comment, except to say that it won’t happen; Regular Users do not want to think about certain things. Whether that be to their overall detriment or not, doesn’t matter. Some people just want to go to a restaraunt and order a burger, they don’t want to butcher the cow and grind the meat, or have to think about it.

The fourth school of thought, that Regular Users should stay far, far away from Linux, tends to produce the most flame on the boards. And this irritates me to no end. For this school of thought, arguing about how to get more users over to Linux is a moot point, they don’t want Regular Users, they want Savvy Users. And I have no problem with that. I think the same way myself. I don’t mind newbies. I was a newbie once. I like to help anyone that wants it. But it chaps my ass when people from this school of thought flame the boards. They act as if having Regular Joe User is going to corrupt the whole Linux experience. They shouldn’t even be participating in the debate. They have nothing pertinent to add to a debate about what Linux needs to do to get Joe Sixpack to make the switch.

And it doesn’t matter if Joe Sixpack does make the switch. He will either stay and learn, or leave, no harm done.

Personally, I think Linux as a whole is not meant for the Regular User. It was not meant to gain “Desk Top Market Share”, but I have no problem with distributions that try to achieve just that. They are distributions. They aren’t the whole of Linux. As long as there is a Linux kernel available for download, it doesn’t matter that Xandros or Lindows or whoever is trying to attract less savvy users to the Linux market. As long as there is downloadable source — The Geek Shall Thrive.

Ubuntu is definately the contender here. The current stable Hoary Hedgehog release is perhaps something equivalent to Firefox (or Firebird as it was) back at v0.6. Mark Shuttleworth seems to have put together a team which has the magic mix required to bring Ubuntu to normal humans.

The migration comment sparked an idea.

How about an engine that can mount any available Windows partitions and scan registries and config files and import them?

For example, install Linux dual-boot with Windows. Boot up Linux, run the engine to import IE's favorite places (or have it autorun).

Perhaps the engine could even keep preferences in sync. First thing's first though: it should just work.

The engine should be distro- and and application- agnostic. In other words I should be able to just write an .xml file or a script for application A on distro B. I should be able to import AIM settings into GAIM with the installation of an import rules package for Ubuntu. I should be able to import applicable Microsoft Office settings into Open Office with the installation of an import rules package for RedHat.

Ideally Ubuntu or RedHat or whatever distro would come with rules packages for all of their apps.

It wouldn't have to mount Windows partitions, it could also mount network drives (SMB) or whatever.

The goal is to install any flavor of Linux, boot up, and have your wallpaper, favorite places, office settings, old mail, event sounds, instant messenger icons, music player skins, and any other preferences copied and ready to go.

CD

Ever lied? You're a liar. Ever stolen? You're a thief. Ever hated? The bible equates hate with murder. Ever lusted? Jesus equated lust with
adultery. You've broken God's law.

He'll judge all evil and you're without hope -- unless you have a savior. Repent and believe.

here. here.

i would say installing stuff in linux is a big obstacle. certainly puts me off developing apps for linux

You make some valid points. I am essentially "Regular People", although most of my friends are major geeks. As a consequence, I have plenty of good Windows advice at my fingertips. Most of them don't use Linux, however, so it has been a bit of a challenge for me. But the wealth of information on the 'net, along with a couple of beginner's books, has allowed me to start the migration. I currently have one Windows box (my wife's), one Linux box, and a laptop that I will be converting to Linux soon. I am running Fedora Core 3 with Gnome on my Linux box, and I've gotten it set up pretty well at this point. One of the things that attracted me to Linux was the ability to customize the build for optimal performance and personal preference. This requires that I learn, and I'm trying to. I think it would benefit us "Regular People" to do that, so as to be able to take advantage of what Linux has to offer. Better entry-level texts on the subject, ones that assume essentially no useful knowledge on the part of the reader, would help. But the community needs to embrace the philosphy of "one destination, many paths". There needs to be Windows-like Linux distros to give "Regular People" a chance to experience Linux, so that they might eventually become "Novices", there needs to be "Novice" distros to help those users become "Geeks", and there needs to be "Geek" distros for the hardcore. Why? Because Linux has the potential to be a more cost-effective, more secure, more powerful and more free (as in speech) OS than Windows, something that would benefit just about everyone. And isn't that why it was created in the first place?

It must be understood, that discussion about directions Linux development could take is only to its benefit. There is no point to see such text as destructive for Linux. Analogy with Firefox is very interesting one, showing that there is will, potential and readiness to switch from Microsoft solutions. As is question why Linux didn't make it yet, being active player for quite long now. Of course, Microsoft has its way of behaving with target market, which was often disgusting to the benefit of alternatives left.

Still Microsoft has not gained spread for its products without good there is in them, therefore learning there does make sense, even if primitive copying would not. Just a week ago I spent time rethinking those critical OS/2 Warp and W95 differences, and with all regard to OS/2 solidness, found MS worth winning that desktop battle. It early shown this productivity of MS style: encapsulate complex things into simple (for profi even sacrificing exposure to details) - think 'add printer', and ensure it more often works, than not. Of course, now they have leveraged manufacturers to be on their side for the obvious reasons - and Open Source community is much weaker here.

Still, progress is happening and checking something like SuSE/Novell distro one could find very commercially prepared bundles that can be just unpacked and deployed. This is what is needed where computers are counted with trailing zeros, and where real savings, real changes could happen (home user often has free Windows, anyway). Yep, having road from Windows world paved could help, too. Compatibility with users over there (like for the sake of received .DOC, .XLS, .PPT, etc) is also critical. With all the best wishes there are for Open Source, even educated, but not isolated, folks still are dual booting. Welcome criticism, and make more changes happen.

Sadly you shose Fedora, an extremely experimental distribution of Linux. It was a little odd of you to choose this distribution, as opposed to a desktop focussed distribution like Ubuntu or Mepis. The Fedora home page explains this quite well:

"The Fedora Project is a Red Hat sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc. The goal? Work with the Linux community to build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from free software. Public forum. Open processes. A proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products."

(from http://www.redhat.com/fedora/)

Note "General Purpose" operating system and "Proving ground". You have just entered the 'proving ground' that no new user should have to go enter.

I know many folk that wouldn't know what a tarball is yet have been using Linux happily in their offices or homes for a few years - these are point-and-click OS's, Mepis especially.

When I talk about ease, I talk about features like this:

http://klik.atekon.de/

I used Linux for 5 years and now I am back on Windows. It is amazing to me how Linux defendants claim/blame the users for not learning how to use Linux. Let's face it. Linux is still a toy. There are only about six USEFUL applications that actually work too. The rest is a bunch of shit. While those USEFUL applications have "moved-on" to Windows platforms, Linux just sits there, criticising users for being "too dumb" to use Linux. Who's the real group of idiots here?

I must say I agree with the author here, at least on a fair number of issues.
But I also think it is more or less impossible for my mom and dad to make a switch to Linux, ever. They have never had anything but Windows, and it works just fine for their surfing and email (Yes, I have installed FireFox and Thunderbird for them). They both use either Lotus Notes or MS Office in their Office, and imho, OpenOffice is not yet a 100% perfect replacement, at least not on a windows platform. (I hear many are happy with this application suite, but I always have different problems with it!)

Their new computers come shipped with Windows, with everything they need on it. No need to choose desktop-software, everything looks the same as in their office, which is the same way things have looked (more or less) for the past years. They were actually quite put off by the "new and improved Windows XP start menu" so I had to switch to the old menu-model for them..Thats how much they are into changes, if you know what I mean...

Mom and dad are simply the wrong generation for Linux in many ways, they learnt using computers because they had to, not because they wanted to or enjoyed it.
They wont as little change as possible, and have absolutely no intrest in learning how to handle or work in any other environment.

My generation (I'm 30 btw) is a lot more open-minded when it comes to something like swapping OS. Lord knows, I have had my attempts at a few Linux desktops over the years, even tried OS2 "some" years back. I use various Linux versions on my servers....but guess what dektop version I am still on...
Windows 2000. Thats right.

I am no stranger to the ports system, or other package-systems, but I do not have the time to switch OS just to "try" a new version of GNOME or whatever. It is way too much hassle. 3 or 4 years down the road, I am guessing I will be on Linux desktop, as I have a firm belief it will improve in the same direction it has been for the past years, and in the direction propsed by the author here. Thinking otherwise is not logical. Yet I strongly suggest my own little something to those who are determined to challenge Microsoft at their home grounds:

Try to speak with 1 voice, fronting 1 clear alternative / replacement.
Right now, its MS WINDOWS vs a number of smaller alternatives with different linux versions, different desktops, different setups and settings and options etc etc. These smaller competitors have much less chance of doing well against MS than if they had ganged up and gone 1 on 1, and let time work in their favour, with several 1-on-1 tests showing WHY people should switch, showing WHY Dell should ship their computers with that OS, and why a free OS may be better than something that costs money.
On a side note, my dad is the kind of person who would say "There is no such thing as a free lunch" and wouldnt trust a "free OS made by hackers" (; over a properly expensive system with a brand he knows....

Stupid article, Asa. In your opinion, "Linux will be ready for the desktop" exactly when it acts, looks and feels completely like Windows. Including "what you see is all you get", no choice for the end user, everything is absolutely easy, catching malware included. Windows by another name. Who needs that?

What are you talking here anyways? Who said Linux developers have to target some "market"? They don't. They don't need to. You don't like Linux the way it develops? Easy, fix it yourself. Oh, too hard for you? Then pay someone to do it for you. Oh, too expensive? Well, tough luck. And in the meantime, while you're doing nothing, just use what works for you (use Windows, nobody cares) and STFU.

First time have I seen such a bold and convincing article against Linux. I have tried many distros including - Fedora Core 3, Mandriva LE 2005 10.2, SuSe 9.2, Knoppix,..

There has been a problem with all of them.
Eg:

Fedora Core 3 just kicks mp3 support off for some copyright bullshit, you cannot mount NTFS partitions without a patch.

Mandriva loves to lose the drivers frequently and the Xorg.conf file just fails anytime it wishes, and Ark does not want to even read RAR files, you've gotta download winRAR command-line version which is just so pathetic.

SUSE has got the most things right although, no denying the fact. But then again I had problems running XviD videos on it. And let me tell you OpenOffice really sucks.. takes a lifetime to load, compared to Koffice or Ms-Office.

I am not complaining about Linux's structure, but these minor glitches need to be sorted out before one can completely migrate to Linux. When you look for an OS, the last thing you want is headaches. My WindowsXP installation has been working effortlessly for 2 years, i have never seen the "Blue Screen Of Death", never had problems I couldn't sort out myself, never had the insecurity that - "oh! will my os start.. oh god please don't give me an error message" thing.. but I still keep giving linux a chance and have not formatted the ext3 partition even today. I have SUSE 9.2 installed, but i would have preffered to have it installed on a Virtual Machine like VMware..

If you can tell me which distro i can use without hassles.. please do email me..

Thanks..

Akhil

The simple truth is that most folks rarely care about much of this stuff. Regular folks want to be able to buy software and not have to worry if it runs on their OS. They want to know that their digital camera will connect with their OS and easily transfer pictures. They want to know that their printer will install easily and work. In short, they want their OS to function properly and easily. Windows is not perfect. But Windows is the best at accomplishing all these feats. Mac is getting better. But Linux is a joke. I use linux at home for a web server. Works great as a web server. As a consumer desktop? Please. That's a pipe dream. Until all these "distros" act in concert and present Linux in one marketing package as a single entity (like Apple did with BSD) then the fact is that the majority of regular folks will continue to never have heard of Linux. And even if Linux could do what Apple has done then they would have to give the average joe a compelling reason for abandoning Windows. Those that hate Microsoft can think of plenty of reasons, but the average joe just don't care about many of them.

Why the hell should I know what "My Computer" is? I wan't to save my documents into my homedir, and not just somewhere onto "My Computer" -- actually I'd expect there to find some things like what kind of CPU I have... And what is that drive "C:" supposed to be? And why can't I mount my CD just somewhere? Why does it appear as some drive D: ??

See, the concepts in windows are just as alien.

I agree Lunchbox, on the UNIX platform, only Big Mac has been able to get things right, because they had the sense to "JOIN FORCES" with BSD, as a result.. Mac is more user-friendly than windows.. and well who knows they might conquer the pc OS market after their x86 release is ready..

I never wanted linux to be like Windows, and I never will, but the fact remains that you can get the job done in windows and sometimes not in linux..

One doesn't wish to install nVidia drivers in command-line mode, I mean come on quit the command-line now at least. Then you have to have the kernel source installed to do the job along with a shitload of libs, it crazy.. for a simple job you gotta dig your brains like hell.

Really all these guys should make one linux and get things right, end the compatibility problems..

as an extremely happy Debian(Kanotix)/KDE user who entirely switched less than a year ago, I really struggle to see what this is about.
Simplicity? Synaptic and its APT backend are even easier than the multi-step Windows installers, and both GNOME and KDE developers are already undergoing massive efforts to improve their GUI to make it "right".
Dual-booting/leaving Win untouched? Suse, Mandriva, Ubuntu, they all have easy installers who take extreme care in configuring a dual-boot system in a simple manner.
Comfort? Can I say bollocks? :) Even windows was hard when it came out...

The only good suggestion, I think, is about migrating settings. Yes, the installers should make sure they can read and export all the Win settings that matter. The task is made extremely difficult by MS reluctance to open NTFS, so that open-source drivers are not 100% safe.

I pity the guy above who can't connect to a digital camera. When my gf came around, we plugged her Canon A80 in my HP laptop USB, fired Digikam, and that was it. Same happened with an external DVD-RW: bought it (without even looking up if it was linux-safe!), plugged in, fired K3B, done. Webcam? plugged in, done. On Windows I had to install the drivers, the programs to use them, etc etc. The only real problem was a winmodem, and it's hardly the developers' fault if the Windows world is full of similar hacks because vendors can't be bothered to produce decent stuff and people can't spot the difference because "windows is unstable anyway". Same with 3D graphic cards, it's the vendors' fault, how do you propose to persuade THEM, not the users?

And anyway:
1) you are comparing apple (a browser who almost never uses the hardware it runs on) to oranges (several desktop environments running on a multitude of different kernels/architectures with gazillions of different hardware devices).
2) your attitude is becoming worse and worse. I'm kind of relieved that FF is becoming "old news" and slowing its growth, otherwise you would feel compelled to lecture us that "our experience with Firefox in fighting IE supporters taught us... hence the CIA to fight terrorists should..." ;)

Please go back to make FF at least bearable. Last time I checked, Opera was kicking your collective arse quite badly for speed and ease of use, and they do email+rss better than anyone else, they even do bittorrent now. And it runs on mobile phones too, while "minimo" is, well, let's not go there. Maybe you should outsource FF development to Norway...

cheers

The second problem that blocks massive Linux Desktop growth is stability. I don't mean the not crashing kind of stability, I'm talking about a stable API that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from download.com. A user should be able to install Fedora Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever.

---
Well... FC4 and this portion of your analysis has 3 issues...
a. it's redhat
b. it's bleeding edge
c. mozilla comes preinstalled with redhat. redhat's latest package covers firefox 1.0.4. It can be had by simply running up2date. No libstdc++ issues whatsoever.

Users often "overthink" things and make life harder for themselves than it really needs to be. Downloading the latest and greatest everything is one example of something a user shouldn't do if they are looking for stability.

If you want stability, I'd try SuSE or Debian. Download anything that didn't come out a week ago. Try FC3, then running up2date. I am sure your experience will be hella smoother. I know because I am writing this from an FC3 workstation using:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050513 Fedora/1.0.4-1.3.1 Firefox/1.0.4

current release of firefox is 1.0.5. I built this machine 2 days ago. Not bad. According to the download directory for Firefox 1.0.5, the date on this file is 2 days ago. You gotta give them credit. They are not far behind.

And I did nothing more than install off of the disks and run up2date. It was extremely simple. No install errors, and at the time I installed fc3, they had the latest firefox. In fact, it was probably the simplest install of any OS I have experienced.

Now, what's easier, this or dealing with a spyware infested windows machine?

Everyone I know that has a home windows machine, has tons of spyware and/or viruses. Their personal information is at risk, and their machines are spamming the internet whenever they turn them on. MS Windows is a nuisance, to it's own users and the internet.

This doesn't make for a stable machine ; )

my 2 cents...

-Neil

Apparently you've never heard of, or tried, Xandros or Linspire. Hard-core Linux users slam these two distros for being "dumbed down" but they are in every way good enough for the average users' desktop. Both feature very slick utilities for downloading and installing software (they are both fancy front ends for apt-get) from a central repository which is searchable by name and category. No dependency issues, no guesswork. Both distros are also strong where the Linux desktop is typically weak, namely multimedia.

That's kinda funny, because I've always felt like Windows wasn't ready for the desktop...

Ever see your mother completely freak out at BSOD and start crying?!? Or one of my customers think everthing concerning her main software app was deleted because someone accidentally deleted the shortcut? Or how about my X's younger brother who install applications directly onto the the desktop??

It comes down to two things really: Education and the willingness to learn. I am sure the first time you sat down in front of Windows you didn't know what you were doing either. Matter of fact, I'll bet you learned Windows because you had it at work, and THEY probably made you site through a basic class to do so.

Ubuntu has been an incredible experience for the people that I've shown it too. I have it running right next to Windows as well and can get at all my M$ data without a problem, (but I rarely need to since I use linux 98% of the time). If I run windows, I can't get at my linux data since its on ReiserFS partitions. I'd probably have to go download some sort of shareware thing to do that.

Anyway, I've rambled long enough about this, and am just beating a dead horse. Some folks just don't have the willingness to learn and no linux movement will *ever* change that...people don't like change. For linux to take off, you need to start 'em early and educate, educate, educate...

Well the only thing I can add is it is time for the hardware vendors to step up. If Linux does not make the Best Buy printer work or the Circuit City scanner then there is no hope. Would you want a OS that can not print your digital pics on your Canon printer?

Until we have drivers we have nothing.............

Don't blam the OS they can not do it all..........

I believe that one should use the best tool for the job. If you are looking for serious enterprise operating systems for hosting or storing data then un*x variants are probably the best solution (and even then one could argue linux vs BSD-family). If you are looking for scientific simulations within a research community then once again linux or BSD-family OS's are the best choice. However if one is looking to please the "common" audience - which by the way happens to be the vast majority of computer users - then one should pick Microsoft Windows. It comes with everything the average John/Jane Doe needs. Nothing more nothing less.

I say OS companies should truly admit to themselves first and foremost who their niche audience is and optimize their systems accordingly instead of spending millions and millions on R&D to make a weather-simulation OS into a desktop app only for Granny to search for recipes online or place a decent average user OS into a weather-simulation situation just to be recognized as the ultimate all-in-one solution. Stick to what you're good at.

Michael.

ps. I have omitted commenting on the Mac - I have only been using un*x variants and Microsoft Windows - hence cannot give a personal opinion about Macs.

Some people want to think and configure, others want the OS to take care of everything for them. I like having the ability to customize my OS to just exactly what I want. I realize that this is not for everyone and it is ok with me.

I realize that your points above are probably accurate in what it would take to adopt the average user. However, if Linux made these changes, I would be looking for another OS.

I agree with almost all the points, except for the application install.
For distros that I've used, only the RPM based ones are the ones that have caused me headache (heck they may have given me the gift of migraines). I've used Debian, Gentoo, and even FreeBSD (I know it's not Linux but bear with me). One thing in common between these OSes is that there's no concern for hunting the right library when installing the software. You go apt-get firefox or emerge -a firefox or pkg_add -r firefox, and off it goes and does its work. It only craps up if your internet connection is broken (or you're using an unstable version, but you're just Regular User...)
I can see the problem when some of these Regular Users becomes Linux Users, and then they start to look at choices. If we did implement measures to make the choices for the user, how can we let those who want to choose do so in the very same distro?
If the distro picked Gnome as the desktop environment, how can the Linux User who may want Xfce and the Regular User who don't really care what Gnome is coexists on the same distro?

Asa,

Excellent!!!

Microsoft=Desktop
Linux=Server

Thats the way I do it!

Peace.

Nail, Head, Hammer...Connect!

In replay to pmacfar statement

"In general, I agree with your points. I don't think the migrating is as important, except for easily transferring documents. After all, when you get a new Windows computer, it doesn't automatically transfer settings and preferences for you, either."

I never used it but is this not what the standard XP "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard" is for?

" is it firefox? apt-get mozilla firefox or emerge -av mozilla firefox "

How can people read the F original post and still add comments like this? I think the Linux community is not ready for prime time either...

" Windows is an uncomfortable situation for me. "

Well C++ programmers are very unconfortable in VB and VB programmers just can't get a grasp of C++. Guess how many VB programmers vs. how many C++ programmers are there.

Whatever...
I don't care about making Linux the popular OS to replace M$ or Apple. I KNOW that Linux is ready and does everything that I need it to do.
I'm tired of the useless arguements about what OS is better. The important thing is that we are free to choose. Please don't let the rich commercial software companies lock out GPL or the free software.
I am an MCSE (Microsoft) and also an Apple administrator but for the last five years I only need to use Linux to perform all my duties plus save money. I personally will probably never have to pay for another commercial OS or software package although I donate time or funds to Open Source Projects that I use.

Microstoft users worked hard to learn how to use Windows. Sometimes we forget that there was a learning curve with the OS we are now most comfortable. Now Linux should be Windows compatible to make your life easier? Like "I know how to ride a bike, why can't they make a car work like a bicycle? Wah!"

Life is usually not fair, get over it.
I got mine (Linux)...you get yours (Windows compatible), but leave mine alone.

I almost hate to say it, but yes, your absolutely right about Linux. I too have been using Linux lately. Windows for a decade, and OS X for 3 years. And I think that the the bulk of Windows users won't switch, because for all the reasons you list, but also because most folks are too lazy to bother with it.And personally I'm glad. As an IT industry worker I've become comfortable with that fact. Not only for my bread and butter, but also because Linux really isn't for the masses. No way. Remember Linux grow out of one persons desire to design a newer Unix version, ala Minix, for singular reasons. And I grow weary of people trying to place Linux somewhere were it doesn't belong!The heck with the 'masses'. The old adage still applies here, Linux was made by geeks, for geeks.And as good as it has become,this still applies.
That said, I'm torn when I see nice serious people like you tackling a topic like this, my hats off to you for trying, but you really should remember something, we all don't drive the same car,watch the same TV shows, eat the foods etc:
And yes, I might sound arrogant...

Stephen

I response to Anders and those who think as he does. Seriously, let me introduce myself briefly.

me:
currently: System admin for an Elementary school in a school district in Florida for 2 years.

Previously:
System admin for a highschool in another school district in Florida for 5 years

Independant network security and systems consultant in Miami for 8 years

MCSE
CCNS
MCSD
A+
MCSA

All this means, is that I am extremely comfy with Win. Now onto my point:

At home I use a SuSe box as my email/file server. I love it to pieces, i really do. It took me all of 4 years to really feel comfortable with linux, but alot of that had to do with my ability as a techie type person to know where to go to find the information I needed to become familiar with Linux. In my most humble of opinions, Asa is right on the money with his blog. Even in a windows environment a normal user cannot perform simple maintenance and/or security tasks. This isn't because they are stupid. Saying it is because they are dumb users is disrespecting them and revealing just how low of an IQ you must possess. How many of you know how to do body work on a car? Or maybe drop a transmission and change out a clutch?

Let me go another route. How many of you know how to reconcile a corporate account and depreciate the value of all the company's assets over a space of 30 years? Maybe just do book keeping and keep up to date with accounting laws and tax laws? How many of you know how to put together a legal brief for a case in court? The users who use Windows do these other things. To them, learning a new operating system and being bogged down with a command line instead of point and clicking is just a waste of time. They do not want to learn a new OS, they do not want to retrain that muscel memory. They want to get on the machine and create a word document and send it using email. They know where everything is on a windows machine and like that.

Windows is not hard to learn to use, to administer and maintain is another story but to use a monkey with one arm can learn it. I literally sat my mother down in front of her first computer (a dell laptop) and told her three things.

1) read
2) don't delete anything
3) click everything

I set it up for her of course. I configured her broadband connection, her proxy, and her email client. Keep in mind she is a 57 year old Cuban woman who speaks good english but is old school. In the space of 1 month she was able to write word documents, do excel spreadsheets (with the aide of a book i bought her to teach her how to do formulas and linkages in excel) She also was also now very knowledgeable of how to get things done using WinXP Pro. She knew what I meant when I said 'Got to start>control panels and then delete the program from there ma' Now, how comfy would she have been with a linux distro in that same month period? Granted, she wanted to learn to use the computer because she wanted to be able to run her home based business without having to call me every 6 minutes. But your average user of windows knows slightly more than she does after 6 months of useage. Slightly! This is what we should expect of a normal user!

Normal users have things they want to get done on their machines, and none of those things include running anything from a command line. They like the GUI for windows because it is intuitive to a normal user. For pete's sake, the first time you run a windows box it has a 'tour of windows' presentation that gives a good basics breakdown to the average joe. Sure, the more technologically minded user will say 'hmm, what can i really do with this machine?' But Grandma, cousin ricky, my niece jenny could all care less. They just want to get online, listen to their MP3's, do some research for homework, and then go talk on the phone with someone or go see their favorite TV show.

That is why Linux needs to redesign itself a bit. If they want to go mainstream, and not just become the tool for the obscure technophiles of the world, then they need to take more than a few cues from MS. Besides, what would be so bad about having a Windows look alike that actually WAS safe and SECURE to run. Wouldn't that give MS real competition? Wouldn't that do what all the linux geeks of the world want? Topple the evil giant? The simple truth is, so long as you all continue to advocate keeping linux as different as possible from windows, it will never make it into the mainstream.

Like my brother Ben always tells me (he is a professional Auto designer) "People want simple, not complex." So long as something remains complex, only a dedicated few will follow it. The moment that same something takes on the veneer of simplicity. The masses will come.

Been there. Corrected that. Linspire already did it. Desktop may not be ready for the rest of the Linux world, but Linspire IS. Please tell the whole story.

This article strikes me as pretty funny. For one, I dodn't know that the goal of linux was conquering the windows world. For two, why would the linux community and pregrammers want to emulate windows to such an extent that they've become that OS?

Here's a bit of a story: A long time ago..I descided I hated the constant crashing, the never ending product cycle. I wanted away from the restrictions that the windows OS was imposing upon me and descided to give linux a try. Linux was in it's ifancy then, slackware came on 8 floppies. It was tedious, it was a steep learning curve but it was well worth it.

Now I run the latest slackware distribution with many applications that I've used the source. I use fluxbox as my desktop...not kde...not gnome...they are too windowish and heavily bloated for me...why do I need all these bars and dockapps and panel apps running. I run my business with openoffice, I surf, read email, and game with the same software all my friends use. Some use windows, some use linux. My wife does her work in linux on openoffice as well.

When I have to run windows now and thats occasionaly as there's one application I like (gaming related) that hasn't been ported to linux, it feels strange and foriegn. I find myself hunting and pecking, looking for a menu, can't find the clock...digging around through the start menu trying to find where a file was saved (firefox). I feel so much more at home using linux that I can barely stay in windows for more than an hour at a time and this hurts development of my project...

When you say that all of the linux distributions and applications should worry about migration, it appears you think that somehow there's a grand conspiracy of people who want everyone using windows now to convert. I say this couldn't be farther from the truth...while I do expouse the virtues of linux to my friends I don't expect nor am I saddened when they don't make the switch.

Please linux developers, don't go screwing with it just to cater to windows users, it works great like it is. I don't want my ok and cancel buttons reversed to please some windows user. I don't want my freedom to change setting, know the filesystem inside and out to disappear to satisfy some windows users who don't give a hoot about structure. Keep making linux open and flexible, sure if you can grab a setting here and there from a similar windows app, thats already installed, by all means give the user the ability to do so...

One more thing on this matter, firefox used to import your IE bookmarks by default...I used to spend planty of time deleting these, because my bookmarks in linux are NOT the same as my bookmarks for windows, I go to different sites when using each OS...why would I look through freshmeat while in windows? Firefox and mozilla for that matter are great applications, they are popular for a few reasons. They are stable, they block popups (the real reason for firefox success), they have tabbed browsing, they are easy to use and free from most of the exloits of IE and outlook. Importing the IE favorite was just a coincidental feature that happened near the time people became fed up with the constant advertising push we live through daily. Here's another...convenience, I can download firefox and use it rather than downlod 5 other applications to protect my browsing experience, block popups and ads, and pretty much feel safe while using it.

Comparing an entire OS to one application is a bit of a stretch. Expecting all of it to conform to some set rule imposed by microsoft and their applications is defeatist..Linux on the desktop? It is already here on my 5 machines and most of my friends...works great, is simple and configurable and gives me what I really desire...choice.

Ariel

It is disheartening... after reading asa's post I realized that I have to trash my linux desktop (in real-life production since 1999) and go back to the three + one finger routine (three to restart, one while you wait).

And then I should start kicking all these people that, through their hard work, showed how programs should be written and maintained, blocked the illusions-of-grandeur and "we control everything" attitude of certain individuals, ready to send us a tzillion computer ticks back into bigbrotherland.

...really disheartening !

Linux is a Unix-like OS so it must feel comfortable to Unix users. It's simply that the Unix-way of doing work with a computer is a different one than that of Microsoft. So, if you like to work the Microsoft way, go with windows and if you like to work the Unix way, got with Linux/*BSD whatever.

Since i started to use Unix-like OSs, i learned a lot. And this knowledge doesnt get obsolete easily, because the changes in the API of Unix are minor and keep backwards compatibility. I'am not talking about GUIs like KDE and Gnome. I'am talking about the CLI with tools like awk, sed, grep etc. So please don't make Linux a second Windows, because i need this alternative option.

What's ironic is that you Firefox developers are part of the problem. Firefox is bloated, slow, uses its own UI and toolkit, and doesn't follow Linux desktop conventions. It's not so much a cross platform browser, but more a Windows browser that happens to run on Linux on good days, but even then only with reduced functionality. If it weren't for the useful extensions that exist for Firefox, I would have dumped it long ago in favor of Galeon or Konqueror. With people like you producing Linux applications, it's no wonder Linux desktops have problems.

I'm tired of the whining from people like you about what the Linux desktop is or is not. If you dislike it so much, do us all a favor and stop using it and stop developing for it. If you continue developing for it, start taking it seriously and improving it. That means respecting its design instead of trying to turn it into Windows. It means things like making the Firefox graphics code efficient, getting the multi-instance code working correctly, using standard preference files, and tons more.

If you want to migrate from Win to Desktop Linux, my choice is Linspire. (http://linspire.com) In fact I have included Linspire Migration in the business plan of my private company, and I am typing this on Desktop Linspire from the Agronomy lab at the TA&M Agriculture Program in Corpus Christi, Texas.

I work here part-time on a very interesting project that has turned into the most extensive on-line decision support system for cotton farmers in the world. In the course this project I have held several training workshops with the growers, recently I have shown Linspire to a few of the growers. It was a big hit, but I know there will still be migration issues for these farmers, as we are all creatures of habit. In this lab we have 4 Mac, 2 Win98, 1 WinXP and 1 Linspire Linux PCs. I like my Macs but my desktop of choice is the Linspire 5.0 PC I am using right now.

At my home office, I switched to Linspire 4.5 last August and never looked back. I still have WinXP installed on my Toshiba notebook, but rarely boot into it, as I also have Linspire 5.0 installed there. I still have a few programs that require Windows to run. I am considering the option of running Windows as a layer on My Linspire Desktop for those apps. See: http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_details.php?product_id=9291
A version for WinXP will be in the warehouse soon.

To the question asked: Is Desktop Linux ready for prime-time?

It depends on who the end-user will be. Some people will never make the migration and will remain trapped in the MS world (worms, viruses and exploits pending). Migration is the key here as you point out. That opens up the market for companies like mine (Media Basics, Inc. http://mediabasics.com) to offer the much needed value-added service of helping businesses migrate. I am currently working on an open source model that can help enable users to migrate and to help consultants with migrating their business clients. It is going to take a few months to finish the model, but I will link the open source migration kit when finished at: http://mediabasics.com.

One thing is certain, the time has arrived to offer Desktop Linux to the PC user world which seems at least willing to look and listen. Linspire is my choice because of the Windows familiarity in their design and because of the great p2p CNR warehouse that will help the user keep all software updated and working properly. Their support is also a very strong point in the migration process.

I think Desktop Linux is here, and ready for prime time. With the momentum of Linspire other Linux distro teams in full motion, we will see rapid changes and fine tuning of Desktop Linux in a very short time. If you look back a few years and ask the question: Is Desktop Windows ready for prime time? You may be surprised at the similarity of the DOS user base migrating to Windows or migrating from one Win build to the next in the early days of Windows computing.

I venture to think ahead a few years and see Desktop Linux having unparalleled advantages over other Desktop O/S, but I am a bit of an optimist.

Neal

minor typo on the first page:
"The third issue is a lack simplicity. "

There is a missing preposition there, such as 'of'.

Good article.
--
pjp

I decided not to get apoplectic over this. After all, who needs another OS jihad?

That said, I need to register a strong complaint about the reasoning in ASA's comments, not the particulars. It would take too long to go into those, and I doubt anyone wants to read all of them. I find fault in the cater to the lowest denominator approach to development. Yes, you need to be attentive to user needs, but operating systems are tools and we learn to use them to optimum benefit over time, not immeduately. Nobody gets in a backhoe or a construction crane and operates it without a) training; b) reading a manual; and c) observing certain safety guidelines. Making linux more like Windoze or Mac makes me ill because it discourages intellectual curiosity, initative, and endurance.

I've been using Linux pretty steadily for a decade now, and I've been working as an administrator of Unix systems for more than half that. What I find is that users who can't 'get' Linux or any other computer concept (eg, complaining about virus-infection after IT has sent out five messages begging them not to click on attachments from unknown senders) don't put the same effort into their tools that they do into their career paths. yet, who can get a real job these days without knowing how to use tools like computer apps? Even bike couriers (I used to be one of those) have blackberries or Nextel DirectConnect phones, both of which require the user read a manual to employ. In short, you can't demand the OS or the apps do all your thinking for you -- you HAVE to meet it halfway to get any benefit from it. ASA's post utterly ignores this reality.

Ariel has a great post. I'll echo some of the concepts in Ariel's post here: especially "...why would the linux community and pregrammers want to emulate windows to such an extent that they've become that OS?".

If I wanted something to behave exactly like something else, I'd largely be wasting my time trying to make it so when instead I could just the thing providing the behavior I wanted. Making Linux look like, behave like, and run the same applications with only the settings provided in MSWindows makes Linux become that OS. That is, in my opinion, a mistake. If I wanted MSWindows, I'd use that and stop being frustrated that Linux isn't or can't be made exactly like that OS. The same is true for Mac OSX. If the argument is that Linux isn't ready for desktop use because the OK/Cancel buttons are out of order, that Linux won't migrate all the data from a MSWindows system, that some applications in MSWindows won't work in Linux, then the same is true for all the same reasons for Mac OSX. Yet, clearly, Mac OSX is ready for the desktop market. MSWindows, Mac OSX and Linux are three different systems which should stay different. I don't want just one OS, nor do I want just one application or one file format.

My wife, who isn't computer saavy in the least, uses Linux with KDE as the desktop without any problems. So I think the argument that Linux isn't ready for the desktop doesn't hold much water. If you take a person who isn't a 'computer person' and put MSWindows in front of them, you'll still be supporting them (possibly with some periodic training, cleaning up their system from viruses or general cruft, installing software when they can't seem to do it, etc). All that is still true if you put the same person in front of a Linux computer.

For me it's about choice. I want to choose what applications I run and how my desktop looks and how I interact with my desktop. I might like to run Ion for my window manager which doesn't provide overlapping windows and menus or other eye candy. But, one day, I might choose to have my desktop look like a Mac as much as possible so I'll switch to KDE, set it up to behave with the menubar at the top of the screen and install an Aqua theme. No matter what though, it's all up to me: how it looks, how it works, what applications, what file formats, etc.

My personal experience with computers in general dates back about 20 years or so. I've been a user and/or a sysadmin on traditional 'green screen' Unices (PyramidOS, Sun, AIX), IBM MVS, some oddball OS on PDP-11s, and DEC VMS. I've purchased and/or built a Tandy Color Computer, a Tandy 1000, a boatload of MS/DOS, Win3.x, Win9x, and Win2K PCs.

I've sampled MacOS from the very first black and white mini-case with no floppy all the way up to Mac OS X.x. I've also sampled several flavors of Linux over the years, starting with RedHat 5.something, Mandrake 8.x->9.x, Gentoo, Knoppix 3.x, and plain Debian (sarge and sid, mostly).

Currently, I have settled on Gentoo for all of my systems at home. I haven't even booted into Windows to play a game in probably 9 months since I got everything that I wanted running under either straight Wine or Transgaming's Cedega.

My take is that I think Asa is both right and wrong. His biggest mistake is the assumption that Joe Regular User has any interest whatsoever in doing OS installations. JRU changes OSes only when he buys new hardware. Beyond that, I'm going to take his points out of order. More or less in the order that I think he got it most right to most wrong.

Asa's right about stability when he says that software installation could be easier when you step outside your particular distro's repository. Sad, but true. However, things are not quite as bleak as he makes out.

The mistake that he makes there is that he expects Joe Regular User to be doing this frequently, or that JRU will be straying far from the beaten path a lot. It's been my experience that unless you're talking about a gamer, JRU just doesn't do that all that much. He prefers a much higher comfort level that just leaving his PC alone will give him. Instead, JRU will be quite happy with a basic setup like Ubuntu that gets things like email, browsing, basic office stuff, and multimedia things right that is also coupled with a fairly large repository to explore through an interface like Synaptic. He'll feel like he's in hog heaven.

Second, migration of settings is a red herring when changing desktops. You still have to rebuild them all when you change Windows platforms because you are reinstalling or buying a new PC anyway.

Migration of data, OTOH, is sort of spotty. Migrating data is largely a non-issue for basic office stuff. Music and video is more problematic, I'll grant you. Especially if your particular distro doesn't have a good selection of players available.

Third, lack of simplicity? Well, that really depends upon the distro that you choose. I do think that to market Linux successfully to end users, you do have to have a simple configuration. However, that simplicity should NOT eliminate the capability to configure stuff. Just don't make it so obtrusive. Several current distros get that kind of right already. Could things be improved for those distros? Probably. But it really isn't all that bad for them.

Comfort level moving from Windows to Linux? My recent experience tells me that it's just not an issue. My fiance's XP Dell PC died when the power supply gave up the ghost. I lent her one of my Gentoo boxes running KDE 3.3 (since upgraded to 3.4). Before giving it to her, I added accounts for herself and her two daughters. I didn't have time to show her how to do anything, really, except log in. I didn't get any chance to show her two daughters how to do anything at all. The only computer experience any of them had was Windows related. None of them are by any description either power users or geeks. Naturally, I was kind of worried about their ability to find stuff, let alone get anything done.

You know what I found out when I checked back in a couple of days? The teenager found Gaim on her own and configured it to get to her AOL username and to Yahoo! instant messaging. The 11 year old found Frozen Bubble and all three are now obsessed with it. My fiance was able to get her pictures on, and get access to the office related work that she needed. All of them were able to get to their email with no help from me.

So, do I think Linux is ready for Joe User? Absolutely! With that said, I should mention that I'm one of the guys who ends up being the tech support guy for (some of) my family and friends. When they ask me what I think they should buy, I tell them to get a Mac. Why? Because outside of the cheap PCs on Walmart.Com, THERE IS NO EASY PLACE FOR AN END USER TO BUY A LINUX PC! It has NOTHING to do with whether or not Linux is 'ready' for the desktop. It has everything to do with what is offered in the market today.

That won't change very quickly. As someone else observed earlier, we'll see the penetration first on small to medium sized business and corporate desktops. Most of that penetration will also happen outside the US first. Those companies can afford to pay something for the support costs, and any sane, objective view of TCO will show them that paying for Windows licenses and support are much higher than for Linux. This is especially true when you look at 'green field' deployment opportunities like China, India, Brazil, etc.

IMO we are easily 5 to 8 years away from having a decent selection of preconfigured Linux (or BSD based) PCs available in the US. We're probably 3 to 5 years away from that point in Europe. It's already starting in China, India, and Brazil for sure.

I couldn't help but laugh at that huge, misinformed rant somewhere up the page about how one user doesn't get the point of basic security.

Forgot your linux password? Reboot into single user mode or another install and change it.
Forgot your windows password? SOL. Reformat and reinstall. Too bad if you've encrypted important files.

> OK. So what's wrong with Linux that makes it not ready for the desktop. I've
> tried KDE and Gnome desktops but my latest is FC4 so my criticism is focused
> on that (and Gnome) but I think KDE distros suffer just as bad if not worse.
> The issues fall into four basic categories, migration, stability, simplicity,
> and comfort. These issues each cover both technical capability shortcomings as
> well as usability failings.

Well, I'm apologist of KDE and Debian-based distro's, so I'll fight your comments based on that...

> The first issue, migration, is pretty serious. For "Regular People" to adopt
> Linux (which usually means leaving Windows) Linux is going to need a serious
> migration plan. It will need to install on machines next to Window, leaving
> that completely intact and easy to return to, and carry over all or nearly all
> of the user's data and settings. Regular People may be willing to take a look
> at Linux, but as long as all of their data and settings still lives in
> Windows, they're not going to stay very long -- no matter how appealing it
> might be.

It already happens...

> We learned this lesson in the Mozilla world. It wasn't until we
> implemented a very capable migration system in Firefox, which carried over the
> user's IE favorites, cookies, history, passwords, etc. that Regular People
> started moving over in serious numbers -- and staying (and bringing others
> over.) Linux needs to do the same. It's clearly a much bigger task for an
> entire OS and all of its major applications to accomplish, but it simply has
> to be done. When Regular People fire up the Linux desktop for the first time,
> the browser, office suite, email client, IM client, file manager, etc, each
> need to carry over as much as possible of the Windows application settings and
> all or very nearly all of the user data. Without this, the hill is just too
> steep to climb and Regular People will not make the climb.

Mozilla and others can import data from Windows apps either in Windows or Linux. Mozilla, for instance, can import data from IE. What's the diference if the IE settings are at c:\... or at /mnt/windows/... ?

> The second problem that blocks massive Linux Desktop growth is stability. I
> don't mean the not crashing kind of stability, I'm talking about a stable API
> that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a
> new application from download.com. A user should be able to install Fedora
> Core 4 and go grab the latest Firefox release from Download.com and have it
> work without the need for finding and installing compat-libstdc++ or whatever.
> Developers may think it's cool to reuse as much code as possible but the user
> doesn't care whether it was Linux that failed to include the necessary
> compatibility components or Mozilla that failed to make the build work for
> that particular dot release of libstdc++. Regular People expect to be able to
> download software, install it, and have it just work. Asking them to figure
> out complex system library and kernel compatibility issues is a one way ticket
> off of their desktop.

Linux is easier than Windows in instaling software. You can do "apt-get install mozilla-browser" or just open synaptic (for instance - an apt GUI) and search for browsers and see a list of browsers, double-click on Mozilla and it will fetch and install and place icons in KDE and everything... without user's have to worry about "going to a website, downloading the stuff, double-click the instalation program and click next next next, then delete the installer".

> The third issue is a lack simplicity. Just because you can include a feature
> doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can provide a user preference
> doesn't mean you should. I don't want to start a desktop war but I really
> gotta say to the distros, pick a desktop and be happy. Regular People
> shouldn't have to (guess or learn enough to) choose between Gnome and KDE when
> they're installing your product.

Most distro's default to KDE or GNOME in the instalation process, without asking nothing to the user (unless an "advanced install" is chosen).

> Regular People don't need 15-20 mediocre
> games in a highly visible Games menu at the top of the Applications list.

I totally disagree. Most people who use Windows and try Linux like the idea "oh, it comes with all these games, and office and browser and IRC client and everything without having to install it?" I hear this from users... But maybe for _you_ and people who knows what they want (like "I want to install Linux to surf the web, I don't want games") the games instaled are useless and are using some hard disk space. For that, open synaptic and choose the programs to remove, click one button and 'pouf', they're gone.

> And
> what is a Regular Person to think when confronted with a choice between Helix
> Player, CD Player, and Music Player? Does the Music Player not understand CDs?
> What's "Helix" mean?

Choose a good distro. Debian uses the Desktop Manager's defaults. KDE uses Kaffeine to play CD's, nothing more. Of course yoiu can install others...

> Gedit has about 30 user preferences spread across 5 tabs
> in a preferences window -- Notepad has about three. You and I know that the
> difference between Settings and Preferences is that one is system wide and one
> is per-user but Regular People don't know that and shouldn't need to know
> that. If the Regular Person doesn't have access to it because it's a system
> wide setting, then why put that entire menu of options in front of him. If the
> Regular Person has equal access to both, then why are they split? It's just a
> confusing mess.

Agreed. KDE has Kedit: settings only have "Font" (needed), "Color" (usefull), "Spelling" (usefull, notepad lacks it...) and "Misc" with word wrap and backup.
No mess, simple, usefull, more features than notepad and better performance (it opens files of whichever size, and is quicker).

> The final major issue is comfort. Linux must feel comfortable to Windows
> users. Most people using computers today have been at it for a while now and
> they've been at it on Windows. Don't mess with their basic understanding of
> how things work. Regular people do not know what it means to "mount a drive"
> and they shouldn't have to.

Almost every distro comes with automount features by default, transparent to the user. Using a pen disk or a floppy or a cd is (nowadays) as easy as in windows. KDE comes with some app to manage that too (like add new devices to automount and stuff like that) but I don't use it so I won't talker about that.

> Regular People don't want their OK and Cancel
> buttons reversed -- tossing out years of finely tuned muscle memory.

Linux is not about copying Windows. I don't recall how is it in Windows, but in KDE is OK at left and Cancel at right, but it's this way because they think it's better this way, period. It's like saying "browsers shouldn't come with tabs because people aren't used to it." Bullshit, I can't live without tabs anymore! ;-)

> Regular
> People shouldn't have to learn what /home means or how it differs from My
> Documents.

They don't have to if they only use the graphical tools, at least for KDE.

> Regular People don't want two clipboards that seem to constantly
> overwrite each other.

If you only use the CTRL+C and menu's copy and paste, you'll use only one clipboard and never even notice the existence of the other.

> Linux UI fundamentals need a reworking to match the
> habits that Windows users have been building over the last decade. Get the
> users first, then try to teach them a better way (if you've got one.) Putting
> things in the "right" place for Windows users will go a long way. You can
> never do too much to ease the transition.

Linux has a better UI then Windows, but different, yes. If people want to move to better, good. If they want... should we make KDE worse just to get Windows users? No thanks. Linux doesn't intend to "get people from Windows", Linux intends to "get better and better".

I haven't read all of the posts here but there seems to be a theme to the people criticizing the post.

1. When people refer to GNU/Linux and all its available applications, they give it the label 'LINUX'. This is normally quite apparent from the context in which it is used. Stop being so bl00dy pedantic. Yes as a geek I understand what a kernel is, what it does and why it's a good thing, your average user couldn't care less and never will. Get over it!

2. The article is not saying, 'Make Linux = Windows! Note for those still not able to understand references from context, 'Linux' in the previous statement refers to GNU/Linux and all its available applications and not the bl00dy kernel. The article is saying learn some things from both the Windows and Mac OSX world. You DO want more people using Linux (getting the idea with the whole context thing yet?) and you do want them to be users, not geeks or nerds or hobbyists but good wholesome untrained users. All those areas of Linux that require delving into the command line or staring blankly at a convoluted config screen should be made simple. That doesn't mean you should loose the command line option, far from it. JUST MAKE IT BL00DY SIMPLE!!!!!!

3. Installing applications and hardware. See point 2. This really is where Linux falls down. You've got to do something about it. From the distro's I've used and I’ve used a few; Slackware, SCO, RedHat, Fedora and SuSE. The only ones I've liked in this area are Debian & Ubuntu. In fact I'm in the process of moving to Ubuntu now. This has part of the right idea when it comes to the libraries and dependences. What would make it truly great is if you could distribute an executable, something like a setup.exe, and have the package management system handle getting all the libraries. You could even have a dynamic repository listed within the setup file that points back to the author’s website to pick up the correct packages. You could even have two versions of the setup file; one that is for want of a better name the Beta version. This Beta version would use all the bleeding edge libraries. Then you could have the release one which used know stable versions.

4. How many people running Win XP with auto-updates turned on has actually seen a BSOD recently? I run a lot of cr4p on my machine and I've not seen one at all. In fact the last BSOD I saw was due to a hardware failure. All you Linux geeks out there forget about BSOd's, they just aren't an issue any more.

PS. I run a small IT firm supporting dozens of small businesses in and around the London area so I'm do have some idea what I'm talking about.

So how about everyone gives their ego's a rest and looks at these problems from a calm and objective perspective and lets make this the OS of choice for everyone. At least then we could have a rest from all the viruses and trojans and key loggers and ... and .... and ..... and! You get the idea!

I don't think Asa is trying to say to totally replace linux, just to add functionality to it that is transparent and looks like windows. All cosmetic. If this is done then it is a step in the right direction. little details like where the button is placed on a form is a design issue and there is a reason why companies pay people an insane amount of cash to design a freaking gui. Because there is a certain amount of psychology involved. And besides, having a candy coated Windows like shell wrapping the fire breathing linux dragon innards is an awesome idea! Sorry to make it sound so simple, but in my mind, it is. We all know that if we make linux more transparent and windows looking Linux can become the dominant O/S everywhere. not just at home. And why do we want regular users to have linux? How about because if we can reduce the amount of trashy and security deficient machines out in the wild, we could very likely reduce the amount of catastrophic viruses and worms we see on a daily basis.

If we can manage to make a secure, hardened desktop an out of the box experience for everyone then there won't be a need to have sysadmins like me who have to take freaking migraine medicine every damn day because no matter how hard you try a new exploit is found every freaking day that makes your life that much harder. Personally, I wouldnt mind a desktop with an 'Advanced' or 'User' mode that can switch me from being in a simple and dumbed down LOOKING version of Linux to going to my master of all things techno version of Linux.

At the end of the day, what we are really discussing is, can a version of Linux be made that can give the illusion to the normal everyday user of being no different from windows, even though the back end of it is Linux? I think we can most definitely do this. The only thing holding it back, IMO, is fellow computer geeks who have this insane need to keep linux a technophile thing only.

'No this is my toy! you can't have it!' If I were fedora, debian, whomever and I knew there was a way to ring this to the mass market...I would seriously give it thought. Market share expansion equals money folks and the business world runs on it.

Did Microsoft start sponcoring Mozilla or something? Because this is one of the biggest pieces of FUD I have seen in a long time.

I am getting pretty tired of Mozilla guys blogging about topics they are not informed about.

Before we had that other guy talking about KDE and Apple issues, and it was obvious he didn't actually read any of the articles related to the topic; maybe just the RSS summaries or something.

Now this guy thinks he knows something about usability, and why Linux isn't ready for the desktop?? He says he has been using Linux for six years, yet he doesn't seem to know the basics of using Linux.

Are you guys opset about firefox losing to both Konqueror and Safari in terms of quality (both pass the ACID test, while firefox can't), and all the news and hype that's been around the two in recent time; so you have to start spreading FUD.

This was just outright lame. It's really sad that so many people actually admire your guys, and actually listen to what you have to say; instead of trying to get informed on their own.

Latem: very hard not to become mad about your post and the posts of the "STFU"-people (Although they are from 14 year olds that give no arguments, just being 14 year olds). I'm a positive person, so I was glad to see that 85% of the post were from people who did understand what Asa was talking about and agreed or had good arguments why they didn't agree with some points.

Most of the post ARE from Linux users, including me. I use Linux Suse 9.3 on my laptop at work and it was so easy to install, it just plain worked, including my Wireless connection and login on to Windows 2003 server for files, I develop my work at home on SUSE 9.3. I'm in love with Suse 9.3, I find it so much better then Windows XP ...... and I TOTALLY agree with Asa, so for me he IS an informed person and you are not. You don't know what you're talking about when you read a blog where 85% has used or is using Linux and understands what Asa talks about and you say that this piece is FUD ...... o well I AM MAD .... and you are probably older then 14, but that's just in age.

Two other things, I do think it is legitimate to ask yourself why Linux should become a major desktop system. My answer is support and good software. I want Ati to become interrested in writing good drivers for Linux (now they have, and it works great on my laptop, but , this brings me to point 2: installing software is horrible on Linux, (and yes I do know apt-get and Suse has Yast). But the Ati software had to be downloaded from a website, and then hell begins for the normal user, read: they give up. For me it was a lot of searching and then you have it up and running, and then you update your system, and then you're looking at 640x480 screen and then you do it all again, and then it doesn't work and now a still don't have 3D, had it for about 20 minutes on this Laptop and I just can't find the time to go searching again for the answers to all my problems.

So please give me a double click install and no command-line thingy's that I have to learn just to install a driver.

Time...Time.. Its not that windows users or "regular users" are too dumb, or lazy. Many of us don't have to the time to sit down and figure out linux, or how to re-complile for my distro...etc. I have work to do, tasks to accomplish and I'd like to hit the ground (or OS) running. Asa hits it right on the head. Don't make me figure out new terms or mouse clicks or god forbid how to compile source code. Just give me a desktop I can work with, and let me download add-ons that I can just install.

dave

It all sums up into one word -- PRODUCTIVITY. Am I more productive with Linux or am I more productive with Windows? The metrics I use to measure productivity are: 1 click = $1; 1 scroll = $3; 1 instance of adjusting settings = $20 - $200; being lost = $500 and so on. Well, windows is still much cheaper(more productive)to use for almost all of the most common tasks (Think pirated ((free)) Photoshop versus Gimp ((virtually unusable)) for example). However, even the Firefox before 0.8 was a peace of crap (on a very good foundations though). Way to go Linux.

I think that the Linux SO is not for regular people, then Linux not must change his desktop for regular people.

The people that want to know and work in Linux must be ready to face the settings and preferences of the Linux system, Windows does the easy things for the people, Linux does the intelligent things for the people.

Who wants to know, should learn.

Re: "I keep thinking about trying Linux, but...."

Mr. Miagi said it best: "Learn karate yes? OK. Learn karate no? OK. Learn karate... guess so?! -SQUISH!- Just like grape!"

You cannot leap a chasm in two goes.

Take MS Windows your data, burn it to a DVD and WIPE YOUR HARD DRIVE.

Commit. Take a chance. Quit looking back. ... Either move to Linux or stay with MS Windows.

The whole "I wish it did this and I wish it did that" thing is getting very old and tiresome. If you LOVE using MS Windows, use it and get off the joiner kick. If you're indifferent or detest MS Windows, then get up off your keister and put a little effort in. Learn the damned OS. It's not THAT hard.... I mean a college student wrote the kernel. Yeesh! ...granted he's pretty bright, and he got the help of a bunch of other people before long.... but the point is that dumping MS Windows is like quitting smoking. If you want to do it... REALLY WANT TO... you can do it. If you don't want to do it... REALLY... honestly... if you don't feel the need, deep in your gut.... you will fail. It's not the fault of the OS... it's probably not even your fault... your heart just wasn't in it, and now you have emotional justification for continuing to do what you wanted to do all along.

I've been running a Macrobloat-free household for 3 years. I got onboard with Linux back in 1998. It's gotten a lot better since then... it wasn't really shabby in '98, but it's downright slick now.

What users of MS Windows often overlook is that Windows XP is really Windows2000 with a fresh paint job and a couple bugfixes. Windows2000 was little more than Windows NT 4.0 with a fresh paint job and an update the the horribly brain-damaged "domain" networking model. Windows Media Player is really the only thing "of value" added to Windows since Internet Explorer. The value of both these additions is, at best, debatable. Neither of these additions was "innovative". From that standpoint, MS Windows really has nothing to offer that I'm interested in.

I have FedoraCore 1, 2 and 3 on my computers at home and am missing nothing. I hear hardcore Photoshop users complaining about The Gimp. Lest we forget it's FREE?! There are costly commercial offerings in this area too. What FREE graphics package on par with The Gimp is included with MS Windows? What? None?! OpenOffice is junk? Fine. Pay for your office suite. OOo does what I need it to do and it's FREE and INCLUDED. How hard is that?! Firewalls? Got 'em. Anti-Virus? Don't really need it. Secure web browsers and mail clients? Got 'em. Secure networking tools? Got 'em. I dunno... Last time I checked, it would cost me about $4000 at retail prices to get the software to pile onto an MS Windows box and countless hours to install and configure what I can install on bare iron from the 4 CDs of FedoraCore4 in about an hour and a half.

I will grant that, arguably, KDE is not the best face the FOSS community could put forward, and SuSE might leave something to be desired. Every distro has it's plusses and minuses. Over all, I've had the best luck with the RedHat/Fedora distros, and for my main machines at home, that's what I run. I poke around with other distros at home, and we use Gentoo at work... but my personal choice for PC hardware is Fedora.

There are "compelling arguments" on both sides:

With Microsoft, you get the "peace of mind" that an big company can offer you and a huge community of people just like you, with whom you can converse as you are herded through the software aisle at your local "Big-Box" retailer and relieved of your money on the way out.

With Linux, you get the peace of mind of not having a big company breathing down your neck, ready to charge you another $300 when they think it's time for you to have new screensavers, and a sizeable community of people who have a personal stake in the success of their efforts, working to make sure the software you use is good quality software and always improving.

The choice is up to you.

Don't forget to say that linux prefered sentence when a user send them a comment is: Do it Yourselve.

That is maybe why so many user friendly feature are never implemented,
Because it's not user friendly...

Linux is great but they don't whant dumb user (around 80% of computer world).

ncha.

I dont understand why people talk against linux only when they looked Fedora/Redhat or gentoo/slackware. Have they ever used Suse/Mandrake/Linspire. Who say windows work just fine? I still could not install sound card under windows 2000. People should know the same stable API is available for desktop, embedded and server market. And yes linux is for mostly opensource tools and should be used desktop distro for desktop uses. Know your product before you criticise it!

I have been using Linux for 4 years now and quite satified with my experience. There is one major improvement Linux should improve is the IME. I really have a hard time to get the Japanese and Chinese inputs working on my SuSe desktop.
Remember, majority of people in the world do not write/read English freely, thus language support is a very important key to determine how fast Linux can break into desktop market.
User should not need to download, compile and start a xyz server to get the IME working. It is a big relief for user if it comes as a automatic patch, something similar to Windows one.
Make no mistake, Linux has made some impressive progress these years and I firmly believe it will become an important deskop OS soon.

I've used Windows since 1989 and GNU/Linux since 2002. I've helped several people migrate to GNU/Linux (It's easy). I think you largely have it all wrong (see below). The real obstacle to wider GNU/Linux adoption is larger choice of software commonly used like commercial accounting programs, games, etc.

=======
"the browser, office suite, email client, IM client, file manager, etc, each need to carry over as much as possible of the Windows application settings and all or very nearly all of the user data

Come on, most "Regular People" don't even do this on a Windows to Windows migration. They move their data and deal with the rest over time.

=======
"The second problem that blocks massive Linux Desktop growth is stability ... I'm talking about a stable API that doesn't require the user jump through hoops when they want to download a new application from download.com."

How can you even write about this. Synaptic, debs, rpms, etc. This is a GNU/Linux strength.

=======
... Regular People shouldn't have to (guess or learn enough to) choose between Gnome and KDE when they're installing your product. Regular People don't need 15-20 mediocre ...

... Most people using computers today have been at it for a while now and they've been at it on Windows. Don't mess with their basic understanding of how things work ...

KDE and Gnome with a good choice of default settings are both very usable. The goal is not to be identical; it is to offer choice that allows for a better fit to the user. It you want simplicity choose a distro like MEPIS or Ubuntu and stick with the defaults; if you want lots of installed choices choose Debian or SuSE (full install), etc.

=======
Gedit has about 30 user preferences spread across 5 tabs in a preferences window -- Notepad has about three.

Don't make me laugh. NotePad sucks. It doesn't even have a spell checker.

I'm not one for gigantic arguments, but I figured I'd weigh in and say that I agree with you, Asa. The simple fact of the matter is that Linux isn't ready for the mainstream desktop. Sure, it's made TREMENDOUS gains in ease of use in recent years, but that's a relative comparison. Most Linux distributions are still very far indeed from the ease of use that makes Windows and Mac OS, or for a better example, Firefox, so popular. I'm a higher-end user who can fix just about any problem on his Windows machine. Every time I get the urge to try Linux I spend a couple of hours getting it to run, wander around the ill-conceived desktop solutions, and promptly uninstall.

Maybe the Linux operating systems aren't transparent enough yet. To the average user there should be no distinction between "This is my operating system," and, "This is my computer." Firefox does a fantastic job of getting out of the way, changing a potential, "This is Firefox," to, "This is the Internet."

i think the what you wrote is a big part of it but if you read the comments the other thing that comes to mind is software installation. how about one of the linux distros look at what pc-bsd is doing. It makes sense to have the needed packages install with the progam. just my two cents.

I think the author is uninformed. He's ignoring RPM, LSB, and a few other things that make binary compatibility on linux possible. If Binary compatibility was impossible on linux this would not exist.

http://www.realbasic.com/download/linux/

As for his migration argument:

http://www.alacos.com/linux.html

As for his 3rd issue. People who are less technologically enclined should probably not use FC4. I've been using fedora core since version 1, and I still run FC1 on one of my boxes outsourced.

He should probably take a look at SuSE linux 9.3 from Novell as they have taken care of 90% of compatibility issues with hardware, configuration and so forth.

He should also take a look at projects like luminocity, gDesklets, Beagle, xen and other cool stuff that is exclusive to the linux user desktop.

Beer, in case you didn't read the article, I've been using Linux for about six years. I've used pretty much every distribution available (including the easy ones and the hard ones.)

- A

I see that. You're only focusing on what you consider bad points though. Windows has some too. SuSE 9.3 and MDK come with scores of good printed documentation. They also come with Firefox and Thunderbird in the standard packages. They don't have to update from download.com. I have 5 titles on download.com and 0 linux titles, I used to develop on windows. Download refused ALL of my linux software. CNet gets a good amount of ad dollars from microsoft so it's no wonder.

Additionally, is compiling with the current version of the C++ runtime really that hard that you guys couldn't do it?

The advantages outweigh the drawbacks. If people have a new system, it works out of box, if not they just yum, up2date or urpmi.

Maybe you guys should hire me as a dev. You can't blame a bad dev choice on linux distributions for packaging the latest runtime. You can, and you did, but really you can't.

It's up to users to update. Firefox and Thunderbird are open source and in the latest package repo's so it's no problem to use the binary packages with yum, up2date or URPMI, or just update from YaST if that's what you have.

If you want to build binary only linux software to sell, and want a download.com environment, that's the developer's problem. You could do what lokigames did and make your own bin installer, or use something like autopackage, still others like mainconcept and iglooftp use RPM's for commercial software.

They can, because of LSB and some libraries they can count on being there on LSB compatible systems.

I use C++ and GTKmm for my own software, so I won't sit here and tell you, you should have used C and GTK instead only. But I also package my software as RPM, and list the proper dependancies in the spec file.

Linux is not the easiest system to develop software for. Projects like mono and monodevelop are changing that. RPM makes binary software easier.

The weight is on the shoulders of the developer to get it right.
Firefox's bin installer is great, but they have to prepare for missing dependancies in the .bin installer. Use C only and bootstrap, do something else. Be creative.

I'm done, thanks for your virtual real estate, it's like therapy.

I think a lot of you guys aren't realizing that people are getting sick and tired of the constant problems with Windows. I run a PC repair shop so I see a lot of systems. The amount of screwed up computer due to spyware and viruses is *out of control*. And no matter what tools you give these people (i.e. Firefox, deleted I.E. icon, and a good spyware cleaner) it's not 100%. They still trash their systems up. I mean, just imagine a Windows computer that has been run for 2-3 years. The amount of garbage build up is ridiculous. Hell, Windows doesn't even clean up the %temp% folder. It will merrily keep dumping crap there for eternity.

Anyway, my point is that people here is expecting Linux to be similar to Windows to convert people. Truth is, it has to have less problems than Windows to convert people. It already has that bonus, but usability is the main issue I see. I don't really care about ease of installation of the OS itself because quite frankly the average user is still blown away by a XP install, let alone any missing drivers. Hell, people *struggle* with USB devices like printers and cameras.

Even though I enjoy flip flopping between KDE and XFCE4, I think it hurts us that there are so many desktop environments. I would imagine as a developer trying to develope apps for Linux must be a nightmare. I mean, try to imagine making a program that will not only work on a myriad of hardware but across the one billion distros out there. Not fun I'm guessing.

We do need more major manufacturers shipping preintalled Linux boxes since it's unrealistic to expect a novice user to install an OS (XP or otherwise). Also, what we really need are killer office applications. Something that can truly go toe-to-toe with MS Office (we know MS won't port Office to Linux). We need Adobe to actually port Photoshop. All major apps need some *as good* equivalent on Linux. Support from major game companies would also be a huge boost.

To sum up, we just need more support from the big guys. I really wish IBM or some company with a lot of cash really push on the Linux front. Hell, I think an office suite with Lotus 1-2-3, AmiPro, etc. would probably be accepted openly.

Also, out of curiosity, would it be viable for a software company to port apps to Linux for a percetange of the sale of the software? For example, the company approaches Adobe and says "Hey, we'll port Photoshop to Linux. We jsut need access to all the code and we'll take care of the conversion." And perhaps have an agreement where you get 50%-75% of the sales revenue. Plausible? I would think games would be even better since the majority of the work such as art and audio are already complete, just the actual coding would need to be done.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

I don't think you get the point on this article.
noone talk about user being a developer but just being a standard user willing to click and work without wondering what option do what...

Sure today Suse 9.3 comme with firefox and thunderbird.
But what if in 2 year i still have my suse 9.3 never being updated because i'm too lame to do it and whant to install this new fancy browser or whatever.

I'm not sure i'll be able to install it.

Anyway for me linux is: Install it and work with it, that's it!
Not realy evolutive for any basic user who whant to start changing things going in his box and install some nice fancy software.

Biggest problem of GNU/linux is: it had been under developement for years and it's still not finish.

ncha.

Biggest problem of GNU/linux is: it had been under developement for years and it's still not finish.

Neither windows nor Linux will ever be finished, it's called progress.

For those wondering about binary compatibility, I felt I should post this url for people to check out

http://www.linuxbase.org

It's the reason IDE's like Visual Basic for linux can exist
http://www.realbasic.com/download/linux/

There must be certain libraries for your distro to be LSB complaint, RPM's must work as they are the LSB default, and your directory structure must have certain directories, along with basic tools.

All major linux distributions have these, perhaps not gentoo, but
http://funroll-loops.org/

Well.... everything can't be perfect...

Windows wasn't always so nice to use or program for. Windows 3.1 was a horrible pain and less than useless. Linux is very usable and it's only getting better everyday.

IDE's like Anjuta and monodevelop are getting better and better, and soon we'll be able to use mono instead of libc and stdc++ to make managed applications that are far less ugly and unusable than AWT and swing.

Here is a great link for people interested in the future of development on the platform. It's Migeul De Icaza's blog.

http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/all.html

Cheers Everybody!

Hmm, where do I start... most of your points amount to "Linux should be more like windows". I think this perspective is flawed, for several reasons. Linux is a close relative of unix, which has been around for much longer than some greenhorn desktop os that only rose to dominance in the last decade or so. Linux already has a decent market share with an enthuasiastic (some would say zealous) userbase. Why should the linux distributors risk alienating many of its early adopters from the unix side by kowtowing to the whims of some UI design committee in Redmond? I've used linux regularly for five years or so now. Every once in a while I get the idea of trying windows again but each time I find it so unutterably annoying that I switch back before you can say "installation wizard".

Just because microsoft happens to do things a certain way doesn't mean it's necessarily better. I do agree that there are improvements to be made in linux usability, but for those purposes I think windows should essentially be ignored. For a well-written critique of this, see Matthew Thomas' blog at http://mpt.net.nz . I don't agree with everything he says, but he obviously has put some thought into his comments.

To address some of your points in more detail:

Migration: fair enough. I know the Ubuntu people are working on this (as are others, I'm sure).

Stability: users not comfortable with compiling from source should get packages from their distributor or, failing that, third-party packages tailored to their particular distribution and version. Linux is not and should not be the monoculture that is windows.

Simplicity: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not more so." -- Albert Einstein

One of the reasons I don't like windows is that it doesn't by default offer me the tools to accomplish what I want to do. I *want* to be able to customize my bootup scripts, or hit some obscure key combination in emacs that opens a shell and feeds all my open buffers to procmail. I *don't* want a popup with a cute animation asking if I want to replace "hysteresis" by "hysterical" (ok, I made that up but you get my drift).

Comfort: "Regular People shouldn't have to learn what /home means or how it differs from My Documents"

You apply different standards to different people. Why should I have to learn what My Documents is? The implication seems to be that if linux just were more like windows, the world would beat a path to the linux door. I find this idea unsubstantiated at best.

Nothing can be more like windows than windows. I believe linux should aim higher.

IMHO, as of now...windows is for games and linux is for work. I use both for different purpose.

You just listed the main reason why I haven't switched to Linux. I've tried switching over but Linux just wasn't as workable as Windows. Linux's BIGGEST failing is its inability to just download and run a program without the user having to get libraries or compile every program not already installed. The big advantage Windows has is that you can buy any software & harware for it and have it up and running out of the box.

The Linux world needs to provide something similar. They need to come together on one Office program, programs for scanning etc that are easy to install and work across different versions of Linux.

To me Linux isn't one OS it's a multitude. To beat Windows Linux needs to be more unified providing uniform solutions for peoples productivity needs.

I love the idea of Linux but for everyday use I have to turn to Windows because it works (when not crashing).

Jaqian

Using linux since slack 3.2, I often have problem when writing to floppy: it appears broken when transferred to be read. I suspect there is some wise caching turned on, that holds info unflushed. Perhaps it is intended to optimize writing, improve it (I doubt it really does). Same pattern on several deployments of linux OS, maybe some recent distro doesn't do that, but generally it still happens here. I guess I should learn how to disable this, or discipline myself to unmount floppy before removing (and this is hardly possible). It never happened on MS Windows - when floppy light is off, I know it is safe to remove, that's it. Yes, automount is present in later setups, but it did not help yet as much, as one would expect.

Folks, shit like this has to be sorted out. It HAS to. Things have to work, they don't have to appear broken. Love power of linux/gnu innards, feel of software in your hands - it is amazing for professionals. Even GIMP is usable, though could have better interface layout. But there is no reason to be lying how 100% satisfaction is pouring from default linux setups, even if we want and wish it to be so. This is against #1 position in "Advocating linux" section of linux advocacy howto. Let's hope progress does not stop.

As all old people die out, they will gradually be replaced by younger more computer savvy people!
Most older people now, don't have a clue how to even use Windows properly, so they are beyond help, as mentioned above, if a user doesn't know that the house symbol with their "{name} home" is, then they probably have problems even operating their microwaves or putting their socks on in the morning!

As time goes on, people are getting more computer literate, mainly the younger generation anyway, so Linux will get more widespread as this happens.
I don't think Linux needs, or should be trying to emulate Windows too much, because if people haven't learnt how to use Windows in the 15 years or so they've been using it, what difference will it make if Linux looks like Windows? it won't to these people:-)

All I would say that Linux needs, is to carry on improving and simplifying software installation, ideally have all distributions use a common package manager so theres not multiple builds of the same software, thats it!

It's getting better all the time, but maybe something could be changed so that when you download a package from a 3rd party website instead of using a package manager, all it's needed dependancies are included, they don't have to overwrite existing system files, maybe they could reside in the same place as the application so it can reference and use it's own version, thus not affecting the rest of the system even if it breaks or is deleted?
This way applications that rely on different versions of files, can operate independantly of each others system files, making it more stable.

I agree most of the arguments of asa... and of those who don't agree with him.

Asa's issues are right when we consider "windows-pseudo-geeks" : people who
-hardly customise their Windows
-use an IE-based alternative browser
-use Kazaa
-burn CDroms
-reinstall their OS
-share folders over the network
-install new software
-know what is a folder, a hard drive or the RAM
-chat on the IRC and msn and iCQ
-add new skins for their Winamp.
eg : my 17 year old brother.
These users can be unhappy with linux because Yes, it's commonly not so easy to "install software from donwload.com" on linux than on windows, or to find driver (and install!!) drivers for an exotic device. And when there's a problem, the message is a text-mode warning which fear them.

It's different when we consider less "advanced" users like my mom, my girlfriend, or a standard office user who don't, people who :
-don't know what is an OS
-and also don't reinstall it ;)
-just customise the wallpaper and the mouse pointer
-don't install software
-browse the web
-read/write emails
-use a word processor
For these users, the linux-aware IT-tech of the [company|family|friend-ring] installed the OS, chosed software, resolved problems... and that's all, the only have to use it and enjoy.

About the "migration issue"... that's nothing: Standard users panic when they purchase a new computer because "all their work is on the old one". Microsoft did try to write a piece of software to backup all the user's environnement and documents and restore this on a new machine, and I heard it work. But, for sure, my mom or girlfriend don't know it exists, and for office users, it's not their job to do this: it's a job for an IT-personnal. So there's no issue.

Who said GNU/Linux was for the desktop? The way I see it, it works very well as a server OS. GNU/Linux is not point and click like Windows. The usability of Linux lies in scriptability and programmability, in Windows it lies in the programmers having thought out every possible action for you. This makes Windows easy to use, but if you want to do something the programmers hadn't thought of, you're SOL. In the Unix world, when some functionality isn't there, you write a script or a program (or modify one) and your computer does what you want it to. Hardcore Unixers don't like those fancy GUIs of KDE and GNOME anyway, the only thing they use is a terminal window.

You're just not using Unix if you can't use bash, sed, grep and the like. You're using an inferior user interface, which is ok, but don't complain about it, because you're using the wrong tool for your needs. Should I complain that a Volkswagen Beetle is no good on a racing track against F1 cars? Should I complain that, knowing nothing about automobiles, I can't assemble a self-assembly car? Should I complain that cars work different from bicycles which I've riden since I was 5?

To edis above... YOU mount the floppy, YOU unmount the floppy. It's not hard. If it doesn't suit you, use Windows (but be careful with USB drives :-D ). If you want it sorted out, go sort it out. The source is there. Or ask somebody nicely if he can sort it out, but don't just expect it to be sorted it, because this is not a corporate OS like Windows, it's a hobby OS done by volunteers who have jobs and families - they have to make this unusable OS of yours usable for you (not for them, they already use it) in their free time. Don't complain. If you can't be bothered to find out how it works, why should the developers be bothered to make there nothing for you to find out how it works? That's what we have Windows and MacOS for, it hides all the details.

I have seen two points:
1. Lunux must make it to the desktops
2. Linux must mock Windows to please former Windows Users

Why?
Did everybody in the Linux world say they desperately need Linux to be on every desktop?
Is it the best way to mock Windows which is mocking Apple Mac anyway?

nobody noticed that Asa is comparing Fedora, a DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM for RedHat, to SHIPPED PRODUCTS by MS, Apple etc.

Now, let's compare A MOZILLA TRUNK BUILD to, say, IE/Safari/Opera... uhm, can I say sh**e ?

I strongly encourage people to try a REAL, modern, REGULARLY SOLD linux distribution: Linspire, RedHat Enterprise Desktop, Mandriva, the last SuSE (not the downloaded version, the packaged one!), Ubuntu... hell, even the last Debian or Knoppix! Seriously, Asa, you'll be blown away by, say, Ubuntu's simplicity, easy of installation and use. Firefox is actually one of the worst applications shipped with it.

wonderful set of points. I have my own example that happen to me last night. I spent days trying to get samba and cups working together so I could print from my Windows 2000 box. It had been working but last night, it failed just I needed a critical document printed.

After half an hour of frustrating debugging, I gave up and looked for an alternative route. I turned to my ubuntu laptop and was able to print within 15 minutes. Good? Not so good. The only reason I was able to print was because I had intimate knowledge of my network and devices. The user interface for adding a printer was minimal to an extreme. When selecting a network printer, you need to choose the printing type (ipp), install the ppd file from the printer CD, and enter a URI.

on the other hand, here's how it could have been friendlier. On selecting network printer, the user should have been given the option to search the network. On finding a device with ipp or lpd ports open, that device should have been listed on a selection dialog. The user could pick a device which would create the URI leaving only the task of installing the ppd file. I believe that the ipp interface also discloses the type of printer which would make it easier to find the right ppd file from an internal database or after scanning a CD, selecting it from there.

Almost completely automated, minimally user interface yet capable of being completely controlled by hand if someone wants to.

The second issue is that handicapped accessibility under Linux is horrible. I need speech recognition and anything less than NaturallySpeaking is a toy. since developing good large vocabulary continuous speech recognition is a multimillion dollar project needing extremely specialized knowledge, it's unlikely that we will develop it on our own. Therefore, we need to use tools like wine to make NaturallySpeaking or ViaVoice work in the Linux environment.

Well, After reading your post, I found that you have missed a very important point. That is if you want to use any OS (whether windows, Mac OS or linux or what ever), initially there is a learning curve involved. It is known as training your mind to accept the new environment and adjusting accordingly so as to put the new environment to productive use. So with the same assumption, a new user to windows will also feel like a fish out of water when he/she tries to download and install software from the internet (at least in the initial stage).
Now windows obviously has the advantage of grabbing over 90 % of the desktop market which has its own negetive side in terms of viruses, trojans and worms which unstabilizes the system.

I have been using both windows XP and Linux (dual booting from the same machine) for the past few years and I have found myself using linux more and more over windows XP for doing my basic tasks. Only when I want to run a software which does not have a linux equvalent that I boot into windows.

Also my mother who is a computer illiterate (if you negate how to click using the mouse) favours linux over windows because it has a better collection of games that are installed by default.

Ravi
--
http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com

"Posted by: Giacomo on July 15, 2005 04:54 AM"

"I strongly encourage people to try a REAL, modern, REGULARLY SOLD linux distribution: Linspire, RedHat Enterprise Desktop, Mandriva, the last SuSE (not the downloaded version, the packaged one!),"

Here, here my good fellow. Here's what you get when you BUY linux at the store, as opposed to downloading the Fedora 6 month turnover build. Not that fedora is bad, I use it on one of my desktop stations and on my server.

http://www.lookingglass3d.com/c9/dsc00964.jpg
http://www.lookingglass3d.com/c9/dsc00962.jpg
http://www.lookingglass3d.com/c9/dsc00963.jpg

Now some of you may be wondering why the background of these pictures is the Microsoft Channel9 outreach website. It's simply because I used to go in and promote linux to the poor ignorant masses of windows developers before a mean spirited microsoft employee by the name of JohnathanH, libeled me and I had to leave.

I got a total of about 10 windows devs to use linux in my 1 year stint there.
I also got one on gotdotnet a while ago.

With the advent of Mono and monodevelop we're going to see lots of windows devs leave the death star and start making that desktop software linux "needs" to be the crappy proprietary friendly system that windows is today with the wealth of half baked garbageware that it boasts on download.com, like oh say, claria products.

Here are some pics and video I took from linux world canada this year, including an interview with Mike Subasic of Novell on the advancements of winforms in the mono project

Here's my favorite pic
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00935.jpg

and videos, done and edited on linux's kino with /dev/raw1394 through my canon optura!

http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lwvideo

Here are some more random pics
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00927.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00929.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00930.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00931.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00932.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00933.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00934.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00935.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00937.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00938.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00925.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00926.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00939.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00940.jpg
http://www.linuxsecurityaudits.com/lw/dsc00933.jpg

This may be a little off topic, but I think it's fair to show that people and business really do use linux, and show something positive for once.

I find it disappointing that mozilla devs would complain rather than make new software to improve the infrastructure and contribute to the LSB standard.
You don't get anything by complaining about it.

Do something about it Mozilla. Show us your talents!

I forgot to mention, notice the user and admin manuals, the live support from YaST in the SuSE 9.3 pictures from my sony DSC.
Windows has 0 printed manuals, and 0 live support from YaST. As a matter of fact, windows has no YaST. ;)

http://www.lookingglass3d.com/c9/dsc00964.jpg

Windows used to have printed docs, and now you have to pay for them handily so they can get even more money, Micro$oft, hey, whatup.

I don't have any problems using Linux on my desktop. My parents also use Linux on the desktop and all is working as they like, no problems, no viruses, no crashes.
Every desktop OS has problems. MS Windows is afflicted with so much malware, if it were a living being it'd have to live in a bubble, or be put out of its misery. Windows printing is ok until it crashes then the whole computer needs a reboot. The same thing for MS Office, it can crash the whole OS. I've also seen Outlook take down quite a few systems in my day. In my eyes Windows is a kludge, and not ready for any serious work. The only reason it is being used is the amount of applications that are available, fortunately more apps are arriving for Linux and some apps are even being ported from Windows to Linux.

The other side of the coin,

Cheers,

Alex

I'm a big time Linux supporter. I wish everybody would drop the idea that Linux needs widespread desktop acceptance. In my view it doesn't. I never want my Linux systems to become more Microsoft-like. That's precisely why I use Linux/KDE/Gnome etc: because it's *not* like Windows.

Rather than people debating which is the better system, I prefer to concentrate on the points of agreement. I've had my share of "dependancy hell" issues with installing stuff on Linux but then again, I had a good amount of "DLL hell" issues on Windows.

Drivers (as previously mentioned) are an issue with Linux. Huge leaps have been made since I started on Linux about 11 or 12 years ago, but more progress needs to be made. Particularly in the area of USB devices.

Browser plugins are about a 50/50 thing in Linux. Until I can just "Click yes to install the necessary plugin" then a sticking point will still exist. I know there are ways (Crossover, plugger, etc) to make things work, but it's far from "Click OK to install" ease of use. I'm speaking primarily of QuickTime and Windows Media content though other areas exist.

There is still no native port of Flash MX. Okay - that's just my own personal beef :)

There is a learning curve for Linux, absolutely. But remember there was for Windows too back in the early days. Remember when we went from DOS to Windows in the late 80s/early 90s?

Anyway, always a fun discussion and too many times this discussion turns ugly.

Good article!

"I'm speaking primarily of QuickTime and Windows Media content though other areas exist."

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/licensing.aspx

You think microsoft is going to license that out to a linux program or "give it away", Perhaps they will be in generous mood this x-mas

You can yum mplayer-plugin for firefox/mozilla, though there is no way distros are going to include the warezed mplayer essentials rpm or package /usr/lib/win32/*.dll's

They put asf video casing as the default on movie maker, the win encoder and all the bundled programs specifically, just to create this bad situation where people will give up and say "hmmmm, may as well just use windows".

mplayer tried to settle this with thier questionable codecs pack
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/dload.html
essentials, and nobody wants to bundle it because they're afraid of being sued.

By demanding that GPL and OSS projects pay microsoft for the use of the asf format decoder, you're only making things worse.

Short answer, don't use those formats, use avi, mpeg, ect...

If you absolutely want that, then use the capitan black style codecs pack.
Nobody's going to bundle that for you with the legal team at microsoft and apple. That's reality.

"Short answer, don't use those formats, use avi, mpeg, ect..."

Yes I know. However I was referring to the content on websites one might visit.

I wish everybody would use open source file formats, but I don't control what other programmers do.

As I said, I know there are ways around it on the Linux side, but it often requires more than just "click here to install" and get on with it. That was the nature of the original article to which we are all responding: what keeps people away from Linux-based desktops.

JE_Hoover statement is right on the money, and plus it bothers me, when ppl try and compare windows to Linux, and say Linux is found wanting. Plus KDE and Gnome are into different categories, so is fedora/redhat with the rest of the distros, why don’t you try installing KDE from source; and then come back and tell us just how not ready KDE is for the desktop, you basing all your assumptions on a pre-packaged distro, and a distro who is precompiled to use Gnome as default, you can not do that unless your just talking about that distro. So in closing, please be more practical. And if you truly want to customize all your features such as what apps and games are installed, then by all means go to custom setup in redhat/fedora and uncheck what you do not want. It’s that easy.....

And when it comes to comparing Linux and Windows, Linux was not made for Windows users, it was made for everyone to do with what you wanted, to be made to suit your needs, so why would you compare it to Windows, there nothing alike, and they should never be, the day my Linux acts like Windows, or even comes close to feeling like Windows is the day I get a Mac. Im sorry to be so hard on this, but its very easy to see you just do not know what your talking about.

And final point for the frustation part of Linux, I to get frustrated with it, After almost 15 years of using Unix and then Linux, I still have yet to master the art of recompiling a kernel, and I’m a Unix admin. So I mean that’s just the breaks, deal with it.

I have to disagree with Asa. Everytime I have tried Linux and had a problem, I'd google the problem and would find a solution. Sometimes it was a patch, sometimes editing a text file.

Windows is a piece of garbage, I've had numerous programs that just refuse to run after something is changed in Windows. I'm glad I have Linux as an option and that companies like Transgaming provide options to play Windows games which is the only true advantage that Windows has over Linux. I cannot wait for Linux to take over, and it will happen eventually. 5, 10 years it don't matter to me!

Greetings:

Thanks Asa for your comments. I read about 20 or 30 responses above before I gave up. Do excuse me if I am repeating.

I want to switch to LINUX because of the promise of freedom from the Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter) juggernaut of propriotary Operating Systems. Especially MS, who are becoming way too intrusive in my life.

LINUX seemed like a good idea, and it's free, has a robust support community, so I have been working at it for a number of years. It's only been recently that I have finally been able to figure out how to mount my Windows partitions, for example, and it is not like I didn't try.

I have expressed myself in the original followup to this post, so I'll try not to re-state but... here's a perfect example;

Someone had mentioned AutoPackage Installer. I had FF 1.0.2 on my Mandriva system, thought I might be able to upgrade to 1.04 at least. I deleted the old software with Mandrake RPM tools, I ran the AutoPackage software, followed the instructions, installed 1.0.4 with AutoPackage, was told I was successful. Yay!

But will it run? There it is in the menu (under "Network") but... nope, it won't run. AutoPackage has a very cool feature "Manage 3rd Party Software." So... I deleted that which I had just installed, re-started the computer. Just for laughs, opened the Run command, and typed "Mozilla-Firefox" and voila... I have version ONE POINT 0, down two revisions from where I was. !

How the hell did that happen?

Giving up on the concept of simply installing the software that I want (wow, what a concept), I decided that as I have had good luck with Deer Park Alpha 1 and Alpha 2 on the WinXP side, I wanted to install Alpha 2 on the Linux side, primarily for the update feature. With this I would not have to install and re-install forever.

I got the tinderbox, looked at the web side for instructions, ventured into the console, followed the instructions word for word, unpacked everything ... and yet when it comes down to installing.. it just doesn't appear to install.

I spent an hour and a half at this. Please don't say "Well, you should only install the version from your Distribution." Where is the freedom in that? It took me literally an hour and a half before my dream of installing Deer Park Alpha 2 and being done with repeated updates was quashed ... grrrr

My point: I am not a fool, I can get around on a Mac or on Win 98, Win2000, WinXP... but this nice looking friendly looking LINUX system, *billed as being user-friendly* ... causes more stress then all of them added up together primarily from the perspective of installing the software that I want to install, which IMHO, is something an OS should allow you to do.

I would love to see Linux become more popular. I *don't want* it to be Windows or the Mac. I *do want* it to be simple, to "just work" and to be free!

You can say I am whining (and I could give a damn), that I should purchase the software, but that's not what I was promised. Did I misunderstand the promise of Linux, the promise of Open Source software that "just works" and is easily adjustable ... like Firefox?

Respectfully,

Lawrence
Ithaca, NY

mclaren: I haven't laughed as hard as I did on your comments in a long. long time. I've worked with electronics hardware and computers since 1969. I've always been tempted to try linux because it's "closer to the hardware" But then, so is entering a program by actually keying in the binary code from a switch panel. Not much user friendliness in that scenario.I wonder how mant folks can still write out the binary code of 0-F And of course "mount" is reminiscent of physically carrying a nine channel tape to a tape drive and actually "mounting" it. Linux to me is an interesting challenge, but "I don't think I would want to live there"

I want to reinterate that some of you are being very unfair to linux and unix. I have been using computers since the early 80's, and my first real home PC was one of the first model C64's.

Most of you comment, like the 286, DOS and everything surrounding microsoft is great. Endless checkdisk cycle on boot? Bluescreens a plenty? Driver conflicts, any of this ring a bell?

It should unless you bought your first machine in the last 5 years at bestbuy.
Even there XP is not as good as linux, for server use or desktop use.

Unix commands and computing style is not like windows, it never was, and you can't simply expect it to work like windows.
I assure you, to somebody that knows the linux system, linux is easy as pie.
Programming for linux is easy. It's not easy for people that have had 20+ years of Micro$oft conditioning shoved uncerimoniously down their throat and expect the machine to behave in a certain way.

If you can't mount your disks, which is a popular complaint here, use a GUI tool, or visual disk manager. It's that simple, mandriva has one, SuSE has one in YaST and even barebones FedoraCore has one, though the mount tool doesn't do very much in FCore.

Had you been used to 20+ years of unix and or linux, what would you think trying windows98 or XP and getting blue screens, spyware, viruses, and junk software mostly made by sweatshop tech kiddies in 3rd world nations?

You'd hate it 10 times worse than you that dislike linux, seem to dislike it.
That's what I think.

I applaud the author and have an addition or two. A poster mentioned "usability". I think that may be a most important issue. For instance, I have no interest in knowing what a daemon is, much less a kernel or a shell. I couldn't care less about a root or what it means to mount or unmount, though I shudder when I consider the meanings and imagine the consequences!
Windows is Intuitive. Can the same be said of Linux in any distro? The language is foreign and uncomfortable at best to the non-geek end user. Think of The GIMP-- an excellent piece of software. But please, when we think of gimps, it is generally in the circus or the soupline. In this instance, some marketing savvy is clearly lacking; "gimp" has negative social connotations. Microsoft spends huge dollars choosing the most acceptable names for its programs. There seems to be no such consideration in any Linux distro.
In my day-to-day dealings with myriad computer users, I find that they turn it on in the morning and go about using the program or two that pays their wages. They have no interest in knowing what occurs "behind the screen". The advantage that Linux may someday offer in this situation is merely to save the company the cost of the frequent Windows upgrade.
Since reading on SlashDot that HP was offering Ubuntu on laptops in lesser-developed regions of the world, I have been using it occasionally in a dual-boot system along with XP. It is an amazing work and so close to "there" that it should be looked at by anyone with an interest in this subject.
My children, 14 and 18 year old pseudo-geeks, have at various times sat down to my laptops only to be confronted with the Ubuntu desktop, and were, after the normal teenage griping about the new and unfamiliar, within minutes as comfortable as they are with Miscosoft programs.

I think these three links are the best rebuttals to Asa's opinions. They've even-handed and answer real, practical questions:
'Is Linux ready for Joe Sixpack?' asks wrong question
Is Linux ready for the desktop?
Is Linux ready for the Desktop?

I've also written my own article on the subject:
Linux is Ready for the Desktop--but whose desktop?

As for Linux not being ready for the desktop. I wonder if this means you or anyone else actually thinks Windows is ready for the desktop? Windows has just figured out a way to charge Millions of people for a software product that isn’t quit complete. So they have Windows Update not just for new addins but to patch those Ugly Holes and programming errors. Linux Does the same But shares the Burden if you want feel free to try and fix something and share it. If you want an easy copy Knoppix is about as easy as you can get as far as I can tell I have installed both WinXP PRO/corp -->> the fastest XP install. VS. Knoppix both to blank HD's unformatted Knoppix beats windows in time to install a full Debian system. Time to surf is right after you boot and you can surf while you install try that with windows and if you need help the http://www.knoppix.net website is a lot more help than the windows update site. and if you are setting up a dual boot system most of your programs on your windows side will work thru the wine interface so then you have it all of your old windows files and the best of Linux all rolled into one system. Bill better get back in the saddle cause he is loosing his advantage inch by inch then again that is exactly what has been predicted MS will Loose in the long run but its going to be around 5 or more years and as Linux Picks up more programmers and users it snow balls in speed and production which is what we are witnessing now look how fast firefox and Knoppix has picked up 90% of all the techs working on MS machines at least the more capable ones will tell you that is if you can get their secret fixes that Knoppix is just about the best recovery disk there is for Windows. I just wonder how long it will take those same techs to install it and say why bother with windows as I have done?

@ msanclemente :

If you find Windows so Intuitive, why do you need GNU/Linux? Maybe GNU/Linux wasn't made for you. You can see this in the name of the GNU Image Manipulation Program. In the name GNU's Not Unix. LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder. They're jokish names, which reflects the fact that it's not made by a humorless corporation like Microsoft who will fire you for a overly frank comment in the code or an easter egg, but normal people that make the software in their free time. They're not trying to make money, they don't hire marketing divisions who come up with such brilliant names as Microsoft Photo Editor or MS Paint. THEY have an itch, THEY need the scratch.

The whole concept of Unix is different from Windows. Unix is zillions of little commands that you, the user, can connect using the pipe, like this:

find /home/joost | grep resume.doc

The Windows concept is Start -> Find -> All documents and folders -> fill in resume.doc -> click Search -> Get annoyed by the dog & wonder if Find is really searching (you ever had it not find a file that you know is there somewhere?).

This is a fundamental difference. In Unix, the functionality is limited only by your imagination, if you're willing to put in some effort. In Windows, the functionalilty is limited by the programmer's imagination, if you're still willing to put in some effort. It's about what you're comfortable with. In Unix I can use a very rich language to describe a task, in Windows I must literally say: that there, that there, that there, resume.doc, that there. Now why would geeks prefer Unix? You ever had to rename a bunch of files or do some other repetitive task like that? Stupid point and click work like that makes geeks prefer Unix.

When I see my mother using Windows (started about a year ago), you cannot tell me that Windows is intuitive, with message boxes with errors and whatnot that interrupt her in her tasks (internet browsing, word processing, e-mailing). It really intimidates her. There is no way that I can prevent these distractions other than such "intuitive" solutions like regedit and uninstalling intrusive software like the firewall. I can't teach her to use Slackware or Ubuntu, because she wants to learn to use computers also for her work. She needs to get comfy with Outlook, IE and Office. I think she already hates it.

When you say Windows is Intuitive, you really mean, Windows is Familiar (To You). "The Desktop"? What IS "The Desktop"?

xfce rocks!

You could consider cars as an analogy: Some people want to get into the car, and are willing to interface with just a key, and have it work. It takes them somewhere they want to go, and as far as enjoying the ride, if it has windows the the doors and they can look out, they have what they want from a car.

Others want to build a hot-rod from parts in their backyard, starting with a bare frame. When (maybe a lot later) it comes to life for the first time, they can use it to take them places, and they have from it what they want from a car.

Other users of cars want to pay someone to take a stock "car" and install some improvements in it. Then they have what they want from a car, and it's the way they want it.

There are others who want to use a car, and started out as any of the above groups, and migrated to another group, or partway to another group, and are happy where they are at. (Somebody else can rebuild an engine, but I can change a water pump...)

Some users with the key might later want to get under the hood and tinker. Some mechanics might still like to mechanic around on cars, but want one car that they can just get in and drive (to the parts store). Some might pay others to modify their car, and later decide they want to have a go at fixing it themselves. And vice versa.

And your comments are that the Linux "car" is not ready for the first group who just wants to get into the car and go. Hmmm.

And your point about there not being enough mechanics around to fix the Linux "car" for the second group. Hmmmm.

So your point is that Linux is not for everybody, and that it cannot offer everyone what they want.

I think that is what Linux people said from the beginning.

Personally, I want to get under the hood of my "car", but do not have a lot of time in my life right now (focusing on running a business) for learning all the details of every little Linux thing. I am sometimes willing to pay someone to fix something that is more than I know how to do right now, especially if they can tell me what I need to know to do it myself next time. But sometimes, I just want to get in there and do it for myself, even if I don't get it right in a timely manner. I want my "car" to just work, some of the time, and want it to be there to work on at other times.

Why must a linux "Car" be for people who only want to get in and drive?
Why can't it be for me, too?

We are both glossing over some other issues in this discussion, such as exhorbitant licensing fees, or restrictive licensing that says you can in no way for no reason, never, never, dissassemble or reverse engineer a factory driver, for example. What if it is broke, and I can fix it for me?

But over all, Linux is getting better, and their "car" is taking a larger group
of people to more places than it ever has before. Why can't we just leave it
go as it is, and let it keep getting better? There are factory "cars" with leases that cover any maintenance issues that come up. Let the "key" crowd get their cars from the factory (and pay big prices for it).

Everybody can get a car that suits them today, and most families have more than one kind of car.

S.Mitchell

I have never tried Linux, but I was looking forward to try it
sometime in the future, however I guess that is out.
I think anything will be better than Windows.

All I can say, [sobbing] "Poor Tux"
I like that little guy. ;-(
-Lorraine

Lorraine's post makes me sad.
This is why articles like Asa's don't help.
First of all, even though not everyone in the Linux community agrees that greater accessibility is a goal, there are definitely people in the Linux community working on it, whether you write these articles or not.

It's not like people are sitting around going, "Oh, Linux is perfect for Windows migration right now," then read this article and say, "Oh, wait! Thanks for the wake-up call, Asa. Now we can get back to work. We didn't know!"

The end result is really that perfectly capable migrants like Lorraine who are willing to try new things get discouraged just because Asa chose to use Fedora instead of something user-friendly like Mepis, Linspire, Xandros, or Ubuntu.

"Lorraine's post makes me sad.
This is why articles like Asa's don't help."

I agree fully with aysiu.

Lorraine could have went to the store and bought SuSE Linux 9.3, and if she had any type of problem, Novell would have given her support. She would have had rich experience user and administration manuals to guide her along, and she most likely would have had a good experience using linux, not withstanding firefox and thunderbird.

Intentional or not, Asa's article is simply FUD on potential new linux users.

Going back to s_mitchell's car analogy,

It's like Asa is going; Yeah, The linux "car" is nice, but you could get into a HORRIBLE, DISFIGURING ACCIDENT, I have pictures in my wallet, wanna see, wanna see!!!!

Meanwhile 3 of 5 windows computers are reformatted multiple times year because of viruses, OS failures due to damages systemFS, malware in warez(which is really popular on windows), and spyware/adware.

Awesome article. I really enjoyed reading it and feel that you have made some very valid points. Speaking of usability, I found it rather ridiculous that I had to do a kernel recompile just to get synaptics support for my touchpad... Again, great write up.

"Linux not ready for the desktop" is not a problem, Windows 1.0 was not ready for the desktop too. Real problem of Linux is other.

There is a way to get a desktops of "regular people". The next generation of desktop computers has no OS. It is absolutely free area for software supplier. First one will occupy it. But Linux developers and distributors do not want to look forward.

I am surprised at all the negative comments about OpenOffice. As I said before, I'm a Linux newbie who just began migrating to Linux, but I started using OpenOffice three years ago on a Windows machine. I did it because I needed to be able to legally distribute copies of the software I was using to the employer to whom I was under contract at the time. I'm a welding/quality inspector by profession. I was the site Quality Control Manager for this company on their portion of a power plant build in Beloit, Wisconsin. I created and maintained all of my admittedly small department's records with OpenOffice and it worked well for me. Combined with Netscape Composer, I now use it on all my machines (even the wife's), and it fully suits my needs.

On a personal note: Julian Oliver, would you e-mail me? I'd like to discuss the other distributions you mentioned, if you've got the time. Thanks.

I read through this article, and I have to admit that it does have a lot of good points. Although I'd have to say that if I had seen this when I first moved to Linux a couple years ago that I'd probably ignore it altogether... I usually save everything in a .tar.bz2 file and forget that it exists when moving to another OS :-) Few responses to this, so here they are...

1. Not all distributions are as messy as Fedora. Slackware in particular is very good about package management, and sites like LinuxPackages.net provide quick and easy downloads that install and work perfectly every time. I myself am a Linux developer, my distro is Slackware-based.

2. The selection of the default desktop may be confusing, but I personally support at least some means of choosing which environment you wish to use because after all the whole point of Linux is freedom of choice.

3. Not all of the games are mediocre. KDE has some good ones at least, and Frozen Bubble kicks ass.

I do have to admit that Linux probably is a bit advanced for most users; hence projects such as ReactOS. Although really the problem is that all the big companies seem to be encouraging users _NOT_ to learn anything about how it all works - once they know what they're doing there goes their business. I'd say that if people knew more about computers this problem wouldn't exist.

PS: And for those who think that Visual Basic is "wonderful" - *PLEASE GET A LIFE,* you brainless Micro$oft zombies! Development should be left to developers. (Although I think that they should have regular people testing as well as themselves.)

By the way, forgot to mention (sorry for double-posting): Quick comparison that shows the difference between advanced and not-so-advanced.

Recently I built a new computer from parts I ordered off of TigerDirect.com. The thing has 2.4GHz, 512MB RAM, an 80GB disk, 52x CD burner, and even a wireless network card. *WITH SHIPPING* it cost $375. The operating system is my own Linux distribution, which is free even if you aren't the developer ;-) It's stable, secure, features everything I need it to do, and comes with a complete working system out of the box. Took just under an hour to migrate, and the only reason it took THAT long is because I have several gigabytes worth of data on my disk that need to be copied.

(Oh, and Linux stores _everything_ under /home, so you just need to back up one folder and you've got everything.)

Meanwhile the average user goes to a big company. The system itself is $400, and then the operating system is $200. It's horribly inefficient and doesn't include anything you really need, it can cost thousands to get all the functionality you're looking for. It's probably *intentionally* impossible to use, because they want you to pay more for the fixes. Total nightmare.

See how it works?

And the moral is, learn how it all works and you will get a much better experience.

"The operating system is my own Linux distribution, which is free even if you aren't the developer "

Martin, did you do a linux from scratch distro?

I'm making one right now. I actually got the printed linux from scratch 2nd edition printed book from California.

If so, let me know how it went, I'm still working on mine. Eventually, I'm going to make an anaconda offshoot installer for it too. Hopefully.

Asa please let me retort (if others haven't already):

1. Redhat is not Linux. Linux is not even an operating system. It's a kernel. So perhaps your issues with migration should be pointed at Redhat Fedora Core 4, rather than any other distribution or the Linux kernel itself. Also, you percieve Linux on the Desktop to mean Linux on the home personal computer. In a business environment Linux on the Desktop has a completely different context as the company IT department will factor in the migration issues when they make the change.

2. In regards to what you call stability, it sounds like your issue is again with Redhat Fedora Core 4, not the Linux kernel. Any GNU/Linux distributon can handle this better, they just need to use a package management front end that caters for software dependencies without bothering the user. If Fedora Core 4 can't provide this for you, perhaps you'd better look at a distribution than can.

3. In regards to simplicity, again this sounds as if your issue is with Redhat Fedora Core 4, not with the Linux itself. There are some Linux distributions that choose one type of an application for the user, rather than burdening the user with choice. You may wish to check them out. But not everyone likes the one size fits all approach (in fact some people move away from Windows for this very reason)

4. Comfort - again this should be directed at Redhat Fedora Core 4's choice of window environment rather than Linux itself.

Maybe you should look for something more appealing to your needs?

"Linux not ready for the desktops"

Linux users: "It is!! It's the users that are not ready for Linux! Dumb lusers!"
Linux users: "We won't mimic Windows just to appeal to Windows users" (Doh!)
Linux users: "It will never be, only we the smart people can use Linux" (so what do you care, anyway)

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, Linux on the desktop enjoys the same success as Esperanto, and people continue to use Windows, for some occult reason.

Seriously, if Linux followers want it to reach the desktop, they should try *now*.
Win XP and Win2003 (and Longhorn) are really getting messy and complicated.
If the chance is lost, Linux will be forever the weird choice, used by a tiny number of people. Not the same people that make any decisions, mind you...

Hi all,

I just have a few bits to throw in here, and I'll try to keep it short.
Rather than just say: "I agree with every, single, word of Asa's post."
I'll tell you why.
I've been using (more installing, upgrading, wiping out, reinstalling)
Linux for almost 2 years now. My first distro was Mandrake 8.something with a KDE GUI which I just hated. The "feel" sucked.
Later, I moved on to SuSE 9.1 personal. While not ready for prime-time, I found it much more user friendly, even with the same KDE GUI. I find YAST to be an 'almost there' installer system, but it has it's problems. Distro's like Debian and it's AptGet system (not exclisive to Debian, but that's where it started) are really onto something. Overall, Debian would be a nightmare to set a 'regular' person in front of (I am not far removed from 'regular') software installation is in many ways easier. YAST is a great, simple, easy to use installer, and it's great that it informs me of missing packages required by whatever application I happen to be trying to install...but what if I don't know where to get the packages? What If I'm Joe User, and I have only used Windows?
Will I know that I can usually Google whatever libetc.so file to get the app installed? What if I don't want a huge learning curve?
The people who disagree with this line of thought are in the Zealot portion of the Linux community. Kind of like Cartman throwing a temper-tantrum.
"Mine!" What this is about is REALLY unseating Microsoft from the great perch, and Linux is the only way that's going to happen. Is it just about unseating Gates? Of course not. In My World the chief reason is that MS is getting a little too cozy with the federal government as of late. With their heavilly pushed auto-updates, and background software...call me paranoid...but I can see them going along with some 'Patriot Act' BS. Especially with the recent revelations that the government has been using electronic means to keep an eye on American organizations and websites who happen to disagree with its policies. Not to say that Linux would make this all impossible, but it certainly gives a greater level of protection from electronic invasion than the standard MSOS.

I am now using SuSE 9.2 Pro, and it's nearly a Windows killer.
Short of Jobs releasing Mac OSX to PC users, it has to be Linux.
And what will the winning distro be?
It's already been covered in earlier posts.
1. A copied Windows look and feel. (swallow that pride kids, the more 'the masses' dig into Linux, the more software will be available for all)
2. The Linux Kernel will HAVE TO BE ABLE TO READ AND WRITE TO NTFS BY DEFAULT.
This, of course is an opportunity for someone to include a badass "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard" clone to import all the data into it's Linux cousin, and then include a simple cheat-sheet telling you where everything lives now.
3. A frikkin DVD player!!
4. Completely hide the command-line anything. It reminds people of DOS, which kept the PC market dead until Win95.
5. Get rid of TAR and GZIP files all together. Either perfect RPM into a Zip/EXE clone, or come up with something exactly like it.

The first company to come up with fast, clean, and really dumbed down answers to those 5 points will be the real Windows killer. At last.

Lastly, I installed Novell Desktop on my mothers computer with 3 big buttons.
Web, Email, Chat. That's all she needs. And I haven't had a tech-support call in 3 months due to the dumbed-down nature of that particular install.
Dumbed down isn't always a bad thing.
I still miss BeOS.

-Chuck

Sorry for jumping in late into the discussion. I agree with most of your points, especially stability. Installing a program outside of the package manager is always a pain in Linux.

Now to the reason for my comment. Since you mentioned the reversed OK/Cancel buttons in Gnome when comparing to Windows, I have a question about Firefox. Why is the Reload/Stop buttons reversed compared to IE? ;)

@ Chuck -

Reading from NTFS is possible but writing to an NTFS partition involves mucking about in the Windows registry. Needless to say, keep dreaming. The moment GNU can do that, Uncle Bill will change the format of the registry file. It's not worth the effort.

Clompletely hide the command line thing .... jeesh.... how about throwing away every single cool tool Unix has had since the 70s.... The Unix command-line has 100000x the power of DOS or Windows. There lies the strength of Unix, not in KDE or GNOME.

@David Tenser: Right click your stop button. Click Customize. Drag your stop button to where you want it. Wasn't that easy?

You pay a lot for Microsoft's products, so complain all you want, but you _never paid anything_ for GNU/Linux, so shut up or learn some C. Why must an OS for technical people be dumbed down to an OS for non-technical people?

If you can't stand the heat, whine until other people cool down the kitchen? What is this?

"2nd issue (stability):
Most distros solve this problem with apt-get, certainly not Fedora based on what you have described. It basically downloads your package and all its dependancies in one step doing all the stuff behind your back. This gives you the benefits of reusing shared libraries while making it easy. This is the same as if you tried to download the lastest version of DirectX. It gives you a program that downloads all the stuff behind your back and installs it."

Fedora Core (4) uses yum by default. You can install apt-get if you like from Extras repositories. I noticed this is a common mistake to compare rpm with apt-get more like comparing yum vs dpkg.

"1. A copied Windows look and feel. (swallow that pride kids, the more 'the masses' dig into Linux, the more software will be available for all" has to be the single most inane comment I have ever read.

If you want Windows - go www.microsoft.com - for God's sake don't cripple Linux by turning it into a third rate clone of a third rate OS.

I've been Linux only since 2000 and have no MS boxes - I don't miss it and I don't want it. Let go of your security blanket and learn.