Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Thursday 12 August 2004 09:21, Andrew Graupe wrote:
turn, made me think about what I do on a regular basis to keep my linux
system working perfectly, which can't exactly be described as
user-friendly.
it's hard to discuss generalities =) which things do you do on a regular basis
that aren't user-friendly?
A lot of it was first-time config, I will admit (such as ALSA, X.org,
Printer setup). Afterward, you have to admit that doing an emerge
world, and all the etc-updating that entails, isn't easy by any
stretch. Not to mention trivial tasks such as mounting a USB mass
storage device (easy once you know how, but still annoying, especially
for the average user who probably wouldn't like the command line).
This brings me to an interesting point: what does "ready
for the desktop" actually mean?
define "desktop" first, since not all desktops have equal needs or demands.
That's the point of this e-mail. That "desktop" is an ambigous term.
the desktop. Or does it mean that it is ready for use by the average
computer user that justs wants to surf the web, check e-mail, and play
games (collectively, the "Desktop" market, note the capital D)?
there is no such thing as "the Desktop market" in the way you mean it. there
are desktop computers of various ilk, and these are sold into a large number
of rather different markets: corporate, scientific, government, call centre,
educational, home, gamer, etc, etc...each has its own peculiar requirements.
I'm talking about the person that just buys the $499 Dell and uses it
for word processing, internet, mail, and basic games like solitare and
minesweeper, or the average person who does these things in a business
environment, all networking aspects aside.
I would
argue that linux, although it is good, is not quite there yet.
i would probably agree. there are segments that it isn't ready for yet, and
this is almost exclusively due to a lack of 3rd party commercial applications
on the platform that people are, for better or worse, currently tied to at
the hip.
there's also the issue of accrued knowledge. keeping up a Windows or Mac
system is also a burdon. this is why most people don't change configuration
options much and rely on a friend or paid techie to help them through the
more difficult parts. power users usually manage on their own, but that's
because they've acrued system-specific knowledge. put a hard core Windows
user on a Mac, or vice versa; it's the same with Linux. there is a learning
curve involved if you want to manage your system, regardless of what system
that is. most people have accomplished that with past version of Windows and
Mac and so it's a past issue (and a current investment). moving to Linux may
mean making that investment again.
i think we've done a lot of work towards minimizing that investment, however.
with well set up defaults, configuration tools that are becoming easier and
easier to use and familiar metaphores and application designs it's pretty
easy to switch a user over. getting under the hood is a different question,
but most people don't do that.
I agree. For linux to beat windows, it needs to make the conversion
painless. This should include a "Windows" setting which does all of the
things windows would do (automount, autoplay, driver setup, automatic
music playing/picture copying/etc... from inserted device). Remember,
just because we don't mind mounting that digital camera as a USB mass
storage device and copying everything from the commandline and renaming
it, doesn't mean the average user feels the same way.
that said, there are (large) segments for which Linux is quite ready for daily
use.
To be clear, I think that linux is a daily-use-ready system for anyone
with a moderate level of computer knowledge (i.e. a basic understanding
of how the system works, and no fear of the shell or text files used for
config).
_______________________________________________
clug-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
