---- Chris Knadle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Touching base on a couple of other aspects of this. > > On Sunday 09 November 2008, Phil M Perry wrote: > > Do --you-- all feel that Linux has progressed to the level of > > "point and click" to get any task done? > > Yes, but it would really help if you had something more specific, > like a list of tasks. If you mean browsing, CD/DVD burning, > movie watching, document creation, basic file management, > software installation, or any of the daily mundane tasks -- yes, > none of those have any command-like requirement.
I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a "Joe Windows" non-geek. I guess that installation of a new piece of software or a new driver is something that often ends up on the command line. Most everything else CAN be done with point and click (not that it's necessarily a better or faster way, but the CLI DOES scare a lot of people). Maybe the general perception, fostered by the article, is still that Linux requires a lot of CLI usage. However, for many people, ANY level of CLI use is too much. > > These days I go to the command line mainly because I want to, > rather than because I need to. The only time my family goes > to the command line is when I ask them to, usually to do > something as simple as running a 'ping' command for testing > basic connectivity. Even for something like that, a GUI would make a lot more people comfortable using Linux. I guess non-geeks are scared to death that they'll type in something incorrectly and their machine will go up in flames. With point and click, you're presented with all your choices and merely have to choose among them. > > > We all know that there's a free equivalent to almost any bit > > of Windows software out there, but is it easy for people to > > find and install it? > > Not quite sure what you mean. Maybe. Depends. I get the impression that very non-geek Joe Windows types only buy shrinkwrapped software from Office Depot, etc. or by mail order/web order. They have a CD and printed docs (and still have trouble installing). More adventurous types download executable binaries from free sites. Probably very few compile source themselves. I suspect that most would be lost trying to find something online to download. Some Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu, have nice repositories, but it CAN be difficult to find a specific package that does X. The descriptions tend to be a bit on the terse side (illustrating my chronic beef that Linux documentation tends to be a last-minute afterthought), at least in something like the Synaptic Package Manager, but at least they can be sure it will work with their system. > > > How about proprietary shrinkwrapped software that can't be > > downloaded (should you need some for one reason or another)? > > I'm running some. Commercial software gets into another > interesting problem -- because when you install commercial > software that doesn't get updates without additional purchases, > it means the Gnu/Linux OS underneath gets updates to dynamic > libraries, but the commercial software doesn't. Some commercial > software is built as static binaries to get around this, but > some aren't. As such, I've run into the issue where a package > for commercial software for my chosen distribution eventually > became incompatible to the system, at least as far as the > package management could tell. > > Other commercial software is installed via a script and thus > not by package management, and that has its own problems as > well. > > > How about marketing and promotion of Linux in general? > > I don't know what you mean. The free distributions that > don't have a company behind them don't have any money to > advertise, but the commercial distributions do. What gets > promoted is therefore only what will make those companies > money, and not necessarily anything you as an individual > would deem important or interesting. If you want the > more interesting information, you need to look at the free > technology blogs on the 'net. True that Linux isn't promoted in the same way that, say, Windows is. I guess the need is to build awareness that there even IS an alternative to Windows, and that it's worth the learning curve/pain to switch over. > > > The article mentions that pre-loaded Linux laptops are > > returned at a far higher rate than Windows laptops, because > > people have been led to believe that using Linux is > > "just like using Windows". Are naive users being sold a > > bill of goods? When will Linux systems stop being a toy > > for tech geeks and start being a useful TOOL (or do you > > feel we're already there)? > > There are several people I know who do not run Linux as > their Desktop who use Knoppix CDs to rescue information off > of hard disks that fail to boot Windows anymore. > > As for pre-loaded Linux laptops -- of the friends I have > that have purchased them, they knew that Linux != Windows. > If the buyer is given deceptive advertising, that's a poor > business practice, but it's not the fault of the OS. Part of the problem may be overenthusiastic promotion by Linux-geeks who don't realize how much a change is going to scare non-geeks. In that sense, it's more of a cultural problem than a shady business practice. Geeks also tend to assume a base level of knowledge about computing in general that the general public just doesn't have (this is touched on in the article). For the general public/Joe Windows, a computer is a tool to get useful things done, not a hobby in and of itself. Most people don't ever want to open the hood on a car, much less play mechanic. With Windows, the hood is welded shut. > > > You want the OS to recede into the background and be > > unnoticed most of the time. Ideally, your average user > > wouldn't even be aware of which OS their computer is > > running under. > > Gnome and KDE work on BSD, Linux, and Solaris. And I know > there's work going on to port KDE4 to Windows. If you > mean you'd want Linux to look exactly like Windows, that's > been done. > > http://www.thecredence.com/make-you-linux-desktop-looks-like-windows-desktop-in-just-3-easy-steps/ > > http://www.instantfundas.com/2008/03/make-linux-look-like-windows-xp.html > > > I couldn't make it to the monthly meeting (car was in the > > shop), but if it's a major problem to supply ready-to-run > > executables (as in Windows) for a wide range of architectures > > and Linux flavors/levels, and most non-geeks don't want to > > touch a CLI, is there a solution? Can source tarballs, etc. > > be distributed in a single universal package, and > > automatically compiled and linked (after bringing in any > > prereqs, including compilers)? > > If it existed I wouldn't use it; installing software requires > root access, and so the system you're describing would require > root access. Put that together with how often Phishing fools > people into installing malware, and it means a planned disaster of p0wned > boxes. Good point. Most people run Windows as root, and get hacked all the time. How do you get them to practice safe hex? If they have to be root to install a new program, they're still pwned one way or the other if it's malware. > > Most of the open source compiled software are released as > packages for distributions under several architectures, so > needing to compile isn't required most of the time. Some > commercial software is likewise pre-compiled and shipped as > packages for different distributions also, but there is > usually a more limited selection of which distributions are > officially supported. > > > No getting hands dirty running 'make' and related commands -- > > it just takes a bit longer to install than a ready-to-run > > binary. Do such capabilities already exist? > > I think I've heard of one Linux distribution doing something > like this. > > > I suppose that an alternative would be to distribute Java > > bytecode or scripts such as Perl -- would they be totally > > platform- independent? Sorry if this was covered at the meeting! > > As was mentioned at the meeting, making code cross-platform > requires that being a plan for the project at the outset, > because each of the languages have libraries available that > are platform-specific. Keep in mind that one of the very > design goals for both C and C++ was making a cross-platform > language -- and the same for many others. And yet regardless > of which "cross-platform" language a project is written in, > this is a continuing concern. > > -- Chris > > -- > > Chris Knadle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ > Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org > > http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug > Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium > > Sep 3 - Porkchop - The Areas of My Expertise > Oct 1 - Ubikeys > Oct 4 - Linux Fest > Nov 5 - Releasing Open Source Software > Dec 3 - TBD > _______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Sep 3 - Porkchop - The Areas of My Expertise Oct 1 - Ubikeys Oct 4 - Linux Fest Nov 5 - Releasing Open Source Software Dec 3 - TBD
