On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Phil M Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Article on Linux in Popular Science, from the viewpoint of a "Joe > Windows" user > (it's mildly critical of Linux): > > http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-amp-gaming/article/2008-11/desktop-linux-%E2%80%93-will-it-ever-stick > and many comments responding how great Linux is even for non-geeks. > > Do --you-- all feel that Linux has progressed to the level of "point and > click" to > get any task done? Many people seem to be allergic to the command line > interface. 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? > How about proprietary shrinkwrapped software that can't be downloaded > (should you need some for one reason or another)? How about marketing and > promotion of Linux in general? 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)? > 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. > > 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)? 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? Just a thought. 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! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > I actually think an unsophisticated Windows user would have an easier time crossing over than a sophisticated Windows user, provided they have the same support structure (a sophisticated user of the same OS to help them out on occasion). Most of the pain I encountered when I first moved to Linux revolved around doing things that were made simple in Windows, but aren't as intuitive or straight forward in Linux from someone who's used to things being organized the MS way. The average user isn't as burdened by this disposition, installing a graphics card is as hard for them in Windows as it is in Linux. In both situations their solution is to maybe try themselves, fail, then outsource. This is how Geek Squad make their money. One big difference I've seen between Linux and Windows is installing programs. Linux actually offers you more options, but to an average user the Windows world appears to have more options. In Windows, you used to download a zip file, extract the contents, then place the files into a directory and create a shortcut. This was eventually replaced with creating an .exe that the user could download and double click. The .exe does all the extracting, moving, shortcut creating, and whatever necessary registry editing for the user. This is now accepted as normal, if you want user adoption, you have to go through the pain of doing everything for the user, automating checking for versions of other software that your software relies on and such if you want users to adopt your program. In the Windows world, you're generally selling your software so you're motivated financially to do there. There are also tools out there to make all this easier for you. In the Linux world, for unsophisticated users there is a GUI in Ubuntu to be able to point and click what software you want to run. For more sophisticated users you can access the package manager directly via the command line and get more options. More advanced users can compile the source code directly. The problem is that from an unsophisticated users perspective, they can only run what Ubuntu tells them they can. If they want the latest version of program X, they will have to compile source code. From this perspective, they essentially can't use the latest version or run someone's random program from a random website because doing so requires special knowledge. The developer in the linux world isn't as motivated to package everything up for the unsophisticated user, so said user sometimes has to wait until some altruist comes along and packages it for them. I think Linux is at the point where it can replace Windows for the majority of people. I'm now comfortable encouraging people to switch if I know that I'm going to be available for them to ask questions the way I am for my friends who are unsophisticated Windows users. Most of the easy stuff is taken care of for them, and in fact it's a little easier to help people in Linux because of SSH. But it's not at a point where I'd recommend it to someone who I'm not going to be able to help personally. There is a large community of support, especially for Ubuntu, but solutions often require people to hit the command line, examine file contents and program output, and most people don't want to bother with that, or are afraid of doing something wrong and making things more worse, making asking for help that much more complicated. The only area I see Windows really blocking Linux out is with specific applications, and games in general. At work our engineers use Solidworks and Autocad. Even if there were suitable Linux alternatives, this company is locked into what they have by virtue of how much they paid for it. Another case is something like iTunes, Amarok is a good solution if you're just into podcasts or get your music via a variety of sources. But if you want to buy your shows or music through one interface and have that interface push everything onto your iPod, you're feature locked into Mac/Windows. I wouldn't suggest linux to my Mom becasue iTunes is complex enough for her. And while there are many Linux games out there, the gamer market is more interested in the latest commercial games. There are crossover solutions that are suitable much of the time, but there are still concerns about losing performance by running the game in an emulator of some kind, and in the case of MMORPG's there have been cases of people being banned when their emulator has been detected by the server, as it looks like they're running the game in a wrapper in order to cheat. That said, I see Linux catching up on the gaming front. I'm seeing people claim to run the latest games in Linux more often, and I'm just getting to the point myself where I'm ready to mess around with getting games running in Linux just to avoid the dual boot. As far as specific applications go, I don't see that getting solved until there are enough Linux users to make it worth it to the big developers to make their killer app run in Linux. -- John D. Mort http://john.mort.net _______________________________________________ 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
