Why I think Linux is not ready for the home-user.

[tgeorge]

Background:

I have used Linux, never programmed ON it, but have made cross platform server apps that run on Linux and Windows.

My observations why Linux might be intimidating to a home user:

Startup: Although it is of not much significance, Linux with its messages on startup intimidate quite a few people. Windows also has these messages, but show it only in a "Debug" startup mode.

Default GUI: Although most Linux distributions install KDE or GNOME by default, there has to be one common GUI. Having different linux systems on different window managers confuses people. One of the major advantages of Windows is that most applications adhere to a standard "look and feel".

Under the hood: The typical home user who just wants to get on the Internet, make a few documents, mail, play a few games etc. is not much interested in whether the OS has a journalling filesystem (NTFS is a journalling file system). In my experience, hard reboots trash the Linux filesystems more often than Windows. I have been using Windows since Windows3.1, and have not yet had an unusable partition because of a crash. I have lost files, but only on FAT partitions, not an NTFS.

Someone here mentioned memory management. Windows does not pre-allocate large chunks of memory to applications without it requesting it. ...and it releases all memory ever requested by the process when the process gets killed. I wrote an application that allocate memory and not release it just to test this.

Security holes: Most security holes on Windows are either based on Outlook or IIS. I use neither, and never have been affected by these viruses. It was never because of any core OS deficiency.

Bloat: When a Mandrake 9.0 or such distribution makes a typical install, it installs about a GB to 1.5 GB of software. All of them may be useful, but the UI to add/remove these softwares are not that great. Personally, I use Debian and use apt to install/uninstall apps. But, a typical home user will drop debian before completing the installation. It has a very bad setup compared to say Mandrake.

What I think Linux needs:

- A consistent user interface, before I can ask my users to switch to Linux.
- Better housekeeping and autorecovery tools in case of crashes etc.
- Despite whatever you guys may think, Internet Explorer on Windows currently is better than Mozilla on Linux. The closest I have seen is MozillaFirebird, but has a lot of things to be implemented in it.
- A lot of commercial desktiop software, particularly games, deciding to support it.

Thomas.

[pr0c]

I'll bite...

Originally posted by tgeorge
Startup: Although it is of not much significance, Linux with its messages on startup intimidate quite a few people. Windows also has these messages, but show it only in a "Debug" startup mode.
Many distros do this, Xandros and SuSE both have very friendly bootup screens.


Originally posted by tgeorge
Default GUI: Although most Linux distributions install KDE or GNOME by default, there has to be one common GUI. Having different linux systems on different window managers confuses people. One of the major advantages of Windows is that most applications adhere to a standard "look and feel".
The 3 big ones, Redhat, Mandrake and SuSE all do that. I won't go into details since it isn't neccesary.



Originally posted by tgeorge
Under the hood: The typical home user who just wants to get on the Internet, make a few documents, mail, play a few games etc. is not much interested in whether the OS has a journalling filesystem (NTFS is a journalling file system). In my experience, hard reboots trash the Linux filesystems more often than Windows. I have been using Windows since Windows3.1, and have not yet had an unusable partition because of a crash. I have lost files, but only on FAT partitions, not an NTFS. Hmmm... By default all of the distros i've tried with the exception of several years ago use journalized file systems BY DEFAULT. Redhat uses Ext3 and the rest use ReiserFS for the most part. Unplug it in the middle of use and its still gonna boot right up like NTFS on windows.

Originally posted by tgeorge
Someone here mentioned memory management. Windows does not pre-allocate large chunks of memory to applications without it requesting it. ...and it releases all memory ever requested by the process when the process gets killed. I wrote an application that allocate memory and not release it just to test this. Yes windows most certainly does. Windows allocates 300-700 megabytes of harddrive to use as virtual memory. Linux uses a swap partition which even that isn't needed now. They both behave the same in this manner.

Originally posted by tgeorge
Security holes: Most security holes on Windows are either based on Outlook or IIS. I use neither, and never have been affected by these viruses. It was never because of any core OS deficiency.
You missed Internet Exporer where there is a hell of a lot of security holes. And there are still a ton of bugs elsewhere. The number of bugs is irrelovent. Any OS including Linux distros contain security holes and they all have updates. They are both fairly equal in the number of bugs but windows are targeted far more often and patched at a slower rate.

Originally posted by tgeorge
Bloat: When a Mandrake 9.0 or such distribution makes a typical install, it installs about a GB to 1.5 GB of software. All of them may be useful, but the UI to add/remove these softwares are not that great. Personally, I use Debian and use apt to install/uninstall apps. But, a typical home user will drop debian before completing the installation. It has a very bad setup compared to say Mandrake.
That is extremely hilarious! LOL. Mandrake 9 is a good example here i agree... when you install you pick the categories you want. If you dont' want games you dont' pick games, its that simple. WindowsXP takes up about the same ammount of space as a typical mandrake install. The difference is the mandrake install has tons of software and is ready to use and the WinXP install you didn't get any applications other than notepad, calculator etc. SO who is bloated? It couldn't be easier to Add _AND_ remove software than it is in linux. You can add and remove software with 1 utility in Xandros or Lindows and Mandrake etc. You CANNOT in windows.
And mentioning Debian in the same post new home users is not good.... Debian _itself_ is not for home users no matter what people think (i too use debian).

I don't find anything you said to be even remotely true. You need to research more and pick valid points to discuss. All your going to attract here is flames especially since what you said is untrue.

How many distros have you tried?

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by tgeorge
Background:

- A consistent user interface, before I can ask my users to switch to Linux.
- Better housekeeping and autorecovery tools in case of crashes etc.
- Despite whatever you guys may think, Internet Explorer on Windows currently is better than Mozilla on Linux. The closest I have seen is MozillaFirebird, but has a lot of things to be implemented in it.
- A lot of commercial desktiop software, particularly games, deciding to support it.

Thomas.

I would agree and yet disagree with you at the same time.
Linux NOT pre-installed and configured to a T from an OEM computer company is NOT for everyone. If it were pre-installed, like 99.3% of all Windows users, most of your issues just go away. I was the OEM for over 20 user's now, everything was configured to a jot and a tiddle, trouble is leaving here fine. Apples to Apples.

On your other points. Memory Management. You mean my wife (pre-linux) mandatory 2 or more boots per day because, with NOTHING running, Windows is out of memory is a feature? I fire up the comp Monday, Shut down Friday, never have a memory management problem. No registry degradation. I have performed zero maintenance, and NEVER plan to. Linux doesn't require it. Windows, registry, services autoinitializing on install, defrag (XP, I don't know if still required), and on and on. I think you have the housekeeping backward.

Auto-recovery: 3 Years, Redhat 7.0, 1 year, Redhat 8.0, probably 20+ power outages, 100% recovery, zero user interaction required.

IE better than Mozilla. Different Strokes, but laughs to himself.

Desktop Software: Agree on games. disagree on other apps, follow my sig. I want for nothing. The top games are coming/already here. Doom, Evel Entity, etc.( I will ask others to help me out...I have never owned Windows, so have no Windows games).

The above is not a flame, for which I feel some will. Just attempting a rational counter to what I feel are incorrect statements. Except where we agree. :)

hlrguy

[PerfectBlue]

agree with pr0c, this is just going to bring more flames.

You are free to enter or exit in linux's world (just my point of view), if you find M$ is more suitable for you then use it, and i'm addicted with linux that's why i stick with it :)

[tgeorge]

I did not mean to say that Linux does not have a journalling filesystem. But, from one of the other threads, I got the impression that many people who don't use windows think that NTFS is not. From my experience, NTFS is extremely reliable.

I use ext2fs on Debian, and I have not lost data on it either. On hard reboots that I ever did, fsck fixed all my problems.

All I meant was, there is some intangible that makes Windows2000 easier to use for a lot of people than say, a Mandrake9 - whatever be its technical virtues.

I installed a KDE3.0 and asked the non-technical staff in office to use it. They thought it was pretty, but was quite unwilling to use it at home, because of less availability shrink-wrapped applications for stuff like doing taxes and games.

Swap partition/swap files are not allocated memory. That is just space to swap out pages, when there is no more physical memory available. The presence of that file does not mean that pages are swapped unnecesarily. IMO, that 700MB is the least concern for a server or for a home user considering the sizes of hard drives these days.

I certainly hope that the Linux distributions get better and find its home user base, but I think that there is a lot more work to be done before most of my friends find it not intimidating.

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by tgeorge

Someone here mentioned memory management. Windows does not pre-allocate large chunks of memory to applications without it requesting it. ...and it releases all memory ever requested by the process when the process gets killed. I wrote an application that allocate memory and not release it just to test this.


Pre-allocate? Linux does. When I boot up, I have 90% memory free. What am I missing from your above. On the release of memory though, you miss the mark and the FEATURE that the above is entirely.

It is one of the strengths of Linux/Unix. I love the above. I start up OpenOffice on Monday, exit. It stays in memory UNLESS any other app needs it and the REST is full. On Thrusday, if none of the current apps has needed to access the 50 Mbytes where Linux 'preserved' the program in ram (of the 512 on my system), when I select OpenOffice again on Thrusday, it loads in 1-2 seconds. Same with ALL apps.

Try that. Open Mozilla, OpenOffice, exit and re-open right away. Trouble is leaving here fine. Having to go back to the hard disk for everything, all the time is one of the most tedious of Window's flaws.

hlrguy

[saithan]

Tgeorge.... get a life.

it comes down to useing what you like. you don't like Linux ..I say so fscking what!

you sound like another whiner.
"boohoo, all i know is windows"
you have been using windows a long time so long that you forgotten when it was as alien as linux is to you now.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks?
ok let the dog out to pasture.

weather you like linux or not does not make a bit of difference to myself or the many users i know how are now reading youe laughable close minded rehtoric.

[pr0c]

Originally posted by tgeorge
I did not mean to say that Linux does not have a journalling filesystem. But, from one of the other threads, I got the impression that many people who don't use windows think that NTFS is not. From my experience, NTFS is extremely reliable. Whoever says that is wrong. Its not even worth discussing in my opinion.

Originally posted by tgeorge
I use ext2fs on Debian, and I have not lost data on it either. On hard reboots that I ever did, fsck fixed all my problems. You yourself are not using a journalized file system. You are a bad monkey! You need to jump on the ext3 or other journalized fs!

Originally posted by tgeorge

All I meant was, there is some intangible that makes Windows2000 easier to use for a lot of people than say, a Mandrake9 - whatever be its technical virtues. In reguards to USE i strongly disagree. Any windows user could figure out how to use KDE and/or Gnome because they are similar. In reguards to configuration etc they would be very different but thats not what ur saying. Most windows users dont bother configuring their desktop in windows so why would they in linux?

Originally posted by tgeorge
I installed a KDE3.0 and asked the non-technical staff in office to use it. They thought it was pretty, but was quite unwilling to use it at home, because of less availability shrink-wrapped applications for stuff like doing taxes and games. You don't make any sense whatsoever! I'm sorry i'm not trying to flame you but you can't just install KDE3. You must install a distro of linux. As for individual applications its a no brainer, if they will only use applications taht work in windows the obvoiusly they can only use windows! Replacing 3/4 of those applications is extremely simple. As for 'shrink wrapped applications' i'm not sure if you literally mean shrink wrapped. You dont' see many boxed linux applications because they are FREE! With the exception of very few programs you can use a replacement in linux that is FREE. Notice FREE. And don't kid yourself, the products these people want to continue using are either pirated or expensive.

Originally posted by tgeorge

I certainly hope that the Linux distributions get better and find its home user base, but I think that there is a lot more work to be done before most of my friends find it not intimidating. I always hope that products like this improve in general. But the simple fact remains... If people want to use microsoft products or products that only work on windows then it doesn't matter how good linux is.

[pr0c]

Originally posted by saithan
Tgeorge.... get a life.

it comes down to useing what you like. you don't like Linux ..I say so fscking what!

you sound like another whiner.
"boohoo, all i know is windows"
you have been using windows a long time so long that you forgotten when it was as alien as linux is to you now.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks?
ok let the dog out to pasture.

weather you like linux or not does not make a bit of difference to myself or the many users i know how are now reading youe laughable close minded rehtoric.

I knew it wouldnt' take long for someone to stoop to blantant flaming. He isn't whining at all...

And as for him and people like him liking linux or not you should care.... the more users linux has the better it will be for all of us. Get some fsking brains and learn how to discuss something without flaming.

[bazoukas]

<--- Prior avid windows user that now ditched windows all together.



Am willing to give windows another try when:

a) It supports XFS

b) Has more then one GUI enviroment for the user.

c) When security issues get fixed in a small amount of time and IE finally decides to become a really safe browser.

e) When they dont tie everything in the kernel just to have a good excuse to give when it comes to their monopoly.

You said bloat? Mmmmmmmmmmmmok. You know you can preselect in all distros what packages you want and which ones you dont want. You know you can go as low as 300MB of an install (and even lower if you know what you are doing), and of course you can go all crazy with up to 4gigs+ of install, in which case you prety much have all the software that you will need.

Lets see windows do that.

Of course you knew that right and if you didnt know it, am sure you did some "playing" around during install to find it out, right?

[deanrantala]

ummm....

NTFS vs EXT3) I won't for a minute doubt the superiority of NTFS, but if I recall, EXT3 nerver needs to be defraged or regulary scanned for errors. Yes, NTFS is a rock solid FS, but so is EXT3, and after some of the hell I have put My computer, any FAT would have gone down some time ago.

Internet explorer) I would argue on that point, but then, that is only a matter of opinion. I do belive that a nice addition they should add to mozilla is http (hotmail) email support fot the mail client. But thats just me.

Viruses)Hmmmm, well true you probably never have had problems with them (and neither did I when I used windows), but for the *average* user who doesn't understand all the different vulnerabilities in windows software, it can be a nightmare. I could guarentee this: An AVERAGE user would have less chance of catching a viruses on a linux box than on windows.
p.s. I won't mention the spyware, I mean, the viruses, I mean, the SECURITY minded software extentions that Billy boy has used an increasing amount of lately

Memory problems) I can't think of ONE TIME that a linux app has brought the whole system down (forcing to reboot) due to "memory leaks" (I'm not a programer, maybe you can explain what a "leak " is, I always wanted to know) I do also know that with nearly 15 different programs running at once, there is a negligble degrade in performance (wich I will admitt, XP does have excelent memory manegment wich is very nice with many apps running - 9x on the otherhand..)

Add/Removing Software) Most recent distros have gotten better with this. Mandrake 9.1 is just as easy (more so I feel) then windows add/remove software. Further I don't belive windows has a uniform checking system to see wether a new piece of software will require any additional libraries or other software. Instead you only get a error message that it won't work (after you installed it, rebooted, updated settings, rebooted again, and and attempted to run it). Now that same software wouldn't install (unless you force it) under linux because it knows there might be problems. Instead it tells you why and what you need. If you are absolutely confident that at is safe to install, you can then do a --force. No problem.

Installation) XP is easy - even for an illiterate, but lacks some of the features that make installation "complete" Theres hardly a difference between the latest distros and windows in that area. And even XP has finally got their sh*t together with dviver support "out of the box" , but I still find many now-out-of-business made cards that have no XP support, while it is rare to find hardware that has no linux support. One point of interest, though: Some of the Big linux distros should get *their* sh*t together with winmodems(or linmodems) So its a stale mate.

and consistent gui's) Mandrake now does that. Wether you use gnome, kde or whatever, you are porovided with a uniform system menu throughout that is 100% customizable. So it doesn't matter if you are using window maker or kde, you will find all your software in the same orderly place it was in on the last WM. And customizing the menu couldn't be easier either - by the way, I don't recall the windows start menu to be that customizable. I also think that gives linux an edge: choosing HOW you want your OS to look AND behave.

ps: A one hour linux installation yeilds a full OS, thousands of apps for almost everything you'll ever need, and the option to upgrade *everything* for free. A typical windows installation, norton firewall, antivirus, winamp, power dvd, nero, photoshop,cute ftp (2 hours later) acrobat reader, office 2000, - wait, that driver for my internet keyboard is zipped with a .rar extention, got to install winrar- , easy access keyboand......

_________________________________
"the penguin says so"

[sarah31]

sigh!

how many of these born out of frustration/i know this i know that threads like this do we get a year? too freakin' many i say.

i used to gripe like this but i gave up because anyone that has any sort of life in their system knows that linux requires you to get your hands dirty. the system is just not designed to be all point and click.

not ready for the home user? i use it at home so i guess i don't count? sheesh. are you assuming that everyone that uses it is a script kiddie? i have zero coding skills and i get by. once i took the time to listen to LOTS of people's suggestions.

once you get under the hood of linux or unix you realize that there is alot being done for you and that you likely could not even grasp one tenth of what has been done.

linux is a system that was never designed to be a nice pretty desktop OS. but some extremely hard working individuals have made it so. they have made it a far better desktop,home user OS in less time than MS has. hell MS is incapable of making a good OS imho. i have never liked it and never will it is loaded with holes most of which are NEVER fixed. somehow this poser OS made it to the top.

nah linux is just fine the way it is. i could care less if it got any further as a mass market OS. hell a major knowledge revolution would have to take oplace for it to get there. most people are far far too lazy to learn sweet hut about the device in front of them....which is a massive waste of everyone's time and money.

[je_fro]

Breaktime's over in Redmond. Get back to work. Or is this what you're paid to do....
hmm...I wonder......

[CMonster]

All I meant was, there is some intangible that makes Windows2000 easier to use for a lot of people than say, a Mandrake9 - whatever be its technical virtues.

intangible -? IOW -"I just kinda feel"

I think I can shed some light on the "intangible:" 20-years of monopoly

http://www.dslextreme.com/users/cmonster3/linlic.jpg

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by tgeorge
Startup: Although it is of not much significance, Linux with its messages on startup intimidate quite a few people. Windows also has these messages, but show it only in a "Debug" startup mode.
Um... are you actually just making a list of reasons why Linux is better than Windows? Because this is one of them.

Under the hood: The typical home user who just wants to get on the Internet, make a few documents, mail, play a few games etc. is not much interested in whether the OS has a journalling filesystem (NTFS is a journalling file system). In my experience, hard reboots trash the Linux filesystems more often than Windows. I have been using Windows since Windows3.1, and have not yet had an unusable partition because of a crash. I have lost files, but only on FAT partitions, not an NTFS.
I have lost files, but only on ext2 partitions, not on ext3. You should be interested in whether the filesystem is journalling.

Security holes: Most security holes on Windows are either based on Outlook or IIS. I use neither, and never have been affected by these viruses. It was never because of any core OS deficiency.
And yet, later on you start praising IE... :D So you're throwing out the bad packages software and keeping the good? That's about as fair as comparing Red Hat 9.0 to Windows 3.1.

Despite whatever you guys may think, Internet Explorer on Windows currently is better than Mozilla on Linux. The closest I have seen is MozillaFirebird, but has a lot of things to be implemented in it.
This is the stupidest idea ever. What do you want us to do, port IE to Linux? Would you like us to port the CSS incompatibilities, too? Firebird is a hundred times better than Internet Exploiter. Duh. :rolleyes:

IMHO, if Debian simply stole Mandrake's installer, Linux would be no problem for anyone. Um, that is to say, anyone who sees their computer as a powerful piece of machinery rather than a fancy word processor. :cool:

Why I think Windows is not ready for the home user.
Linux, including high-quality word processors, 3D rendering software, Web servers, and thousands of programming tools, is completely and utterly free. With Windows, you'll have to pay money not just for all the software noted above, but for the operating system, too.

We can gather from this that Windows costs infinity times more than Linux. Therefore, it is not ready for the home user without that sort of money. :D

[deanrantala]

ditto on the start up screen. This can be one of the most inportant features for troubleshooting a machine that won't fully boot. Unlike windoze, Linux is nice enough to let you know whats wrong......

..........rather than secretly email Microsucks about the ploblem, and even then - do you think they are going to contact you and help you fix it?

[BaVinic]

I think the problem is , you are trying to look at Linux, as though it were windows. It's not, if you want a machine the looks and feels like Windows, run windows. and you will be missing the point altogeher.

Linux is Linux, Windows is Windows, neither of them are designed to "mimic" the other. it really is that simple. If windows does everything you need, then I am happy for you. I still use windows, and for some things I probably always will. But I enjoy using Linux, it is a learning curve, something different to do.

Don't compare Linux to Windows, it is like comparing Apples to Oranges.

My0.02 worth

:)

BaVinic

[BaVinic]

Originally posted by deanrantala
ditto on the start up screen. This can be one of the most inportant features for troubleshooting a machine that won't fully boot. Unlike windoze, Linux is nice enough to let you know whats wrong......

..........rather than secretly email Microsucks about the ploblem, and even then - do you think they are going to contact you and help you fix it?

(just wanted to say hello Sorta Neightbor )

:)

BaVinic

[deanrantala]

greetings from the bay!:)

[anarchyinga]

The first OS I started out with was the Mac OS.....please, it was a long time ago. Anyway, the main reason Mac failed was the issue of compatibility. So, we moved on to Windows, Windows 2000 Pro to be exact. Frankly I love it. But enough about them. The reason I believe Linux won't go main stream (i.e. Dell, HP, Gateway) is because it is no where near as user friendly. Windows' interface is simple and the files are laid out and easy to find in the C: drive. However, I think the whole concept of root would just confuse most home owners. The average user just wants an OS that is simple, tidy, and easy to learn. But Linux will never die because of the community behind it, and what it has done for them. Plus, who needs conformity anyway.

[stumbles]

Just the usual claptrap of why people thing the Linux world should be like the doze world.

Nooooo thanks. You may not like the choices and freedoms offered but I do.

Why do people think the common user is incapable of making choices? Oh thats right billyg does it for you.

[spork2000]

If linux came pre installed on more computers I think it would be ok for most users. The installation is easy enough now.

My wife has no problems figuring out how to use Gnucash to enter stuff vs. MS Money now. KDE looks/operates much the same as Windows if you want it to that it's familiar enough for the average user.

The big hangup is applications have different names, so you have to learn new names to make the switch (not from our POV perhaps but the average user like my wife) and not all hardware is supported. PNP support too. Mount/unmount, /mnt/floppy instead of A:\ etc are unfamiliar to most people.

Easily learned but you have to want too in order to make the switch.

[stumbles]

Originally posted by spork2000

The big hangup is applications have different names, so you have to learn new names to make the switch (not from our POV perhaps but the average user like my wife) and not all hardware is supported. PNP support too. Mount/unmount, /mnt/floppy instead of A:\ etc are unfamiliar to most people.

Easily learned but you have to want too in order to make the switch.

That is perhaps the biggest issue. It was and is the same for a complete newbie when they set infront of doze for the very first time.

People have to get over the fact that,

1. Linux ain't windows and I hope like heck it never does.

2. Having choices is an asset.

3. You don't go to India and expect it to be like Pakistan. The same with OS's. They are different environments doing the same things. Their language syntax are dissimilar.

4. If you are trying out a Linux distro do so without making comparisions. You will have a much happier experience.

[hop-frog]

Soon Linux will be just like MS Windows. That would suck because then we wouldn't have anything to complain about.

WINE will be so powerful that nothing will be there to stop us from using commercial software for Windows instead of native open-source applications.
Many people here at JustLinux dual-boot so that they can use MS Software. This will make it even easier.

Microsoft will hire some real artists to design their icons and themes.
People are all taking Mac OS X icons and Aqua themes, if MS makes some good art what will be the difference?

We won't even have to convert Window's look over to Linux because KDE will have such good support for them.
Isn't there already support for XP color schemes in KDE?

Eventually we will be using so many of the components of MS Windows that there will be no difference. It will even crash like Windows. We wouldn't have any reason to use Linux anymore.
I've heard of people getting the BSOD in WINE.

In the future people will ask, "What was that thing called Linux?" Reply, "You mean SCO/Linux? That was just another clone of MS Windows."

I expect things will be like this about the time Indiana Jones IV is in theaters.

[stumbles]

Originally posted by hop-frog

In the future people will ask, "What was that thing called Linux?" Reply, "You mean SCO/Linux? That was just another clone of MS Windows."




ROTFLMAO!

Don't say that to loud the "real UNIX" folks might come lookiing for you.

[xxispawn01xx]

i couldnt agree anymore with tgeorge, i am a newb and i understand the most. learning with linux can be intimidating, but buying the right book will do you good, online tutorials usually are made if you have some prior knowldge, no use of an online tutorial if you can't get the internet running :P GNOME is considered pretty default :)

[bytech]

Originally posted by anarchyinga
Windows' interface is simple and the files are laid out and easy to find in the C: drive. However, I think the whole concept of root would just confuse most home owners.

Disagree 100%:

I have went through high school on computers from Win3.1 - 95. Computers classes as they were called were strictly MS. I learned the concept of Drive C:, and A:, and such, and it all makes perfect sense to me.

When I started using Linux, Root, and Mounting, and all that stuff confused me immensly at first.

Two months after having begun using Linux, I can say that the linux system makes FAR MORE SENSE. All the confusion I experienced, and any new Linux user coming from the MS world will experience is strictly a fact of not being used to it.

Sit down two new users who have never used a PC, and introduce both concepts, and 9 out of 10 times the root will make more sense than drive C. After all, it is a hell lot of easier to remember that the cdrom is at /mnt/cdrom than drive D. Add a second HD or partiton, and you have to explain why the heck the CDrom isn't D anymore.

You are speaking strictly from a Windows user perspective. Once you understand Root, and compare the two, I challenge anyone to give me 1 good reason why C: is easier to understand than Root. After familiarity, Root is much more logical.

[Nuada Storm]

The number one reason that Linux is not ready for the Home User?

Games... The number of games on the platform is low. Very few companies from Electronic Arts to Blizzard to even Microsoft provide games for the platform. They won't for the forseeable future because of the anti-commercial software backlash seen in a lot of Linux users.

Now while this may seem unpopular, until you see shrinkwrapped games on store shelves for the platform in an easy to install manner, you won't see Linux on even a good double digit proportion of desktops. Now I know some will say you don't want it on the desktop and that it is a server OS but that really is an unrealistic long-term goal.

It would take anyone using KDE all of ten minutes to make the desktop similar to Windows with My Computer and a C Drive and so forth.

[stumbles]

Originally posted by Nuada Storm
[B]The number one reason that Linux is not ready for the Home User?

Games...

That is about the only legit reason posted so far.

[Tjoh311]

And you would think that game companies would have the insight to think of the open source community as profitable prospects--How many registered linux users are out there now? HMMMM!!! :confused:

[xxispawn01xx]

quote:Originally posted by Nuada Storm
[B]The number one reason that Linux is not ready for the Home User?

Games...



That is about the only legit reason posted so far.

As funny as it seems it is true, games are like a drug they made me obese and stupid

[Nuada Storm]

Originally posted by Tjoh311
And you would think that game companies would have the insight to think of the open source community as profitable prospects--How many registered linux users are out there now? HMMMM!!! :confused:

The average blockbuster game costs about 10-30 million dollars to make these days. Not exactly something you can recoup with opensource software.

In another thread on these forums about why people use Linux, one of the big reasons is because it is "free". However free software is not synonomous with Open Source though many believe them to be the same. In order for the game companies to stay in business and make a profit, they need to be able to recoup their costs. This means commercial software. How many of you would pay for these games and their proprietary engines?

[stumbles]

Originally posted by Tjoh311
And you would think that game companies would have the insight to think of the open source community as profitable prospects--How many registered linux users are out there now? HMMMM!!! :confused:

No.... I'm just saying there are a lot who won't use a Linux distro because of limited game support.

I have no idea how many registered Linux users..... perhaps you could share that with us.

[stumbles]

Originally posted by Nuada Storm

In another thread on these forums about why people use Linux, one of the big reasons is because it is "free". However free software is not synonomous with Open Source though many believe them to be the same. [QUOTE]

Very true but not for me.

[QUOTE]In order for the game companies to stay in business and make a profit, they need to be able to recoup their costs. This means commercial software. How many of you would pay for these games and their proprietary engines?

If it was a game I wanted to play I would certainly pay for it. It matters not to me if it used a proprietary engine. GPL allows for closed source progams.

Trouble is there have only been a handful of games I bought when I was in the doze world.

If I understand you correctly, it also applies to software companies in general. Most businesses don't move into an area unless they perceive some kind of market to justify the "investment".

[Gfamily]

I'm a brand new linux user - and I have to agree with the original posting.

I have just installed Mandrake 8.1 on my old PC and I can't say I'm overwhelmed.
OK for a free o/s its quite remarkable, but to be honest Windows XP is very little extra if bought OEM on a new machine (we are talking about your standard home user).

In terms of use - I can't get online with my modem. Since I'm using Mandrake I don't have StarOffice, and since I can't get online I can't download it.

So the two main 'home' uses aren't open to me.
Fortunately I can do ICS with my trusty XP box but I wouldn't ask my family to put up with this.

This is just first impressions - but I think home users have an expectation that like modern day cars, their operating system will allow them to get in and drive.

One repsondent in this thread talked about 'under the bonnet' operations - to be honest, how many people want to open the bonnet when they really want to drive to the shops or to work.

I think a lot of people have invested a lot of time and effort into getting Linux to wokr for them - so naturally they're going to assert how good it is; but some of us aren't so sure its a 'from the box' solution to home use at this point of time.

[Darksamurai]

Originally posted by tgeorge
Background:

Default GUI: Although most Linux distributions install KDE or GNOME by default, there has to be one common GUI. Having different linux systems on different window managers confuses people. One of the major advantages of Windows is that most applications adhere to a standard "look and feel".

What I think Linux needs:

- A consistent user interface, before I can ask my users to switch to Linux.
- Better housekeeping and autorecovery tools in case of crashes etc.
- Despite whatever you guys may think, Internet Explorer on Windows currently is better than Mozilla on Linux. The closest I have seen is MozillaFirebird, but has a lot of things to be implemented in it.
- A lot of commercial desktiop software, particularly games, deciding to support it.

Thomas.

Dude... If Windows GUI was so popular, things like StyleXP, Aston Shell, Winblinds etc... wouldn't be so popular.

As for Autorecovery, I shut OFF autorecovery to conserve resources.

I worked in PC Repair... IE 5 and 6 are buggy as hell... especially on an O/S like ME. Not saying Mozilla is stable, but I personally can use it without problems.

I will TOTALLY agree with the last statement though. Unreal2003 was a MAJOR step in the right direction, but Linux still has a ways to go to lure gamers away from Windows.

I'd like to add one thing... Windows IS still a helluva lot easier to use... THAT is going to keep it on top... Linux is getting better every distro though and it IS cheaper than Windows... even Wal-Mart started using Lindows (which I've heard isn't the greatest of Distros... but it's a step in the right direction)...

[AlexPlank]

- Despite whatever you guys may think, Internet Explorer on Windows currently is better than Mozilla on Linux. The closest I have seen is MozillaFirebird, but has a lot of things to be

You must be Joking?

Also, whats the point of autorecover when linux doesnt have all those stupid bugs?

[AlexPlank]

I'd like to add one thing... Windows IS still a helluva lot easier to use... THAT is going to keep it on top... Linux is getting better every distro though and it IS cheaper than Windows... even Wal-Mart started using Lindows (which I've heard isn't the greatest of Distros... but it's a step in the right direction)...

GNU/Linux is a lot easier for me. Red Hat 9 made more sense and was easier to install than windows. Lots of people when using linux for first time after using windows find it easier and more intuitive than windows.

COMPARING WINDOWS TO LINUX WINDOWS DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE. WINDOWS IS CLOSER TO KDE THAN IT IS TO LINUX. LINUX IS A KERNEL, AND WINDOWS IS A GUI SHELL THAT RUNS ON TOP OF AN OS. YOU DONT MAKE ANY SENSE.

[hop-frog]

Whenever I go back to Windows I remember how complicated and confusing it was. Remember the Control Center? You opened it up and it gave you twenty seperate configuration tools. Each tool would have those annoying three rows worth of tabs to navigate. I remember having three completely seperate programs listed in the Control Center just for configuring dial-up internet. I won't even begin to explain how disorganized MS Word is.

[drunkpenguin]

Originally posted by hop-frog
I won't even begin to explain how disorganized MS Word is.

Then I will :D. Not even Indiana Jones, Lara Croft or MacGyver could get through that dialog with out wanting to take a sledge hammer to the fscking computer.

[AlexPlank]

SURE! Mabye Windows is better if you use your computer as a TOY, but who wants to pay for fisher price when you can get Rolls Royce for free? :eek:

[iGuy]

Ah, the old Gnu/Linux vs. Mircrosoft thing again. They just buried the last thread. I am a home user. I prefer Linux. Not convinced? 'Course not. The argument goes on an on... Better [not]; Free[virus]; Configurable [not user friendly]; Rebel Alliance {Darth Vader] Yada da da da da...

Use it or don't.

Use it or lose it.

I use it. I like it. No genius here -- but installs just fine for me.

[iGuy]

My first installation was in 1998. What a pain. Believe me, Linux has come a long way baby! And it will go further if contributions keep it on the cutting edge (well, maybe not my mediocre contribution). You see, it is just like every other system. People work on it. Sometimes it excels. Other times it is garbage. But unlike any other system -- if it is not right, then it is our fault. We write this one.

Saithan, prOc: Don't you cuss on this here radio. I know, "fscking" is not a cuss word. But it is red underlined... and when I put Aspell on it, guess what suggestion Aspell has?

We were once children playing with toys...

CMonster: Very good! I enjoyed that.

You know, sometimes I think Bill G. puts people in forums just to mess things up. But, then again, I have'nt taken my daily medication like I should.

[Gertrude]

I havn't used windows on any of my home PCs for almost a year. Its not that its a horrible OS at least XP and 2000 arnt, I just dont have a use for it. I think alot of people need to quit being so closed minded about it, and realize that not everyone wants to spend a hour to figure out how to get their scroll wheel to work on their mouse. Then another day or two to get java and flash working. There is a millions of people in the US alone that would hate Linux just because they arnt computer nerds, or dont care that much about a computer to spend endless amount of time on something that in windows would be a click away. Windows has its purpose, as do other alernative operating systems. Windows may be a "TOY" for 98% of the population, but they dont give a **** about it because they dont understand the difference between a right and left click on a mouse. Maybe in a few years the general public may start to get more exposed to linux, but that time certainly isn't now.

[sarah31]

Originally posted by Gfamily

One repsondent in this thread talked about 'under the bonnet' operations - to be honest, how many people want to open the bonnet when they really want to drive to the shops or to work.

I think a lot of people have invested a lot of time and effort into getting Linux to wokr for them - so naturally they're going to assert how good it is; but some of us aren't so sure its a 'from the box' solution to home use at this point of time.

i was that respondent ... while i understand all the frustrations of linux. may i point i cam to linux with virtually no exerience at all with *nix systems.

now i am having more fun with my computers than i was ever having in XP or 98SE. i could not afford to continually by software for what i needed to do. organization of windows is a nightmare. and the running performance...while much improved in XP serieous lacks. just try upgrading or changing major hardware components. or how about all the cost invovled in purchasing copies of the os to beable to use on several computers. honest users (the majority of people out there) are punished for buying a PC.

when i first installed linux (Mandrake) i was surprise at how easy it was to get used to it's gui environment. other things did not come easy but is everything easy in windows?

out of the box to me means sweet nothing because without some knowledge of the OS you are using/going to use it is pointless even having a computer. and wanting everything point and click and automatic is just hiding the fact that you are completely at the mercy of your OS and will spend anything to keep it running. hiding the core functions of an OS is like putting a 12 year old in a car and telling them to drive you to work.

this may seem mean to say but really if you think back to the VERY FIRST TIME you fired up your windows you knew very little. with time you learned it. so without even knowing it you DO have to "look under the bonnet" from time to time to remain functional in any OS.

no matter how much pain i suffered in the early time with linux i think it is every bit home user worthy. that is why i use it at home. in fact it will be one year on the 17th of june since i last used any OS other than linux on this computer. since then i have obtained two other PCs here and all they have on them is Linux. i am not a computer professional i am a home user that has, since installing linux, learned just how much i can do and learn about this device in front of me. i learn everyday and it is fun. when i go to work i feel very restricted because all we have is XP pro.

[deanrantala]

can't tastify about the learning curve as far as the drive letters, but it does make good sense. What makes understanding linux easy (I feel) is that EVERYTHING within linux is simply seen as a file or directory. I know that after 15 years of DOS and windows, and only since end of last year with linux - the whole C:\ thing does seem to feel more awkward every day.

[drunkpenguin]

Ultimitly in the end, it is up to the end user to decide. I don't think any of us here can make a truly sound definitive argument that can make one sound better than the other. But I certainly do now, that linux for home users is at hand. It will be slow and long, but it certainly will not just happen over night. It would help if people were open minded, but we'er not. We like to ride that big thing that has been successful and so far that has been Microsoft. It would also help if people had a choice in the market place besides windows to run on their home PC. Part of the problem is that humans by their very nature are greedy. We want to have power and wealth. The current modle only allows a few to have wealth and power. For example, only Microsoft can modify the source code to windows and they control how it is marketed and sold. Linux how ever conceeds power to the end-user. THe user has control of the source code, they can manufacture and sell it providing it remains under the GPL. Yes I said linux can be sold. Why? Because linux is free as in freedom and not free as in beer, although you can get free as in beer. So that may be linuxes biggest problem. It gives power to the user and author equally. God bless Linus Torvalds and RMS.

[Gertrude]

free as in freedom and not free as in beer, although you can get free as in beer.

Free beer? wanna hang out sometime?

[blackbelt_jones]

The one thing I agree with from the original post by TGeorge is that I've had problems with hard reboots... though offhand I can't remember exactly what they were. At the time I responded with reinstalling, though I now think a bootdisk would have been more appropriate. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Of course, the biggest problem with Linux for beginners is that it doesn't already come on their computers. When I was first starting out at computing, most of the people I knew who had been at it for years had never installed their own operating system, and spoke of the prospect with more uncertainty and caution than reallyseems warrented, now that I have done it so many times.

But this is changing, most famously with the introduction of computers with preinstalled Lycoris, Mandrake, and SUse available online at Walmart.com. As we you would expect, these computers are really cheap, demonstrating just how much of your computer dollars go to Redmond, and I expect I'll be buying my first new computer there..

I certainly don't agree that Linux distros need to be more standardized, but maybe we should all agree on what distro is best for the casual home user who wants to surf, email and print up homemade Christmas cards, and have the process be as simple and trouble-free as possible. These people are a huge part of the market, and they have every right to feel this way about their computers. They got other stuff going on in their lives, and we shouldn't look down our noses at them.
Indeed I wonder if one of the most intimidating aspects of Linux for the casual Windows user isn't the Linux community itself. There asome people who just can't read the f***ing manual, and we should be generous to those people.

As Microsoft's technology grows ever more intrusive and meglomaniacal, Bill Gates' plan seems to be more and more about networking. He says that Palladium will "allow us to use computers in whole new wys that they haven't been secure enough for in the past."

Such as? I am a low-income American who can't afford health care, and I resent the price of all goods and services being jacked up by overpriced software so that the rich bastards of the future can have their refrigerators, toasters, tvs, toilets, and underwear networked together in a windows-based network of mediocrity. I really do believe that Bill Gates is crazy and that he literally wants to run everything. We need to oppose him, and for that we need to bring the technically inept on board.

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by blackbelt_jones
Such as? I am a low-income American who can't afford health care, and I resent the price of all goods and services being jacked up by overpriced software so that the rich bastards of the future can have their refrigerators, toasters, tvs, toilets, and underwear networked together in a windows-based network of mediocrity. I really do believe that Bill Gates is crazy and that he literally wants to run everything. We need to oppose him, and for that we need to bring the technically inept on board.

Amen! :cool:

[pr0c]

Originally posted by drunkpenguin
Ultimitly in the end, it is up to the end user to decide..

I'm sorry but this is very wrong in my opinion. The user doesnt' get to decide anything. Probably 9/10 sources only sell computers with windows on them and most home users see no reason to switch because they already have windows. To them they didn't pay for windows, they paid for a computer and got windows for free. In all reality we know they paid the Microsoft tax but they dont' care.

If computers had a choice between linux and windows upon sale then they'd have a choice! Or if you could order a computer with NO os then they'd have a choice and the obvious cheaper choice would be linux. As it is right now linux does not stand a chance.

We are trying to do the equivalent of having people who buy a <your least favorite car manufacturer> truck put a <your favorite car manufacturer> engine in it.

[brucehohl]

I use linux at home for/with the following:
KDE desktop
OpenOffice
KOffice
Konqueror
Netscape
AIM - for the kids
Samba - to share files & printers
LinNeighborhood GUI browser
K3b - cd burner
Games that came with the distro
Webmin - mostly to get my files remotely
RealVNC - installed, because it's there and free
SuSE tools for admin

I'm not an IT pro so I like easy to use GUI apps and tools. My kids ages 5, 9, 12 and spouse are as likely to use the Linux/KDE PC as one of the 2 Windows PCs.

My opinion based on my 6 months use of SuSE is that SuSE and similar distributions are easy to use and "ready" for home.

tgeorge - just get them a PC set up with SuSE or similar and apps like above, give them 6 months to check it out, then form your opinion.

[drunkpenguin]

Originally posted by pr0c
I'm sorry but this is very wrong in my opinion. The user doesnt' get to decide anything. Probably 9/10 sources only sell computers with windows on them and most home users see no reason to switch because they already have windows. To them they didn't pay for windows, they paid for a computer and got windows for free. In all reality we know they paid the Microsoft tax but they dont' care.

*SNIP*


Ok how ignorant are you? I honestly believe that you work for microsoft. It is not the supliers that control what will be sold. It is the end-user. This is because the suplier wants the end-users money. Thus what the end-user wants, is what the suplier will sell. So it is up to the end-user to demand linux. The ONLY reason why microsoft tops linux is because of its illegal monopoly practices, and marketing compaign. Take away the monopoly and if Red-Hat was to market Linux to the home user, I think you will see a big change.

I think a binch of us should get together and mass produce Knopix CDs and distribute them to everyone. I am sure that if they use it just once, they will want to dump windows. I am going t start tomorrow. I am going to burn the CDs, lable them and distribute them freely arround my town.

[je_fro]

I just threw away my 3rd AOL CD this year. I always carry a few knoppix CD's around and give them away to interested parties. Of course, I have to get them interesed....

[drunkpenguin]

Getting people interested shouldn't be too hard.

[CrashTestDummy9]

Havent read the thread in its entirety so if this was said already I apollogize.

The home-user isnt ready for Linux...Linux is and has been ready for quite some time.

[pr0c]

Originally posted by drunkpenguin
Ok how ignorant are you? I honestly believe that you work for microsoft. It is not the supliers that control what will be sold. It is the end-user. This is because the suplier wants the end-users money. Thus what the end-user wants, is what the suplier will sell. So it is up to the end-user to demand linux. The ONLY reason why microsoft tops linux is because of its illegal monopoly practices, and marketing compaign. Take away the monopoly and if Red-Hat was to market Linux to the home user, I think you will see a big change.

I think a binch of us should get together and mass produce Knopix CDs and distribute them to everyone. I am sure that if they use it just once, they will want to dump windows. I am going t start tomorrow. I am going to burn the CDs, lable them and distribute them freely arround my town.

Are you a @#(*^@ idiot or what? You need to either learn to read or learn to interpret what one is saying. I WORK FOR MICROSOFT? I never made 1 supportive statement in reguards to Microsoft, where do you get that?

Am I Ignorant? Lets go over the facts just for your fsked up little brain.

FACTS:

FACT. The majority of major Computer Retailers such as Dell ONLY offer WIndows.

FACT. If a computer company sells any other OS they lose a lot of money because Microsoft hits them hard. Microsoft then charges way more for windows, they take away their incentives.


My simple statement is that it is not up to the end user as to what OS they get. BECAUSE ITS NOT. YOU GET WINDOWS 99% OF THE TIME. I don't know how your pea sized brain assosiactes that with me liking microsoft... you've got some bad wiring in there. I suggest you take your flamebait and trolling back to slashdot.

If the suppliers want to make money they have to solely offer Windows, how do you figure that the suppliers are in charge of their OS distribution?

Whats even funnier is you support what i say "The ONLY reason why microsoft tops linux is because of its illegal monopoly practices"... Maybe you just can't read.

[drunkpenguin]

Hi I'm Dan and I'm 3 years old. I can't read or type and I am in Mrs. McKrackens pre-school class. Ok you got me here.

Secondly you are still wrong. If you took any kind of a basic economics class in high school, in the end, it is the enduser/customer that determines what is sold on the market, not the suppliers. If the people are informed and empowered to demand choice, then a change in the supply will occur.

Let's say your Thruway Computers and I am Dumbass Electronics. We both sell copies of Winodws at $89 retail and we both get incentives that make our cost to buy windows 30% of the retail price. But the people don't want windows they want Foo. So you being hruway Computers, look into foo. I don't. You find that foo is open source and freely available. It can be distributed freely and sold at any price providing you include the source code with the distribution. So you don't like the distributins from Green Scarf or PuTY, so you decide to make your own. You get all the source for free, compile it for diffrent platforms, and decide to target the home user by selling it for $89.00 and incuding one year of support and premium update service. So your sales and profits increase because your orginal investment was small and there is great demand for the product. This high return is most likely to be short term. But you don't have to pay any licensing fees, like you did with windows and it take about 20% of your retail price to pay for labor and infrastructure. SO your profit is 80% of the sale. Plus you got a jump on me who is now strugling to make the switch and get a foot hold in the market again. I admit that this modle may have some flaws to it, but I think the basic pricipales that I am trying to express are there. Point is, since the people demanded foo, you sold foo to make money and steal market share from your competitor, and it ended up being that foo was more profitable.

As far as flamebait, your the one who talks in circles and as if you are being paid by microsoft to post here. This is what I believe and I will stand by it. If i had the resources to start my own buisness and manufacture computers with linux on them I would.

Finally, I asked this in another thread, what can windows do that linux can't??

[pr0c]

"As far as flamebait, your the one who talks in circles and as if you are being paid by microsoft to post here. "

Show me a single statement i made that makes me look like i even like microsoft or support them in any fashion. Also show me an example of talking in circles. There is something _YOU_ are mis-interpretting.

Since you are only capable of comprehending a 3rd graders converstation obviously let me break my previous post. People have to use windows because every computer they buy comes with it. They dont' know about alternatives so hey use windows until they buy a new computer.

If you ask 50 people at random what operating sytem they use probably half of them couldn't tell you. Ask the same group of people if they know what Linux is and maybe 10 would know. And their knowledge is limited to "Linux is Hard". Its ignorance that sells windows. People simply dont' know that their is an alternative and when they find out they just think "I got windows FREE with my computer".

And you think that windows is on every pc because of consumer consumer demand you are a fool. It is because of consumer ignorance not demand. I however will not go further into detail because you are incapable of understanding and it would be a waste of my time.

[drunkpenguin]

I didn't say that windows was on PCs for consumer demand. I believe that the under lying theme is that people need to be educated to the prospect of linux and given the choice. It is hard liners like you that won't go out and spread the message that there is choice.

[pr0c]

Originally posted by drunkpenguin
I didn't say that windows was on PCs for consumer demand. I believe that the under lying theme is that people need to be educated to the prospect of linux and given the choice. It is hard liners like you that won't go out and spread the message that there is choice.

Something is severely fsked up in your brain. Spread the word that their is a choice? I setup people with Linux all the time. I have successfully converted my parents and others totally to Linux and have several friends dual booting. I distribute Knoppix cds often, probably 50 by now. I spend hours daily helping people with their Linux problems here on these forums, by instant messaging and in real life. I evangelize more than you could imagine. Hell i've been supportive of linux through out the entire thread.. see post #2. The problem is that you are incapable of reading and comprehension and somehow think I'm supportive of microsoft and windows.

[woodyjohnson425]

Originally posted by blackbelt_jones
I certainly don't agree that Linux distros need to be more standardized, but maybe we should all agree on what distro is best for the casual home user who wants to surf, email and print up homemade Christmas cards, and have the process be as simple and trouble-free as possible. These people are a huge part of the market, and they have every right to feel this way about their computers. They got other stuff going on in their lives, and we shouldn't look down our noses at them.
Indeed I wonder if one of the most intimidating aspects of Linux for the casual Windows user isn't the Linux community itself. There asome people who just can't read the f***ing manual, and we should be generous to those people.

Agreed. For all the dick waving going on here, it comes down to most people being point and clickers - if Linux is to SERIOUSLY challenge 'doze, it has to be easy to use. A dumbed down distro for the masses so to speak. There will and should still be plenty of distros for the Linux community to sink their teeth into.

History has shown the better idea/product does NOT always win ( remember Beta/VHS?). If Linux stays solely as a geeks playpen or becomes a Windows challenger is up to this community.

[ricstr]

No i have to dissagree with standardiation in linux as this is one of the good points of it, this is what makes it so flexable and a pleasure to use.

I beleive that if it was standardised the abilty to change windows managers and or desktop enviroments to perticular needs would dissapear.

I think a distro specifcly aimed at microsoft windows users could be made pointy, clicky and shiney and make it compatible with other linux distros and it could be used as a 'gateway' distro to attract windows users.

It comes down to this, we either trade our felxiblty to configure our systems as we wish or make it all shiney, pointy and clicky so we can enjoy microsoft fail. By making the trade were would be 'cutting our noses of to spite our face' as my mother would say.

[Tesl]

iv often wondered how difficult it would be to almost develop a split desktop, one for the average user and another for the developer.

Maybe Linux does just need one distribution and one desktop that could make things easier. i think rpm's should be worked on, but installation of various programs needs to be made easier. Other than that its just compatibility and games, which will come in time.

Linux could also do with a few killer IDE's. KDevelop definitely looks to be on the right path, as does Anjuta. Maybe a few similar packages would be good.

then its just a case of some marketting and letting people know it exists. Most people now havent even heard of Linux, and most of those who have think its either a programming language itself, or think that its purely a CLI OS. Very few people know exactly what Linux is

[woodyjohnson425]

Originally posted by ricstr
I think a distro specifcly aimed at microsoft windows users could be made pointy, clicky and shiney and make it compatible with other linux distros and it could be used as a 'gateway' distro to attract windows users.

It comes down to this, we either trade our felxiblty to configure our systems as we wish or make it all shiney, pointy and clicky so we can enjoy microsoft fail. By making the trade were would be 'cutting our noses of to spite our face' as my mother would say.

I don't think a trade off is necessary - because Linux is developed by more than one source- you CAN have a distro for power users who have the knowledge and skills to tweak and fiddle with Linux all they want AND a "clicky, shiny" distro for the typical Windoze user. Because Micro$oft isn't the sole provider, distros can be developed for specific types of users. It's a win-win.
The typical user doesn't know nor do they care if it's WIndoze or Linux or the Tooth Fairy OS - they just want their computer to work, period.

[ricstr]

I don't think a trade off is necessary - because Linux is developed by more than one source- you CAN have a distro for power users who have the knowledge and skills to tweak and fiddle with Linux all they want AND a "clicky, shiny" distro for the typical Windoze user. Because Micro$oft isn't the sole provider, distros can be developed for specific types of users. It's a win-win.
The typical user doesn't know nor do they care if it's WIndoze or Linux or the Tooth Fairy OS - they just want their computer to work, period.



Yes that is way thing are just now, but if it standardised then then everything would have to be compatable. That mean all distros will have to comply with standards, which would make it the oposite of open, therfore not open source.

[rwtoften]

I, tend to agree that linux is easier to learn and install then windows and the only reason I, use windows is to play one game. I, do find that xp is alot more stable then any previous versions but feel more comfortable when using linux.
I'm no expert just a every day home user. But it all comes down to ones personal comfort level.
:cool: