Is Linux Home Desktop Ready?

[madcompnerd]

I thought I'd open up a little debate on the subject, I know it's controversial among linux users and lovers.
In my opinion Linux is ready for the desktop in the sense that there aren't any really user-friendly products in most markets. Cars are hard to fix, difficult to learn some of the electronic features. VCR's usually blink 12:00, and people still hire plumbers. And if one compares to Windows, there are thousands of shops that charge a premium to fix Windows computers, and many of the fixes will be non-hardware related. So perfection is not the goal as it seems many linux users/lovers/developers seem to think.
Before I get flamed, all those times I said linux I was refferring to all major distributions in general. Linux itself is beyond ready for the desktop, it's AMAZING on the desktop.
I don't want to hear anything about program installation difficulties, simply because of apt,emerge,portage(BSD, but still), and even ClickNRun. Any idiot can use all those.

[hlrguy]

It is more than ready for the desktop for the savy user who can install, follow instructions, etc. It is NOT ready for Mom, Grandma, etc to attempt to install themselves. Preconfigured from an OEM company like Lindows, it is ready. When I am the OEM, no one has problems with it since it is all preconfigured. With that said, more commercial apps/support would be great.

I always say and believe, if the tables were turned, and Joe user had to attempt to install XP alongside the pre-installed and fully supported Linux OEM computer, XP WOULD NOT be ready for the desktop, and we would be asking 'When is Windows ready for the average user'. The install and config are the daunting tasks, no matter which OS.

hlrguy

[moojuece]

i would have to say yes it is....
i am running slackware 9.1 at home and havent booted to windows in....um....since i got it the week it came out...there is nothing i can do in windows that i cannot do in slack

as far as ease of install goes i learned a valuable leason on this....one of my clients whom i host a mail server for decided they no longer wanted to go with linux and they wanted to convert to exchange....while doing the exchange install i realized that even 'not user friendly' installers like slackware's are much easier than windows....i have never had to search the internet for drivers for linux and the only ones i ever had to d/l were for my nvidia card....whereas with this windows install...sound video and nic were unrecognized....had to search for nic drivers....then switch to a different nic and d/l drivers for that...install the drivers then search for video and sound drivers...still unresolved....
as for linux....install....d/l nvidia drivers, configure XFree and im done...easy as that...sound and nic are there in the kernel....

[Thrasher]

I think in some cases where the person knows absolutely nuthing about computers and wants to do simple things like surf the web, do email and maybe a few simple games, it is actually better and easier.
An example of this is my father...he loves to visit websites and look at all the neat stuff out there, email the 3 people he knows and of course solitare! He started on windows 98 about a year ago and has destroyed it NUMEROUS times by visiting questionable sites (lol) and installing the stupid popup stuff and the like. Since I Have put him on RedHat, he has not had a single problem with accidently installing spyware, viruses, tool bars, etc. He is able to access everything he wants and is quite happy.
It's the middle of the road people that will have to most difficult time with Linux in my opinion, because they demand more easy to use and install applications and functions. Thats where the ease of use needs to be increased in Linux before it gains more home desktop favor. But thats just my take on it.

[BaVinic]

As some of you know I have been playing with Lindows a lot, testing it, setting it up and just ripping it a new one. well I took this test 1 step further, every weekend, I spend time at the senior center near my house, I speed time answering questions, and help the older generation send and receive e-mail, surf the web, and just to learn the basics of computer use. well,

I went there 2 weekends ago, and left copies of Lindows and 9 computers, and asked for 9 volunteers, the youngest was 87 the oldest is 92. I went back this past weekend, to see how they did installing it.

9 out of 9 users got it installed, and we able to surf the web, send e-mail and even use IM. all with no help from me.

So, the answer to your question is simply YES, i do believe in one form or another, Linux is ready for the common folks :D


BaVinic

[gonzor57]

Well, what does ready means? If you look at the way Windows gets into folks homes, it's mostly by means of a new system already pre-installed. Some more pc savvy folks go buy the shrink wrap and do it on their own and like a poster above said, encounters problems with drivers etc. In my opinion, same thing goes for linux as far as hardware goes. If a system coming out of a box has Linux already installed, it will be just as ready as a Windows pre-install IMHO.

Ruben

[AndrewLubinus89]

I think it is ready, I mean, I am a normal desktop user, I like to 3d model, surf the web, use office functions, and I am enjoying linux on my computer even though it took a bit of work to get started.

[UglyBoy]

IMO (note the lack of H in there!), Linux is ready for use on the desktop, but if (and only if) you are very comfortable with getting right into the system. For the vast majority of users, and as much as I hate to say this, I think Windows is still probably a better option in terms of ease of use and general user-friendliness.

Before I get flamed to a crisp, evidently Red Hat's CEO agrees with me (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5101690.html)...

Matthew Szulik, chief executive of Linux vendor Red Hat, said on Monday that although Linux is capable of exceeding expectations for corporate users, home users should stick with Windows: "I would say that for the consumer market place, Windows probably continues to be the right product line," he said. "I would argue that from the device-driver standpoint and perhaps some of the other traditional functionality, for that classic consumer purchaser, it is my view that (Linux) technology needs to mature a little bit more."

Having said that, I personally like the flexibility that I get from Linux (not to mention the price!) and the fact that I am not tied to a particular way of doing things.

Speaking from my own (current) experiences, I don't know how many Joe Publics would put up with the frustration and steep learning curve that come with a change of the magnitude of a Win->Linux swap. But I'm going to persevere - I'm looking forward to the day when Red Hat Linux is the only thing I see when Grub loads up.

So yes, I think Linux is desktop ready, but not for everyone (yet).

[Daedrus]

I don't think it is a question of whether or not Linux is ready for the desktop. It is mainly whether or not the user is ready for Linux. For an every day user to turn the machine on and have to install Linux could be a major chore, of course so is installing Windows. It all depends on what the user wants to do with the system. Gamers, for the most part, are better off on Windows for the time being. WineX is good, but still not everything runs on it, especially many of the MMORPG's out.

For most users, they are ready for Linux it just needs to be put in front of them to use. I applaud those of you who build systems for people with Linux installed. This shows that progress is being made.

Okay enough rambling from me. :D

[Mirrorball]

It's ready for the newbie but not for the more experienced Windows user. If all your friends are using that program XYZ, you will probably want to install it too. Few people like to be different and most think that we Linux users are all computer scientists or anti-social geeks.
But in the future more and more companies will see the benefits of open source software. Why do they have to pay so much to Microsoft if they could donate a much smaller amount to open source developers and have the programs they need, with unlimited free upgrades? They can also install it in an unlimited number of computers. It makes no sense to pay for what you can have almost for free and they will realize it soon. If a group of companies want to have a given application, an office suite for example, they just have to support their favorite open source project. Companies will start to install Linux on workstations and their employees will see Linux is not too difficult to use and will want to install it at home as well. Or so I hope.

[UglyBoy]

...most think that we Linux users are all computer scientists or anti-social geeks...

But I am (a geek that is, not a computer scientist)! :D

[mangan6716]

I just jumped out the WINDOWS! Linux is ready for the desktop. I made the jump because of all the viruses and worms etc.... I have never used Linux before yesterday. I dont seem to notice many problems yet. (Except for installing new applications) I assume I will be up to speed in a few weeks. I would like to see applications that allow me to use my Windows files though. I found WINE but I have no idea how to get it going.
I think this would be a good time for more advertising the security with a Linux box compared to XP. This would help more families make the jump...it did me.

[psi42]

How do you explain mount, cd, and su to someone who doesn't know (and doesn't want to learn) how to copy and paste?

Linux is ready for the users who want to spend the time to learn how to use the system. These users will benefit greatly by converting to linux, and many will never look back. :) :D

But many others just don't want to learn how to use linux or even windows, they want to have to absorb as little as possible. They don't want to learn how to use linux, let alone install it.

Yeah, many distros these days install themselves automagically. And some distros package programs greatly simplify installation of new programs, but what if a certain program or a program's newest version isn't in the package repository? What happens when the average user wants to download and install the newest release of gaim on their shiny new linux system, and that newest release is not available in the package manager? They'll have to compile it from source, and they'll read something like: "open up a shell, cd to the dir where you downloaded the tarball, tar jxvf <filename>, cd <new directory>, ./configure && make && su -c "make install." Then that user is going to have to learn basic bash, and learn the concepts of directories, tarballs, and compilation. Then once they get done with that, they will have to figure out how to run the program they just installed.

What about just accessing files on removable media. Even with supermount, the user still has to open up /mnt/cdrom or /mnt/floppy. Then they have to figure out what to do with the files.......



In addition, average users already have windoze, and they probably don't want to switch. The average user has little incentive to install linux if they've already paid for a windoze license. And the odds are they already have a windoze license as it came with their computer. Why should the average microserf install linux if they have already paid for windoze and are satisfied with it, and regard all errors, pop-ups, viruses, unexpected freezes, unexplained crashes, and constant reboots as "just the way things are?"

Now if the big computer manufacturers (HP, Gateway, etc) started shipping desktop-oriented machines pre-installed with linux, it would be a different story. Then the mass conversions will start, because people will just buy whatever is in the store, and if it's linux, then they'll have linux. :):):D

Linux is ready for the desktop user who wants to run and use linux. If a user is willing to read manuals, endure frustration, and ask for help, that user is ready for the switch.

But the truth is, most users would rather use windows than use the CLI.


Don't get me wrong here, I'm always trying to get people to convert to linux :D, and Linux IS ready for the user who is willing to spend time learning it. But if "The Desktop" is to be defined as users who don't want to spend time learning how to use their computer, then neither windows nor linux is ready for the desktop.


Just my $0.02

~psi42

[rameyd]

Do I think that mortal man can do a Linux install?

Sure, if you can read you can cook or install linux.

My first kick at the can was Debian, not exactly friendly but in reality quite simple.

The thing that I find frustrating is the ridiculous names given to the software (mostly excellant) that is available.

What is more obvious to the lay-user (Word?)...
MSN Messenger or Gaim

Why does ever piece of Software written for KDE have to start k? kmail is obvious but dumb (or decidely boring).

I think that before the push to the desktop is viable, we as a community need to establish some brand recognition. When people hear Microsoft they think Windows, Office, Money. That is why someone walks out of the store with Money rather than Quicken. Because they know the Name.

I think that Ximian was on the right track with Evolution and their desktop. This is most likely why Novell pulled out the cheque book. With the acquisition of SuSE, Novell might be making the move toward a unified "brand" that will be known in the market.

For the desktop to be attained we need people to want OpenOffice, not MS Office for Red Hat. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Dave

[tmcG]

I found this interesting article on Linux Today.com:

Linux for the Desktop? (http://news.osdir.com/article325.html) :)

[madcompnerd]

Why does ever piece of Software written for KDE have to start k? kmail is obvious but dumb (or decidely boring).
I agree, it should be 'KDE Mail' instead of k as a recursive acronym.
And in KDE's defense, Gnome does it too :-p.

[UglyBoy]

I think that before the push to the desktop is viable, we as a community need to establish some brand recognition. When people hear Microsoft they think Windows, Office, Money. That is why someone walks out of the store with Money rather than Quicken. Because they know the Name.

I hadn't really thought of it this way before, but now that I do, it makes sense.

If you ask Joe or Jane Public what he/she thinks for when you say 'Microsoft', you'd get Windows followed cloesly by Office and a few other apps.

Ask that same person at they think of when you say 'Linux' and most wouldn't know what you were talking about, let alone be able to name applications.

The reason that a lot of people don't (or won't) swap is that the apps they want on their desktop come on Windows -- this was a big one for me, and I still maintain a WinXP partition for a few favourite apps (at least until I can get Wine to run properly!). While there may be Linux apps that are equivalent (or even better), there just isn't the name behind them.

I realise that this is is partially a function of MS's huge marketing budget, but as we've seen with OOo, it is possible to build a decent, well recognised and unified brand with OSS.

What is more obvious to the lay-user (Word?)...
MSN Messenger or Gaim

Maybe some more user-friendly rather than outright descriptive names for apps might be worthwhile too... but I think Gaim is sort of cool -- at least then I can say to my friends "I've got Gaim (game)". Then they usually punch me for such a crapulous pun.

[ozdream]

I believe Linux is BUT it also depends on the EU you are targeting.

What I mean is, I have already install Linux on some older systems and have given them to needy kids that are in my daughters Air Cadet Unit and these kids have never been exposed to Windows (even at school) all that much and they love Linux they talk to their friends Gaim / email / surf the web / play MP3’s (can I still say surf J )

I have also installed SuSE 9.0 on a few systems for adults and I also have had positive comments, they have had some exposure to Windows stuff but are not home users meaning all their computer usage is at work (W2K)

Many people have become too use to windows as it has (I believe 97% of the desk top market) and this “familiarity” is the key.

People in general are slow to change and like using a product they know (even if it does let them down “at times” sic)

Education is the key...

[moojuece]

European Union? :p
Originally posted by ozdream
I believe Linux is BUT it also depends on the EU you are targeting.

[Lostman]

I have to agree with the person up top (somewhere up there :rolleyes: ) that said yes, but only in a pre-configured system.

But at the same time, the majority of home users buy they're OS's this way. They don't install it themselves.

I think that Linux is still a bit daunting for the power user. The guy that wants to install software himself and configure his OS. The 2.6 kernal might help with plug and play stuff, so we'll have to see.

But within the next 2 years, with all the press Linux is getting, it'll be ready.