A Glimpse at the Linux Desktop of the Future

hisham writes "Every now and then we see articles pointing out "what's wrong with Linux on the desktop." This one gives a nice overview not only of the problems we all know, but also where to look for solutions (app dirs, smarter filesystems) and what's out there (projects trying to change the face of Linux, like Klik, Zero Install and GoboLinux). Still, it usually boils down to things that Mac OS X already has or that are/were touted for inclusion on MS Longhorn. Fortunately, the major desktops stopped playing catch and are focusing on forward-looking Linux projects, like KDE Plasma and Gnome Beagle. Interesting times ahead."

Pre-Loading Linux

[bigtallmofo]

The biggest stumbling block to Linux on the desktop is that it is not pre-loaded by computer manufacturers such as Dell.

The average user would do just as well with Linux pre-loaded as they do with Windows pre-loaded. Add to that the lack of viruses and spyware and any productivity lost due to being in unfamiliar territory would possibly be more than made up for by the less-attacked environment.

Great idea!

[Lumpy]

Now how about fixing the things that I and others see as the real PITA of linux. Lack of standardization adoption for filesystem layout, software installation and configuration?

Dont believe me those problems exist? go ahead and enable MDKKDM to allow remote X terminal logins. It's massively different from XDM, GDM and KDM on it's own, oh and where the hell are the config files? certianly not where most other X configs reside (the fault there started with KDM's decision to create a new standar for themselves.)

to hell with pretty, clickey, easier to use interface. Fix the problems we have that cause even seasoned vetrans to pull their hair out.

Whats wrong? I

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux needs to get its act together

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

A /. troll writing a stupid article about what linux needs to do to succeed on the desktop. Just what we've been waiting for.

And you don't even have to read far to know that it's not worth reading the whole thing

"Installing Applications is complicated"
No, it isn't. It's different than what people are accustomed to, but it sure isn't complicated.

"Directory structures can be confusing to navigate"
Yes, Joe User and my mom don't use linux because of its confusing directory structure. Please...
And don't tell me the directory structure of other systems make more sense, it doesn't.

"Interface is confusing and inconsistent"
While I agree that it is far from perfect it sure isn't more confusing or inconsistent than the alternatives.

"Steep learning curve required to understand system functions"
As is the case with any OS out there.

Seriously, linux has to compete against a system that has an installbase of more than 90% on PCs world wide, against a system that comes preinstalled with about every new PC, a system that most people associate with computers.

Did it ever occur to people like batsy that being a hughe success on the desktop in this kind of cirumstances might take some time, no matter what the directory structure of Linux might be?

Some good points here.

[filesiteguy]

I can see some of the points here. However, for most applications, I do not go about the ./configure, make, make install routine. I simply load my app manager (YaST), choose the app I want and it is installed.

I think the KDE and Gnome desktops are very usable with a few minor tweaks. As I often mention, my 60+ year old mother uses KDE just fine. And, hey, she's not gotten any viruses or adware.

Now, I realize that the *nix desktops are not perfect and there are some serious hardware issues, due to manufacturers bending over for big Bill, but these things are slowly changing.

Desktop icons

[MichaelSmith]

In the bit on desktops he writes:

Everything else should be kept off the desktop. In particular, it is rather important for the system to NOT have desktop shortcuts in order to prevent the common glut of special offers and installers.

But everybody I know likes to clutter their desktops with icons. My wife does it in Gnome. My workmates to it in windows and KDE. Everybody does it.

Yes it may look ugly and cluttered but so is the physical desk I work on. That's life. Shouldn't we stop telling users how to organise their data?

You are oh-so-right.

[WidescreenFreak]

Sadly, you and I are probably going to get nailed with "flamebait" or "troll", but you are essentially correct. If we were still in the day of DOS where we have to fight with IRQs and DMAs, what you mention would probably be more tolerated by new users. When I taught Solaris, I found that the people who adjusted to it the easiest were (no surprise here) mainframe users! I even taught one lady who was in her 70s how to use Solaris, and she did better than most of the rest of the class!

As would be expected, the Windows generation had the most difficulty converting. Thanks to Windows' dumbing down of the interface, people have come to expect the simplicity of throwing in a disc, letting it install, reboot if necessary, and the app is there. Issues like permissions, libraries, kernels, and so forth are going to be completely foreign concepts to the last majority of computer users that are out there.

And can you imagine what most people will think when you tell them that Linux runs X? "You mean, Linux is pornographic?!!" (That's called humor. I know that that's a foreign concept to many Slashdot mods.)

Obviously, education is the key, but that also assumes that the user is willing to learn. Not all of them are, and that's fine. Let them eat Windows. But until Linux does dumb itself down for those who fear the command line, people will look at it, them look at Windows, and switch back to Windows because of the sake of simplicity.

Alternately, I wish that more companies would offer PCs with Linux preinstalled right there in the store with a Linux desktop right there. Let the people see what Linux can do; let them get a feel for it in the store. Maybe they wouldn't feel so afraid of it. The Linux desktop is very nice as of late. MEPIS Linux v3.3.1 has one of the best desktops I've seen when it comes to user friendliness. I've actually been able to convert a few people to give Linux a try because of it. (Not many, mind you, but it's better than none.)

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

[PeteDotNu]

"Hi grandma. What's that? You're having trouble running Quicken? What's the error message? An error occurred? Right, I'm afraid I won't be able to help you out from here. We could try setting up a remote desktop. Okay, right click on My Computer... no, not MY computer, YOUR computer. Sigh."

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

[grumbel]

### The biggest stumbling block to Linux on the desktop is that it is not pre-loaded by computer manufacturers such as Dell.

I doubt it, installing Linux never was a problem, you could even install a Debian for *years* by simply holding the Return-key pressed, its actually quite a lot easier then installing a Windows system from scratch. Partitioning is the only thing that might be hard, but even that is only hard when you want to let the Windows partition survive.

The hard part is maintaining, using and configuring a running Linux and finding applications that actually do the job.

The 'hard install' problem of Linux is long solved, the 'make Linux easy to use' problem however is still far far away from being solved. Beside from that you basically install Linux only exactly once, it might take you a day or two, but its something you won't have to do again for a long long time, using Linux on the other side is something that you might be doing for the decades to come. Focusing so much on the install is only ignoring the real problems.

Re:Dear Linux

[Elenyon]

I love it how people blame linux for manufactures xnot suporting their hardware on it then say it is linuxs fault for not having someone that could properly reverse engineer the hardware to their liking.
Also it is fun to watch people complain about How they cuoldn't get a monitor to display in 1920x1600 while i type this on my monitor displaying in 1920x1600 funny what a google search and not being an idiot will do for you

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

[Seumas]

But then you're just ripping off the competing desktops out there. Worse than that, you're essentially just emulating them and running their apps (more or less). So what is the point of not using them in the first place? Other than "no viruses (yet)" and "it's free-(ish)", there's nothing.

And both of those are easily answered in favor of Windows right now:

Computers come with anti-virus suites and Windows. And as far as the user is concerned, it was "free" with the hardware. And as far as the OEM is concerned, they passed the cost on to the customer - so they couldn't care less.

There's just no reason to bother. Windows is "good enough" for everyone involved. Linux is not about a "great desktop experience". Linux is all about tolerating a (currently) inferior experience in support of ideaologies. Those who continue to use it in the face of so many problems and frustrations do so out of stubborn rebelion. Nothing wrong with that, but face it - when you are running Linux on your desktop, it's more of a statement than an experience.

Look at VoIP. It's taking off like mad. I know clueless AOL people who have signed up for and use Vonage (or similar services). Why? Because they want a good cost/performance benefit. Their phone bills drop from $200/mo to $20/mo and their services and benefits expand (they can now call anywhere in America/Canada without additional costs and outside of the country cheaply). They see the benefit immediately and VoIP, at this point, pretty much "just works". You plug the adapter in. You plug the phone in. You're done.

If Linux was truly a better experience, people would flock to it. All the moreso since it's free. The idea that people won't try linux because "if it's free, it has to suck" is laughable. When was the last time you knew someone who hated a bargain?

Change the people, not the software...

[Arthur B.]

I know they are various issues for linux on the Desktop, hardware beeing the most proeminent. I remember the first time I tried to install linux... The installation program asked me: "Do you want me to set the symbolic link ?" ( ln -s /usr/linux-blahblah /usr/linux I guess ) Well, install has gone a good way since. The real problem is not here, the real problem is people. Yep. Most people don't understand crap using a computer... They use learned sequences of actions to use their apps but have absolutely no clue of why they are doing so. Most people WILL get very confused if you switch their windows taskbar from botton to top. Try that, really. They don't know how to orientate in the city, they just know that to go to work they should take right right left left right straight ahead for 100 meters, left left and right. Should they take a wrong turn they will be completly lost. Most people have a hard time with mac or with windows... geez, most people have a hard time with a microwave ! You can't be ahead in technology and easy to use for everyone. It's like asking a quantum physic book to provide new theoretical breakthroughs and then complaining that your grandmother can't understand it.

It's Gnu/Linux you insensitive clod...

[Wubby]

I'm not normally a rabid Gnu-phile, but I do agree that there should be a distiction between discussing the OS's that are based on the Linux kernel and the kernel itself. Context isn't always enough, and while Linus is a super code monkey, he did not create an OS, just a kernel. (Well, not these OS's, anyway).

Seamless Vs Extensibility

[spockvariant]

One seldom commented disadvantage of tightly integrated desktops like Gnome/KDE is their lack of extensibility. Yes, you read that right:) As a 10+ year Linux user, the biggest advantage I've felt of using Linux is its extensibility in the 'UNIX way' - using pipes, scripts and files. The more you change these interfaces into object-oriented/middleware derived ones, the more difficult and annoying it becomes for UNIX hackers to script them - which destroys one of the main purposes of being on UNIX.

With the evolving desktop, people stop writing general purpose tools that abstract data and functionalities as simple files and scripts, and instead write their stuff for specific desktops. One good example is synce [sf.net] - a program to sync WinCe devices with Linux, which integrates well into Evolution, but has no 'dangling interface' where you can just snoop in, get your data and do what you want with it. File-oriented interfaces were a given with most Linux apps till very recently. And as their number/dominance diminish, I wonder if Linux hackers will slowly switch to other UNIXes just because they'd be more UNIX-like.

Re:Dear Linux

[msergeant]

Why should you have to google for something though ?

I had answered on my blog

[cyclop]

two days ago, i'd like to know what do you think about. [blogspot.com]

I used to care about the "Linux Desktop"

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, why is it the "Linux Desktop". There's Gnome and KDE, which are Unix desktops, but nothing about Linux.

Anyway, I used to care about the "linux desktop" about 5 years ago. But in my opinion, KDE choosing Qt as its toolkit basically ruined any chances of a dominant desktop that could be a standard. Because of that, Gnome was started and now you've got a fractured unix desktop.

As soon as OSX on intel comes out, I'll be using that and triple-booting into windows and something like GoboLinux and E17.

I just have no interest in standard Linux desktops when there is no standard Linux desktop

My Biggest Linux Complaint

[LordKaT]

My biggest complaint isn't with the distributors, but with the software developers: they still hae this 1990's mindset that it's perfectly acceptable to ask the user to compile their package (and about a million obscure dependencies you've never heard of) in order to get their software to work.

If you want to target your software to the desktop (and I mean the windows audience), then give me a goddamn binary and let me use the damn software now, not three hours from now.

Re:Dear Linux

[zootm]

Sibling brings up the good point. If someone has to go to the internet and search for a way to get around a problem, the system has failed him or her and he or she is working around it. Fair enough it's difficult for open source projects like Linux to get these things to work, since it often involves reverse-engineering and the like, but this is not the user's fault, and blaming them for not wanting to use something that's horrible to use is far from productive.

Two stories

[Otter]

1) I recently decided to get with 2002 and buy a USB memory stick. Trying it out on the three platforms I use:

• MacOS X -- Plug it in, and it works.
• Windows XP -- Plug it in, and it works.
• Linux -- Plug it in, grep dmesg for information, create a mount point, guess exactly which partition to mount, and it works. And then I edited /etc/fstab in vi so it'll be even easier next time!

The crazy thing is that that actually was a huge win for Linux! Dealing with USB devices didn't used to be nearly that easy! But it still is a long way from being usable for any normal person.

2) My Linux Waterloo, though, is updates. I have two Linux systems: a TiBook with Yellow Dog, that has an irretrievably corupted RPM database, and a Gentoo whitebox that I can't push through to Xorg and 2.6. (The latter was switched to Gentoo after Mandrake package management imploded.)

It's been a fun ride, but I've spent enough time on treating my computer as a hobby. OS X has pretty much taken over for all my actual computer use outside of work.

Re:Desktop icons

[cyclop]

Mod parent up.
I'm really, really fed up to listen to people that think that making things easy for the end user means imprisoning it inside your questionable usability decisions. Users must have maximum flexibility. They want it, they need it, they love it. It is obvious they need reasonable defaults, but they must be free to change them as they like.

Learning curve too steep

[Durzel]

I recently installed Fedora Core 4 at home to run a local DNS server, DynDNS daemon, MythTV and a few other things. I'm pretty savvy with Linux and sysadmin for a living (as well as programming) so you could say I have an affinity for problem-solving.

That said, I have struggled in recent days getting everything I've wanted to install working correctly. Largely this has been due to GCC4.0 incompatibilities (many apps just don't compile at all from source without patches), but also because lots of exotic RPMs (Myth being a prime example) have not yet been built for FC4.

A lot of things I have had to compile manually from sources when I had originally set out to use yum to manage everything (I've recently been converted to the ease-of-use and practicalities of RHEL and Redhat Network).

Another poster commented that Linux is perfectly capable as a desktop OS - until you need to install an application, play a game or upgrade their hardware. Joking aside, this statement is 100% accurate.

In my endeavours trying to install all of my "exotic" applications like a movie player (xine), NZB downloader (klibido) I have either run into problems where the currently available RPMs are buggy [sourceforge.net], or the sources just don't compile out of the box. How can any non-technical person be expected to deal with this?

If you contrast this with Windows, I think the only time I have had a failed installation with a piece of software I have downloaded has been when it has required .NET Framework, and I haven't got it installed. At no time have I ever downloaded something and it started telling me that various specific versions compiled against specific architectures are missing, and I cannot continue.

Linux will need to standardise itself a lot more if it is going to be a force on the desktop. RPM/yum/apt-get and so on is a step in the right direction, but its still voodoo for most people. Unfortunately I beleive this standardisation is in stark contrast with what most techies (myself included in some way) believe the strength of Linux to be - i.e. diversity and the "joy" of compiling things manually.

Linux hardware support is a mess.

[corneliusagain]

My experience is that linux hardware support is the killer issue - and it betrays an expert-only attitude in the linux community. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Mostly it almost does and there's some trick you need that, in a commercial OS, would be taken care of, but which in Linux is buried on some website that you might find if you're good at using google - and which will then require, at the very least, command line use and text file editing. The comments will imply that it's a common problem, not to worry, just edit this file... run that command... etc. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Bollocks.

If I need a new version of a driver, I need to be able to grab it as I can on Windows without recompilation. That's unacceptable. The NDIS wrapper implementation is a good example: it works and mostly well, but to get support you have to mess with the command line and text files or even scarier stuff. What you should do is be told to insert the CD that came with the device and have linux do it for you.

The office apps are already on linux; it's already fast; much of the UI and desktop is already user friendly. Installs have issues, yes, but they're down the line and mostly hidden from the user. The user is neatly kept in their home directory. Hard disk management is complex, but not much more so than Windows and partitioning is nicely automated in most installs.

I like linux a lot and use it regularly. I don't actually believe, though, that it can currently compete against commercial OSs without a massive change to some of the attitudes about what's acceptable, and a resulting change to the way Linux works. Hardware is the area where those attitudes seem to be totally exposed to the end-user.

This guy hasn't tried Debian or Knoppix.

[kesuki]

Knoppix is a linux distroy anyone can use, the automated hardware detection etc is supurb. The DVD 4.0 version does demonstrate a lot of the incompatability issues he's talking about though. because knoppix has ~6 gigs of applications (they're compressed on the DVD image) many of the applications are broken.

Debian is the distro Knoppix is based of of, so it has really good hardware detection, but the 'stable' version is using the 'older' proven stable detection routines. That means it doesn't configure everything perfectly, for instance I had to enable DMA on my dvd-rom, and I had to use k3b to 'configure the system' for cd/dvd burning*.

I also have the advantage of having prior experience, So I know how to install flash support for my secondary browser, and how to configure java, which isn't included in debian because it's not FOSS. Plus I knew that the FOSS drivers suck compared to the proprietary ones, so I knew where to find them, and I knew what settings to set in the 'install' script for them, because I've been messing around with X11 config files for years now...

So basically, initial set up is probably beyond most users, but the same is true of windows. Most windows users can't even install applications by themselves, and when they try to the end up with a million spyware programs.

Debian is 'ready' for the desktop. The installer is painless for geeks, and simple enough for rice boys. A few noobs might even get lucky with it. The stable version while old, has a very simple gui based app finder that anyone who can use download.com can learn how to use.

*= Because i'm lazy. I wasn't going to muck about trying to figure anything out.

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

[McGiraf]

Well I use GNU/Linux on my desktop and i like it better than windows. it's faster more stable and looks better. I know how to use dpkg. I don't care what anybody's grandma uses. Sure GNU/Linux is not completly ready for the "mainstream" desktop buy for sombody like me who's been using using computer since the apple ][ , looked under the hood of all computer and OS I used, GNU/Linux is actualy easier to use than Windows. Windows confuses me , it behaves in inconsitant ways and the logs are mostly useless to figure out why it's behaving wierd. The longer it's been installed the slower it runs, why? don't know. etc, you see my point.

Re:Dear Linux

[msergeant]

Not really, I'm at the stage for leisure I like to plug it in and "It just works". Last thing I want to do is type into google "How do I make my monitor work pretty please", then read through 12 pages of other people saying "me too, omgwtfbbqlol", to find on page 13 ohh this isn't able to be used with video card y due to z problem, feel free to write your own code... etc etc. Bugger that, plug monitor in, open system preferences -> displays -> select res I want and settle back to do something "useful" with my time.

Re:Dear Linux

[Seumas]

But guess what? My parents and my grandma and my little sister don't want to write their own operating system or applications. They want to use them. And since linux is still lacking, they're willing to pay for others to deliver (more or less) what they want.

Telling your customer "if you don't like it, do it yourself!" is a really bad way to handle business and a terrible way to build a user-base. This is precisely what linux's problem is. It's a bunch of primadonna developers developing things the way developers want to. And developers tend to throw every reason at you for why you don't want what you're positive you want (of course, that's usually just bullshit; they just dont' want to put in the extra effort to do what people really want and would rather talk you into wanting what they want you to want).

The solution isn't telling end-users to become developers. The solution is tellign developers to start developing for the average end-user that they claim to so desperately want to reach.

Mac OS X didn't work this morning

[didit]

Mac OS X just didn't work this morning. One of my colleague tried for the first time in her life to burn a CD. She just dragged icons on the CD-R icon on the desktop and everything went smoothly. She then asked somebody to try this CD on a PC with Windows XP: didn't work. She gave me the CD: didn't work. So I asked her to show me what she did and later understood that the CD had a HFS+ format. She of course knows nothing about that but it was obvious for her that she wanted to use the CD everywhere, not just on Macs. So, it just didn't work. (FWIW, she lost another empty CD-R trying to use an application named toast with the same result. Now, I've shown here what to do for her next try.)

Conclusions?
1/ Mac OS X is not all that great
2/ Computers are supposed to be able to do very complicated stuff. All the people claiming that you can build an easy to use interface to do all these complicated stuff are liers. You can make simple interfaces to do a set of limited pre-defined tasks. That's not how I use computers. Even basic users have a lot to gain if they have the time and willingness to learn a bit. And in the end, they ALWAYS need to learn something because the file and folders/directories concepts are not obvious for example.

Re:Oh no -- A complete rubuttal

[John Nowak]

>> "Installing Applications is complicated"
> No, it isn't. It's different than what people are accustomed to, but it sure isn't complicated.

Compared to OS X, it is. Most OS X installs consist of one step: "Drag to the Applications folder". And even if you don't do that, it usually works anyway; Just download and run. In my 15 years as a Mac user, I've not once had a problem with an install. The same cannot be said for my experiences as a Linux user.

>> "Directory structures can be confusing to navigate"
> Yes, Joe User and my mom don't use linux because of its confusing directory structure. Please...
> And don't tell me the directory structure of other systems make more sense, it doesn't.

OS X's structure makes much more sense. Applications are in /Applications. NOT /usr/bin, in one massive folder along with libraries and god knows what else. And furthermore, if for some reason they stick their program in ~/Documents instead, the program will still work just fine, and the computer will still find it if it needs it to open some document. If I want to uninstall an app, I drag it to the Trash: Done.

>> "Interface is confusing and inconsistent"
> While I agree that it is far from perfect it sure isn't more confusing or inconsistent than the alternatives.

I'm sorry, but when it comes to consistency, Linux is a complete abomination compared to OS X. Cross-application consistency has always been a strong point of the Mac, and continues to be until this day. Every text field in every program works the same way, sources the same dictionary, remembers the same settings, etc. Apps use the same key commands. Hell, I can drag an image out of Safari onto Photoshop in the Dock, and it opens up fine. I can add a menu shortcut to every single Cocoa application at once. Don't like that all programs have Minimize as command-M? Change it. Don't like that there's no key command for Customize Toolbar...? Add one. People don't even *think* about doing stuff like this in any other system. All programs respond to Applescript, all programs have the same look, etc etc.

>> "Steep learning curve required to understand system functions"
> As is the case with any OS out there.

But again, OS X does the best job. Want to run an FTP server? Open up the Sharing system preference, select FTP, and click "Start". Yes, it is that easy -- And if you didn't know what to click, just type in "FTP" in the search field, or even "host files" or whatever, and System Preferences will highlight the correct preference pane for you to click. Unbelievably simple and elegant.

Want to add a new account? Click "Accounts", and click Add. Want to change the Startup Disk? Click "Startup Disk". Etc etc. I still have no idea how to change startup disks on a Linux machine.

Anyone who says Linux is as good as anything else out there hasn't used OS X. Don't get me wrong; Linux is great. I run a dual-boot Debian/OS X system. However, as a desktop machine, Linux isn't even close to the Mac.

Re:Dear Linux

[jedidiah]

Been doing that with Linux for over 10 years.

Then again, I don't go out of my way to seek parts from closed vendor solutions and then expect them to work with something else. I would not expect an easy time out of some oddball Sun monitor either.

Re:Dear Linux

[Mad Merlin]

That's a few days vs. a few minutes (including downloading the right drivers from Creative (in my case)).

Does Creative let you actually download sound drivers for their cards now? The one time I was actually using Windows, I tried to get drivers for my SoundBlaster Live! and it turned out that they only offered upgrades, which were useless if you didn't already an install of the drivers. Long story short being that I was forced to dig up the original CD that came with the card if I wanted sound in Windows. When installing Linux, the sound card just worked, I didn't have to dig for the CD or fruitlessly search the Creative site. I'm not the first person I've heard with this problem either, there was someone here who had a story about it linked in his sig for awhile, among others.

Re:Dear Linux

[jedidiah]

Linux has more than enough frills for "grandma" or "sister". Besides, these are also not power users. They aren't the sort that are going to stress the limits of a systems ability to mimic a Macintosh. So most (if not all) of the usual complaints about any OS are moot.

The thing just needs to be robust, not implode and not get itself infected with malware.

GUI non-power users are not that challenging.

Re:Mac OS X didn't work this morning

[ciroknight]

No offense, but the problem you just suggested seems like one of those "whooptie do" problems.

Mac OS X is designed like any other platform to be a lock in platform, that is, it uses the same file format everywhere. Even iPods are formatted HFS+. This doesn't mean that it's impossible to burn a disk or reformat an iPod, it just means that you *NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PLATFORM TO USE IT*.

Just because the way you use computers isn't the same as the way Mac users use their computers, doesn't mean your opinion is magically better than theirs. It means you are looking for something else. If you like compatibility, stay on Windows. Everything in the world runs Windows. If you like to tinker, use Linux. If you just want to use your damned computer, use Mac OS X. It's that simple.

Wait, Windows can't read HFS+, so Macs suck!?

[John Nowak]

Who the hell modded this up? My mac reason FAT32 just fine. It is the fault of Windows for not bothering to support HFS+. As for toast, your coworker is a dolt. There is an option right on the screen that says "Burn for Mac", "Burn for PC", or "Burn for Mac and PC". It's very prominently displayed, and in fact, you can't even turn it off.

Re:Comparisons with OSX and Windows

[Seumas]

I don't care if OSX only has one desktop environment. If I were on linux or solaris or any other system, I'd still only be using one desktop environment. I may have the choice to use others, but I'd settle on one and use it. Well, guess what? I settled on OSX so it doesn't matter if there are alternatives to it or not. Plus, it's pretty damn configurable (functionality-wise).

As for linux on the desktop not being the focus of developers . . . that doesn't matter. If I need a truck to haul things in, don't bother trying to sell me a mini-cooper. Telling me that the manufacturer's focus was on little sporty roadsters and not hauling vehicals is not relevant, if I'm looking for a hauler and not a roadster. My needs are my needs and the developer's justifications for why it doesn't meet them does nothing to... well... meet them.

LIkewise, I don't care if linux is free. My time isn't free. This is precisely why, after seven years of heavy linux use, I finally decided to move away from it this year. Great - I saved $129 on the operating system. But how many hours have I spent troubleshooting, maintaining, fixing and configuring it? $129 is only a few hours worth of work at the office and I couldn't even begin to calculate the value of my time that I've put into getting linux to work properly over the years.

In short, don't make excuses for why linux isn't ready for the desktop. Don't try and justify why I shouldnt' need the things I need or why I should put up with inconveniences. If you want linux to spread and be more popular, do things that make people want to use it. I've been using linux for seven years. I've been using computers since my VIC-20 in 1984, when I was seven years old. I'm a software engineer that works almost exclusively on solaris at work and have used a dozen distros (preference to Debian - which is what I run on my production server and Slackware which I haven't used in years). I've also used Windows a fair deal. A little 3x, a bit of 95, a bunch of 98 and onward.

If a hardcore techie and geek and long-time linux user is tired of dealing with linux and moving away from it, what do you think you have to battle against to get your average-joe to move to linux?

Re:Dear Linux

[Geek of Tech]

If time is money, then one or two quick google searches allowing me to install linux properly just saved me almost 100 dollars.

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

[NotoriousQ]

I blame grandma for having an idiot grandson.

I would just ssh in, and fix things myself. Over the command line. I believe quicken works with wine. Remote admin (even over slow connection): one of the hidden beauties of linux.

And if you say that grandma does not have an internet connection, I will say that you are just a greedy bastard. Go buy your grandma an internet connection, and forward her a bunch of pictures. As a bonus she will actually know someone cares.

Re:Linux hardware support is a mess.

[MassacrE]

Yes, but vendors have all hell shipping binary drivers for linux, since there is explicitly no backward or forward-compatible APIs across minor kernel versions. This is partially because in GNU-speak, Binary == bad - binary driver support is worse than no support at all.

Re:Dear Linux

[pseudorand]

Actually, X-Windows is the only part of the Linux desktop experience that doesn't suck. The ability to have a program display its window on any computer on the network is so awsome that it makes me put up with the rest of the crappy linux desktop shit. Why the heck haven't other desktop platforms picked up on this feature? And don't say RDP because I don't want may whole darn desktop, I just want one program!

Re:Dear Linux

[rpdillon]

I agree: if you're searching, something has gone wrong. But when I choose an OS, I would rather have a methodology that I can use when something goes wrong, rather than simply have to give up.

There are a couple aspects to the 4 computers I've installed Gentoo on that were what I would consider "slight problems". Were they annoying? You betcha. But at the end of the day (literally), I have scanners, fully accelerated Xorg, NFS, USB 2.0, Firewire, wireless networking, SATA, sound, DVD burning, and hosts of other "cool" features working completely flawlessly and with excellent stability on all 4.

And I really appreciate Linux for that...it was the community that so many lovingly refer to as the "omgwtfbbqlol" posts that make that possible. Sure, there is your fair share of those types of posts, but when I have a problem, there are literally thousands of people on hand whose problem are similar that I can learn from. In the one case where this wasn't so, I did the work to figure the problem out, and I posted it for others to read, learn from and refine.

Neal Stephonson said in well In the Beginning Was the Command Line. He was describing the state of operating systems, and had an analogy with car dealerships. Windows was the coventional "everyone has one" stationwagon dealership, Apple sells hermitically sealed, sylish, almost "magical" cars, BeOS weighed in with "fully operational Batmobiles", and finally, Linux, which isn't a dealership at all, rather a little camp set up with lots of tents. In the camp, the people are building tanks, and giving them away free by the side of the road. They have a "PR guy" with a bullhorn, trying to alert the customers going to the other dealerships of their product:

Hacker with bullhorn: "Save your money! Accept one of our free tanks! It is invulnerable, and can drive across rocks and swamps at ninety miles an hour while getting a hundred miles to the gallon!"
Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"
Bullhorn: "You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!"
Buyer: "But this dealership has mechanics on staff. If something goes wrong with my station wagon, I can take a day off work, bring it here, and pay them to work on it while I sit in the waiting room for hours, listening to elevator music."
Bullhorn: "But if you accept one of our free tanks we will send volunteers to your house to fix it for free while you sleep!"
Buyer: "Stay away from my house, you freak!"
Bullhorn: "But..."
Buyer: "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"

The moral? That one line about "But you don't know how to maintain a station wagon, either!". The reason I took all this space setting this up is that this an extremly important point. All the people that point ou that newbies don't know how to use Linux are correct. What they're forgetting is that they don't know how to use Windows, either. I'm not here to debate the point, but any self-respecting computer geek can tesitify to the number of Windows-related support calls they get from family and friends. Why do you think they make a "No, I won't fix your computer." t-shirt? A hint: they aren't talking about Linux machines.

So, finally, my point: the argument that you finally "give up and get an OS that just works" is a cop out. There are no operating systems that "just work". Once you accept that (and I have, after working for years with Windows, Mac OS X and various flavors of Linux), the question then becomes whether you want commuity out there to help you. I find that when I google for a Linux issue, I'll get 10 times the documentation I will for problems in Windows, and maybe 20 times as much as I will for problems in Mac OS X. And that's worth a lot to me.

When my wife's scanner stopped working under OS X, it was black magic. One day it worked, the next, it just stopped. No logge

Re:Dear Linux

[cshark]

Why should you have to Google for something though ?

And why should have to figure out what hardware you're using (because Compaq won't tell you), figure out your specs, download drivers that weren't intended for your specific machine, and reboot several times to do it? And all this, just to get my video card to have a refresh rate that I can't see change as I scroll or type. It was more like watching a bad flash animation of a windows desktop, than actually using Windows. Such was my experience with Windows XP. In fact, from what I understand I'm not the only one that goes through this. Anyone with hardware not in the five year old windows hardware database will have similar issues. Then my pad and pen didn't work, so I have to track down drivers for those.

Linux on the other hand...
Much better hardware support. All around, it was just better. With no effort on my part (and no need at all to search Google), Fedora Core 3 picked up and installed everything (except the scanner part of my printer/scanner combo... I'm still working on that). And it worked. In fact, certain pieces of hardware work better under Linux than they do under Windows. Case and point, I can get higher resolution on my NVIDIA graphics card than I can using windows on the same box. My tablet and pen are much more sensitive, and make it easier to do complex diagrams and doodles. In Windows, I had to re-learn how to draw in order to use this technology.

I do have to hand it to the guy who wrote the article. I can't tell you how sick I am of know nothings that complain endlessly because their one in a million hardware configuration didn't work with Linux, and then they go on to tell the whole world that Linux sucks as a result of it, and nobody should even bother installing it. When these same people start talking about usability and things like "Buddy Icons" it's especially funny.

Although I wouldn't put this guy into the same category. At least he's proposing a solution, or set of them. But I can't say I agree with his assessment of the problem.

Re:Dear Linux

[snorklewacker]

Dear Apple,

I poured thousands and thousands of dollars into your desktops, yet people still don't like me. I post about how superior I am for my purchasing choices on places mainly populated by Linux losers, yet they don't flock to me as their savior.

Also, it would be nice if Finder were faster and more functional. Can you please arrange that next time? Sometime in the next 10 years.

I'd also like scrollbars and buttons that aren't so shiny, because sometimes I want to look at my applications, usually when I'm not showing off my desktop. Please?

Please continue supporting PowerPC?

I know I don't have the power to move you, and you've told us mere consumers to just suck it up before, but maybe you can hear me this time? Please don't leave me.

Here we go...

[VStrider]

The same ol' arguments from windows users. You know what? I've seen people who were clueless about computers, being more perceptive to linux than windows users. Windows users react, because it's different, and they usually refuse to read even a single paragraph of a help file, because that's how they're used to from windows.

From TFA:

Installing Applications is complicated
I hear this argument all the time and it really is starting to annoy me. It's just different from windows, that'a all.

A typical windows installation:
You first need to download the installer application or insert the cd where the app resides.
A window pops up welcoming you to the installation, you click next.
Then the program's license pops up which you need to click accept and click next.
Then you need to choose whether you want another installation target folder, other than the default C:\Program Files\ and click next.
Then you choose the name of the start menu group and click next.
Then if the program installs any DLLs which are outdated you'll be asked whether you want to keep or overwrite the some2423_app.DLL or not and click next.
If all goes ok, you'll click next for a few more times before finishing the installation by...clicking Finish

A typical linux installation:
Depending on your distribution you type:
apt-get install thisapp
or you might have to type yum install thisapp
or emerge thisapp.
In all cases, the app will be downloaded and installed for you. That's it.

Directory structures can be confusing to navigate
No they're not. It's just different from windows, that'a all.
/bin for binaries /sbin for system binaries. whats so confusing about it? Oh, I see it now, C:\Program Files for binaries and C:\Windows\System32 for system binaries is better, yes?
Or maybe the fact that you have your kernel and boot loader in one place under /boot is confusing? maybe it's better to have them scattered all over the place like in C:\boot.ini and in C:\Windows\System32 as well as in the registry?
Or maybe the slash(/) is confusing? Although you use slash for URLs and pretty much anything, why not use the backslash for browsing directories like in windows, eh? Better, yes?
I'd say that *nix directory structure is the standard and anything else that uses backslashes and obscure directory structures is plain wrong and confusing.

Interface is confusing and inconsistent.
No it's not. You're coming from windows, that's all. Infact I can find hundrends of inconsistencies with the windows interface. Like for example to shut down your pc you need to click Start. Huh?
And if you're talking about how desktop enviroments are different, like Gnome and KDE, well, they're meant to be different! Use the one you like. There is no reason why everything should look the same. You want simplicity and ease of use? Go with Gnome. You want eye candy and many options to tweak? Go with KDE. You want fast response times(if you're on old hardware)? Go with Fluxbox or IceWM. You want super duper eye candy and fancy effects while you don't care so much on stability? Go with Enlightment.
There's something for everyone, and I think this is alot better than trying to fit all sizes in one shoe.


Steep learning curve required to understand system functions.
Oh, common! How much easier can system functions get? Is it easier on windows? If so, why? Maybe because you've spent so many years learning how to use every system function? Do the same on linux (RTFM/learn) and then come back and tell me if it was at all difficult. You see, it's different but it's not difficult. Don't expect to know-it-all on your 1st day. And don't expect to "just figure it out" without even reading a single sentence of a help file.
When you started driving, did you just took the car into town, expecting to just figure out things without trying to learn? Didn't think so. But you w

Nitpick

[mcc]

I'd hardly call HFS+ "lock in"... if you or your OS vendor wants to write code or drivers to support HFS+, all they have to do is look at the unencumbered documentation available here [apple.com]. You may not be able to do this personally, but your OS vendor certainly can.

If you want to do the same with NTFS or Microsoft's SMB... well, get ready for a lot of reverse engineering and compatibility bugs, and be prepared for the idea it may never work at all. That's a little closer to what I'd call "lock in".

I'm also just a little bit confused as to exactly what the person from the grandparent post's anecdote did to get OS X burning CDs as HFS+. It sure does seem that the CDs I've burned on my mac in the past have come out ISO 9600. Perhaps I've been doing something strange without realizing it?

Re:Dear Linux

[jayloden]

Fair enough it's difficult for open source projects like Linux to get these things to work, since it often involves reverse-engineering and the like, but this is not the user's fault, and blaming them for not wanting to use something that's horrible to use is far from productive.

Agreed. However, there's another side to this too. When you choose your hardware to run Linux on, you have to know what you are choosing.

I'll give you an example from personal experience. I once had a wireless desktop PCI card, purchased before I started using Linux. This card turned out to have four different revisions of the same model, and three different possible chipsets, some of which worked without fiddling, others of which required some firmware-loading, driver-compiling hackery to function. I spent a week or so with no internet access and eventually got it working, but when I decided to reinstall Linux with a new distro, I knew what to do. I went to google, found a site with the manpage for one of the most well supported wireless drivers under linux/*bsd and read the list of cards it was known to work with out of the box. I went to ebay, purchased one for around 30 dollars, and from then on I have had zero problems with wireless under every version of Linux I've run on it since. The only configuration I've had to do is a WEP key when one is needed.

The point is, things "just work" on a Mac because they are programmed well and polished so that they do so, but they also work with a MUCH smaller hardware set. You wouldn't go out and buy just any old piece of hardware and expect to plug it into your Mac and have it "just work" - you'd make sure it had Apple software or drivers first, wouldn't you? Linux as a whole does its best to come up with at least SOME kind of support for the majority of the hardware out there, but the quality varies as much as the hardware itself.

If you decide Linux is for you, then make the decision to buy hardware that you can be sure will work well under Linux. I have had almost no issues since the day I figured out that it was worth thirty dollars to me not to spend hours screwing with my wireless card. Take the time to find out if your hardware is going to be a beast to work with, and if it is, consider whether A) it's worth it to you to screw with it, B) it's worth it to you to buy something else that you know will work without hacking it, or C) it's worth it to you to run Linux instead of Windows (or buy yourself a Mac), if neither A nor B is an option.

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

[youknowmewell]

Autopackage has a few hurdles it needs to overcome.

First is user acceptance. There are those that prefer a central repository for all their software needs, rather than going through the 'hassle' of navigating to the developers website, and they will be very vocal about this autopackage 'downside'. I've seen these arguments myself, so there is no doubt in my mind that this is a hurdle for Autopackage.

Second is developer acceptance and support. This is the same as you said, but with an added clause. When developers use autopackage, they need to advertise it as the optimal choice for users browsing their website. Looking at the list of software projects using autopackage on the autopackage website, there are some high-profile projects using autopackage, but it isn't advertised nearly enough on those projects' websites that they use autopackage. This contributes to autopackage's status as an obscure software project. What developers should do is advertise their autopackage on their website most prominently, and leave the rpms and debs to repositories. That way, those using repos are set, and those using autopackage are set, and autopackage will gain more acceptance as more people use it and realize its usefulness.

Third is vendor acceptance. When distros start advocating autopackages then they will take off. Autopackage isn't meant to be a replacement for central repositories of rpm or deb files, it's meant augment the user-friendliness of the central repositories with non-central-yet-easier-to-use-for-some repositories. It's also meant to be easier for developers to use, since it allows them to make one package that will work on all GNU/Linux distros. I'm not sure whether the Autopackage devs plan to make Autopackage compete with rpms and debs in the future, but if they made it possible to create central repositories of autopackages similar to rpm and deb repos, then it would give users a choice between non-central repos (for less tech-savvy users) and central repos (for more tech-savvy users). This could also spur distro vendors to advocate the use of autopackages more. Of course, that would be an ideal and as we have seen, many distros have invested to much into their way of doing things to consider a new and possibly better way of managing packages.

There is no Linux desktop

[alucinor]

There never will and never should be a "linux desktop". Linux is a kernel, and last time I checked, kernels don't have desktops, unless it's Windows, and the desktop is active desktop, a feature of IE, embedded in the kernel itself. What we will probably see in the future, however, is a distro-independent package manager based on autopackage instead of .deb or .rpm. At this point, that's probably the most praticle thing to focus on. It'd also be cool if said package manager could set up some sort of /Applications symlink folder. That's the pragmatic approach. A kickass 3rd-party package manager. It's a bit too late and probably unneccessary (not to mention futile) to tell every OS developer and distro where they *must* put everything. Joe User should care less about filesystem hierarchies anyway. Just give him a nice frontend to resolve all this chaos down below.

Re:Seamless Vs Extensibility

[sydb]

Look, take the right tool for the right job. The good thing about pipes is that they make it easy and quick to solve relatively small problems involving formatted streams.

A couple of simple examples, I'd love to see how you would do them in (real world!) OO.

df -k | sort -k1n
kill `ps -ef | grep xyz | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}'`

That's what's good about pipes (and command substitution...), you learn how to use them once and you can quickly manipulate data by eyeballing the data and knocking up a one-liner.

Now, whether or not this is powerful and extensible is simply down to your prejudiced interpretation of those two properties. I think it is, for small problems. Extensible, powerful and small are not mutually exclusive!

'Modern' paradigms are more suited to complex problems where pipes should be avoided. But it's not fair to throw out pipes just because they're not suited to complex problems. We still have small problems!

Re:Dear Linux

[Master of Transhuman]

'There are no operating systems that "just work"'

Right on!

As I've said many times before:

1) Windows is CRAP!

2) Linux is ALSO CRAP!

3) Linux is FREE CRAP!

4) And for the benefit of the first poster:

Apple is EXPENSIVE CRAP!

Re:Dear Linux

[Y0tsuya]

Linux isn't for everyone. It's obviously not for you. Stop using it. Yes, it's that simple.

And people wonder why Linux still hasn't penetrated the desktop market.

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

[An Onerous Coward]

1) Most Windows installs don't come with "free antivirus software". They come with 30-60 day trial subscriptions, after which your virus definitions slowly become so outdated as to be worse than useless. Plus, by default, the major AV suites are incredibly naggy, and can slow down a computer like nothing else.

Therefore, switching to a platform where it isn't
necessary does confer some advantage. As Linux gets more popular as a target for virus writers, that may change. Then again, I think Linux has a better security model, so I'm hopeful.

2) You're entirely ignoring the other use of the word "free". You may think that no end user cares about "free as in speech," but I haven't found the concept to be a difficult sell.

3) The advantages of "free as in beer" don't end when you unpack your computer and plug it in. First, because the software is free, the distro provider can throw in oodles of extra software. No fuss, no cash, no licensing agreements, no trial subscriptions, no product activation keys. I would also note that a good chunk of the software that comes pre-installed on a new Windows machine is there for the benefit of the OEM and the software manufacturer, not necessarily for the benefit of the end user. Why else would the software configuration on my mom's new laptop ask her to choose either a trial subscription to MS Office, or a free as in "we can hardly give this crap away" installation of MS Works? If the people who sold her the computer really had her best interests at heart, the thing would have come with OpenOffice pre-installed.

Re:Dear Linux

[killjoe]

Actually it's more like. Linux sux because apple doesn't write a driver for their monitors.

Typical anti linux rant, blame linux because vendors haven't written a driver for something and worse are using the legal system to prevent other people from writing drivers too.

Installing Linux applications *is* a pain

[golodh]

Why?

Because I find it a pain! I'm thoroughly computer literate, I can program in about 5 computer languages (scientific work / console applications only; don't ask me about GUI's) , but I'm new to Unix/Linux, and I'm certainly not an admin. And I definetely shouldn't have to be to install an application. If it takes me 2 days to learn about and fix, how will a real end-user fare?

Example: I recently had to spend 2 days installing JGR (a Java Gui for the statistical package 'R') by hunting down and fixing all library dependencies. Now admittedly, the maintainers of JGR haven't gotten round to providing an installer for Linux yet. However ... my distribution has those libraries, and I just need to install them, right? After installing a series of library packages using the built-in package manager the make file should work regardless, right?

No such luck! The Linux distro I use (SuSE 9.3) installs the packages in a slightly different place from where the .tgz files would do it (/usr/lib versus /usr/local/lib, /usr/include versus /usr/local/include). This breaks the makefile that comes with the package, which couldn't find the libs and the includes although they were on the system.

This forced me to learn about the workings of Linux / Unix, hunt down, download, and install a .tgz source file for every library, and then edit the makefile of the application.

Ahh ... the makefile. What a piece of *&(&(( . If you edit it without paying attention to the difference between tabs and spaces ... your makefile is ruined, and the error messages don't give you a clue about what happened. Everyone who tried that once either learned or quit ... but it's still in use. And then the gloriously obscure syntax linking targets to source.

After installing every library from source ... the package installed without further errors, and things worked ... up to a point. It's functional, but it still misses out on a graphics library.

The same package installed under Microsoft Windows in about 5 seconds and then worked just fine. Go figure.

Linux ready for end-users? Only if they stay with the packages that come with their distro.

Re:Dear Linux

[eno2001]

This reminds me of a statement a former employer (in the audio production biz circa 1994) made to me. He was a hardcore Mac user and so was I, but I was moving to Windows because of cost. I told him that I'd been researching the set up of a DOS/Win 3.1 box and S.A.W. (Software Audio Workshop) for my home project studio. If I went with a Mac to do four track audio, I would have had to spend at least $10,000 to do four track audio with Digidesign ProTools. That would have been for a pretty paltry system. Seeing that I'd just spent $4000 on a PC including all the hardware and software I needed to do desktop publishing and the basics for audio, I figured that another $399 for S.A.W. was justifiable. I hated Win 3.1. But... I have to say that once I got the system tuned and S.A.W. and Cakewalk were set up, the system cranked out the tunes. Sure, it wasn't as elegant as the Mac, but I still was able to do work and got a few clients.

I told him about my early experiences and said how going from Windows to Macintosh for the OS and Protools/M.O.T.U./Studer to S.A.W./Cakewalk for the audio apps took "some getting used to". His response was, "If it takes some getting used to, then it's crap. Software should never take getting used to. You should just start using it and never have to look at the manual". At the time, I was a little annoyed because I saw this as a closed-minded approach to audio production. Yes, the Macintosh was far better at the work, but learning to do this stuff on Windows armed me to go much farther and blow away any Mac user in the audio realm. Not to mention that now that I do my audio work on Linux, I have a huge growing array of tools at my disposal. I think people who have the attitude that learning something new shouldn't require any... um... LEARNING are just plain stupid.

Re:Dear Linux

[zootm]

What you describe is called : "no vendor support", it is identified since a long time ago, is not a flaw of Linux but a flaw of the vendor, and it is being addressed.
But people like you think FOSS drivers can come faster than the manufacturer of the soundcard.
At least, in the FOSS world, we are realistic.

Lack of vendor support is still a mark against Linux, until it can be rectified. It's not that it's not a flaw in Linux --- it is a flaw in Linux --- but the point is that it isn't Linux developers' fault. This is probably nitpicky, but I'm on "monkey-see, monkey-do" mode at the moment.

Re:Dear Linux

[JohnFluxx]

Linux needs to grow up because _you_ and your company locked yourself into a bad format?

Re:Dear Linux

[Skye16]

As a sibling stated, this IS a Linux problem. Is it a kernel problem? Absolutely not! Is it problem with the "Linux Experience"? Absolutely. I don't blame any of the open source developers for this. I do, however, blame the current environment. Whether you - or anyone - in the Linux community can do anything to rectify this situation is completely moot. The question is "do new users frequently run into these problems?" - and the answer is a resounding "yes!"

So then people say "use a more userfriendly distribution!" - a valid response. Until you start to realize that eventually, when the user DOES outgrow the bundled packages, they're going to have to start installing applications themselves. Even Fedora (Core 1) had dependency hell issues at times with various applications. Was this the distributions fault? No. It was the application-in-question's fault for not being able to keep up with the thousands of Linux configurations out there. It's their fault, but it's completely understandable that they often times run behind. That doesn't change the fact that it's often completely fucking impossible for someone who ISN'T a master of Linux to figure out the problem. With the more user-friendly distributions (like, say, SuSE), you go from extremely-easy-to-use to wtfomgbbqh4x. The learning curve from "novice" to "master" is absolutely insane. If Windows learning curve is y = x, then the general "Linux experience" learning curve is y = x^7. Is it any one person's fault? No. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do I have a way to fix it? No. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

A True Story

[Anti-Trend]

My little sister is a very special girl, despite her learning disability. She enjoys writing books, short stories, and keeping track of the who's-who of current Hollywood fame. Now that you understand the context, here's my point. My sister's store bought PC came with Windows XP preinstalled, not at all an uncommon occurance. As a courtesy, I set up an aggressive hardware firewall for her, locked down P's security (at least as much as this is possible), and installed the defacto antivirus and antispyware tools on her box. I automated everything which could be automated on XP, such as updates and common maintenance (again,at least as much as this is possible). After about a week, my parents called me and asked me to take a look at her PC, as it wasn't working very well. If you guessed that her systems was crawling with every type of malware imaginable, you're absolutely right. In fact, the system was in an unrecoverable state, rooted by a very aggressive trojan. I used a live Linux distro to make a CD backup of her stories, and reinstalled Windows XP from scratch. This process reoccurred about 4 or 5 times. On the last occasion, I asked my sister if she would be interested in trying Linux, since it would be a lot like what she was used to and we wouldn't have to go through the reformat/reinstall process ad infinitum. If she didn't like it, I could always reinstall Windows for her once again. So, I installed Mandriva Linux (then known as Mandrake), tweaked it to look and feel pretty much how she was used to, installed all the software she would need, and wrote some automation scripts to keep her system clean and up to date. It's been about 2 years, and she's still running. In fact, she hasn't had any problems or downtime. Oops, allow me correct myself. There was an occasion when she wanted to watch a video in an exotic file format, so she called me and asked for assistance. I SSH'ed into her machine from home, installed the necessary codec with a single command line (urpmi package_name), and she was good to go. My sister is not by any means the only case of Linux working perfectly for your average (or below average) PC user. In fact, in my experiences I've had success with about 9 out of 10 home Linux deployments I've done. Only one user (a family, actually) ended up going back to Windows, and that because they wanted to run some proprietary software with no obvious GNU/Linux equivalent. Fair enough. My point is that I'm downright sick of hearing "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", when the primary use of Windows for most people is Internet access, and Windows is arguably not ready for the Internet, as evidenced by spyware, malware, virii, etc.

-AT