|
|
| Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels |
 |
|
Friday, February 20 2004 @ 11:51 AM EST
|
IBM's General Manager, e-business on demand, Ross Mauri, gave a keynote speech at LinuxWorld, in which he said that Linux is unstoppable: The underlying technology of Linux continues to be enhanced, expanded and improved, enabling greater security, reliability, scalability -- the essentials of first-class computing are either in Linux today, on the near-term horizon with 2.6, or coming in 2.7 and beyond. He was talking about using GNU/Linux in business, of course, because that is what he does, and the statistics in the article are interesting indeed. But what about your average home user? Is Linux still too hard for your mom? For Joe SixPack, as he is sometimes called? Joe Average User? Groklaw reader Terry Vessels has written his experiences with average users in both Windows and GNU/Linux, in an article he calls Old FUD v. New Reality. For any of you thinking of trying GNU/Linux, but afraid to dip your toe in the water because you've heard it it too hard, this article is for you. Note the helpful references at the end. You might also enjoy this brief tutorial on basic commands. If you don't have a copy of Linux yet, you can get a Knoppix CD, as the article explains, and have fun learning that way. The premise of the article is that the world has changed and installing and using it today is easier than using or installing Windows. Deeper, he highlights why Linux has developed so quickly, and it has nothing to do with someone's legacy Unix code.
******************************************************************
The Old FUD and the New Reality,
~ by Terry Vessels
Every time someone suggests Linux for use on a personal, home
computer, the same old "Joe Average" and "Joe Sixpack" and "your mother" are
trotted out to chase the curious back into their cage. In case you haven't
encountered them before, "Joe Average" and "Joe Sixpack" are mythical
creatures supposedly representing average personal computer users. "Your
mother" is assumed to be some slightly doddering mouse-clicker, instead of
possibly one of the people who created, or is creating, the world of
information technology. (Please do not take offense,
ladies. Assume those who use the
"your mother" argument are ignorant of the
pioneering of computing). Naturally, so the old argument goes, "Joe Average"
and "Joe Sixpack" will never comprehend compiling a kernel, and you'd never
want to leave "your mother" suffering through 'more README; less INSTALL'.
It might be enlightening to consider these mythical people as if real, and
see whether Linux or Microsoft Windows suits their needs best.
Your mother supposedly just wants to click
things to "surf the web", email, print some pictures, do a little typing
(letters or work), and listen to some music. She supposedly would suffer
severe emotional trauma if "Kernel Panic!" appeared on her monitor, or
instructions such as "config --with-foo=/bar/lib". The near-twin Joes have
the same goals, with the possible addition of attaching various new
techno-toys to their PC, like a scanner and digital camera. None of these
three are interested in partitions, filesystems, iptables, sendmail
configuration or kernel compiles. Once upon a time, using Linux required you
learn about these things. Now, Linux doesn't require you learn such details
before you use the system; it just won't stand in your way if you want to
learn them.
As I posted (anonymously) in a
comment on NewsForge in 2002,
We who use Linux sometimes forget what it is like to face a computer for the first time. Linux gives the newbie the freedom to explore and tinker without the fear of destroying the system with an inadvertent click.
I just spent a day rescuing a "newbie" from MS Windows. Someone had loaned her an old computer with MS Windows. Neither she nor her husband knew beans about a computer, except how to hit the power button. They worked out the mouse (remember watching newbies twist and steer the mouse?). Somewhere in Windows, they clicked the wrong thing and the next time they turned it on, it asked for a boot disk. No such creature was included with the loaned computer, so they hired a lady "down the road" to "repair" the system. (My suspicion is that they may have dragged the System "folder" and dropped it inside some other, or some of those "hidden", "system" files were left available). Regardless of how it happened, the experience left them afraid to explore anything beyond solitaire. . . .
If someone gave you a new toy, but told you if you twist the wrong knob, or push the buttons in the wrong sequence, it would completely fall apart, you might be reluctant to play with that toy. Newbies should be allowed to play with the pretty knobs and buttons without fear of breaking their new toy.
Linux on the personal computer has moved from being suitable only for true
hackers, to including moderately skilled programmers, then professional
administrators and amateur computer "nuts", to including so-called "power
users" and then average computer users. It is helpful to remember that the
hacker who created the first Linux kernel and put it together with the GNU
tools did so because he wanted a better operating system for his personal
computer. The hacker who began GNU did so to increase personal freedom, for
himself and others. The underlying motivation is a strong one. It's called
enlightened self-interest or scratching your own itch. As people in each of
the computer-specific skill levels listed began using Linux and scratching
their own itches, they naturally improved the usability of the system. This
in turn enables those of less computer-specific skills to use and adapt the
system. Linux and Open Source do not thrive on elitism; they thrive on
sharing and enabling and empowering. Its natural evolution is inclusive.
Contrast this with Microsoft Windows, wherein everything is locked away from
the curious eyes of users. You may not examine the source to find out how
things work. You are prevented by law and by design. This leaves Joe
under-informed. Granted, Joe Average is not likely to be interested in the
source code of MS Windows. However, the number of people with access to that
code who might make sense of it for Joe's benefit are extremely limited.
This creates an artificially maintained mystery surrounding computers and an
artificially maintained hierarchy of experts. Joe is subtly trained to
accept the proclamations from on high. Joe is not encouraged to stress his
software, report its failures and assist in its improvement. Joe is made to
believe that if the magical, mysterious software fails to perform as
expected, then
Joe is using it wrongly or is
just dumb. (If Joe is dumb and
the computer is smart, why does Joe have to learn the computer's mouse and
keypress language to get it to do anything?)
Linux has grown by encouraging its users to speak up, contribute, help out.
People like to adapt what they have to suit themselves. They also like to
share their creations, adaptations and discoveries. Linux encourages this.
Whether what you have to share is a
patch for the kernel,
a cool new theme
for your desktop,
assistance,
or a bug report, your participation
is
significant.
The freedom explicit in GNU and Linux means that the system evolves at an ever-increasing rate. Since it allows anyone to use it, develop it and develop with it, as well as providing free tools to accomplish those tasks, it continually expands the number of people who can add to it and take it forward. A result of this is that the system itself, including all the GNU tools and piles of software, rapidly improves in ease of use. It's only natural. People try to make their tools suit themselves and easier to use. This in turn lowers the new user entry requirements and increases the power available to those new users. It includes more and more people rather than excluding.
I am very grateful that so many people offered their hard work freely to the world, for whatever reasons, so that people like me can use this software without the burden of first trying to learn as much about programming as the authors. I consider the immense collection of such software to be as great a gift to the people of the world, by the people of the world, as the printing press itself.
There was a time when books as well as literacy itself was the exclusive province of the rich. Consider how much the world changed due to the printing press allowing books to be within the reach of those who were not rich. Free public education, everywhere it took place, caused another explosive growth in the knowledge bank of the world. Global communication disseminated that knowledge. Digital global communication, computers and software are spreading that knowledge to more people more rapidly than ever before possible in the history of the world. They also facilitate the expansion of that knowledge bank as never before. With so much at stake and so much to gain for so many, free and open software is a powerful enabling force, while closed source software is a barrier to all.
It is time for the dark ages of computing to end. Free, open source software has begun a renaissance that I believe will surpass the Renaissance of history. Instead of each programmer being required to re-invent each software solution over and over because of closed source, open source means that each programmer can build upon the previous work. Having the fundamental software tools of computing available for free puts them in the hands of anyone capable of using them without the burden of also being rich. Who can tell what talent or even genius is frustrated and denied to the world because of the barrier imposed by the price of closed software?
That barrier is being dismantled by free, open source software. The outer wall was breached long ago. Now the breach is wide enough for many to pass through and the dismantling subsequently is accelerating. As more are able to assist, this free software spreads wider and enables more advanced operations. It is inevitable that closed, commercial software will eventually be relegated to niches. Closed commercial software excludes, if by no other means than the price. Those who unleash free and open software on the world are inviting everyone to come along.
It is time for people to stop
comparing
Linux of 1999
(the year Red Hat 6.0 was released) to
Microsoft Windows
of tomorrow.
Linux is not the exclusive realm of
geeks and nerds.
Microsoft Windows is not kind to new (or existing) computer users.
Linux doesn't require a degree in Computer Science
or
the ability to read C code.
Microsoft
Windows won't let you choose to remove certain of its parts, but
will happily
allow some stranger from parts
unknown to run programs from
email on your computer.
Linux runs gadgets and
appliances
without ever intruding on the user to announce itself; it just works.
Microsoft Windows still provides a "user experience" that a great many users
wish they had not
experienced. Linux is suitable for
almost anyone, now.
MicrosoftWindows is
suitable for
niche tasks, now.
As Joe Barr
put it:
"I need a desktop where new apps are comfortable from day one. And it just so
happened I had a complimentary copy of Mandrake Discovery 9.2 sitting unopened
nearby. I chose Mandrake. . . .
"In the copy I received, all the accompanying manuals were in French, and the
box itself was as well. The installation default was US English, however, so
that didn't slow me down. I suppose it's a sign of how far Linux installation
has come in general that I didn't even notice the manuals weren't in English
until after the install was complete."
Oh, and by the way,
you shouldn't have to accept MS Windows pre-loaded on a new computer.
The old FUD
*is dying*. May it rest in peace.
References
1. http://www.kernel.org/
2. http://www.gnu.org/
3. http://www.debian.org/
4. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
5. http://www.suse.com/
6. http://www.mandrakelinux.com/
7. http://www.mepis.org/
8. http://www.slackware.com/
9. http://www.knoppix.net/
10. http://www.redhat.com/
11. http://www.iwt.org/home.html
12. http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/hopper-story.html
13. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23436.html
14. http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/193
15. http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32679.htm
16. http://www.internetwk.com/news/news0303-8.htm
17. http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
18. http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
19. http://lwn.net/2000/1123/a/Linus-HOWTO.php3
20. http://themes.freshmeat.net/
21. http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT8221013471.html
22. http://www.debian.org/contact
23. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s03.html
24. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031022014413296
25. http://www.redhat.com/mktg/rh10year/
26. http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,3959,833424,00.asp?kc=BAZD103019T1K0100547
27. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000049.html
28. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9903/16/super.idg/
29. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20031120.html
30. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6349
31. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6080
32. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,12379,00.html
33. http://www.trustworthycomputing.com/
34. http://linuxdevices.com/
35. http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32726.html
36. http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit033.html
37. http://www.governmentsecurity.org/archives/fulldisclosure/1664.html
38. http://www.cknow.com/vtutor/vtnumber.htm
39. http://www.globalshareware.com/Games/Arcade/Arcade-36.htm
40. http://www.newsforge.com/os/03/12/01/1230221.shtml
41. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6538
42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_trolling_phenomena#*BSD_is_dying
43. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
44. http://edge-op.org/grouch/schools.html
For the sake of the next generation, we
need to help educate.
Copyright 2004, Terry Vessels.
licensed under a Creative Commons License
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Turing_Machine on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:01 PM EST |
Funny. I just installed a RedHat 9 computer for My Mother just last evening!
She is fine with it, able to use Ximina Evolution for her mail, without worrying
that she will break the machine if she opens something, and is comfortable with
the OpenOffice programs, as their look is familiar. I can't say how impressed I
was when she turned it on, opened up the browser and began surfing while I was
on the phone. She hasn't missed a step, and I have the fortunate position of
knowing that I won't get calls at the office about her machine being broken
again.
---
No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a
mediocre brain, something like the President of the AT&T --Alan Turing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:13 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: TwinDX on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:25 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:18 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:30 PM EST
- Let's see HER do it! - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: rc on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:27 PM EST
- My wife, the Penguinista! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:50 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: zeff on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 06:23 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:09 PM EST |
Grandma knows Linux is ready for us
cause this grandma did it
i love linux and you couldnt pay me to go back to M$
i enjoy my computer time now.
---
br3n
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw
"sco's proof of one million lines of code are just as believable as the
raelians proof of the cloned baby"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zjimward on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:10 PM EST |
Thanks and well stated. I've told people similar things, as I have head this
from other Linux users. My problem with much of what has been said by the
"I use Windows and it's a desktop" users at that this is the OS they
are familiar with presently. Sure they know how to use it. Just like users I
knew that were comfortable with their DOS menu systems or mini/mainframe menu.
It's the comfort factor that's really hard to break. Will computers truly be
end-user friendly? Probably no more than every one knows how to repair cars, or
toasters. The ease of use comes with things being able to be easily understood
by the majority, not the minority. How many people still run into some one that
doesn't know how to use a copy machine or a fax machine? I have and I wouldn't
go around saying that copiers and fax machines just aren't suitable for business
or home use because every one can't use them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:11 PM EST |
| Great article Terry! =) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TerryC on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:12 PM EST |
Very good article, how do we get it published to the unenlightened?
---
Terry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:13 PM EST |
See this
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:13 PM EST |
There was an excellent story on /. where a chap made up a page with all the
available Linux CDs:
http://www.frozentech.com/co
ntent/livecd.php
I have already grabbed a few of these for
diagnosis/repair.
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:16 PM EST |
| Sorry, I didn't want this to get lost under the rubble of PJ's previous
story.
The danger has not passed in Europe, either.
Europe's New IP Law:
"You just have to trust us."
---------- [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:16 PM EST |
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32917.html
<quote>
Blake Stowell, SCO's director of public relations, said: "An article by
itself in a newsletter does not in one fell swoop change the legal terms of the
licenses that are held between a company and its licensees.
"Even after that article appeared, IBM and AT&T made no effort to
change the terms of the license between the two companies."
</quote>
Do you take us for didiots Blake? We are quite well aware that those terms were
clarified _prior_ to the publication of the referenced article, at the 2
February 1985 signing of the software licensing agreement:
"Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works
prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or
portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative
work remains with us."
AT&T TECHNOLOGIES, INC. to NTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, 2
Feb, 1985
-----------
RFC-0001:2002 implemented: "All statements attributed or attributable to
representatives of Caldera International Inc. d/b/a "The SCO Group"
will be assumed to be maliciously misrepresentative of fact."
D. O'Mara[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:20 PM EST |
Call me unempathetic, because I don't really care for either Joe or Jane
Sixpack. I like desktop Linux even over Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP in a
corporate situation, because I am confident that Linux can be secured from
outside without too many contorsions and that user activities can be
sufficiently circumscribed that their ignorance, carelessness and
irresponsibility do not endanger the security of the network as a whole. My bias
is to see users as weak links in the network securiy chain, and a clear,
constant and present danger to network operations.
There are too many idiots out there who have both broadband access and who run
incurably insecure Oses such as Win 95, 98 and ME without proper and constant
maintenance checks, or who surf the 'Net while running misconfigured Windows XP
and Windows 2000 Pro as "Administrators". The end result is that the
'Net is turning into an amplifier for all sorts of garbage: spam, worms,
viruses, etc. Frankly, I expect the same idiots to surf the 'Net while running
their Linux machines as "root".
I never got a driver's license, and the reason has nothing to do with the
mechanics of driving a car and everything to do with that other DUI, cell phone
yacking, tail gating, lane cutting, road rage prone, speeding jackass on the
road.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: TerryC on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:31 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:41 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: RealProgrammer on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:04 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:10 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: rc on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:39 PM EST
- Driving - Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:56 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: seanlynch on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:30 PM EST |
In the mid to late 80's only Macs from Apple Computer were designed to be
easy to use for all levels of people. MS/DOS was too arcane for the mythical Joe
six-pack. However, many Joe's felt that the Mac was too expensive.
By 1991
Microsoft shipped the first stable version of Windows, Windows 3.1. Microsoft
had a run away hit with this product. It was easy enough for Joe Six-pack, and
lower cost than the alternatives from Apple and Amiga. The low cost was mainly
due to the low cost commodity hardware Windows happened to run on.
Windows
3.1 was good enough for the business desktop, for Joe Six-pack, and millions of
others. Windows 3.1 would not have sold in the numbers it did if that were not
true.
Linux is far superior to Windows 3.1. Therefore Linux is good enough
for the desktop, Joe Six-pack and millions of users.
I believe linux is
even superior to Windows XP.
Can a school or a business deploy terminal
servers with XP like they can with the Linux Terminal Server project?
No.
Can XP users use apt to keep ther systems up to date with very little
hassle? No.
Do Windows users get thousands of quality open source software
apps included with their distribution for free? No.
Do Windows users get the
source code for ther OS? No.
Some people think Windows XP is better. Fine,
I'll respect their opinion.
Linux is more than ready, and the future is
ours to create. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux vs. WinXP - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:26 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:07 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:11 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Nurseman on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:09 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:33 PM EST |
if my kids want to play games on a computer they ask to use mine(debian). my
wife is afraid they will mess up her Windows. now my daughter is doing a
powerpoint presentation for her 5th grade class. she is doing it once again on
linux, using openoffice. she says, it's just like at school.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:37 PM EST |
Good article.
This may be a bit OT, but I was reading some comments on a Yahoo board
concerning mainly compatibility between the GPL and the Apache 2.0 license. The
main difference I note between the Apache license and the GPL is that Apache has
a provision terminating the license of anyone bringing a patent suit against any
Apache licensee (at least that's the way I understand it), while I don't think
the GPL has anything in it dealing with patent lawsuits. One of the concerns
expressed was the possiblility of a patent war, M$ unleashing its considerable
patent portfolio against F/OSS.
My question: Does the GPL provide any defense against this sort of thing, and
what could be done to defend against such a patent assault if it were to
happen?
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:41 PM EST |
It seems to me that those who claim that command-line based systems are harder
to use, more arcane, or less intuitive, than mouse-based ones are skating on
rather thin ice. The GUI-based systems make a few operations look simple (for
example, dragging a file to move it from one directory to another) but anything
further does not follow (for example, ctrl-drag to copy a file, or is it
alt-drag or shift-drag or whatever?)
Say, perhaps we could make unix a bit more intuitive, like those window-based
systems, by renaming "cp" to "ctrl-m ctrl-v" as it is
clearly intuitive that it's like the "mv" command but with a modifier
held down?
In fact, however you control your computer, you're using a formal language with
it, and I reckon it's better to say "it uses this language, learn it"
than to show someone lots of command gestures and have them work out what the
language is.
No wonder Windows users get to be afraid of doing things with their computers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:44 PM EST |
You often hear that "OK, Linux may be good for servers but
it is not ready for the desktop yet". I think this notion
is completely wrong. You can do virtually all ordinary
office and desktop tasks on Linux as easily as on Windows.
But the problem with Windows is that it is not ready for
the internet yet! It was never designed with security as a
priority. UNIX and Linux was since they are true
multi-user systems. An OS that happily runs random
executable files it encounters in E-mail or when browsing
is IMO criminally mal-designed. It won't let you deinstall
potentially risky applications that you don't use anyway,
and it comes with too much stuff turned on by default.
I have been using different computer systems since 1976
and I think that Windows has so horribly bad security
designs it boggles my mind. And the sad part is that most
people that have never used anything else than Windows
think that having crashes and virus scanners is just
normal.
No, Windows is not ready for the internet. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST |
If it's all the same to you, I'm sticking to what I know best, OS X.
Every time a linux or PC user is explaining me his/her view of "easy"
I get the
willies. I'm rather proficient in about every version of Windows (since 3.2,
don't ask me about before that) and know my way around *some* Linux
distributions.
That's why I know my head-shaking is not a bad case of zealotitis, but the
result of years of exposure to computer weirdness suffered by myself and
loved ones.
Linux is great, I'm rooting for it, and every single developer out there. But
you
won't see me switching or ever calling it "easy". I'm glad though you
take on
the mythical "Joe Sixpack".
Truth is: every user is different, most users want to do fairly simple things,
which however can be extremely complicated depending on your
platform of choice.
Go ahead, collect some digital camera's and video-cams, some digital music
players, some printers, scanners, and I don't know what USB/Firewire device.
Whip out your favourite Linux box and start to connect. Then start to do
meaningful things with your collection of junk. And remember, these are the
simple things a lot of people will want to do...
The fact that in the article a newby could use a browser and that was
considered an accomplishment by her son should give you all pause for
thought...
And um, for Linux developers: comparing things to Windows - the same
platform that is so loathed by most linux users - doesn't strike me as a
particularly good idea.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark Levitt on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 12:58 PM EST |
"Joe is made to believe that if the magical, mysterious software fails to
perform as expected, then Joe is using it wrongly or is just dumb. (If Joe is
dumb and the computer is smart, why does Joe have to learn the computer's mouse
and keypress language to get it to do anything?)"
This is my favorite part of the article.
Computers, phones, technology in general are *tools* created by humans for
humans.
The technology should conform to *our* needs, not the other way around.
Humans, by design, make "mistakes". For example, the reason that
"confirmation dialog boxes" that ask, "Are you sure you want to
close without saving?" are useless is because humans are very good at
mentally automating repetitive tasks. Humans conserve their mental power and
something that seems familiar gets processed almost without concious thought.
How many of you have clicked "yes" to that question, only to realize,
almost instantly, that you've just lost an hours work?
Instead of the technology being designed to take into account human cognitive
processing, the user is blamed for "not paying attention."
Up yours, computer. I am a creative, intuitive thinking machine. YOU are a pile
of highly organized sand.
This is also the reason people open attachments containing viruses. They aren't
stupid. They aren't evil. They aren't clueless. They are human. And when they
are processing the, "I wonder if this is the file I need for my
report," thought the, "make sure I protect this stupid computer from
itself," thought is lower priority.
The technology industry has made billions by convincing people that they should
conform to the technology. WRONG. The technology should conform to people.
People can't remember how to set the clock on their VCR? Are they dumb? No, they
just have better things to do then spend time learning an overly complicated
procedure demanded by the technology that they are only occasionally going to
use. So why should they have to? The VCR should set the time itself.
So, next time you accidently click yes and lose an hours work, ask yourself
this: Why in the world, after spending an hour working on it, would this stupid
lump of metal assume that you might want to just throw it away?
I'd love to take credit for all these ideas, but if you want to read more on
this, check out "The Innmates are Running the Asylum" by Alan Cooper.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST |
Just read an article <a
href="http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,90
327,00.html">here</a> that Linux Networx (a Canopy Group Company)
sold the DOD a "weapons research supercomputer". Well it got me to
wondering if any of the Canopy Group companies have purchased the SCOG's Linux
License?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: J.F. on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:04 PM EST |
Terry is oversimplifying things a bit. Although a standard installation of Linux
is well within the average person's abilities these days, a full install
configured for many tasks is still WELL beyond the abilities of the average
person.
For example - a standard installation gives you a VESA video driver, or a frame
buffer driver. Nearly all video operations are done by the CPU. This is
unacceptably slow for modern 3D games. To set up drivers for hardware support of
3D operations is a major undertaking that will stress the average person to the
limits. My nVidia GeForce requires one to download a driver package and
recompile the kernel. The recompile will probably fail on most Linux
distributions, requiring the user to make certain changes to the configuration
of the kernel and/or patch the nVidia installation script and source before
reattempting to compile the kernel. Even then, there are configuration variables
that you will have to play with as they are different for every system and
distribution.
Unless you are using 2.6, the sound is in a similar situation. Getting audio on
my computer requires changing the kernel configuration and recompiling the
kernel.
Tell the average user that they will have to recompile the kernel for 3D and
sound and they'll laugh in your face. They can probably do it, but why will they
bother? Because Linux is "more secure?" The average person doesn't
care, as indicated by the number of users infected in the last couple years.
Now add in the task of installing and configuring Wine or WineX to run your
Windows-only games or aps and the average person is going to tell you - Linux
isn't ready for the average person yet. The average person CAN do it, but lacks
the gumption.
Now try those unfortunate enough to be less than average. A Bell curve clearly
shows that there are more people below average than above it. I've run into them
in my jobs repairing TVs and doing tech support for a computer card I designed.
People how don't realize the TV needs to be plugged in to work, people who don't
know a remote control needs batteries, people who can't figure out that audio
out on the computer goes to audio in on the TV or audio deck. There are MANY
MORE of them than people who know what they are doing. A pre-installed and
configured Windows is all they can handle. Until Linux comes pre-installed and
configured, these people are out of luck.
I do believe that the average person can set up and use Linux, but I have a more
realistic expectation of whether they WILL than the article portrays.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:19 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: TerryC on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:23 PM EST
- Ever installed windows from scratch? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:28 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:53 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 06:02 PM EST
- I bought a new computer with Linux installed and configured - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 08:17 PM EST
- on the money - soon, but not yet - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 21 2004 @ 02:18 AM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 04:03 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: haphazard on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:04 PM EST |
| I recently set up a Linux system for my autistic sister-in-law, using Debian
with the KDE desktop. She was somewhat familiar with MS Windows, although she's
only had the (very) occasional opportunity to use a computer in the past. I
didn't have to explain a thing... she sat down in front of it for the first
time, and within seconds was playing a game of solitaire (she's better at it
than I am, btw). She took to numerous other applications with similar
ease.
I didn't have to do much special setup at all... I configured KDE to
log her on automagically, and edited the menu to remove a few system-related
tools which were likely to prove confusing. Then I dropped a handful of select
application icons on her desktop, just to make them prominent.
At the
moment, her favourite game is Frozen
Bubble (kind of a reverse-tetris game). I think I can still beat her at
that one, but by the looks of things it's not likely to last.
;-)
---
"I'm too sexy for my code." -Awk Sed Fred
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- no sweat - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:20 PM EST
- Google is your friend... - Authored by: seanlynch on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:42 PM EST
- GUI version - Authored by: rand on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:12 PM EST
- no sweat - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 05:09 PM EST
- no sweat - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 05:22 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Slimbo on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST |
Bill Gates said "When we do a new version we put in lots of new things that
people are asking for. And so, <b>in no sense, is stability a reason to
move to a new version. It's never a reason.</b>"
OK, then why all the adds with the BSOD as a reason to upgrade to Win2K/XP?
Stability is not a <i>new feature</i> . Well maybe for MS OSes it
might be.
Slimbo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:14 PM EST |
| ...'more README; less INSTALL' ...
I think this is perfectly correct:
People who spend more time reading README's tend to need fewer INSTALL's.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST |
``The underlying technology of Linux continues to be enhanced,
expanded and improved, enabling greater security, reliability, scalability --
the essentials of first-class computing are either in Linux today, on the
near-term horizon with 2.6, or coming in 2.7 and beyond.''
I can just
hear ol' Darl saying: ``Ooh! Ooh! See! They trying to destroy the value of
my UNIX!''
Seriously... I think the speech was just a bit wrong. For
many computing needs, that horizon where first-class computing was going to be
available via Linux has already been reached and is receding into the
mists of time behind us. IMHO, it was reached when companies like Oracle began
supporting their products on Linux. And when StarOffice/OpenOffice became
stable. Not that there wasn't Linux usable on the desktop before. It's just
that those two events (along with some others) made it a lot easier to do and
easier to sell. (To users and management, that is. I'm not talking about
``monetization'' like someone we all know).
Somewhat OT: I just got out of a
meeting where using Linux in lieu of Microsoft for data center monitoring (and
even the desktop) in order to help reach an IT cost savings target of a few
hundred million dollars over the next few years. After I picked my jaw up off
the table, I just had to talk to the meeting chairman and volunteer to
help in any way I could. :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:30 PM EST |
I am a CNE, A+ Certified, certified from various venders and have been in the IT
field for over 10 years. I have tried on a few occasions to switch to Linux and
I do not think it is ready for Joe Bagadonuts. I wish it was.
Want to install a Linux package? First, download
“ProGram-You-wAnT.01-i386.zip.Br2.gnp.tar.frt. After downloading,
un-frt-tar-gnp-Br2-zip it to finally find the executable. Run the executable,
which unpacks a bunch of files. Find the ReadMe file to figure out what to do
first. Run MAKE. Run CONFIG. Run INSTALL. Read error message “unable to find
gRok-1.Lib.02”. Download all the dependencies the program needs to actually
work. Run MAKE, run CONFIG, run INSTALL. Hey it worked!!
Want to install a Windows program. Put the CD in, click NEXT, NEXT, NEXT,
FINISH. Done.
I am going to a 5 day Linux training class in March to try to understand this
stuff better. Joe Bagadonuts doesn’t have a company paying $2000 for them to
attend training. It is up to the programmers to make Linux ready for the
desktop. Stop programming for the Linux user and start programming for the
idiot.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: TerryC on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:36 PM EST
- ./configure && make && make install - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:41 PM EST
- apt-get moo - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:43 PM EST
- apt-get moo - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 01:16 PM EST
- rpmdrake & - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST
- apt-get synaptic && synaptic & - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:48 PM EST
- emerge geekwidget - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:50 PM EST
- Only if you want to.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:52 PM EST
- I am an idiot... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:53 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:11 PM EST
- FUD e DUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:14 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: captainhaddock on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:57 PM EST
- Training & other issues - Authored by: bruce_s on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST
- I have two computers sitting in front of me - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 06:31 PM EST
- Thank you for an example of old FUD - Authored by: xtifr on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST
- Re:Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 21 2004 @ 02:30 PM EST
- Old FUD v. New Reality, by Terry Vessels - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:43 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST |
I mess around with BookPC's every now and then. Usually you have to dig and dig
to find out where the drivers are at so you can get the O/S up and get it to
detect the hardware. On a whim , I slapped an RH9 CD in there and had the
machine up and running with nary a driver disk. Yeah, the archetecture was a
bit dated (Bk630) but it was all detected and configured on the fly. Normally,
I'm a CLI person. I tend to kill the GUI because I never could get the settings
right, or didnt have the patience for it. But having that thing slide right in
and fire up impressed me quite a bit. Feeling a bit strange looking at the
GUI... I killed it and went back to my trusty CLI. (no flames please, its just
me being me)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The CLI - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:41 PM EST |
I love when someone lobs a clue-grenade like this!
Grokker.
p.s., my decidedly not technical sister and my inlaws use Linux -- because
otherwise I would be doing support full-time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TerryC on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST |
Having read some of the comments in this thread, it's obvious that the view of
Linux usability is still entrenched in the 90s, even amongst some of the people
who visit these hallowed halls!
I agree with Terry V 100%. Linux is becoming easier than Windows when you look
at the whole experience. We need to stop focussing on the old chestnuts of
complicated and difficult installation and having to compile everything. When
people realise that most users will never have to do any more than run an
installer and click on a few configuration options, we'll be getting somewhere.
It really isn't so different from using Windows, these days, the main difference
is that it's smooth, reliable and secure.
---
Terry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:47 PM EST |
``Contrast this with Microsoft Windows, wherein everything is
locked away from the curious eyes of users. You may not examine the source to
find out how things work. You are prevented by law and by
design.''
Or, as I like to put it: ``Windows has `no
user servicable parts inside'.''
Though that seldom stops someone like
me who grew up getting old carburators (sp?) from the corner service station or
old clocks that someone tossed out to take apart and reassemble, who spent many
hours building Heathkit electronics projects. In short, for anyone with a good
deal of curiosity about how things work, a product like Windows just isn't very
satisfying to use.
Now I can understand the person who doesn't want to know
how something works on the inside. What I can't understand is why they get all
bent out of shape when it breaks, and they can't fix it (or have someone else
fix it), and they have to shell out a sizable pile of money to replace it. This
wasn't on their radar as a possibility? (I guess my engineering background has
me thinking about things like this where Joe Sixpack may not.) Microsoft wants
to create computing appliances that people don't have to know much about in
order to use. Pity they do such a poor job of doing that. I can't think of any
products that have those labels about `no user servicable parts inside' that
would still be on the market if their quality was as low as what Microsoft puts
out. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:51 PM EST |
``Microsoft Windows still provides a "user experience" that a
great many users wish they had not
experienced.''
LOL!
But I would rephrase that to
read:
``... a "user experience" that a great many users wish
they had not have had to endure.'' [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:52 PM EST |
I don't mean to be a downer but it is still too difficult. A prime example is I
let some friends use my Suse box to type a paper. That was no problem but when
they went to email it to themselves they got nowhere. One they couldn't find the
browser and two they couldn't find the file once I showed them the browser. I'm
running Suse 9 so it's about as new as it can get.
when I do installs it is always a process and I'm only successful %50 of the
time. I really hate that most programs you install don't put a shortcut in the
programs list. Finding the programs once installed is difficult because there is
no standard program files folder, so I always wind up doing searches for the
Linux version of the .exe file.
what I really want to make a point to is that most people are lazy and will not
want to spend time learning. MS has figured this out and is why the average user
will stay addicted to them. I'm not a MS fan but Linux is still beyond the
average user, I know this because I'm not an average user and it challenges me
on a regular basis.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Well... almost - Authored by: TerryC on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:00 PM EST
- Well... almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:21 PM EST
- Well... almost - Authored by: red floyd on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:03 PM EST
- Well... almost - Authored by: red floyd on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:04 PM EST
- Well... almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:31 PM EST
- Well... almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 04:54 PM EST
- Well... almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:01 PM EST
- all of the above - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:53 PM EST
- all of the above - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 04:16 PM EST
- Well... almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 04:29 PM EST
- Well... almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 03:12 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 01:54 PM EST |
Has it been so long since many of us typed this?
cd wp
wp51
Well?
Didn't we edit AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS enough?
At least Linux has a choice of interfaces... graphical or otherwise.
Linux is for everybody. My mom included.
RF[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:03 PM EST |
Remember me? I'm the one who wrote the tale of my experiences with various
Linux distros for Linux World. The last distro I tried still had problems, most
notably being its inability to install its own software where it could find it.
And please explain why why a distro would be shipped on DVD, but not contain the
software to burn DVDs.
They expected me to scrounge up something off the
web and compile it? Fat chance! I have no more interest in configuring my OS or
compiling my own software than I do shearing sheep and spinning my own yarn. A
computer is a tool for me, not a hobby, and the less tweaking I have to do, the
happier I will be.
Linux is more than adequate for the ordinary user IF and
ONLY IF the system comes pre-installed with working peripherals from the vendor,
or is set up for the user by a geek, as Turing_Machine and several others
indicated they have done. There is no user-friendly way to add software or
hardware. There is far too much manual tweaking of config files for it to be
ready for me to use, let alone my neighbor the social worker.
Right now I
have a scanner with no Linux drivers available, so I'm using Win2000. Want to
say it's my fault for buying an off-brand scanner? The brand is HP, hardly an
unknown manufacturer ... and they sell Linux-based systems. Why don't they
write Linux drivers and software for their scanners? Who knows.
Don't say
"But it's _(heaper free-er more secure more flexible __ than WinXP." I don't
care what the other OS may or may not have. The blunt truth is that the
user-friendly part of the Linux OS and software is not there yet. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: be2weenthelines on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:14 PM EST |
I agree completely. I'm not a complete computer neophyte, having significant C,
C++ programing experience, using both Unix and NT boxes, but I am a user not a
sysadmin. I was sufficiently disgusted by SCO's antics and sufficiently
intrigued by the idea of FOSS that I bought Mandrake 9.2 to try.
My first idea was that I would install it on my old 50 MHz PII with 16Mb RAM.
After all, from what I had read, this would be easy because Linux is so light
weight compared to Windows, and would run much better than Windows (3.1 in the
case of that box). Needless to say, I couldn't even get it to install. Can it
be done? I have no doubt. Could I do it? Again, I have no doubt, but I'm not
prepared to spend that much time on it. I'm a user not a sysadmin.
So I decide, never mind the risk, I have a brand spanking new 2.8GHz Dell with
512Mb RAM and dual monitors running Windows XP. Its so new, that I haven't much
data at risk so I'll install Linux as a dual boot. Installation goes fine.
First thing to do? Get on the internet, but before that I need a firewall.
This is supposed to be a point and click configuration task from the tools
supplied with Mandrake 9.2. Guess what? They don't work. Hours of net
searches, questions on linux groups, etc. I find a way to edit the config files
by hand to make it work.
Next? My sound card doesn't work. Linux only recognized one of my two monitors
and even that one clearly has a problem because even simple games (Tuxracer)
play very badly. Hours more of net searches and linux group questions. As near
as I can tell, I have to do just what you described: I have to download a
driver from ATI, edit the XFree86 config file by hand. Recompile the kernel (or
something). Cross my fingers and hope it works. And I haven't even started on
the sound card problem.
All this compared to when I bought the computer from Dell in the first place and
everything worked flawlessly (sound, dual monitors, internet access with a
ZoneAlarm firewall, existing Windoze software). Don't get me wrong. I despise
Windows and far preferred Unix when I was programing. And if I had had similar
problems with Windoze there's no way I would have been able to find fixes as I
have (sort of) been able to with Linux. Linux is definitely the way of the
future, but it is a long, long way from being able to take significant home user
market share away from Windoze.
Just my $0.02.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TimDaly on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:25 PM EST |
I'm building a compile farm so I need cheap, fast machines.
Wal-Mart sells
1.4Ghz machines for about $200+change so I
ordered one. It runs Lindows.
Lindows is Debian under the
covers. Lindows is very, very close to the Windows
experience.
So close, in fact, that my girlfriend (a Windows user) could
do
things by clicking thru the icons and menus. I needed a
command line. Both were
available. Anyone who thinks that
Linux can't do desktops has never tried the
Lindows distrib.
And they cover apt-get with a "software warehouse"
toolset
making it easy for the average person to get free software.
(No, I don't
own Lindows or Wal-Mart stock)
The free windows-killer desktop is
already here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:25 PM EST |
| I like to describe the transition from closed source software to open source
software as comparable to the scientific transition from alchemy to
chemistry.
The alchemists tried to keep their knowledge secret, with as
result that most of their knowledge was lost when they died. They didn't get
beyond a handfull of tricks and some illusions (fools gold).
After the
change to chemistry the sharing of knowledge became common, with as result that
people could build upon the work of their predecessors. Thanks to chemistry and
sharing of knowledge we have mass production of antibiotics, designer plastics
and lots more of usefull products. ---
MathFox gets rabid from SCO's
actions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: iZm on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:30 PM EST |
My mother and sister use Gentoo and have been for the last
year. They didn't install it, but once built they had no
trouble using it. If they ever for any reason need to
reinstall, then I think I will just get them Xandros and
let them do it themselves.
When NTL ( UK ISP ) stopped linux users using their dial
up service by requiring proprietary Windows software, I
gave her the choice, I could put windows back on or she
could get a new ISP. Well she said she would prefer not
to have to use windows at home again so, we got rid of
NTL.
:^)=)
---
Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gleef on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST |
Most discussions of "Ease of Use" issues regarding Linux, Windows,
MacOS, whatever, run together two issues that, in my opinion, are best addressed
seperately. This article is better than most in that respect, but still does it
to some degree. The two issues are "Ease of Use" and "Ease of
Administration".
"Use" is all the things that the steriotypical "Mom" and
"Joe Sixpack" are typically looking to do with their computer. As the
article said, they want to be able to surf the web, email, write simple
documents, listen to music, watch movies, and other similar things, without
having to learn much about the system. A system has "Ease of Use"
when it permits this. Ease of Use is incredibly important to many people, it's
a huge selling point to a computer system. For example, it's the big reason why
Apple hasn't gone bankrupt.
"Administration" is what makes the system work and keeps it system
working properly. It includes getting the machine set up properly; making sure
the machine is talking to the other machines it needs to talk to; making sure
that authorized people can access the system, and unauthorized people can't;
making sure your software is up-to-date; installing new software;
troubleshooting problems. Administration requires either specialized knowledge,
or trust (and often money) in someone else who has that knowledge. A system has
"Ease of Administration" when that knowledge is easy to learn and/or a
trusted administrator is easy to obtain. The "Mom"s and "Joe
Sixpacks" have no such knowledge, and usually don't want to pay any money
to someone who does.
Now, to compare Linux and Windows in the real world. Yes, I ought to include
MacOS here too, but I have insufficient real world experience with it to trust
my impressions of it.
Splitting the issues apart as above, I have found that most people find Linux
vastly easier to use than Windows. If I administer the Linux system, I can give
them easy access, through icons, menus, keyboard shortcuts, shell aliases,
whatever the user is most comfortable with, to a wide array of excellent
software that does everything they want.
The software is straightforward to learn, easy to understand, and runs more
reliably than under Windows. They don't have to worry about blue screens of
death, and other problems like program crashes and disk thrashing are far more
seldom. Linux separates user configurations much more effectivly than even
recent versions of Windows, so a family machine can allow one user to customize
their system to their tastes without worrying about what they're doing to the
rest of the family. Linux protects the core system much better, so a user
doesn't have to worry about accidentally deleting something critical to their
machine running. All of these enhance Ease of Use.
Administration is a thornier topic, administration is harder or easier depending
on what your system is doing, and whether or not it is available on the
internet. In my opinion, both Linux and Windows are too hard to administer for
a typical home computer with an internet connection for "Mom" and
"Joe Sixpack". Security issues come up too often, there are too many
people hunting for Zombies. The extra Windows problem of allowing users to
modify system files further compounds this problem, but most popular
distributions of Linux are still unacceptable in this regard.
The real fix is not as simple as "give them Linux". The real fix is
"give them safe systems, coupled with an ISP that will properly support
them and hold their hand", and Linux is one of the easiest routes to that.
The ISP would give them a preconfigured machine, with all sorts of useful
software, configured to make it hard for a user to shoot themselves in the foot.
They would supply a connection (dialup, broadband, pigeon, whatever) not to the
internet, but to their own carefully administered, firewalled and monitored
local network. Web (and FTP) connections would be handled through a proxy, the
machine would be unable to directly communicate with machines on the internet,
or other customers' machines for that matter. Updates will be automatically
sent to the machine by the ISP's server. The ISP's tech support will be able to
log into the user's machine and troubleshoot things when they go wrong.
A service like this could safely charge more than conventional ISP's, because
the computer is included in the service. It's, IMHO, a win-win situation, the
ISP can rake in the dough, and "Mom" and "Joe Sixpack" can
be happy with their computer without sending MyDoom to thousands of people. All
that's needed is one of the big ISP's to set up the service (AOL comes instantly
to mind, but many of the nationwide ISPs have the connectivity and capital to
make this work). It's not a service that I would use, but it's one I would
happily recommend to the people who shouldn't be directly connected.
Barring that, "Mom" and "Joe Sixpack", since they refuse to
spend money on support unless it's an emergency, need a friend or family member
willing to support their system. There are more people out there who know how
to administer a Windows system than know how to administer a Linux system, and
if that's all that "Mom" can find, I guess that's what she's stuck
with. However, if her helper knows how to set up and maintain Linux then she
can experience the joys of the better Ease of Use of a Linux system. Happily,
Linux is always getting both easier to administer and more widely known, so more
of these people can use it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The meta-isp - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 07:08 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:50 PM EST |
| Linux is not the exclusive realm of geeks and nerds.
Sure it is.
There's not one linux box out there that's not treated like someone's pet. Which
is fine, if that's what they want to do with their time. But 90% of the world's
people don't want to "play" with thier operating system. They have real pets
for that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 02:53 PM EST |
Sadly, it still takes a pretty advanced knowledge of Linux to get a single game
I can buy at the local computer store to work on Linux. Wine is hit and miss
with many of these games and its performance is far less than anything you can
get in the Evil MS Windows. If all Joe Average is looking to do is office
applications, email, and surf the web then Linux would be a perfect fit. If Joe
Average wants to play the latest UT2004 game, he is SOL if he doesn't know the
ins and outs of Wine. I don't see too many game writers releasing ports to
Linux yet. Perhaps it is time someone addresses this major problem. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oh? Oh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:23 PM EST
- Oh? Unreal is a funny choice of an example... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:54 PM EST
- Oh? - Authored by: rand on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:59 PM EST
- Oh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 21 2004 @ 06:48 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:16 PM EST |
Windoze is only tolerable to the average user because they don't have to install
it. It's horrible to install, or it used to be - I haven't tried installing
XP.
First Linux needs a level playing field. But there's no way to get that so
Linux needs to be ten times better instead. So far, it may be only five times
better.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: haphazard on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST |
WOW LINUX LOOKS SO EASY. All you have to do is write and compile a
short C program to log in automatically! This really proves, Linux is so much
easier than Windows. Just to think, on Windows I'd have to click Start,
Settings, Control Panel, User Accounts to get it to log on automatically. Wow,
that's so much clicking, it's much easier to just fire up emacs and blast out a
C program!
I have absolutely no idea what you're babbling about.
This was strictly a point-and-click operation, with virtually no effort (or
time) required...---
"I'm too sexy for my code." -Awk Sed Fred
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 03:48 PM EST |
| Very much needed bit of encouragement. Everyone else I know is using some other
system and wondering if alternatives even exist. So many times I've had one of
"those" conversations where somebody says "But I thought you were into
computers!" when I tell them that I don't really do windows. And how many
weekends have I lost over the years supporting friends and family with the
latest virus, spyware, or mis-configuration? Anyway, I always have a few Live
CD's with me, keeping a few in the car just in case. I found this slightly
ambitious person who has a site full of live CD's here, thanks to a
slashdot article on it. Hope this post can bring someone a
smile! ---
"Truly, if Te is strong in one, all one needs to do is sit on
one's ass, and the corpse of one's enemy shall be carried past shortly." (seen
on USENET) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 04:02 PM EST |
Looking through the comments, I see a lot that illustrate the "ol"oldd
FUD". There are still many comments whining about having to read the README
and recompile the kernel and track down obscure tarballs in order to accomplish
ordinary things with a computer. This directly contradicts the experience
reported by many news sites and many new users of recent versions of
distributions of Linux.
I don't know which bugs me most, the ones still crying the "old FUD"
or the small group of Linux users who complain that Linux has gotten too easy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 04:08 PM EST |
"As will be set out in IBM's answer to plaintiff's proposed Second Amended
Complaint - should the Court permit plaintiff to file it - plaintiff's amended
allegations are meritless. Nevertheless, and without conceding the grounds on
which the amended pleadings are based, IBM does not oppose plaintiff's second
motion for leave to amend, subject to IBM's right to move against the amended
pleadings. "
Translated: it's still BS, but if they insist on dragging it into court, IBM
doesn't care. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: malkerie1 on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 04:45 PM EST |
I have to agree with Terry V,
Linux is ready. I have installed, configured, and supported just about every
version of windows upto 2k and XP. It took about a third of the time to install
my Linux machine then it does to get a comparable install of windows up and
running. Since after you get through the first hour of install of winodws then
comes the obligatory driver cd's and then the million reboots while downloading
the security patches (while hoping that you don't get hit with one of the worms
before you get their patch installed) and then installing all of the app's which
i need.
However I'm not sure that Linux is exactly secure out of the box. A friend of
mine installed a version of Linux to serve his web page from his dorm room (this
is about two years ago) and within a week it had been taken over by a hacker and
used to stage an attack on a larger corporation, Linux comes with its own set of
security problems if you are running some of the services.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: toolboxnz on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 04:51 PM EST |
One of the earlier postings mentioned wireless networking
and WEP. I have had an interesting experience with trying
to get this working with both Linx and Windows.
I first bought a Belkin wireless access point and PCMCIA
card. The driver software that came with it was excellent
and had a nice GUI for configuring the system. I never had
to use the Windows XP networking software to configure the
card. I set up WEP so my network was secure (or as secure
as WEP is, anyway) and managed to connect all nicely.
I then booted into Linux running RedHat 8.0 and had to
recompile the kernel to get wireless networking running
and install the necessary driver software etc. It ended up
taking me about three evenings to get it working which was
a pain but in the end I was happy.
I later had a 2nd laptop that I would bring home from work
often and decided to get another PCMCIA wireless card. The
shop down the road no longer had any of the nice Belkin
cards so I got a Dynalink one instead. Installed the
Windows drivers which supposedly had a nice GUI helper but
that never worked and I was forced to use the XP network
settings instead.
After many many tries I could never get it to connect
using WEP. If I disabled WEP it would connect no problems
but it would never ever create a network connection with
WEP disabled. A the nice looking GUI that I had seen
screenshots of on their site was nowhere to be found on
the CD or anywhere it had installed anything. So I gave
up.
A few months later, I reinstalled Linux on my own laptop
using SuSE 9.0 (I actually also tried Fedora 1 and
Mandrake 9.2 but decided on SuSE in the end). The wireless
stuff was compiled into the kernel and SuSE correctly
identified the card as a Belkin wireless access card and I
could use the GUI to configure it.
After a bit of fiddling around I discovered my WEP
passphrase was actually too long, and the algorithms to
turn them into hex values came up with slightly different
values in the access point and on my laptop. Not a
problem. Made it smaller and used that instead. No probs.
So I decided to try again on the work laptop with the
Dynalink card. In the end it turned out I had to type the
actual hex values in instead of a nice human passphrase
into the XP dialog. Nowhere in the XP help did it say you
had to do this. After entering the hex values I finally
had WEP enabled for the other card.
In the SuSE configuration, you can enter either the hex
values OR the passphrase and it tells you how to do it.
This isn't a rant at either Windows or the problems caused
by an older Linux distro, but rather trying to make a
point that WEP encryption is not necessarily easy to
configure on either Windows or Linux.
I was lucky on Windows the first time with the Belkin card
(thanks to their nice helper app) and unlucky the second
time. I guess my point is, for an average Joe user,
depending on what card you bought it might seem impossible
to enable WEP encryption on any OS. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST |
| I'm probably breaking multiple rules of etiquette and netiquette with this, but
I can't resist.
This article started around 1 February, in response to some
comments posted to
one of PJ's
articles about SCO, MyDoom and ISPs. I contacted PJ with these points,
suggesting an article:
"1. People are still comparing Linux of 1998 with
Windows XP. Example, in your recent article about SCO, MyDoom and ISPs, you
invited Windows users to try Linux. Comments were posted which still make the
same claims used in 1998, to the effect that Linux is for geeks only, while
Windows is for normal people.
2. FUD works by such misinformation. By
projecting the image of Linux users as the stereotypical "strange kid", it isn't
hard to get the average person to then believe those strange kids are writing
viruses and knocking over websites for giggles and vengence.
3. Believing
Linux to be the realm of oddballs who bask in archaic command lines, and
suffering majicks and mysteries (deliberate concealment) on their Windows
computers, Windows users will stick to what they are used to. They are trained
to accept the word of the "pros" as gospel, because they are deliberately
prevented, by secret source and by law of the EULA, from learning why and how
things happen on their computers.
4. Trained to accept the proclamations of
the "pros" (there is no peer review), many Windows users still fear that Linux
will make them feel even dumber than they feel now. (It drives me crazy when
people think the computer is smart; if it was smart and they were dumb, why
can't they just carry on a conversation with it instead of learning its
mysterious mouse clicks and other language?). These users will disregard all the
troubles and mysterious malignancies they suffer with MS Windows and focus on
what the FUD tells them about that strange Linux. They compare the hype about
Windows to the FUD about Linux."
Naturally, I was suggesting PJ write the
article and just as naturally, PJ tossed the ball back in my court with, "Why
don't you write one yourself (a draft) and I'll just use it as a starting off
point?"
Me and my big mouth.
I struggled with it and pestered PJ with
multiple revisions via email right up until the hearing, when the lull in SCO
stuff ended with a flurry of articles and transcriptions. After the pace slowed
a bit, I emailed PJ to ask if she was still interested in the article and, in
the wee hours of the morning, received a copy of the above cleaned-up,
ready-to-go article! (Research suggestion: find out if there are 3 shifts of
"PJ". Indicators: timestamps on articles and email suggest "on call 24
hours").
I had nit-picked my way from the disingenuous comparison Ballmer
made between vulnerabilities in Windows Server 2003 and those of Red Hat 6 (from
1999), through old links and personal anecdotes, to present-day distributions.
You can see I get long-winded, (as well as being a grouchy old fart), but if you
are curious about the full-fat version, see
this.
Please note that
PJ was given explicit permission to alter that in any way and post the result on
Groklaw under a Creative Commons License. That's not a trust I would put in just
anyone, which is why the other version has a "verbatim" restriction.
I'd
like to thank PJ for putting up with all those revisions and emails, and thanks
to all the commenters who have been kind enough to fill in my omissions of
content while graciously ignoring my transgressions of style, structure and
grammar.
Terry Vessels
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: auric on Friday, February 20 2004 @ 08:37 PM EST |
Whenever I see 'Joe Sixpack' I immediately think of Monty Burns' dulcet tones!
BTW, an excellent article. Show a PC to a five-year-old and they'll press every
button in sight to see what happens. My dear old dad needs detailed instuctions
starting at 'hit the power button' to which mouse button to press. Though in
fairness he's getting better at it every day, email, surfing, scanning and
printing are becoming less of a mystery. Mum is still in awe and thinks the
whole thing is magic and only works by casting mystical incantations, or
something. And yes, their VCR flashes 12:00.
They told me that as you get older you just get stuck in your ways and are less
open to new ideas. You're comfortable with the world and then technology throws
a entirely new concept into your lap. If email was as simple as picking up the
phone and sending a message then they would have less problems. It's all the
bits between that throw them. The mysterious computer, running the correct
program, dealing with errors - all the trivia that the rest of us just do
without thinking about it. Still, like everything else, if you want to get
better you have to put the time in to learn. But simple things should be easy
and difficult things should be possible [badly misquoted from an Amiga system
developer].
One day I'll get Dad off Win98 and onto Linux. Small steps.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Simpsons - Authored by: kpl on Saturday, February 21 2004 @ 02:08 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 21 2004 @ 02:08 AM EST |
I had been a Mac user for many years but had followed the development of
GNU/Linux since '92 because it embodied all the attributes I felt a *real*
operating system should have; complete and total control of the entire system
for anyone willing to learn how to do it.
When I retired from the fire service in '98 I bought an x86 box, scraped Windows
'98 off the hard drive and installed Debian and haven't use another OS since.
But I didn't stop there. I felt obliged to learn at least the basics of C, Perl,
Python, tcl and, of course, bash, all of which I did with self study books,
HOWTO's, man pages and articles on the web. The main thing I learned was to have
a huge amount of respect and gratitude for those from around the world who
contribute time and code to GNU/Linux, but, I have also managed to write some
simple utilities to help with routine and tedious chores on my systems.
I now have two Debian boxes in my LAN and one problem child, my wife's Windows
XP box, which doesn't like to play nice in the network and needs to be
reconfigured every time a new patch is added by Windows_Automatic_Update. I
swear, sometimes I can hear debone, the Samba server, muttering in frustration.
My only failure in my GNU/Linux odyssey has been trying to get my wife to stay
with Debian. She fought using the system tooth and nail and convinced herself it
was, "Just too hard to use" and you know, for her, she is right. Our
grand children, on the other hand, have no such preconceived ideas about
GNU/Linux and they just love Debian Jr.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alastair on Saturday, February 21 2004 @ 05:02 AM EST |
“Your mother” is assumed to be some
slightly
doddering mouse-clicker, instead of possibly one of the people who created,
or
is creating, the world of information technology.
It might be
enlightening to consider these mythical people as if real, and
see whether
Linux or Microsoft Windows suits their needs best. Your mother
supposedly just
wants to click things to “surf the web”, email,
print some
pictures, do a little typing (letters or work), and listen to some music. She
supposedly would suffer severe emotional trauma if "Kernel Panic!" appeared
on
her monitor, or instructions such as "config
--with-foo=/bar/lib".
My mother, although not
doddery by any means, fits this
description fairly well. She used to be
confused by the fact that there were
two buttons on her mouse (she is better
now, but a Blue Screen Of Death or a
BIOS error at startup would still result
in “severe emotional
trauma”, or more
accurately, shouts of
“Alastair! Help!”).
Terry is correct when he says that there
is an artificial air of mystery
around computers; indeed, that's why my mum was
so scared of them to
begin with (at one point she was even frightened that she
might click on
something and blow something up ;->). There is another reason
for it that
isn't mentioned in the article though… many people simply
aren't
interested in how computers work, often because they're lazy and
therefore
not interested in finding out if they don't have to. Usually such
people think it
will be a lot of work learning about computers as well, rather
like the people
who complain about the metric unit system and campaign for
“the old
system”, who, in the same way, don't understand that
metric units are
easier to learn and easier to use.
Of course, this
mysteriousness suits Microsoft and its cronies down to
the ground, not least
because it gives them the chance to
“train” IT professionals into
buying Microsoft (by which I mean,
choosing Microsoft or Microsoft recommended
products even when there are
better ones available from other
sources).
One final point… I actually think that Linux is easier
to administer
than Windows is. Windows is a lot more complicated to set-up
properly,
particularly as Microsoft are kind enough to set it up badly by
default. It's also
more difficult on Windows to find the options you need. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 21 2004 @ 01:25 PM EST |
It's just a minor annoyance, and a semantic issue, but not all FUD is bad.
For example, take the the spread of Nuclear technology. There should be FUD.
The problem with SCO is that they spit FUDBOL's (FUD Based On Lies) and FUDBOPI
(FUD Based on Pure Idiocy).
There is PFUD (Prudent FUD).
My $0.02
-Elmer J PFUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 21 2004 @ 01:45 PM EST |
It is nice to see all the positive experiences. I think there should be a
database of these experiences as an MS FUD antidote!!
So I will add my experience, which is unremarkable, but just another confirming
instance.
I run a busy office developing intranets for corporate clients based on FOSS so
have little time for favours for friends.
But a friend, a young fine arts graduate with a little MS Windows experience,
needed a place to administer her own growing interior decorating practice.
So I rather cavalierly pointed her to a Mandrake Linux 9.2 workstation with Open
Office, Kmail and Firefox installed and said - get on with it!
And so she did, and so well that I use her as my favourite success story that
Linux is in fact better than MS Windows.
This has given me the confidence to target my 76 year old mother. She doesn't
know it yet but her Windows 98 will become Mandrale Linux 10 (as soon as it is
out of beta)
An aside - I use Win4Lin very effectively as a bridge, allowing me to run those
Windows programs inside Linux that still have no Linux equivalent. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
