Who needs Microsoft when you can get better software for free?
Though I'm reasonably comfortable with computers –- to use, not to sound intelligent about –- and I like the opportunity for playtime they provide, I'm not what the techies would call an early adopter. It was probably a year after my brother encouraged me to get out of my Internet Explorer comfort zone and try Firefox before I took the plunge. Then I kicked myself for not doing it sooner.…
Article comments
26 - Karl O. Pinc
Diane Kristine,
I really did mean you have a good attitude regards computers. Not everybody wants to mess with them all the time.
The thing about Mr. Pink is that he had to go to extra effort to mess up his system. He may have even followed well-meaning advice from Linux people who are all excited about having the latest and greatest. If you use the software install/remove tool that comes with your distro, then that's the _only_ place you need to go. Stick with that and all the software should "just work", forever, and if it does not then the distro support should be enthusastic about fixing the problem. Venture into other sorts of installing, you're on your own with whatever support you can get. (Which could be quite a lot, with all the folks who know more than you do that will tell you how easy it is to install the absolute newest "project-X". And it is easy. Easy-ish anyway. But the hidden cost is in keeping up with all your non-distrubution supported customizations. You're sure to find gobs of people willing to help you install the proprietary Nvidia graphics driver that will frobnatz your graphic experience so that it's state-of-the-art. But you have to ask before most of these willing helpers tell you that after installing the Nvidia driver upgrading your Linux distribution can cause your video to stop working. There's no blame here, these people are just excited about getting as much as possible out of Linux. You may even need to frobnatz your graphic experience to have the Linux you desire.)
What if the MS Windows software install/remove tool allowed you to instantly install or remove _every_ software program ever made for your version of MS Windows? Free of cost downloaded straight from the Internet. (eldar: No compiling. No goofy dialog boxes and clicking "I ACCEPT" and "Next" and product registration or monthly update fees, or system reboots either. Really. Much eaiser than MS Windows installation.) Think of synaptic (or whatever your distro's software install tool is) as being like that. If you want to install Macintosh software, or software for a different version of MS Windows (e.g. software for MS Windows CE, the cell phone OS) well, with MS Windows you're out of luck. Linux on the other hand makes it easy enough for an ordinary mortal to do such a thing. Trouble is, the ordinary mortal isn't usually up to dealing with the long-term implications.
Linux, done the easy way, using only the package install/remove tool, _is_ for everybody. At least everybody's basic Internet surfing, word processing, spreadsheet making, needs. You'll get more, lots more, out of some distros and just the basics from others. Application support is one place where shopping for distros comes into play. (The other big factors are probably the availablity of help and plain old personal taste.)
What you miss out on with Linux is the big marketing campaign to tell you what (they say) everybody else is using so you know what distribution/software package/whatever to choose.
It's up to you to make the decisions, and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Who wants to start off on the wrong foot and waste time and look stupid? The first step is to realize that all you get out of a big marketing campaign, along with superficial information from a questionable source, is someone to blame for a bad decision.
So, chill out. Take your time. Go exploring when you're ready. And, as I mentioned before, see if you can get a guide. (A meatspace guide is best, but VNC is a good substitute.)
27 - Karl O. Pinc
eldar,
You are right. Linux is not for everybody. IMO it's perfect for the geeks and the grandmothers. Those who know why they need to frobntaz their graphics card and those who don't need, and probably shouldn't have, that confusing "flash" thing.
It bugs me that nobody's telling those that need the basics that they can have something better (faster, more supportable (via vnc/ssh, or thin clients, or...), more secure, and constantly updated). The tech journalists are all about gushing over the latest and greatest, and somehow can't bring themselves to tell people the big advantage of FOSS. Complete software systems, everything needed for the basics, all pre-integrated and ready to run. MS could afford to give away IE with the OS because they wern't making any money on it at the time. They can't afford to give away MS Office. Each Linux distro comes with _everything_, well, included in the Linux distro. Everything the average computer user needs, in one easy-to-use bundle. The tech media seems to enjoy telling folks how to make it into a hard-to-maintain system because they're fixated on "The MS Windows Way" of always going to a 3rd party to get more software. Sure, the "power user" needs to do this, but we don't all want to be "power users".
The "power users", those just geek enough to have shaped MS Windows into something useful by persistantly poking it with a stick, are the ones that will have the hardest time with Linux. In my mind anyway, these folks focus on the GUI, which is ephemeral, as anyone who's transitioned from Windows 95 to XP (or, I imagine, XP to Vista) will tell you. MS has given them nothing else to focus on, hiding real understanding from these poor souls and habituating them to a treadmill of GUI skillset obsolsence. :-)
28 - eldar
Pinc, what you describe is exactly how a windows installer works. You launch it and click next a few times, accept license and in many circumstances, you do not even have to restart. You say linux does that but I must ask what distro you use. My ubuntu can do that sometimes. some items are ready to go. some are not. To say that everything is all in one neat package for linux is mis-leading at best. Another thing with linux are all the dependencies that are required for some programs. I mean if you are doing basic things with linux, such as word proc or net scrounging, then you don't need to do anything special. Basic fact is that a linux install is no easier than a windows install.
As for your comment, "What you miss out on with Linux is the big marketing campaign to tell you what (they say) everybody else is using so you know what distribution/software package/whatever to choose". I don't have to look far to see that over 80% of the computing world uses windows. This did not suddenly start, this was happening in the 3.1 days. And part of the reason is that most average people can use it with minimal training. Even OSX has a larger share than all the linux distros, at last check.
I am not saying to avoid linux, however I must point out opinion when I see it. Linux works great for some people but to say it is so easy and never has trouble and does everything windows does and mac does and more is just a plain falacy.
29 - Karl O. Pinc
eldar,
I don't think we're in disagreement. I'm not saying to use Linux, or that it does everything. I'm saying that it comes with everything it comes with, which is all most people need. The difference between it and your Windows installer, is that with MS Windows you have to go get the software. Linux gets the software for you. As soon as you get the software yourself, your not a basic Linux user any longer. Your on your way to being an expert that needs to know about the things experts need to know about. Not the place for a beginner to start.
I'm using Debian, the 1.5 year old stable version. I'm using only the free software repositories, not any of the non-free stuff, and I have a choice of 19,484 packages I can install with a single click via synaptic. Just to be safe and allow for versions, source code, etc., divide that by 2 for 9,742 total distinct software programs available at a click of a button. As for upgrading to new major releases, last time (IIRC) there were 3 steps. 1) Read the directions. 2) open a terminal window. 3) Type 2 commands. Most people install Debian once, and upgrade painlessly forever after. When they want to upgrade hardware, you either copy the disk or just phyiscally move the drive. No licensing hassles, no driver issues. Painless. (Unless you've already decided to be an advanced user and use 3rd party drivers.) Oh, if you copy the disk you do need to remember to type 1 command to re-install the boot loader. This sort of simplicity is possible because Linux comes "all included", no special drivers, no crippled "system restore" disks, no artifical restrictions.
You're wrong about anybody being able to use a computer. Ignoring learning how to type, which is quite a hurdel, there's quite a bit to learn about any computer before you can get it to do anything even semi useful. Try introducing a computer to somebody who's never used one before and see. It's quite the experience.
30 - Diane Kristine
Oooh, you mean you weren't being sarcastic to me, Karl? I'm not used to that.
And you're right - there's lots of people in the offline world who can't use a computer, or who must so they do, but never feel comfortable even with the basics. Come to my workplace if you don't believe me.
My uninformed opinion is that until Linux as an OS makes bigger inroads into the work/educational world, personal users aren't going to make the transition to Linux in giant numbers. My first computers were Macs, until everywhere I worked had PCs. And the prices on PCs were better. So I took the path of least resistance and got a PC when it came time to buy. I think that's the biggest Linux hurdle - most non-techie users are going to take the path of least resistance and stick with what they're familiar with and what's pre-installed.
31 - Diane Kristine
Hmm, just realized I made it sound like I'm not used to Karl not being sarcastic with me. Since we don't know each other, he's probably thinking - huh? I meant I'm not used to being told I have a good attitude in a non-sarcastic tone ;-)
32 - Karl O. Pinc
Ah, the cold, cruel world of the blogger. ;-)
Anyhow, with respect to using computers, there's an amazing amount of presumed knowledge. E.g. you need to click twice on an icon, but only once on a button, and how can you tell if something's a button or an icon again?
My guess is that you'll see Linux first being used at work, and in people's houses where somebody else is the one called to keep the computers working. Really, most people niether know nor want to know which operating system is which. They just want to go program their Word to get the Christmas letter out to their family. Truely. They'll continue to program their Word no matter where their software comes from.
33 - luis
Yup linux is just for experts, I have being using it for years, actually I manage the computers in my workplace with ltsp (terminals), but the programs are a few (even microsoft office) it just works perfectly no problems, but you have to know how to configure it, than is all quiet and calm and easy as it gets, except that I had to study hard for a long time, once you get to know it you don't want to use anything else. There are somethings lacking like good OCR plus making all that work in terminals, but believe for any bussiness I wouldn't recommend anything.
34 - eldar
Karl, we are in perfect agreement about not everyone being able to use a computer. Not everyone can drive or swim, it is natural. I love to work with the hardware aspect but have much less patience for software sometimes. I often feel that anyone that wants to get a computer, no matter the OS, should take a class first!
35 - Rod
I'm really dissatisfied with Linux. It stinks for commercial use in stand alone PC's in most workplaces.
Linux is for the guy who saving money by building his own house -- but then can't go to work and make actual money.
Linux is finicky to install, and really requires lots of under-the-hood know how, and where does that get you? The apps you can find are really, really disappointing; Open Office is downright unprofessional and distinctly third rate. And plenty of apps you can't find for your company.
You can literally spend all day working on your Linux system -- and then not be able to do your taxes or a million other things, and need to buy a Windows computer for that.
And the next day, and every day, you'll get another 25 Megabytes of Linux patches to install until you filled your hard drive, so forget about going without broadband to save $40 a month, which you can do with Windows. Where exactly are the financial savings in Linux for the real penny pincher? It probably costs him more.
It is also sad that Open Source thumpers have a double standard for Microsoft and Linux. When Linux distros come out full of bugs, inconsistencies, errors, and limitations, or can't do Wifi or can't drive the printer, or can't even load, it's a "work in progress." When Microsoft makes a booboo even though it has to cover 93 different complex computer situations to every 1 that Linux has to (which has a built in advantage because it is only techies putting it in), it's hubris, complacency, and time to holler. Show me the baby, don't tell me about the labor pains. I don't care what the sappy backstory of anything is if the work is not up to snuff.
And that after it turns out that most of the major software wasn't really Open Source, just failed commercial programs left on the discount rack they call the Internet.