Why I think Linux adoption isn't as good as it can be...

I was thinking last night while I was in bed (don't ask) the reasons some people who really don't use their computer a lot wouldn't switch to windows. Heres what I think is the main obstacle for new users:

Lack of standardization

Now I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea for competent users, but for someone new to Linux firsting starting out, the range of options like desktop environments, distros etc would put them off.

For example, package management. In windows theres really only one way to install a piece of software properly. Double click the installer file and go through the wizard. When you want to uninstall it you use the uninstall program or go to Add/remove programs. There aren't many 'flavours' of Windows, theres only one way to do it.

In Linux, you mainly install programs with package management tools like urpmi, synaptic, yast...... or even compile from source. How do you explain to the new user that Linux is really at its core the kernel, and depending on what distro cd they bought the way to install a new program is different.

"Well, in Mandriva you can go to K Menu>System>Configuration>Packaging yadda yadda...or you can open up a console as root and use urpmi gaim." "But if you're using Ubuntu, then open up a console as root and type apt-get and then the program name" "Oh btw, you'll need to configure your repositories before you do this." If someone has no experience with command line programs or arguments it must be hard.

Not that its hard to do, just the different ways can be daunting, and for those who aren't committed enough to stick with it, or think that its going to be a completely smooth transition and no new learning is going to be required. I think some people think when they hear about linux "oh its just like windows but better" with no actual experience with it at all.

I'm not saying distros like Mandriva or Ubuntu are not user friendly for newbies, but because they're all different in some ways it can get confusing.

 

I remember when I first began exploring the world of Linux, I was very confused! I didn't know that Linux came in distributions, I thought Linux came as one flavour (RedHat ), just like Windows!

To add to my confusion, I soon realised that RedHat wasn't free. And this was going against everything i'd read! Of course I realised soon enough that Linux comes in different flavours, and most are free; but it can be very confusing for a newbie.

Some people can become confused when there is simply 'too much to choose from'. 'Should I run SuSE, Mandriva, Fedora or VectorLinux'? 'What's the difference between Slackware, RPM, or Debian based distros'? However, once you've climbed that mountain (and it is a big mountain), everything just makes sense.
Every distribution has a purpose, and is compiled to perform various tasks better then others. Mandriva for example is generally considered easier for newbies, whereas VectorLinux is aimed primarily at older hardware.

I don't honestly think that a Linux newbie would have any problems installing SuSE Linux. It boots into a nice GUI installer, and most of the work is done for you. The partitions are automatically laid, the default package options are perfect, the hardware detected is amazing (i'd like to see Windows install my Hauppauge TV card automatically ), and the overall performance is thrilling. Amorak is the best music centre i have ever seen, and Kaffiene plays TV and video exceptionally. The YaST control panel is logically laid out, and everything is in one place - exactly where you expect it to be! It's easy to use, and makes for a very productive environment.

Hehe, sorry this is turning into a review of SuSE Linux! What I am trying to say though, is that I don't think the jump is that big a deal at all. Once you understand what Linux is and what it does, then it's easy.

If something does go wrong however, then there are plenty of forums (including this one) that can help. The Linux community is very helpful, and you will probably find that your question(s) have already been asked and answered by someone else!

I'll admit, I had a very rocky ride with Linux to begin with. I rushed out and bought Linux magazine, with a free DVD of SuSE Linux 9.3. I expected too much too soon, and inevitably got dissapointed.
Had it not been for Anti-Trend , I'm not sure if I would have tried Linux again.

I think the reason Linux hasn't hit the big time, is because most people have never heard of it before! Microsoft's grip is so strong that people think of Windows, when they think of a PC. They don't realise there IS an alternative! So I will put it down to poor education.

Imagine this: Linux is open source, anyone can compile their own distribution. If Linux did make it into the mainstream consumer market, the computer manufacturers would jump on the band wagon. We'd see 'Dell Linux', 'HP Linux Professional', Gateway Linux Beginner Edition' ! These companies would offer support for their Linux distributions, and make the whole experience even easier

 

Linux is successful in servers, where they can be deployed by experienced professionals who know what they're doing and can get the best out of Linux for servers. But although I was fine with linux, I was imagining whether if I introduced person to linux would they stay with it?

Mandriva is good for newbies, but after trying different distros including SuSE I think I'd stick with Mandriva for performance. Vector was disappointing for me, I expected a lean, fast distro but it isn't. It actually seems to try and aim for new users so that wasn't for me.

Right now my project is making my own small live cd to take with me, with the tools that I want.

 

I think the average Windows user would stay with Linux once its been installed on their desktop. As long as it does everything they want it to, then I don't see a problem.
What does your average home user want from a computer these days? They want to play music, videos, copy pictures from a camera and play games. Well Linux can do it all - and very well. Linux makes all of these things even easier by installing the relevant applications alongside the operating system. Linux is ready to use straight out of the box, be it for word processing or watching TV. With Windows however, you have to waste hours online finding programs, and inevitably paying for them.
Most importantly though, people want good security features, and this is where Linux shines. Theres no need to install anti-virus software or spyware tools, saving time and money.

[ot]VectorLinux for newbies? That made me laugh! There is no chance your average Windows user could install VectorLinux! Theres no installer GUI, and XFCE couldn't be further away from Explorer [/ot]

 

I think a big killer is lack of a lot of major games with out-of-the-box Linux support, which may play into the various distros, but still...for me, at least, it's more of an inconvienece. Secondly, I don't really hate Windows, and I kinda suspect that if people don't hate something, they won't look at alternatives, or if they do try, it's different enough that they won't want to jump ship. Linux development has taken some massive strides, and it's even to the point where we had tossed around throwing in Linux benchmarks in reviews. I don't disagree that Linux is a much better OS from the design perspective. Just remember that the better product doesn't always mean it'll come out on top. Remember Betamax vs. VHS? I rest my case.

 

Too many options? Well, I suppose if you don't want too many options on what you can do with your machine you should buy a Mac. Most people don't understand the differences between the many versions of Windows, either.

You're assuming that most people will want to install their OSes themselves, and will be confused by the sheer number of choices they have for every function. I've found that if I install the most feature-rich GUI which will run properly on the client's hardware and provide a brief tutorial on how to use it, there are no problems in this respect. I also choose the packages for specific purposes that I have found the best in my own experiences. So far, no complaints at all.

"I have to use Windows at work... Man, I'm glad you put Linux on my home system. Windows sucks! Why is it so popular?" --actual quote from client.

Now I really don't agree with you here. Windows doesn't really have a package manager, all software is responsible for its own installation and removal. Didn't install right? Too bad. Won't uninstall? Tough. Installing software in Windows is only as good and trustworthy as the software you're installing. Apps like Norton Antivirus and AOL for instance are nearly impossible to remove completely because their uninstallers do not have your best interests in mind. Doesn't it make more sense to have a package manager be responsible for how software is added and removed? Besides, a modern distro's package manager handles all dependancies and conflicts automatically. It basically boils down to clicking a static box next to a discription of the program you want to install from the package manager's list and clicking "Install".

There are, of course, software packages for Linux that are simply compressed into an archive and must be extracted to an appropriate place manually, there are also graphical installers, non-graphical installers, and even source code you must compile yourself in rare cases. But how is that any different than Windows at all?

Linux has a kernel, as does every OS. Should the user care about that? What does it have to do with package management? Are you really going to install every flavor of Linux on their system, or just one, and teach them that package manager? Besides, how different is, say, Synaptic from urpmi? Click software to be installed, click 'install'. All graphical, with fundamental similarities.

Again, are you going to install every Linux distro for them, or just one? This argument makes no sense.

It's true that this is a common misconception. Linux is a UNIX-like OS, not a DOS-like OS. Even many of the most rudimentary concepts are different. So really, it's apples to oranges. Of course, one can compare apples to oranges on some levels, especially when one costs much more, has worms in it, and is covered in pockmarks from bird attacks.

Man, you are falling back on that again. As a computer enthusiast, if you understand the fundamentals of how UNIX works you will have no problems grasping the subtle differences between major distros. On the other hand, an average user will not be interested in such conventions, and they will only be interested in one distro -- the one you install for them. As long as that works, they likely won't care what other distros there are in the world.

 

Move to cross examine, your honor.

Good point about VHS vs Betamax. But there's one thing you're forgetting to quantify: freedom. Linux is free in both senses of the word, being libre and gratis. While most average 'consumers' don't care about the libre type of freedom, it is what has insured that Linux would continue to grow from day 1 to what it is now, and what assures us that it will be around tomorrow growing and maturing at a rapid rate at that time. What people really do care about is the gratis part -- free beer. If VHS had cost $40 a tape and Betamax was free in addition to being better quality, you can bet your bottom dollar that the format-war fiasco would have gone quite differently than it did.

 

I wasn't thinking about giving them an introduction to Linux personally or teaching them how to do things. I'm thinking about a person who tried Linux (not Nic) but then after a month or so they were asking how to remove it from their system. Disappointing but I was wondering why they gave up on it.

Imagine the scenario:

"Hey you know you were talking about Linux the other day? Well I installed it on my PC but I don't know how to do anything. How do I get MSN messenger? And wheres all my stuff?" Without a tutorial or even a brief explanation of the fundamentals they're stumped like I once was. (Not everyone knows about HWFs, so that is different in some ways).

Another such question "Right I found my C drive in mnt but when I try to open kazaa it doesn't work." A lot of the time we can't afford to go down to Wal mart and buy an Anti-Trend (especially the busy models with a kid included ) so we have to figure out how to use this different OS ourselves.

About the package management, I actually realised that it might be mistaken, but I couldn't be bothered editting it in the hope that readers would know what I meant. I'm not complaining at Linux or the tools that come witht the distros; my point is that its not easy to just say "just google linux and download it, and then follow this tutorial on how to use it".

With learning resources and time it is possible for users to get into it if they're on their own, but I imagine the majority of people would just do away with the hassle and stick with windows after they realise MSN messenger doesn't work and they can't use the brand new Flash smilies....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
new post

Now I'm not as old as you guys, and much less wrinkly but I do remember VHS having more recording capacity. The option to record an extra episode of Corrie must have been a factor.

 

The Linux OS'es bundled with PCs from, say Walmart, are actually either Xandros or Linspire. Both OSes have interactive tutorials to get n00bies started, and on Linspire the tutorial starts automatically with each new user account. They are made in Flash, and you can watch them here. The silly thing even looks like Windows out of the box (except maybe a bit nicer). As for Xandros, it even integrates Xover Office in order to run MS Office, Photoshop, etc as if they were native Linux apps.

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the #1 reason for stunted Linux adoption on the home desktop is ignorance, plain and simple.

 

Point taken. I think Linux has the perception of being for the 1337 h4><0rz in the public's eye. That, and most of the people who might change haven't tried Linux (which is one plus about the Live distro's). There's also the people that just really don't want to move over. However, given how Microsoft is making support for anything but the latest and greatest less than impressive, I may even end up over there in a few years. I don't really care for Halo2, but I don't think MS will be the only company to do this.

 

Agreed on every count. Linux is a great OS for 1337 h4><0rz, especially with all of its excellent development tools and environments. But let's not forget it's also a great OS for your grandmother if it's setup properly. Hell, my mom even runs Linux now --- I've got her on a Mandriva Linux 2006 laptop with wireless networking --- and she's not exactly 1337. She asked me to install Linux after the last time Windows crashed on her and lost a bunch of her data, and she's been happy with the switch. No more perpetual upgrades (both hardware and software), crashes, bloat, instability, virii, malware, artificial limitations, etc. etc. etc...

For perspective, here's an article on what's so bad about MS.

 

I think some distributions could provide better documentation for their products. Take VectorLinux for example, there is no 'help centre' whatsover, and no obvious place to get help within the OS. Sure you can download documentation on their website, and their web forum is OK - but what happens if you don't have internet?
In comparision, you can access SuSE Linux's tons and tons of help pages by simply clicking a button on the desktop!
Linspire's approach is even better, those videos are a very nice touch.

[ot] How does Linspire perform on the desktop - is it free?[/ot]

As I said before, a newbie will stick with Linux if the OS does everything they want it to. It needs to be easy to use, productive and fun.

 

Here's the documentation on Vector, but it's not exactly a super user friendly distro anyway if we're grading on a curve. It used to be super light and fast (think DSLinux), but now it's gone the route of more features so the minimum hardware requirements for the later versions is substantially higher. In other words, you might as well use a more full-featured desktop such as Mandriva, Suse or even U/Kubuntu and forgo Vector altogether. Just my opinion.

[ot]

I haven't used Linspire since it was called 'Lindows', so I can't really say. It's not free, it's $50 unless you want to compile the whole thing from source, but you can get it for free yet. They always have at least one free coupon deal going for the download edition. Right now, that happens to be free copies for Lycoris switchers (Lycoris was aquired by Mandriva). Just add the download version to your cart, and apply the coupon code LycorisWelcome. The only catch is you have to use it between 7:30am and 1:30 pm Pacific Standard Time.[/ot]

When I setup Linux for them, Linux fulfills these needs easily, no matter what distro (although I currently favor Mandriva). The trouble is, most people have no idea how to properly install Windows, and they rarely even install their hardware drivers, let alone the required array of anti-malware software and the like, patches and updates, etc. So basically what I'm saying that if a total PC n00b can install Linux at all, it's a step up from what most can do with the mainstream OS. If they can't, it's no different in that sense. Should that change? Yes, especially so with the home user oriented distros. But realisticly, Linux is already the most user-friendly UNIX OS there is. People like IT Pros and computer enthusiasts should have no trouble all learning the fundamentals, as there's ample documentation available all over the place. And once one understands the fundamentals, everything else is a breeze.

 

[ot] I completey agree with you about VectorLinux. They seem to be moving their focus away from creating a lightweight, fast and simple distribution. The latest version (5.1) is full of bloat in my opinion. How on earth is OpenOffice & The Gimp going to run on a Pentium 233MMX with 48MB of RAM .
I have since downgraded to version 3.2, and I can use the XFCE desktop with good performance. It's pretty outdated for sure, but so is the computer I am using it on.
They are in danger of losing their niche market if they continue down this route. The developers have done a great job - don't get me wrong, but the only reason I am using it is because it's the only thing I can stick on that old Compaq! [/ot]

As you said Anti-Trend, most Windows users have never installed the OS from scratch. It's always pre-installed and ready for them to use when they buy a new PC.
The Windows CDs that come with new PCs are not the same as the ones you buy in the shops. They are normally made with a program such as Norton's Ghost, so no set-up is required from the user if they do choose to reinstall Windows.
If (when) Linux hits the mainstream, the same would also be true. Users would not have to install Linux, and if they did, it'd probably come as a disk image with their new PC. Easy!
The PC manufacturers would be able to provide support, so if anything did go wrong, you can just call 'em - or get a claim on the warranty

 

Linspire runs as root by default doesn't it? I suppose its a step up from windows though.
[ot]I've just had a bad experience, I've had to install XP on a PC with 128mb RAM and a P3 600MHz. Why? Because my gran got my dads old work PC, and needed a reformat and fresh install, linux is a no go for her as she has all these crappy games and software from GSP and the like she wants to use. 2000 was a consideration but she wanted XP. So I'm feeling a little down after what I've done, and you can send me free stuff.[/ot]

 

Not necessarily. It prompts you to setup an unprivileged user account upon initial setup, with which you will do all your typical things. But if you neglect to setup a user account, it will run in single user mode, which is root. ...Stupid, stupid, stupid. If you ask me, it shouldn't give the user the option of simply running as root. In fact, on the servers I setup I explicitly forbid direct root logins -- you have to login as an unprivileged user and su to root. I digress, but my original point was that you can set it up to run as root, but not necessarily so.

 

That kinda seems to defeat a major part of the Linux idea doesn't it?

I think I may end up switching, but not until I've read up enough on things like I need to in order to stick with it. In otherwords, I'll be running XP for awhile now. At least I've got nVidia-based hardware where it counts...for the most part. (damn you ATi)

 

On a good note though, running as Root on Linux is much safer than running as Administrator on Windows.

I think schools should start handing out free copies of Knoppix. That way students can study Linux whilst keeping their Windows installation safe. In fact, I think schools should use Linux full stop. They are always strapped for cash because the government doesn't give them enough, so why not save money and use Linux? A new Linux generation will be born, and the whole world will live happily ever after

 

Yes, it's more than moderately rediculous, and Linspire has taken substantial critisism from the Linux community on that topic. As a result, it does seem that they've made it more insistant on setting up a user account, although it does still allow one to run as root full-time.

It took me a while to migrate, but once I did I've been very happy with the switch. Unix concepts were very foreign to me, having been a DOS/Windows guy since its inception, but they make sense and they stick with you once you've learned them. If you want to learn Linux B, I'm sure you'll have very little difficulty doing so. My home server is also hosting a lot of Linux literature if it helps at all. As for ATi, I've heard their drivers are substantially less sucky these days, although they are still inferior to Nvidia drivers in many respects. You're better off with Nvidia video cards for certain, but from what I understand ATi isn't as horrible for Linux/Unix as it used to be. I don't have any more ATi cards, so I can't verify this though (bitten once, shy twice).

It is still foolish and unnecessary though, and it defeats many of the security mechanisms of a UNIX-like system for no real gain. Linux does not feel restrictive at all for a normal user, and you rarely need root privileges anyway. Even when you do, they can be delegated by root using the /etc/sudoers file. Sudo allows a user to run a single command as someone else -- even root -- and thus aleviates much of the risk involved in elevating one's privileges. Instead of running a session as root in order to execute one command, why not run that command as root in your normal user session? That's what sudo does. If I want to update my system manually (even though it updates itself nightly), do you think I log in as root, or simply run a sudo'd command with root privileges?

I have felt the same way for years. It makes very little sense for schools and the public to run Windows at schools -- the real benefactor is Microsoft.

 

No doubt after I leave school, when Vista comes out they'll upgrade to that.

I've still had problems with their drivers on my mobility Radeon X700, could never get it to work under linux. Had to resort to my old xorg.conf file.

I also read an article (or a rant I should say) about ATis lack of driver support for their flagship X1xxx models like X1800 etc. No support whatsoever, you can't even have display output, nevermind hardare accel. OTOH, nVidia was as simple as running the installer from failsafe and letting it automatically compile the module, after which yo see a cool logo when X starts.