Yes I am a new linux user and yes it took me forever to learn how to do almost nothing but in the process of trying to get software to work, trying to find and configure my dvdrw to make boot cds ( which I am still working on) and recovering from working with user accounts (which required changing a special script located deep in the system) I am learning many skills that I would otherwise have no reason to learn. So when linux evolves I evolve with it.

And yes, above was a rhetorical question. I'm aware of the practical answer for my question, but the title of the article is "Linux is still not ready for the masses", and my post is one of the reasons, and one of the things that needs to be worked out.

On another note, some people are saying "But Linux works fine for me, it doesn't need changing!". I don't think this article really applies to people like you who are happy with the state of affairs. I'm guessing it's more directed at the people who are saying, "WHY can't people learn to love and use Linux?", which has a lot of answers, one of which I've supplied.

I don't doubt the word of people who have installed Linux for their grandmother who checks her email and writes documents and not much else. It probably is extremely easy to use if that's all you do and you have a Linux nerd for a grandson who sets everything up for you. And obviously it's great for Linux nerds.

The real problem is for people with a moderate amount of skill/interest in computers, who try out different programs by themselves. If something goes wrong with Windows, it certainly does take some work to get it running again. But for day to day stuff, especially installing programs, it's just so easy to use. I tried out Ubuntu, and while I realise that there are programs that install easily, the particular one I wanted for playing music required compiling, which meant looking up what to type into the command line, and then waiting 15 minutes to compile.

If a program runs smoothly in Windows, it just requires double-clicking the program, clicking next a couple of times, selecting a directory if I'm not happy with the default, and waiting no more than 5 minutes for it to install, if it's not a massive game or something.

I should be able to choose a program based on how well and smoothly it performs it's function, not whether or not it requires compiling. I shouldn't have to hear "But program X runs straight out of the box, use that!". Windows lets me install any program I like without all that, why doesn't Linux?

Linux has great potential, but it struggles with itself.
If Linux wants to play the major league, it needs to refocus its goal.
Too many flavors with too many differences in Interface, system configuration, package-management, etc .... It's driving you nuts. For example:
The KDE in SUSE looks differently than the plain KDE of Slackware.
Most Linux users will not have an issue with it, but granny does.
It maintain some Linux boxes of freinds (Ubuntu) and one day i decided to check if can now work on Fedora. Big mistake. Because my average "Joes" only knew Ubuntu, they were lost with Fedora. Highlights:
"Where is my Apt installer ?", "Why can't I install the Ubuntu package on Fedora?", "Why can't I play 3D (openGL) games? No problem with Ubuntu." ....

Which brings me to the point: YES, we need unification.

If Linux wants to compete with Windows or MAC OS, it will need to step up it's game.
1 installer, 1 GUI Interface, 1 package-management, 1 vision to follow, 1 road to travel.

As the philosophy of Linux lies within freedom, individualism, and the right of choice, how can it ever be unified ?

I agree with a lot of the points made in this article about Linux not being ready for the masses yet. I run Ubuntu and love it but sub-par hardware support made it a pain to get it all working. Not something every user is willing to go through. Apps are sooooo easy to install- if they're in a repository. I wanna be able to go to a site, download an app and just click on it to install... Sometimes I can, a lo of times I can't. Look at OSX, thats a successful *nix OS. It's easy to use, has enterprise software solutions, and has no problem with hardware support(of course Apple only deals with a handful of hardware vendors so I guess it's not really fair to compare Apple's hardware support to the quandary Linux has)

I like linux A LOT,however it isn't as friendly as windows,WHY? because software/hardware writers/vendors aren't onboard..leaves linux developers having to work it all out..

now that being said..one of MY FAVORITE things about linux is that "not everyone CAN use it"..

Is it flawed,yes.I'm a hardcore gamer,and linux is NO WAY near ready for gamers..mainly cause the game companies don't see linux as a market..

give it 5 more years,and one more failed attempt like Vista,and it will change..

I could use comments like the one from JohnMc ( real good one too); to prove my point, but instead:
I've been using Kubuntu for the last 2 years at work, with compiz and all i have right to. My computer is the only one ( in the last two years) that didn't need any assistance of any kind...
I can use it to do everything i need to work.
The main point is really this, users can actually use Linux if it serves the objectives of use, there isn't a single reason for people to use a payed OS when they just browse, type texts, send/receive emails and play solitaire.. they can get all of that for free and much more! 
So Linux is a possibility for more than 50% of worldwide computer users or even more...
Arguing about Linux vs all the other OS, its like arguing with your wife about buying a new 52" LCD TV or a new washing machine... it depends on your needs...
BTW, i use Windows at home to play some games and Virtual Box to run Kubuntu to browse, etc...

Cheers!

I am too old to be a fan boy so there.
I have installed Ubuntu 8.04 all by myself on a 5 year old bog standard computer.
No problems .
God , I am glad to get away from MS BS, no more crashes,freezes, lock ups etc. 
No more bloody re-activation using an INDIAN "helpdesk".

Ubuntu gives me all I require , and I would be happy to PAY for it!

I expect that at age of 77 ,I have gone gaa gaa.

Peace and Joy to you all.

Everything you proposed in your article made a great deal of sense but for some reason I don't think it is likely to happen ... Why you might ask?

Well I think it boils down to fanboism. I think each distro has a core following and with each distro most of the developers feel that the way that things aught to be done is the way they think is best. So instead of people rallying behind a common method of implementation they will squabble on which route of development to take.

Admittedly, I know nothing of the linux development community and I could be mischaracterizing them.

I've read the article twice, and found that I'm unable to agree with much of it. Many of its points were valid five or seven years ago, but (for example) installation of a modern Linux Distribution is trivially simple compared to Windows installation.

I had to re-install Windows XP to a machine yesterday - the owner had "upgraded" to Vista, and it had all gone horribly wrong. It took FIVE hours to get XP installed and the hardware configured. Then we still had to install all the necessary software...

The owner asked about "that Linux stuff", so I offered to install a dual-boot. Installation and configuration of Ubuntu 8.04 took just under 20 minutes, and it had a comprehensive suite of applications installed too. All the hardware was correctly identified and configured. At NO TIME did we have to go near the command line!

There is no longer any comparison. Windows is a dying platform - MS have no really viable product (Vista is STILL an unusable mess) - and they're dropping all support for XP...

I can't see Windows 7 being any better - all the truly competent programmers left MS years ago!

your all fanboys in some part or anotehr, ppl on here who comments about how they installed linux for there "family" and havnt had a problem with it, sure some of it could be true, but im willing to bet, its lies, just being said to make there " perfect os" look better and try and make this article wrong. then the windows fanbios, saying linux is for nerds. come on now. dont be rude. linux is a decent os, it do have problems, but a few problem with a FREE os , dosnt sound to shabby, then going and spending 280 bucks or so on a os. that sill have problems. then is mac.. oh the mac, where do i start. mac to me. is linux on a overlyprice peace of hardware that isnt good for anything, for a price of a mac, u can go buy three dells computer with the same specs of a 1 mac computer. like wtf, so anyways, liunx and windows are both bad and good, i use both, i enjoy both, i like linux for the fact is differnet, give u something to try, and learn from. i use windows, for games, and yeah software that dosnt work on linux, so it all comes down to personal choice, so anyways all of ya saying linux is better then windows or the other way around, just stop, ure all making fools of yourself. seriously, and btw this is a good article , because the author gives some good points, linux need to come up with a standard for packages, more ppl will move to linux that way, but it wont happen, not anytime soon.

I do not know what masses you are looking at but I see school children of all ages go with GNU/Linux every day. I recently changed schools and showed it to new students. Several have Vista boxes that are boat anchors and want GNU/Linux instead. My boss wants me to install GNU/Linux on his notebook so he can move XP to his Vista machine... Vista is not ready for the masses here. GNU/Linux is. If GNU/Linux were not ready for the masses why did Bill drop his prices in places where GNU/Linux was hot and not elsewhere?

i don't think most people relies why there is so many virus,Trojans, ad ware, etc on windows. its because windows as the greatest market share. with people out there making a virus, they would want to have it go on the OS that as the most user base so it can do more damage, and that is windows. why would they release a virus on Linux or mac OS x when there only few users using it compare to windows. now..... once or if it ever do that Linux or mac OS x takes 50% or more of the market share. that when you going to see a lot more virus and spy ware on them and then you see that your "fav os" isn't much different compared to windows for protection from crap on the web. so get over your fanboyism, ya children.

Ultimately, Linux doesn't have to be perfect, it only needs to be "good enough".

I was a Mac fan around the time when Windows 3.0 came out. Boy, how we laughed. Sure, it was an improvement on earlier versions, but it still a steaming pile of excrement compared to the Mac.

And yet, it was "good enough". It offered an alternative to Apple's closed, high-priced, if seductive walled garden. And so it took off from there.

Today, the tables are turned. It is Microsoft trying to keep a leash on its customers and shore up its tottering revenue model, while Free/Open Source software is offering the way out.

Ultimately, I think that's all Linux needs to succeed.

I would *love* for you to meet my friend Linda. She has no interest in computers, yet runs Ubuntu on the computer I built for her.

If you told her that Linux isn't ready for non-experts to use, she'd probably laugh and tell you to stop 'jazzing' (it's slang for 'pleasuring oneself')

I'm sorry if you had a bad experience with your computer, but I have heard that Sony Vaios are not Linux-friendly. If you want to fairly judge Linux, do so on the hardware it is intended to run on.

I'd also like to add that there are very good reasons why it's necessary to compile software occasionally on Linux. It's due to the fact that Linux runs on multiple CPU architectures, and Windows runs on only one. A program compiled for ia32 will only run on ia32-compatible processors, and a program compiled for (say) ppc will not run on anything except ppc.

However, most of the time, source code can be distributed to a different CPU architecture and compiled. The reason why Windows has binary installers is because Windows only runs on ia32 processors, limiting its potential market. The practice of binary installers will catch up with its users very shortly when 64-bit Windows becomes the dominant platform. Remember, ia64 programs will not run on ia32 operating systems or processors.

Two or maybe three points this author has completely missed!

One, We already have an OS for simpletons. Its called Windows. For those of us who use computers for more than Office and Porn, there is Linux -and it works out of the box - Duh'buntu?

Two, Eye candy is good when it works, but its an old trick to make people buy new hardware. If people are dim enough to think that a computer only works well, when it can do it prettily, they deserve to buy expensive licenses - it is a method of taxing stupidity.

Finally, in the real world, the OS is irrelevant. All the majority of people want is a browser and everything else is available through that - including office and porn! In 15 years time, the windows desktop will barely exist, Linux will be embedded in your mobile something or other and people will still be using computers to do office and porn.

Computer users will still be using Linux and hacking the most amazing things together - but the majority of the public will not care!

Ever try to set up IIS in XP Home? 

So maybe I'm not the average user, but that was reason enough for me to use Linux.

Well, since the world + dog already left a comment I felt compelled to add my two pence.

I have XP & linux on two seperate machines. I have been using both for some time now.

I run Fedora 9. I am very happy with it. Except the major f-up with nVidia drivers...(but thats a different story)

My linux box acts as a home media server with with TV access, a web server & a DNS caching server. I run samba to allow three other computers access to the RAID array where all the important things are kept. 

I have no problems updating the opearting system or having "add/remove" functionality like windows. Through "yum" I can practically do whatever I want with installations.
The problem is that everytime I update some part like the X server etc it overwrites the config files, which makes my desktop not work again, which forces me to copy over a backup file.
For all its enginuity "yum" still has that issue.
Well not yum but the program that installs has the problem.

I have tons of eye candy on KDE 4 & Gnome...I have a nice boot spalsh that makes my command prompt look like Neo would be jelous. Of course it did take a good 4 hours to get that working. Also I had some issues with default Icon sizes etc cause everything looks a little different on TV. Not forgetting the backgrounds, some backgrounds display in colours that a TV doesn't really have & that will damage your TV if you leave them on too long.

Samba rocks, but it took me 3 days to make it work. Why? because of one small thing I overlooked, SELinux. But hey, now it's wrking.

My cachine DNS server was a breeze to do, took like 10 minutes. Web pages load like a bolt of lightning. Without browser cachin etc the cnn loads in under 1 second.

The web server part took me some 2 days. I'm a newbie, I don;t know these things like the back of my hand, I have to constantly learn.

But wait, who, other than a tech, would waste so many hours and even days to get basic things which simply work on windows?

Well true, it does fail miserably at being user friendly. It has many short comings and you constantly have to mess with it.

On the other hand it is free, and it can do things that will set you back hundreds of pounds sterling in windows. 

If you consider how many major companies put most of their efforts into linux, compare that to how many companies put most of their effots into windows. I think you will find that linux is doing VERY WELL.

HI,

I've been a Linuxdesktop user for some years. It fell to me to attach a Windows XP system to our network.

Intuitive, dont make me laugh! As I sit here I've got our office systems admin guy here trying to make windows print to our CUPS printer. We got it to work for admin easy, but a user without permission....

The speed is a joke too.

My son infected the windows system for everyone, even though he had limited privilege.

My very non-tech wife has to use the XP system as a work web site only works with Explorer, adn she is about to quit the job as she cant bear using Windows!

Our Ubuntu system just keeps working! day in day out, The Windows doesn't.

My guess is that the windows detractors ignore the massive amount of knowledge they have got about using Windows. So its seems easy. To confound this, their knowledge is worse than useless in Linux, as it directs them to a certain way of thinking


This is the only reason Linux is not ready for the desktop: there are no commercial apps. All the other hot air above is dodging the point - once you install Linux, what are you going to run on it? Your only option is to run the freeware that came with it.

MS and Apple have large, thriving, *commercial* ecosystems to support them. People go out of their way to polish software for those platforms. Linux gets no such treatment, because it's just not worth the time.

Linux will never catch up to MS or Apple until we're willing to pay for it.

I still looking for some real content in this rant. Ok, Linux doesn't run well on Sony notebooks. How about asking Sony about it? I would like to know how many engineers are working at Sony to ensure Linux compatibility of their notebooks. Another question would be whether Sony selects components on the availibility of Linux drivers? Is mainline kernel integration a criteria?

If component providers would get out of business if they wouldn't have decent drivers in the mainline kernel, then OEM support wouldn't be a problem. But we still live in the world where only two and now maybe three WLAN chip producers provide enough technical specification to enable developers to write drivers. The rest must be supported by reverse engineering, which is not particularly easy. There is still one major GPU producer who still thinks that a binary blob driver is the best way to support Linux. But this company appears to have made a number of bad enginering decisions lately.

Yes I agree the GUI could be more optimized and given time, Linux will get there. Do you remember the times, where you had to hack display refresh times on your own to get into the graphical interface? Installing Linux is now a real boring exercise compared to this.

Does this moron actually get paid to write this drivel?

@Korla Plankton:

Nicely said.

There's always room for improvement but I don't think things are as user unfriendly as the article suggests. Package management, for example, is far easier in Linux than Windows (at least for apt based systems such as Ubuntu). The user interface works just fine as it is; its actually a lot easier to use than many modern Windows packages. (I've just spent a few frustrating minutes with HP's so-called "Image Zone" software -- my, what a PoS, but its what users have come to expect these days.)

Two areas that do need attention are support for modern hardware and license management. The two are somewhat connected. There's no other reason why 'new' video and audio hardware should not work properly out of the box. We have to recognize that license management is important to many vendors -- yes, its a crock, it makes using the software a pain and so on but its what vendors expect.

Eye candy itself is grossly overrated. It invariably disguises operational deficiencies with the code.


Although i really love Linux i think its still not user friendly specially when adding and removing programs though installation is easier than Windows.

You must be right, if a non-technical writer as yourself can't apt-get install xyz, then a non-technical user can't either.

You missed out on a big one... integration. In Windows, I can drag and drop stuff from one window to another and it usually works. I can hit CTRL+V in an application, knowing that it will paste the clipboard... even if I closed the previous application. And I open a command prompt if I want to, not because I need to.

For power users, Linux is great. I dual boot. But lets be realistic, for everyday tasks, Windows is still much easier to use.

If only Linux developers could read it AND work its ideas...

Seriously, I HATED Linux mostly because of installation issues.

Remember, end users just want to:
1) download installer
2) double click icon
3) next-next-next-next-next-finish, without ever reading anything
4) application window is running
5) application icon is on the desktop

IT IS SO SIMPLE!!!

And FORGET command line, FOREVER.
Jesus...

The real problem Linux faces is application recognition. 

2 things installed on every non-techy computer... Office and iTunes...

I can't use M$ products? What No Outlook? No Quicken? No Word? No iTunes? What's Konquerer? is that a virus? I need my Outlook!!! No Games?

And the stigma given to it by misinformed articles like this one.

I just used Ubuntu 8.04 for a job. Started with virgin install. Set Fr Macbook Pro keyboard. Wonderful. As soon as I updated (autoupdate) my keyboard was a mess. Par for the course. Linux is the OS which never has a working keyboard out of the box - you're supposed to earn it. And BTW the patched Ubuntiu 8.04 virtual appliance on the VM site has exactly th esame issues. 

I've gone through this year after year, Linux version after Linux version. Why support for foreign keyboards gets broken time after time is something I'll never understand. But it certainly kills this OS for the desktop.

And please don't tell me "I only need to ...". If it's broken during the install, and can only be fixed with shell commands, then it's dead for my grandmom and Joe Blogs.

for anyone with an OSX system, u don't have to install or mess with a linux distribution to experience installation of open source linux software, just search macports or fink for package management installation of software, or read how-to stuff for compiling manually using the terminal. apple adapts and leads the way pretty well simultaneously. 
windows adapting? seems to stiff and stuffy. leading the way to gate's and shareholder's pocketbooks, but that's about it.
survival of the fittest - looks like ubuntu is doing pretty well and may one day be ready for mainstream. windows will die out if it can't adapt. we shall see.

Could we stop with the all the different versions of things being seen as a bad thing. Linux is developed largely by volunteers. It is not a regimented corporate project it is about passion. The strength of linux is that if you don't like something you can fork off and do it your way. 

As to whether it is ready for prime time - go get your apples and their paranoid corporate culture or your vistas and its anti-everything security utilities. If these things get you hot - good for you. When you outgrow corporate america and its chickenshit games - linux will be waiting for you in all its diverse glory. Pick the version that thinks like you do and come on in - the wafers fine.

it's habit that determines whether people get trojans and virii, FACILITATED by poor software design. I have a 5 year old win2k box that i play and create everything on, and the fact is, i've been bagged by precisely ONE virus in those five years. 

Because i don't have anything Microsoft on it but windows itself. and i learned really quickly that warez, questionable emails, too-good-to-be-true attachments, porn sites, etc, are all Very Bad Things. Trust me, ten years in this industry as support, it is HABIT that buggers up so many machines. People doing dumb things going to bad places to do questionable things. 

i've tried linux three different times. i've tried red hat, suse, and some other insanely obscure ditro, and it's completely unreasonable to have to recompile the driver and the kernel to get a commodity level nvidia card to work properly. 

couple THAT with a complete lack of anyone wanting to knuckle up and admit that the common user DOES NOT want to know about the inner workings of a computer, they just want to write their fanfic or newletter or post their kids soccer game, etc, and you get Windows. 

I couldnt even FIND a dvd authoring program for linux the las time i looked-or a simple video editor, or a splicer, or an audio editor; over and over again all i found looking for utilities were players, system management, system management, system management. I don't WANT to manage my system. i want to create or manipulate data. and i don't want to spend 60 hours hunting for apps to do it. 

of course they're out there, dont bother linking a bunch of apps and sites. i still couldnt install them cause i'd have to recompile thirty different things, IF i had the dependencies already-and WTF, why can't the apps come with everything they need to run to begin with? why spend hours looking for twacked out packages from all over the globe to get an avi to run? 

for god's sake, DOS APPS came in one package, installed to one folder, and they ran or didn't. is it that hard?

I haven't used Vista, but on Windows XP a lot of software only installs or runs for the administrator user - for instance my Hauppauge digital TV interface and early versions of Fitaly onscreen keyboard (fixed now I think: a "Where are the registry keys" issue.) Install as administrator is reasonable and probably only a right-click "Run As" away; refuse to run for another user ID is not. I hear this -is- different in Vista: these products don't work at all, or else they drive you mad by demanding an OK or a password whenever the application collided with the OS security.

Of course this is mostly just bad software design by developers for Windows, and tolerated because many Windows desktops aren't secured with non-administrator user. There may be other outstanding security paradoxes for a third-party on-screen keyboard, another thing I haven't recently re-checked: Fitaly users were reporting that they couldn't type into administrator windows.

Meanwhile, you need to take care that the Vista machine isn't hacked by programming it to speak "copy the confidential files" into its own speech recognition tool, which otherwise is reported very good. The accessibility team apparently recommends a USB headset for recognition, not only for that reason but it ought to do the job: the microphone normally can't hear the headset speakers.

There is still work to be done in the area of getting peripherals to be plug and go. Trying to get Xsane to work with my "fully supported" scanner really taught me that while I like Ubuntu, I cannot turn loose of Windows just yet.

In addition, there are areas that Linux does not have well covered - good OCR programs, a true Quicken like program (or better yet, Quicken on Linux), etc.

Been using computer applications since DOS, and really like a lot of the concepts behind Linux - but I am not going to spend the time to try to become literate in "rebuilding" LInux software.

Gordon


I tried to switch to Linux. Hard. I forced myself into Linux for several weeks. But I couldn't make myself forget that everything is easier and more readily available in my old pal XP. Soon I found myself wiping my Ubuntu partition to make more space to my torrents.
Torrents... how can I live without uTorrent and ImgBurn? I couldn't. By the way, It's nonsense to switch to Linux if I'll have to rely in a Windows emulator (and it IS AN EMULATOR!).

Then they released another big Ubuntu iteration. I wanted to like it, but it crashed in the very booting of the freaking live CD! My PC is fine, there's nothing wrong or exceptional about it. Then I gave up. I won't contact support, I just won't give another try.

I know that someone worked hard and for free to make it work as good as possible, it is so full of love and good intentions. But that was just inexcusable, sorry.


Bryan, you're an idiot, plain and simple.

"Hate to break it to you but Ubuntu is far easier to install than windows. you can use wubu to install it on your windows partition like an application then when you reboot it has added itself to the chain menu and you can choose to boot to it. "

Get this: 'normal' users who have a life outside of using a computer simply have no idea what any of that means.

"wubu". What?!
"Chain menu". What?!

These are really simple terms for tech types, but honestly, really, you need to understand that regular users simply don't, and shouldn't need to, know what these things are or mean.

Run installer. Install. Installed. Just like the article says, that's how it should be.

Anybody in slight touch with mainstream IT will know the hot items are ultra-cheap subnotes like RazorBook 400/Yinlips, Bestlink/Belco/Datacask Jupiter (MIPS based CPU) or a power house in the other end of the scale: POWER6 (CPU) from IBM. Guess what, Windows aren't ready for these... Guess what, Linux cycles happly with these.

This journo isn't ready for Linux. So? Who cares?

And the arguements given by most of the Linux fans just back it up all the more for me.

I've regularly tried installing linux (about twice a year) for the past 4 years or so to see if its a viable option.

The past few attempts have been using Ubuntu (Suse before that) and whilst it installs easy I still get issues with getting wireless to work. 

One mentions this to the linux guys and the I get a barrage of suggestions stating I should have used this or that custom version of the OS or installer or even 'hack' a windows driver to get it to work!

Thats not really the point guys.

And as for trying to install other software? Should I have to know which installer package/version etc. to have to install? No. I just want to download the app, double click and maybe follow a couple of prompts.

Natural selection needs to take place with linux and fast. We need to weed it down to maybe two versions. One for commercial use and maybe one for domestic and thats that. Then maybe the hardware vendors will support it and other support will take off.

At the moment and I feel for the ongoing future, linux will remain a mess and a minority hobby.

Get rid of all those lesser versions!!!




"Half the time it's full of trials, tribulations, problems, and manual hacks - this is simply not good enough for a simple non-technical user"

Ubuntu will default install Firefox, OpenOffice and Gimp... what more does a "non-technical user" want?

Eye Candy, sure but Mark said that weeks ago

Made yourself look silly here


I can always tell when I read an article from a windows users. It's almost like driving a honda and writing a report on the reasons why Toyota is no good :)

It's really silly when a windows user comments on a system I can almost gurantee that he or she doesn't use often or at all. If the person used it often, then they would like it and not bash it, so it's really obvious when you read an article from a windows user that is biased. 

A eye candy.......hum...... everything I've seen with compiz/berly...etc looks way better than anything I've seen on the resource hog vista. But then again I'm still talking to a windows user that might try look around for a linux box to test it out or maybe fire up a virtulization instance.

Stick to writing articles about windows and how great vista, office 2007 and IE is LMAO

Wow, I totally agree with everything you've said here. Your average Joe does not nor should not have to go through the contortions of hell to get something to work on Linux, be it installing an app or a piece of hardware.

I'm glad you reminded us all of the train wreck that is Linux.

It's kind of funny really. Writing an article and allowing comments. And making an lowlife effort to gag anyone with a different experience by "flameboying them".

The writer seems to forget that virtually any user of Linux have had a longterm relationship with Microsoft. Mine is dating back to MSdos 3.X, and every single version after that.

You shouldn't use Linux unless you want to / are capable of. 

I use Linux because I want to and used Windows because I had to. These days I don't need to.

Pick any of these distros and they are all easier to install than XP/Vista:
Mandriva 2008, 2009, Ubuntu 7.x, 8.x, OpenSuse 11, Mint, PClinuxOS, Sabayon.

In fact - last time i restored XP on my HP Pav 6xxx I could easily have installed all of the above distros one after another and I still would have spare time waiting while setting up XP.

;o)))

Regarding the "50-year old Linux user" comment...I think a lot of IT users bemoan the Linux interface because they have spent the last 10+ years working with Windows. Things like changing your screen resolution, or loading drivers, is something you have learned to do in Windows, not something Windows does for you. I know, I'm in the same boat. Windows is just more familiar, not inherently easier. All I have to do is look at all the old games I've tried to get to run on my old system. Some work under W98, others on Win2k. And I'm not installing XP. Its a hodgepodge trying to get them to work. I haven't tried Vista, but I'm not looking into learning another MS OS or paying for it (oh yes, I forgot the massive pirating that makes Windows software so 'affordable', except for your time).

This really brings to the only real issues with Linux: the gearing of popular programs exclusively for Windows/Mac. While many games can run on Linux, they are only the minority. And in many cases it is only with Wine. Linux cannot change this. The software developers need to do so.

Also there is the DRM technology that Linux cannot adopt into its usual model by default. Playing DVDs and using other closed standards requires manually configuring your OS. Of course if I you spend as much time with Linux than you do with Windows, doing the changes is not all that hard. But again this is something that Linux in itself cannot change, it is up to the people who own the standards.

After giving the new Office 2007 a try, I can tell you that I'd rather switch to OpenOffice than try to relearn how to use Word or Excel.

The good thing with Linux however is, that the Ubuntu installation I did already comes with all the small programs I need for ripping/burning CDs, playing DVDs, and doing programming if I feel like it. I don't have to go looking for freeware/shareware likely loaded with spyware, or fork over $$$ for versions that will go obsolete in 12 months.

As to the wireless access, I spent hours getting it to work on a Windows laptop during our last vacation. Of course, had I done it before it would have been a spiffy, no?

The author and most commentators are just too ignorant to use Linux! So what? Stay away! Why waste your time bashing it? Just use Windows or Mac. 

Every single one of the author's comments, though containing a grain of truth, is sadly misinformed. It sounds like the usual frustrated Windows user who tried Linux for a day and could not figure it out. 

Linux is not ready? Don't use it! Real Linux users are not looking for world domination, we realize the masses will continue to use Windows for the foreseeable future. So what? Like everything else in life there is a learning curve involved in Linux. The same as Windows. I could write a ten page paper proving that Linux is actually easier to learn than Windows. I have five kids that prove this fact. Don't want to take the time? So don't! 

But why waste your time writing misinformed opinions like this? The author knows he is wrong as he continually requests we do not flame him. He also tries to assert his dominant opinion by stating he is one of those with "common sense." Really? He does not contain enough intelligence to even install packages in Ubuntu! Why did you write this piece Mr. Pullen? To start a flame war maybe? Maybe to do your duty and keep the poor sheeple from trying Linux? For real! 

I have been using Linux solely for over five years now. Recently I had to buy a new laptop with Vista so I could use Office 2007 for school due to their use of Microsoft formats. It is a decent OS. But the laptop is dual booted with Fedora and that is where I spend my time. Linux has been "ready" for me for years and I can do anything you can do on my computers. My eyecandy is smooth, non-buggy, and worlds above the lame 3D stuff MS offers and better than Mac. My packages install just fine via yum and very rarely cause me any kind of a problem. Much easier than surfing the web the Windows way. Linux is Linux and despite rpm and .deb differences, any Linux software can be compiled by any Linux distro with three simple commands. Really, it just is not a problem for those of us with half a brain.

I have now spent much more time on this than it is worth. The simple truth is if you do not like Linux then do not use it. Why is that so hard for some people?


With each release of Linux I give it another go - I really really want to love Linux - and each release let's me down as it fails with my hardware. I have a semi-pro audio card and use a 42" 1080i TV as my monitor. XP (*spit*) deals with it with little effort through the GUI. Various Linux forums either have no answer or suggest all kinds of involved hacking away at obscure files through the command line. Ready for the unwashed masses, the kind of people who are impressed by an iPhone? Not by a long chalk.

I'm afraid I can't take this article serious because of the section "GUI Eye Candy". Clearly this guy has never tried the latest ubuntu whose "Desktop effects" make a mockery of Vistas "eye candy".

What a bizarre article.

Linux is made by nerds. Do you seriously think they have the wherewithall to come together, be social and come to a consensus on how to move forward? They aren't exactly the most social bunch. 

Linux will always suck on the desktop just due to its nature. There is no central body with any amount of control over the distros that come out. 

Microsoft and Apple pay very smart, very social people to run marketing organizations to make sure that they have solid products for the marketplace. Linux is run by people with glasses and pocket protectors who really don't care about creating a mainstream OS.

You could have written this article 10 years ago or 20 years from now. It will always be the same. Linux, due to its nature, will never have success on the desktop.

There's A LOT of evidence out there that says Linux is much more user-friendly than Windows - stick a computer newbie in front of a pc, and they will be up to speed with Linux far faster (and with less help from friends and relative) than with Windows. There are regular repeated stories about "I gave my elderly aunt/parent/whoever a pc that dual-booted windows and linux. Next time I visited they asked me to delete Windows because they never used it..."

But how many people are there out there who are genuine computer noobs? Not many. For most people, "user friendly" means "similar to what I already know", and that is usually Windows now. By that token, Vista is pretty user-vicious, and that's certainly the impression one gets from the press. But MS has the clout to force a new, unfamiliar system onto the world, unlike Linux.

Another important thing to bear in mind is "people are different". What's user-friendly to one person may not be to someone else. The British Army have a nice flashy self-loading rifle, that is great for right-handers. Only snag is, despite being right-handed myself, I wouldn't be able to use it. I'm forced to shoot left-handed because I can't see what I'm doing right-handed, and it would eject the spent cartridges (with considerable force, mind you) straight into my face! That's not friendly at all! There are many such differences between people...

Cheers,
Wol

I'm not a fanboy.
I guess i'm very lazy person.

This is the reason I use linux in last 5-6 years.
However, the first try was long before switching.
And yes, 7-8 years ago I experienced all described problems.

But:
I have lost NO configuration since i switched. System or application specific. And this happened despite the fact i switched from debian --> ubuntu --> mandrake --> ubuntu --> gentoo --> ubuntu --> ubuntu 64 --> gentoo 64.

Just calculate how much time each of you spent in last 5 years on RECONFIGURING your system after each reinstallation. You'll find it's significant.

Installing system is easy on windows and linux. But once it's installed on linux you don't have to search the disks of you hardware to install NIC or sound card. Neither you have to search drivers for your printer, camera or whatever. In most cases it would work. When installation complete, on windows you can do nothing (try mspaint, notepad). on linux you have system ready for any task. and it takes less space then only Vista.

A for easiness of installation, Synaptic works for both DEB and RPM packages. and if it's not enough, take simple example, load Ubuntu, go to Skype site, click on your package and it would install. not more complicated then windows.
As for maintenance, Linux packaging systems will take care of almost all applications and will offer an update when available. in windows, most unsophisticated users will stay with outdated software.

Ease of use ?
My parents are old people. And i spend almost no time on training them. With XP it was almost daily phone calls with questions.
My non tech friends (that does not gamers) using linux and they happy that they don't have to reinstall, pay for unnecessary anti-virus software etc. 

Where is the problem ?
The problem is like always MONEY.
Linux will leave a lot of people without work and money. Simply because they and their services/products will become unnecessary.
This people will do their best to leave you on broken OS. They will do their best to leave you with OS that requires instant hardware upgrades.
Drop gaming, and most of you can happily live with 5-8 years old hardware.
Yes there is people that want to create (whatever) and they need new hardware.
So, basically I'm happy that M$ exists. They require serious multicore gigaram systems to check gmail. So producing a lot of hardware is cheaper. 

Agree 100% - although am posting this from a Ubuntu install.

Its other little things - like making my XBOX360 talk to my wireless network using my laptop wifi cards. In windows talks 2 minutes to create a bridge. 

With Linux i have yet to succeed. Is windows perfect, hell no far far far far from it. Is Linux hell no far far far from it. If microsoft were to release a *nux distro we'd all be living on cloud nine imo. ;-)

Windows Vista is not ready for the masses or anyone else. At least Linux works well. Is more stable and IS multi tasking. 
Only thing that lets Lunix down is lack of big software houses not supporting it.
With windows you are only buying a BETA version, as they is no warranty, but at least linux is free. 
No spyware in Linux either!!
No corporatation looking what you got on your computer and telling you what you can run or do.

well, at least it said 'rant' in the subtitle. 'cause there isn't one iota of reason in there. the author and many of the following comments display an ignorance of how GPL software development works, why it has worked so far and why it can only continue to work this way.

but mainly, you gotta get it out of your head that you are somehow owed this free, perfect desktop. i know you hate using your windows and mac soooo much (and of course i don't blame you!) but the idea is to create perfect software for the whole world, taking however much time as it takes to do so. the idea is not to write a perfect piece of software for you by 5PM next Tuesday.

oh, and tell my mother and co-workers linux isn't ready for the desktop. and no, i didn't do the installs (well, i did for my mother, but there was no editing of configuration files involved)

and if you find the inconsistency between distros confusing, maybe stop using so many different distros?

...given Windows or Linux, and an average day's workload, I'd be in my car and on my way home sooner if I used Windows on my computer, rather than Linux. Linux is easy to install, yes, but that's where the honeymoon ends. After the install, things go rapidly downhill.

I don't speak as a newbie to UNIX and UNIX-like environments: I first played with DEC UNIX in 1994, and ever since, I've had some form of UNIX or Linux running at home. I'm also certified in Solaris 9, 10 and Sun Cluster 3.2 (and now going for IBM AIX certification) - so I'm not new to the command line.

But do I want to fight with my desktop or laptop machine when I want to get something done? No. I use Cygwin if I want an SSH session or X-Window host. There's no reason for me to use Linux, as it doesn't offer me anything I don't already have with Windows + Cygwin.

Reviving the "certified hardware" concept would help. There are laptops and desktops that are easy and troublefree with Linux but these are not
clearly made known.


'lol someone has not tried linux in a while....just more uniformed journalist trying to start a flame war. 

Hate to break it to you but Ubuntu is far easier to install than windows. you can use wubu to install it on your windows partition ..etc..etc...Sorry for the sarcasm but come on do some research before you start blathering on...'

.

See ? Thats exactly what the author means...

Okay for YOU it was an easy install no problems...so what ? If it installs okay 9/10 or even 1/20 it still not good enough. There are still certain hardware problems <cough>Wireless<cough> that seem to crop up on the various forums with regularity. Windows generally installs every time on ANY Hardware [Well within reason] and that is what you are fighting against.

And before you accuse yes I have I have had ago at a few distributions a yes I have had problems. Non of them unsurmountable however they shouldn't have been there in the first place

Once its all set up and 'tweaked' yes its fine. I am currently running PClinuxOS and it does compare very favourably to XP in useability however I wouldn't except Joe bloggs to be able to set up from scratch...

"Many linux fans would consider changing these managers blasphemy."


That's just one of the points: Stop making Linux for fan boys and make it usable for the masses. Stop being afraid of some fan boys crying "blasphemy, blasphemy!".

Linux installs are good enough.

It is the upgrading that totally borks and bolloxxes itself (I'm looking at you OpenSUSE).

You are spot on. I got a new AMD64 laptop and decided to reformat the hard drive and install Ubuntu. But it is taking weeks of time I do not have to try to get the ATI graphics driver installed, the WiFi working, the DVD player to actually play commercial movies and Firefox to display flash and other multimedia content.

I've got a good way with some of them now, but Vista was pre-loaded and would have worked out of the box.

And now there's the joy of getting Dansguardian running to keep my kids' browsing reasonably safe. Come on guys, let's have a plug'n'play Linux!

Here's a major point left out. While the article mentions Apple's OS X, it doesn't say why that is such a RELEVANT comparison to the topic at hand....

Since Linux was created to compete with/replace UNIX, and since there are always many comparisons, here's one area where one "flavor" of UNIX beats LINUX: Apple's OS X.

Yes, Apple's OS X is UNIX. Do most Apple Mac owners know it's UNIX, care that it's UNIX, know how to program in UNIX? NO. They don't have to be a UNIX "god" to buy an Apple laptop, install Office and Photoshop and go to work.

Yes, OS X has pretty eye candy, just like he said. But it also has the invisible foundation of UNIX underneath. But no need to know commandline crap to run it. THAT is how Linux should be, like Apple's UNIX.

Do Linux fanboys admit that Apple's programmers are better than them? Then they should go develop a flavor of Linux that matches Apple's UNIX and is as easy to use -- and they will conquer the world. 

(by the way, I only own Windows computers, but sometimes I wish Apple would have won. Then you wouldn't have Micrososft botching attempts to copy Apple. We would all just be using Apple.)

But seriously, if Linux is better than UNIX, great -- show me the OS X beater!

Installing software is earier on Linux than Windows. The DEB/RPM argument is irrelevant - for example, if you use opensuse you get all the software from their own repositories, you select which app you want and accept and it downloads andinstalls and yolu are ready to go. Now with windows you have to scan numerous websites for an application, then check it out to make sure its not riddled with spyware/malware/trojans etc, then download it, run the download, click numerous times and usually reboot to install. 
I was just surprised not see a comments like "you need to use the command like" or "you need to recompile the kernel to use a USB key".

"Hi

That computer you gave me with ubuntu on it ? It's great, and I can surf the web no problem. There's a free encyclopedia came with todays newspaper, and it doesn't run - how come ?

Also, I bought a new printer/copier/scanner, how do I install it? The driver CD doesn't appear to work for me ?"

--

These are the barriers that make me think twice before recommending *nix to any "normal" user. They just want a PC to work - they don't want to have to speak to support for any changes and they want to be able to go into the nearest PC superstore and grab (product) in the knowledge it will work when they get it home. And I sure as hell don't want to be on the end of a constant phone-call each time they want to make a change.

Sadly, thats where the majority of the catching up has to come from. You can argue about how easy it is to install ubuntu, how you only had to do a few updates and it was all working. It's what goes on *after* the techie has left that's the problem. And that's what some of you are missing.

We call this the "user" experience.

About 2 years ago I moved my wife's computer from Windows XP to Slackware Linux - supposedly the least "user friendly" distro going!

I should add that she is completely non-tech, and was managing to screw the windows installation up on a weekly basis. The rows resulting from me constantly having to "repair" her machine nearly ended 30+ years of marriage!

Since installing Slackware, all has been sweetness and light! She hasn't managed to crash it or corrupt it once! It "just works"!

She has OpenOffice, FireFox, and KMail, which cover everything she wants to do.

And I haven't had to sort it since the initial install - which incidentally took less than half the time windows took, even with a wireless network connection!

Marital bliss is resumed! And thanks to Slackware, I've saved a fortune in divorce payments..........!

--
Pete

You're pretty much describing what you like about other operating systems. Perhaps you should just use them and not see differences as shortcomings.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

^ worth a look

Biggest problem with Linux is that by and large the programs are written to please the writers, not the end users. Or perhaps a better waying of saying it is that to a large extent the writers are the end users. For these pople command line hacks are the normal things, and gui's are not for real men.

Your article hits the nail right on the head - or perhaps I should say the nails on the heads. The Linux GUI is incomplete - large important bits are completely missing.

And your comments about how bad Linux is for installing software strike a chord with me. The respository system that combines the OS with the applications has to be the worst idea in the history of IT, at least for a real end user perspective. No doubt it suits the developers (the real end users) but on one else.

I had hoped that the corporate boys such as Novell and Red Hat might be able to drag Linux into the GUI present, but they seem to server oriented to care about the desktop. I guess since they make money primarily from service contracts the kind which most home users would not pay, and with the coporate desktop world being in Bill Gates pocket, there is no incentive for them to develop the desktop.

Dont hold your breath waiting for broad adoption of the Linux desktop is my advice.

in fact, my multiviewport compiz-fusion desktop has enough flying-re-arrangement of windows tricks lying around to make ANY Vista-desktop user reach for the dramamine; Windows-Vista *is* very primitive in comparison.

THE reason why Linux isn't sold is simply this: You cannot but it at the stores. Walk into Best Buy, or Circuit City, or Office Depot, or *any* USA store: 100% of PC's are either Vista or Macintosh, no other choice is allowed.

It's all the in the monopoly power of Microsoft's "co-marketing" financial power. Although the Modified Final Judgement *says* that Microsoft isn't allowed (anymore) to reward and punish vendors on the basis of price, the agreement appears to have been written very carefully to allow this gaping hole, big enough to drive any truck right through it. No store dares to cross Microsoft with sale and display of any non-windoze PC.


If customers could SEE Mandriva boxes in action, and buy them with standard store return priviledges, they'd buy them. Really. (And frankly, Windows XP would also be selling like hotcakes if stores were still allowed to sell it-- but I haven't seen an "XP" box in a Store since about April 2007, over a year before MS officially "killed it". Do you REALLY think that retailers had any choice about this ??? )


Microsoft behaves as an unreformed and unpunished CRIMINAL monopoly. If you think that Linux can compete by merely "working harder to be better", you're without a clue -- it already IS better, except for gaming titles and lack of Quickbooks.

It's not that Linux has to support OEMs, it's that OEMs have to
a) Start supporting Linux, or
b) Stop using non-standard (hardware) designs, or
c) Release the documentation on what non-standard things they have done.
Until then, there's no option other than the time-consuming process of reverse engineering the hardware and/or Windows drivers. This requires quite a bit of time, not to mention someone with the ability to actually have said laptop.

Frankly, given the number of wierd or just plain screwed-up designs laptop manufacturers have used, it's amazing that Linux works as well as it does on a laptop.

Hi,
This article could not be more accurate, having recently tried Kubuntu (installing it as a Windows application), I have been left wanting. I have a Lenovo ThinkPad T61, which I could have ordered with Linux preinstalled. I figured there would be no driver issues when installing a popular distro that purports to be easy to install and use, well it installed all the drivers ok, but everytime I boot into Kubuntu it pops a window up showing me the Quadro card not enabled. I'm a Windows power user and very competent pc tech, I had trouble using the "proprietary" (I assume the direct from Nvidia driver), it simply wouldn't boot into X with the Nvidia driver. Strike 1!

I had trouble turning off the single click icons on the desktop an din the file manager, this should be off by default and easy to disable like in Windows, it took some help from IRC in the aMSN channel because the guys in the Kubuntu channel were no help. It's a desktop not a f**king webpage. I couldn't disable the touchpad and only have the touchpoint active with the default tools eventhough the driver was installed, I couldn't get the Kubuntu provided package to do this loaded as it was for Gnome and gave a very cryptic error when trying to run it. Strike 2.

90% of the stuff I installed, I had a tough time searching in TWO different GUI interfaces for the same repository program, a lot of the stuff required a sudo apt install command from a terminal. I grew up from the age of 2 (26 now) on DOS and used pretty much every version of Windows, save for NT pre-2K and so no stranger to a CLI, but WHY? I want everything to be in a GUI, like it is in XP? the menu organization sucked, apps didn't automatically add themselves to the menus or to the desktop and I had to wander through the unintuitive file manager to try and find the program's executable, STRIKE 3! Linux, you're gone, see ya later.

The "fit and finish" feel of the KDE GUI seemed like an economy car, not polished like Windows has felt since 3.1, I could live with it without too much trouble but XP was calling my name. I didn't like the look and feel of KDE, the menu organization and the system management tools didnt feel right. I couldnt find an equivalent to the control panel applets like Network Connections, or a full fledged Device Manager, etc. Linux is too CLI centric still, we need very mature management applets with well organized menus to get to them. Maybe I didnt look hard enough but I am sure I looked in the logical places. Microsoft got much of this right.

As for a common installer package and whether to go the click and drag route of OS X or the wizard route of windows, my limited experience with macs tells me the wizard works best as it provides a simple interface along with customization options as well as proper display of information to the user. The click and drag option doesnt seem to add an application icon to the desktop on the Mac and doesnt seem to add it to the doc either forcing you to just like in Linux, search for the executable in the file manager, come on now, oh and why the common menu bar, lack of ability to make a window full screen, and my ultimate mac pet peeve, no container windows on apps like Photoshop to hide the desktop. also whats with the 25 icons stacked one on top of the other on the desktop? talk about clutter on the desktop.
Maybe I will wait till ReactOS is mature and has a silver Luna theme and just be happy with that.

Seeing how Linux still requires the terminal to install a range of common applications (e.g. Flash) I am agree.

Linux has a long way to go to be a valid alternative to Windows, at least for the common user.

That is clearly an article from somebody who has no clue about the topic...

Eye Candy just works out of the box :

I got a fresh install of ubuntu + wireless configuration + all my eyecandy stuff (and God I have a lot of that :D ) .... the total took me less than one hour...ok it took a bit for the updates but oh well ,just run it overnight and that will be it.

I never had problems installing supported software ... NEVER !!! Click Click DONE !

Hardware issues? I have a fairly recent ASUS laptop and everything works out of the box ! STOP finding problems where there is NOT !!


I am not a Linux Fanboy, I might be a ubuntu fanboy :p


PS : I am not really a computer geek and I have been using windows for years. I even laughed at a Linux geek one day... 10 years ago, today I am not laughing at Linux geeks.


Hopes and dreams. Playing on your home pond.
When you finally go head to head with the
pros you stand to lose all your self-esteem, what
little you have. Maybe that's why the old timers
are holding on to the CLI. They know a straight
out battle will lead to their defeat and be 
the beginning of the end of their days.

If they are forced to show their hand the
result will be the same:
You played a great game but you still lost. More
experience and bigger players will always win the day.

Maybe a few of the hometown players will be drafted
but when all is said and done, tomorrow you will be
playing on you same old pond by yourself.

You're a good skate, Linux, but your still a
Peppermint Patty.

The install packages can be wonderfully easy. The main problem I see is that when every *nix distro does it differently, every piece of software needs to be re-packaged. This leads to things like Ubuntu offering a version of Eclipse (industry standard for java programming) that was months old. That is unacceptable. So I went to install eclipse by myself only to find that the install was not done with the recomended directory structure that I found on the eclipse web site. WTH? Oh well, back to windows for me, I didn't really want to know why the program executables and the program files were in completely different directorys anyway.

I agree totally but has anyone got a few billion tucked away that would like to help linux progress to the next level? I find the people that use linux love it for what it is, one day it might be mainstream but until then enjoy the ride its a beauty.

I agree totally but has anyone got a few billion tucked away that would like to help linux progress to the next level? I find the people that use linux love it for what it is, one day it might be mainstream but until then enjoy the ride its a beauty.

I have to give kudos to the article writer for walking against the stream (esp. here at the Inq) and pointing out that Linux still can't match OSX or Windows in user friendliness, ease of use and so on. Linux (and all it's distros, versions, forms) is still not a standardized desktop user OS, it's a "geek"-OS for specific tasks no matter how much eye candy they slap onto the surface. Until Linux has become standardized (with stable installers, a common file system & execution system) it will never take over, and it is in the end it's own worst enemy, not MS.

I agree totally but has anyone got a few billion tucked away that would like to help linux progress to the next level? I find the people that use linux love it for what it is, one day it might be mainstream but until then enjoy the ride its a beauty.

Linux Elitists have no comprehension of the value of time.

I've got some Linux geeks here at work who I estimate would earn around 1/4 my annual salary, who had the hide to criticise my latest Apple purchase; the highest specced Mac Pro, a Macbook Air, Macbook Pro, Time Capsule and Ipod touch.

They just don't get it. I just don't care how much it cost, I need to trust the crap to work. All the time. 

My time is money. I took a presentation to a client using my new Vista Vaio, and it would not display to their projector. I threw it out when IT support couldn't get it to just work. I don't care whether it's Vista, XP, 2K, Apple, Linux; I just want it to respect my time. 

The turning point happened after a girl at work demonstrated her Macbook video I-chatting with several people. It was so easy and quick, and looked polished and professional. I asked her to hook it up to our projector - it just worked. She's a clueless marketing airhead type, if she can make it work then anyone can.

It's 3 months since paying the kid at the Mac Store to set everything up, and it's the best computing experience I've ever had.

These Linux Elitists show me their laptops supposedly working perfectly, and argue I just need to spend a little time to learn their religion. So I gave one my latest Vaio, a list of criteria it had to do before he gave it back. I got it back, and it didn't. The user experience was horrible. My audio was horrible. I tried to install Opera, it didn't work. After spending half a day with poor graphics, sub-sub-par sound, and a confusing godawful interface, I told him he just got a free laptop and to get it out of my sight. If that's the best Linux is capable of, he can spend his cheap time tweaking and coding I'll stick to my 'expensive' Apple thanks.

Linux is for people whose time is cheap.

This article is written purely for reader response. The inquirer has stooped to writing articles for no reason, with no content, and shrewd mythical bias.

All of what's written in the article is fud. Linux has eye candy, a windows like DE, and even an osx like DE. Installing software is also unified in linux as well. Debian has deb files with the apt installer. Redhat has rpm files with the rpm installer. For each distribution they have their own app installer that's unified for that distribution. Anyway using linux is easy enough. And for installing packages in ubuntu that could never be easier. There's add/remove app for installing new apps.

The only thing that sucks is that linux from a novice standpoint is quite confusing with how many distros are out there that do things differently. And that's where i think a good deal of people start getting confused and would be lead to the conclusion that linux has no unifiers.

Distributions have their own unifiers. You got to pick the one you like to use, and when you picked the one you liked to use, it's probably going to be different in some areas, like ubuntu compared to mandriva for example. And when you picked the distribution that you wanted to use, well then you're going to have to use it the way that that distributions community made it to be. Which means installing software on one distro is going to be different than installing it on another. Each distribution has different philosophies.

Anyway, we linux users need to go easy on users of other OS's. The best way i know that i introduce people to linux is when i'm fixing they're computer and i show them how i do maintenance with the mepis livecd, or show them how i do other maintenance with faunos from a bootable usb drive. That's where people find linux to be pretty cool.

Sir, I been using Linux since 2000, daily at home. And you dare to say to me that my OS is not yet ready? This is absurd. What are you expecting from Linux? To work and feel and look exactly like Windows? C'mon. I DON'T want that Linux becomes like that crap Windows. Is that what you want? Stick with Redmond. Don't bother us with more crap. Linux IS different. Linux WORKS differently. LOOKS and FEEL differently, and IT IS USEFUL for me. Got that?

for something completely different? When I was a comp sci student oh so many years ago our university computer center had a huge source code listing for Unix Version 5. There was a senior elective which gave full course credit for students to work on bug fixes for it in their own time. It seemed like an interesting option so I took a look at the code. It didn't appear at all professionally done. There were all kinds of insider comments and the overall impression was that the code had been done quickly by summer interns or others passing through. The grand plan was apparently to fix the problems later. To my knowledge, no one opted for that elective. Later, working in industry I had several employers who used PDP-11/70's running later versions of UNIX for engineering support and, frankly, I hated the PDP-11 unless it was running RSTS/E and have always avoided UNIX and the plethora of nickel and dime utilities like an infectious disease. It's just not a modern O/S but an artifact of computer history. I don't have much confidence that Linux is much better. There's an interesting article out there on the web by the professor for whose class Linus submitted his reworked UNIX kernel as a class project. The criticisms are fairly severe and it's likely that the Linux kernel is yet far from optimal. Maybe it's time for a modern open source O/S. Interestingly, the verification code the Inq site is showing appears at first glance like "hogwork" so it's possible that a machine could have a sense of humor.

I thought I'll try Ubuntu, and got a CD. The install went well. I logged in and found that my ethernet isn't working and I can't surf the net. Also I couldn't enable desktop effects because I'd first have to install nvidia drivers. After 2 hours of looking for ethernet drivers, I found a source code for them. But how the heck do I install? I googled again, and found many websites telling different methods to compile them. I tried all, and NONE of them worked. I joined ubuntu forums, and found that a person has compiled them already, I just have to copy-paste. No, that didn't work either. I asked for help, nobody replied except a person who kept telling me a long list of text commands to run and files to edit manually. I tried it all, no luck. Why can't I have a nice wizard like in windows in which I just have to click on "next", and everything is handled by the wizard? Why don't I get proper error messages which make sense to me instead of a jargon of alphanumeric strings ending in the word "failed"?

I thought I'll use windows to surf the net, and that won't be a big problem. So I downloaded nvidia drivers and double-clicked them. It started something, and then told me it didn't have permission to continue. I googled again, and found that I'd have to use command line again. By that time I had learned that "double-click and you're done" isn't the way Linux works. Still, I was eager to try a different OS, so I followed the instructions. And to my excitement.... installation failed. reason:it didn't have i don't know what for my kernel and it couldn't compile it either cause of some missing libraries. I downloaded what it required, googled how to install them, and... it required even more packages to install. downloaded again... and it still won't install. It kept telling me that it wanted more, I kept downloading. Finally, I was able to install the nvidia drivers and turn on desktop effects. But no, that was NOT worth the efforts.



I really don't know what those people who have posted above mean, when they say it's just a 15 minutes install.

Why DO I EVEN NEED TO TOUCH THE COMMAND PROMPT? why can't it be like windows where you just click on buttons which have labels on them telling you exactly what they do, instead of a balck and white screen where you need to type stupid commands?


NO THANKS, I'D RATHER SPEND THE MONEY AND BE ABLE TO USE MY COMPUTER, instead of going for a free OS which I can't use.

I tried Ubuntu recently and while it did install easily, seriously no hassles at all, I still couldn't install any of my regular software because it runs on Windows.

Are Linux allowed/able to install software designed to run on Windows?

If Microsoft weren't forcing Vista on us all, and instead were giving us XP+, then Linux would be lower on the OS menu. Vista has been the cause of me trying Ubuntu and finding that Ubuntu is ok but it's not quite ready for general use.

Linux, what's the story with installing printers, video cameras, video editing software, games, etc? I don't see this on the Ubuntu home page. Do I need to have the USB drivers installed BEFORE I plug in the device, or just plug it in and it will be ok?

Windows - who is the clown who thought it would be a good idea to knacker a device if it was plugged in using USB before the driver was installed? If it's plug n play then why does the driver have to be installed first, surely when the device is plugged in it should then "look" for the correct software, or encourage/wait for the install.

I've had a bunch of friends try and talk me into trying Linux. I always stop them with one word. Software. Adobe speceficly, but also my animation softwares including Lightwave, Zbrush, Modo and Maya. I don't give a damn how stable or amazing Linux is. Until the programs I use run NATIVELY on it, it won't do me any good. I think if Adobe made the plunge to Linux it'd give all the Microsoft haters a great alternative to high priced Apple products... and then all the companies that made graphics type apps would have to follow suit. Could be an apple killer actually. But, hasn't happened and probably won't.

There no software for Linux. Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid!

It's running fine on my 5 machines at home, I guess you people just aren't as clever as me.

/flame on

Here's why Linux should be like Apple's OS X. OSX is UNIX. Do you have to know how to code UNIX to use an Apple Mac? NO. You just buy it, it works, you can install Office or Photoshop. Do you have to know command line crap? NO. It just works. 

When LINUX becomes mature enough like UNIX OSX, then it will be accepted by the masses.

My first encounter with Linux was after I actually bought boxed(!) version in a shop in Helsinky when I was there on a business trip in 1996. Since then, I try every year and I have to say that it's getting better.

But the author is right. The last I tried was with the latest Ubuntu and Fedora.

None of them installed on my main computer. Hours and hours later it turned out that I have "stupid" vga card from Matrox and was told, as the author said, to do text install and then edit some files somewhere. No, I already wasted two days (forget 15 minutes install).

Then I installed both on my laptop and as I said they are getting better. Skype installed as on Windows (double-click on the installation file), but looked horribly half-finished. Lotus Notes install was all editing, copying something somewhere and generally hacking.

No, I do wish the OSS wins, and I wouldn't be trying Linux for 12 years if I didn't with to ditch Win. But it's just not there yet. And the article is 100%. Please Linux supporters, bite the bullet, accept the facts laid out in the article, even if they are against your deepest-held conviction, and get it done. The SW world will be all yours.

My first encounter with Linux was after I actually bought boxed(!) version in a shop in Helsinky when I was there on a business trip in 1996. Since then, I try every year and I have to say that it's getting better.

But the author is right. The last I tried was with the latest Ubuntu and Fedora.

None of them installed on my main computer. Hours and hours later it turned out that I have "stupid" vga card from Matrox and was told, as the author said, to do text install and then edit some files somewhere. No, I already wasted two days (forget 15 minutes install).

Then I installed both on my laptop and as I said they are getting better. Skype installed as on Windows (double-click on the installation file), but looked horribly half-finished. Lotus Notes install was all editing, copying something somewhere and generally hacking.

No, I do wish the OSS wins, and I wouldn't be trying Linux for 12 years if I didn't with to ditch Win. But it's just not there yet. And the article is 100%. Please Linux supporters, bite the bullet, accept the facts laid out in the article, even if they are against your deepest-held conviction, and get it done. The SW world will be all yours.

...totally. I have installed Lunix (mostly different releases of Ubuntu) many many times. Mostly everything works great, actually. No hardware issues, apart from screen resolution for some strange reason (sometimes, sometimes not). 

Don't get me wrong, but the biggest problem I have is that I really want to use Linux, but I want it to work flawlessly, and "feel" stable and intuitive. And every time I end up unistalling it. Windows has it's faults too, but it just seems more... mature. Just like you described.

God I hope someone is listening to this, 'cause I've got a pair of computers perfect for Lunix and they just sit there waiting for when the right time comes!

Whether or not Linux is ready for the desktop is an issue that's dictated by what a user requires. 

For some people, for whatever reason, Windows can be better.

My needs may be different though, and I've found that Linux suits them well. For me, Linux is certainly ready for the desktop and is the better choice.

lp

It's the consistency -- and Apple's reputation for consistency, deserved or not.

Drag'n'drop install on the Mac is a bit of a farce: Many users today *cannot* drag and drop, and *cannot* understand the desktop metaphor. ("I see a lot of little boxes...") For the subset who do, d'n'd is certainly an epiphany, but "click here and have it" is even more important. Linux does not do too badly here, these days, but Synaptic needs a little more polish. (The GNOME app installer, while useless and hidden, is really well-designed in concept for accomodating users who just want something and don't want to know how it gets there.*)

This is something you can learn from the Dock, which is something Apple (to everyone's surprise) sort of got right. These same people don't know or don't care if a program is running -- thus removing the need for that knowledge is a big boon to them. Want to read your mail? Click the mail.app icon, always in the same place. Learn that the little indicator means that mail.app is still running? Close it and your computer gets faster -- but you could still work in the meantime.

(Apple's butt really got saved on this: Many interfaces realized the same thing, and tried it prior, but OS X came on the scene just as memory got cheap enough to contemplate this kind of workflow. In the era when you'd have to swap for 20 minutes to page any two popular applications in and out, this just wouldn't have worked -- and if you remember, OS X launched in the last two or three years of that era. These days, it's inexcusable to run a desktop that has to swap during a basic 'letters and web-browsing' workflow.)

Contrast that to a recent adventure with GNOME, where I realized I did have to explain to a user -- "First, look to see if it's running, then check the three other desktops, then if it is running click in the task switcher, and if it's not running click the shortcut I threw into the panel on top." In the (stale) version of GNOME I'm using, there's no obvious way to set the behavior of the launcher -- it relies on the application to do the right thing when you start another instance, but the application (vmplayer) wasn't written to do the right thing. 

The bling does not hurt, and many people who don't know better mistake the bling as the magic factor. In reality, as bad as some of Apple's recent interfaces are, they still employ a high percentage of people trained to try to be smart about the underlying use cases.

*Ideally, we could try something like magnet links, where package://canonical_name_UUID URIs could be handled by package managers. A project could tuck the code and binary packages away, and put the link on its homepage, so basic users could click and quickly install the software as packaged by their distributor. Authors would have to trust the distributors (and tell people to whine to them if a particular one has a problem...), but it'd really handle the clueless use case.

"Of the two, On is the best feature. It is a clone of the Asus Instant-On stuff, and likely works in the same way, but no details were given at the launch. On is a flash-based barebones Linux install that gets you up and running, on the Net, and with much of what you need to run the computer in instantly."

I think the linux distros ive tried would work great for the newbies and pros. But when you come from windows and think you can do whatever you like there and then try linux and think you should be able to do anything you'd like there aswell - you'll most likely get in a pile of trouble. Many times so deep its impossible to get out. Thats what I think. I'm glad theres alot of howtos out there but when you have to search for a howto for any and all issues - there's something wrong.

The X monitor configuration has been pretty automatic for quite some time. You ought to give it another chance.

Certainly I understand your feelings about unix text config files. 

The great ting about them, though, is that mostly they're all under /etc and they're text files.

Have you ever tried to find the file in Windows where you set the XY resolution of your monitor?

My parents used Fedora for 6 months and liked how their favorites menu didn't have a stupid "hover-over" scroll. That's all they said about it.

Each year I try at least one install of Linux to see if it has caught up with Windows.

This year I tried the very latest Ubuntu installation on an NForce II motherboard with an ATI Radeon 9800 video card - you cannot get more "mainstream" than that combination.

Tried running a 4-year old game that runs under Linux (EVE), it failed due to video issues. Tried to load the ATI Proprietary Linux drivers - it quickly devolved into hacking as the loader would not load no way no how.

Oh, and it still wouldn't run the 4 year old game.

I've managed teams of up to 50 developers in enterprise software deployments involving dozens of systems - and could always find someone who "knew the answer." The same is not true of Linux, and until it is it will remain a "wanna-be."

Sorry, not ready yet.

I understand the article and all the points he is making. In fact I have read the exact same thing many, many, many times before, several times on this very site. All that ever comes of these articles is a flame war of linux lovers vs haters. Nothing else ever happens. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? What I find really ironic is that the same type of journalists keep writing this same story about how linux developers need to stop doing things the way they are doing them to get different results. Maybe they should take their own advice and stop writing the same type of articles? Hmmmm...

I tried to switch to Linux. Hard. I forced myself into Linux for several weeks. But I couldn't make myself forget that everything is easier and more readily available in my old pal XP. Soon I found myself wiping my Ubuntu partition to make more space to my torrents.
Torrents... how can I live without uTorrent and ImgBurn? I couldn't. By the way, It's nonsense to switch to Linux if I'll have to rely in a Windows emulator (and it IS AN EMULATOR!).

Then they released another big Ubuntu iteration. I wanted to like it, but it crashed in the very booting of the freaking live CD! My PC is fine, there's nothing wrong or exceptional about it. Then I gave up. I won't contact support, I just won't give another try.

I know that someone worked hard and for free to make it work as good as possible, it is so full of love and good intentions. But that was just inexcusable, sorry.


Linux is not easy to use, not even Ubuntu. Uber-geeks use linux and they think, "oh, how easy it is to mount this RAID array, you only has to write 15 lines of code!". Well, I´ve been using windows since 3.1, never had problem setting up my video card. Recently I´ve tried to change the resolution of video in Ubuntu for a few days, then I just quit. Uber-geeks will say that I´m stupid, maybe I am, but It´s me who assist a lot of friends when they need help with their computers. So, if it was impossible to me, they wouldn´t even try then.
To linux developers, I suggest they to talk to those with really low knowledge, and make things more intuitive for someone without PhD in computer science.

How easy it is installing Linux is irrelevant, how many people install Windows? More than 95% of users never install anything, they come pre-installed, that is why people are using Vista no matter how bad it is. 
When PC's come installed with Linux, people will use Linux. Asus have realised this, sadly this article hasn't!

I mean really!

To the author of the piece --

* Want eye candy? Go load compviz. Add a little google gadgets and let it be done. Nor is transparent windows an issue either. 

* I find it interesting that you complain about the differences of Linux having multiple repositories systems when Windows has NONE. Yes Win has a security update system but that's it. If I want a piece of software I have to cruise websites looking for it, do the download then do the install. Nor are all Win installs created equal. Using either Adept/Yum/Synaptic repository software I rarely experience a problem with installation.

* Hardware support. Yes the bane of Linux for sure. But my dear friend, it is NOT linux's fault. Go take your gripe to the OEM's themselves. If an OEM is not going to either provide a driver or at least release the specs then what's a poor linux developer to do? You are addressing the wrong venue.

* The VIAO? Sorry. Again it should be addressed by the OEM. Or you could have bought preinstalled on a Dell, HP, or Lenovo system. 5m in sales of Linux based eePC's can't all be wrong. 

* Cheap professional support. First its an oxymoron on its face. But I tell you what, go try Microsoft's per minute dial up 'support' and see if you are satisfied. Then take two nitro pills when you get your phone bill at the end of the month.

* User testing? MS Vista. Its looks like a camel. And if it had user testing then explain DRM? Nobody wants it so why is it there?

I could go on and on with the comparisons and knocks. Is there a lot wrong with Linux? Yes but its not what this author intoned. A better system than QEMU for managing virtalization. Better implementation of wireless connectivity. ACL control for most distributions is nonexistent. Would love to see the entire structure of /etc .conf files moved bodily to a XML like format; the xinetd style stinks. 

But I'll close with this thought. My wife and daughter are techno illiterates either Windows or Linux. I set them up on Linux with --

Firefox
Thunderbird
Open Office
Skype

That's all they use. They're happy, I'm happy. All they have to do is point and click just like windows. Its all 90% of what most computer users do. I don't face the ecosystem of trojans/worms/viri. I don't wonder if WGA is going to hose my system and the system update I have croned to trigger every saturday night while I am asleep works flawlessly. 

The question I have to ask -- What's your excuse?

I think we just need to realize what average user need in OS and try to deliver:
1. easy install (x) but which distro? (-)
2. eye candy (x) but not intuitive usage (-)
3. drivers - almost done but still in progress(broadcom), - dif. distros dif pakage
4. wine and games should work well not rubbish 
5. more consolidated support not 2million forums and threads
I really think it should be two distros at least, for average Joe and for power users. Then we could solve these problems much quicker. And maybe then hardware producers and serious companies like adobe would think about linux more..

With Ubuntu Linux has become very easy to install as long as you have standard hardware. Where it looses out is if you want to change resolution or add hardware that is not in the kernel. At that point it sucks big time! 
But it has some a long way and the price makes up for a lot of the short comings. That and Vista is so blotted it makes going to Linux more attractive.


If your tech savvy and only need a basic internet box, Linux is cool, I certainly won't argue with you, and it's a little better each time I check it out.

Windows is dominant for the following reasons:

1 ease of installation
2 availability of hardware drivers
3 wide application selection
4 standard 3d gaming interface
5 wide third-party support and development

Consider this. I have seen gaming to be a huge incentive to upgrade Windows versions when the newly-purchased game requires XP or newer, and the user has been running some older version of Windows. If they need it, they buy it, simple as that.

The question to ask is, how do you create a *need* to use Linux? The possible answer is, you provide the 5 things listed above, and then you provide something totally cool that only runs on Linux. :-)

I once commented in a newsgroup a few years ago that program/application instillation should be simplified to encourage take up (I was struggling to understand why suse wouldn't install a nvidia driver, despite instructions), it was suggested I was an idiot and virus writers dream. Yay Linux. He even invoked a fruity OS in his retort. After my rather calm rebuttal he descended into childish name calling and nit picking about reading headers and other boring anus licking stuff.
Stopped me trying linux for a while that did. Even recently I tried ubuntu and got bored of having to edit xorg so I could use my monitors resolution and other tedious sudo root bash -h -s rubbish I gave up again. Life's too short and I am a gamer so had to keep switching back to XP. I am now using the 64bit broken OS without any problem.

I have tried Linux numerous times over the years but have never really been able to just use it intuitively without rtfm.

I tried Ubuntu8.04 a couple of weeks ago to see how linux has progressed since I last tried it. I must say it has come quite far. Most of my hardware worked ok, even my xonar soundcard.

But it is just so damn annoying trying to understand what I needed to do to get my wireless card and graphics card to work. I found a button that said something about installing my wireless card drivers so I clicked it and it asked me for a firmware binary or something. WTF is a firmware binary? The average user wouldnt have a damn clue either.

Yes it's fine saying oh you need to do this, this, that, then open console, and type some sudo ninja stuff, but most people will be scared off by such simple things.

The average joe just wants to click a few buttons, maybe download drivers, click some more and expect it to be done.

Then there is the rpm and apt packages. What is the difference? Why can't all Linux distros just use a single universal one?

Oh and here is the biggy... Have any of the Linux geeks looked outside into the real world lately? You should have noticed average joe and jane are influenced by celebrities and shiny things.

You are not going to get people using Linux when a lot of Linux websites look like this:
http://rpmforge.net/user/packages/yum/

Just so long as the masses don't want to do anything out of the ordinary with it, and tbh most of the masses don't. People generally want a system that will get them on the internet, get their email, display the latest Paris Hilton porno, do some quick WP or a spreadsheet, remove some redeye on yer pics and play the occasional game. Most Linux distros will do this and once installed initially will remain unchanged and working a lot longer than an equivalent Windows (whatever flavour) installation. 

The but and its a huge, Aretha Franklin sized, but is that the back catalogue of Windows specific software is huge, and if the user needs it for something and it wont work under wine then dual boot beckons and we all know if you have a dual boot you spend 99% of your time in one OS and 1% in the other.

linux is not more dificult to use. its just that the world is use to windows.

PERIOD

tell me why cobling through a windows update or even installing windows drivers is so easy to everyone? because theyve been doing it forever. when in most linux distros its set up right during the installer. or not more then a click or 2 away.

... people who know what the hell they're doing. Everyone else will be happier if they stay away.

Linux is strong because much of it's built with a 'no crap, get the job done' mentality. Ugly, efficient, effective.

Loading it with ancillary junk is unnecessary: Vista is already available.


Well, i'm a linux user im my job, and i agree with your arguments.
But, the install aplications lixe windows (next, next, finish) ins't the best method in my opnion.
I like of mac os x method, drag and drop to applications and it work! This is easy to come to linux.

Linux need more integration! I use xfce+awn to make the mac os x look to linux, but is a poor administration of shortcuts this need awn-manager to add shortcuts!! In mac os x drag and drop and voila!

The linux programers need more of the KISS concept... Keep It Simple, stupids!

The human race is divided in different ways, linux too which offers some extra protection because of it. Like some medicine we take cannot be taken by the other sex/races this tells me it secures boundaries that have to be surmounted by the nasties out there. That's a good thing.

I agree its hard to find a computer to match a linux distro at a 100%. I think a good compromise on security would be HP Toshiba Dell etc.. [looks like it's going this way] would adopt a distribution of their own for the wanting public even for there old recycled machines not on the regular market any longer.

I'm waiting another year to re-take linux to see if this happens.

C'mon Google, where are you???

Ubuntu is certainly the "go-to" answer for Linux fans who refuse to believe that it's not ready to step up to the plate yet.

The last "stable" release of Ubuntu saw fit to introduce a new "install from windows" system that hadn't had the benefit of a full trial, new KDE interface, Beta versions of Firefox, and sundry other improvements that, while noble and interesting, rather defeated the purpose of a "long term support, STABLE" release.

An LTS release should be hammered til the bugs stop flowing and then released. Instead, we get an experimental mishmash with the typical Linux attitude of

"Yeah, that doesn't work but we stuck it in anyway. It'll be fixed when the next one gets released in 6 months. Eeeehhhhh, fugheddaboudit."

I think the day Linux gets subjected to the level of hacker attention that Windows gets, is a day when a lot of Tux fans will be very red faced indeed.

I'm using linux and honestly I don't want everyone to use it. I avoid ranting about it and let people do what they want. Linux is a operating system from a geek to geek and I think it should stay as it. It would be nice if it had larger hardware support but as long companies like Intel supports I will survive (centrino ftw).

What I really hope is that software would turn more operating system independent so that you could use same software and choose OS of your preference. More open standards would make you less depend from any software.

Until my technophobe mom, can use linux... it will never be more than the fun niche product it is.

Save your flames tux fans. its a fact. My dear almost windows literate mother cannot plug her Fuji camera, or her damned Dell printer into a nix install and "just use it". 

if you can get linux to that point... and clean up that ulgy ass menu system.... she may use it. And so may a lot of others.



I consider myself a "normal" user as the author likes to put it (the only programing I've ever done was on an Apple II back in 1987) and I have recently acted on my curiosity by installing Ubuntu Linux on the second hard drive on my 6 year old Sony Vaio about a month ago. 

Guess what?? I'm actually very impressed by it! 

The interface is wonderful, I can run practically any document or media file, and it cost me nothing. I also find that the GNOME GUI is fairly intuitive in it's design, and is capable of doing almost any regular function that can be done in Windows.

I do admit there are some things that I'm not wild about, such as these two:

1. The fact that you may need to type in commands in the Terminal box from time to time to change settings, which is a pain if you have been a strictly DOS user (as far as command lines go). Today windows has pretty much eliminated the need to use the DOS prompt.

2. Sometimes the programs you can get aren't that great of quality. The Linux driver for my webcam doesn't create as good quality of a picture as it does in Windows. If there is a driver, it's usually a pain to install because of problems presented in #1.

Really these are minor problems that can be remedied; depending on your standards for a computing experience, can be considered trivial in comparison with the problems riddled with Windows. Any "normal" user knows these problems well: feature and resource overload, viruses and malware and most importantly, cost...

If a machine can go online, do word processing, run a variety of software programs, play video and music, then what else does a non-enthusiast person really need? (Look pretty too!)


And I don't want to sell Linux short, it runs a lot of stuff very well (which is why enthusiasts use it) and is constantly evolving; if something won't work on it or doesn't run well, you can almost bet that it will be improved. 

So in conclusion, if Linux is not ready for a mainstream audience, then what makes me so special? 




"Many linux fans would consider changing these managers blasphemy."

OK, what do you want? Do you want purity or do you want market share and to give Vista the tub-thumping in the marketplace that it deserves?

Great commentary, thanks!

I am very much a supporter of a lot of things Microsoft, but I love healthy competition (that isn't Apple). Another issue that is of the more tech nature is the fact that application development for a Linux operating system is nothing less than a 500lb gorilla when compared to developing for Windows. Microsoft makes hands down the best development IDE currently available, Visual Studio, this is not only a personal preference or bias, individuals in the field that have atleast a beginners level of experience with Visual Studio will all agree that the power of the IDE is unmatched.

For Linux, the closest alternative is Eclipse. It has come a long way, but using it can sometimes leave your fingers and eyes bleeding from the frustrations you run into. Many developers do not wish to develop for Linux because it is tedious compared to developing for Windows. Not to mention the terrible documentation and support available for Linux OS's.

Here we go again.

I trust all the supporters of the various OSs are keeping copies of what they post 'cause here's another opportunity to say it all over again.

What ive noticed is the lack of a Industry standard Installation utillity for linux alike MSI and Installshield for windows, i believe out of mostly everything this is what hold linux back the most from the mass market as day to day people dont want to have to remember all the Command prompt slur for installing checkers on their computer they just want a few button press' and whey games a ready to go

also a linux standard directory system would be nice so all version have the same directory structures between distros alike that in windows that are clearly names for what they contain

I've repeatedly tried Linux and it is getting better. 

Actually, Windows can be maddening to install -- especially on older equipment where driver disks are long gone. 

The difference is that I've almost always been there before with Windows problems and however much of a pain it is I know I'll win in the end. 

With Linux. it's like parachuting into a foreign country. It's like when I first bought a computer in 1985 and struggled with MSDOS and manually configured printer drivers. 

Until Linux is actually easier to install than Windows there's little incentive to move. And then there are the applications and hardware issues. 

Everything works with Windows or Apple -- with Linux almost everything doesn't. 

I'm sure that the future for Linux is to consolidate into a few brands that have a product which really works -- and have the muscle to persuade computer builders to offer it pre-installed and to get applications and drivers written for it. 

Yes, it's all true. There are just too many areas with issues or awkwardness, or elitism even, for Linux to be truly ready for installation on the desktop.

Linux pre-installed on the hardware is here now, of course. Splashtop, EeePC, etc, all work great.

Linux is also getting the necessary underlying technology for looking snazzy. KDE4 will help here a lot as well.

Application install needs to be as simple as Mac OS X - drag the file and drop, and click to run, from whereever it is. Application installation should be via an interface that is more like a desktop version of the iPhone's App Store than a tree list of dry text listing mostly irrelevant applications. We need ratings, more categories, better search, previews, and so on.

That all said:

When everything goes well, Linux installs are extremely professional and clean. The software is all pre-packaged and installed nicely with the system. The auto-updates also work for applications. Linux doesn't slow down over time like XP. It's a nicer power environment.

And at some point you have to release, and learn, and improve, with real user feedback.

The distro's and varieties that can be found, in alarming amounts need to be replaced, and reduced to a maximum of three.

Make it look pretty as you say. Infact pendrive linux is very good for this.

There needs to be some kind of gaming standard. Alot of people still game on pc's and linux has no proper standard for this.

Give it a flashy logo and some marketing as well to make it look friendly as well.

setup a central support forum for linux, and build a knowledgebase very fast.

Over the years I have used many iterations of Linux (mostly Debian, SuSE and Ubuntu)- and it is definitely improving as the years go on - but I also find I have less time to play with the OS than i used to, and have the income to happily pay for an OS if it will save me some time. Windows XP is STILL the best OS for me, as it is stable (at least mine is), runs everything I want it to and I can play games on it if I want, straight out of the box.




As for eye-candy, if compiz and compiz-fusion could be better integrated in the popular Linux distros, it's OpenGL-fuled 3-D magic would easily cause as much "Wow" as Mojave.

Package management is easy. Whether you are using RPMs or Apt. Most distros have a simple "updater" in their standard desktops that does all the back-end stuff without bothering you about the details.

You'll even get little pop-ups letting you know an update is available.

If someone wants to get fancy with packages and software, they probably won't mind getting their hands dirty.
From a "just work" stand-point, the default packages are quite good.

My biggest complaint about Linux is gaming. Many popular games are written for DirectX with no OpenGL option. This is a deal-breaker for me since my home PC is my gaming system. But FOSS can't fix that.

Linux fanboy here who has been using xp for the last 3 months.

Compiz-fusion has better eye-candy than windows OR mac and apparently can run on intel integrated graphics.

Problems with installing stuff? Try gentoo, I have a laptop with xp that has significantly more trouble installing things correctly than portage. Portage is extremely easy to use (unless you make it one by choosing packages that are in development) installing a program requires nothing more than finding which one you want online, searching for the right name and typing emerge your-app-here, wait for it to compile or simply extract and BOOM, installed free app. Sure there are some things that are missing and for gentoo you have to do some tricks to get compiz running, but honestly it is incredably unified and keeps the ASDF installers from cluttering your desktop/folder whatever.

The other points are correct, and should be more compelling than "gui and installers." Simple things like making MPlayer not suck at sorting musing and movies and such and having a more unified interface would go a VERY VERY long way to improving the linux user experience. Getting people used to the home folder would also be a good idea. Many things need to be improved at high levels for people to be able to appreciate the little parts of linux that make it much more user friendly, things you only notice when you go back and use osx or windows.

Im sure I've forgotten something in here....

I don't really agree with the eyecandy thing (performence should be the priority) but a standard format for programs would be great. It's one of the few things I love about Windows, doubleclick the .exe, install, and you're done.

also, here's an idea, design an operating system (GUI) as if for a mobile device... new iphone users don't go through a crazy learning curve (do they?)
cheers

linux is a collection of work from thousands of people with differing goals, much of it is hobby work.

They don't all see eye to eye, that's why there are so many different licenses, and two or three versions of everything.

I don't think you can tunnel that in one direction.

And it's very foundations are rotten. It is a system that makes everything complicated when it should not be. No version of Windows, ever, has made me go online searching for the name of some obscure, stupidly designed text file to input the- vertical and horizontal!- refresh rate of my monitor from the specs in the manual. Have you ever read that Unix Haters Handbook? Everything in it is true!!

I think they should really scrap everything and start from zero. Maybe keep the Linux kernel, but get rid of the ungodly mess that is the GNU userland,X Window...

i introduced a bunch of newbies to ubuntu. its not easy to get all their stuff working but once you do, and you talk them through some stuff, they're totally set. you check their computer a couple of months later and it was as you left it.

compare that with windows xp, check it a few months later, and they have password sniffers, viruses, worms, trojans, etc. its hardly newbie friendly. you gotta know what you're doing to stay safe on windows. for newbies, maybe linux is better!

I recently gave Linux another shot. I tried Lindows back in the bad-old-days (when ME ruled terra firma) with spectacularly poor results,- yes, worse than ME- but rethought my position on the whole penguiny mess when I saw recent YouTube vids of Ubuntu's latest.

Contrary to the author's stated opinion, I find Hardy Heron remarkably simple and user-friendly, even for a crusty Windows geek like me. It has taken over as my desktop of choice, and while I can't use it for everything (certain industry-specific programs will only run in Windows), I much prefer the clean, uncluttered desktop Ubuntu affords. The fact that I can configure it however I want is icing on the cake, and not at all difficult to do, provided the user has enough sense to Google "compiz fusion". The easy Add Programs interface is yet another example of how user friendly Linux is becoming, and it's a smashingly simple way to add jaw-dropping levels of eye candy.

I agree Linux is still largely the domain of nerds and booger-pickers (like myself), but it is a whole lot closer to mainstream than ever with the new Ubuntu release, and, be honest, you still can't beat free.

eye candy now ships with ubuntu 8.04. it was crashing my desktop, i had to turn it off. it wasnt so cool anyways, ubuntu is gorgeous without it and now it works perfectly.

the linux world will work out these issues by converging to ubuntu on the desktop. all the different standards, incompatibility, etc. won't matter, because soon everyone will be using ubuntu. so all you gotta do as a hardware maker, or software maker is make it work on ubuntu. thats happening fast, and when it does, look out! maybe other distros will linger but they'll have to be ubuntu compatible somehow.

"Apple's OS X has begun to record advances in market share, and this has everything to do with an easy to use, attractive interface."

No, I disagree. More often than not, it has to do with people getting fed up with virus after virus after spyware after trojan. There's only so many times someone wants to rebuild their machine from scratch - and that's what is often required to 'recover' from some of the worst hardcore, kernel overwriting, malicious malware.

Once someone hears that Macs are far less vulnerable it becomes a major incentive. Now, I have installed Linux on quite a few of my relative's and friend's computers with only two of them ultimately going back to Windows. In each of those cases it wasn't the interface that was the problem, it was the lack of Windows compatibility that the users needed for work.

Of course the real advantage to using Linux is that it can scale to lower end hardware. Eye candy is nice for new computers, but for older ones, it's an exercise in CPU cycle stealing. Don't forget, there are many, MANY people who simply want to check their email and surf the 'Net, and you don't need Windows or eye candy for that...

If the 4.0 release of KDE is any indication we'll soon have all the eye candy for Linux that we'll ever need. It looks just like Vista, yahoo!

Most of the points are valid especially regarding installers. However it is worth noting that there are some half dozen installer systems for Windows in use as well as MS' msi scheme. Most people are not aware of this because all of them work very well.

Don't hold your breath for change - wth, bloggers will always have 'LNRFTD' to write about when there is no news. Rather accept that qua the desktop a user is not running 'Linux' per se... the user is running RH or Fedora or Ubuntu etc.

As a Linux "fanboy", (hell a UNIX fanboy), you hit the nail clean with this. The biggest issues with adoption of Linux, or any *NIX by the common people is the ease at which it can be used and updated.

Currently, there are just too many flavors with too many unique "personality traits".

Case in point, my wife won't use Linux because, if I die, she has no one to support it. She does not trust the "expert" on the net or over the phone. She doesn't want to have to think about it, she wants it to work, all the time and be easy enough for her to update and patch, if I'm not around.

Despite its short comings, Windows allows her to do that. When Linux grows up a little more, more people will use it. For now, Windows has nothing to worry about. 

And the Linux fanboys are their own worst enimies.

Firstly, the package managers form one of the main differences between distributions. Many linux fans would consider changing these managers blasphemy.

Secondly, RPM and Apt have not been replaced for ages, yet there exist way better package managers. The fact is that most users are happy with the current package managers and this is not likely to change soon, because newer solution have no proven track records.

The biggest problem is that the big Gorillaz of IT (both HW & SW) do not want Linux to be ready for the Desktop and do not invest ANYTHING to change things there. 

Why ? They would not be able to suck money out of people's pockets because Linux is almost free. Another problem is that it's on a "constant diet" and you can use a piece of HW for 10 years with it (if it does not physically break) instead of the current 3-4 yrs.

SImple.

that say something about the current state of linux, doesn't it?

Title says it all. ^^

lol someone has not tried linux in a while....just more uniformed journalist trying to start a flame war.

Hate to break it to you but Ubuntu is far easier to install than windows. you can use wubu to install it on your windows partition like an application then when you reboot it has added itself to the chain menu and you can choose to boot to it.

Oh my sooo soo hard. that took 15 minutes.
Hardware support is nierly as good as windows and has fall back if it cant detect it...it will still run but might not get full resolution...hmm kinda like when you install windows.

let it update and lo and behold it finds my gfx card driver and installs.... 

guess what now that the gfx driver is installed I can turn on the eye candy...hmm kinda like vista...wait it looks better.

Sorry for the sarcasm but come on do some research before you start blathering on...

The reason linux has not caught on is because its free...thats why it took firefox so long to catch....because It doesn't ship with the system and all the people have been taught not to download "free" applications.

So you wanted flames...here ya go.