Journal eno2001's Journal: LINUX: Why Is it "Hard" for a Lot of People? 3
I read a post in the front page story asking "Why Do People Hate Microsoft" this morning. In it the poster suggests that they've never had any success using Linux long term as a desktop, so they use Windows. This person doesn't even seem to be anti-Linux. And I've seen this repeated frequently among various friends of mine as well. Considering that I and various members of my family have moved to Linux as a desktop, it makes me wonder, WHY do people find it hard to make the switch?
I've tried giving it a lot of thought and thinking about my own experiences making the switch. Admittedly, I'm a fairly technically minded person. But I am aware of the limitations of most users. I think the reason I've been successful with my family members (wife and parents) is that I only view them as users and not as technical people. So, I understand that when it comes to configuring something, it will be up to me. In the case of the average person, the configuration would be up to the vendor/support staff.
Back in 2000 I even did a test with my girlfriend (now wife) when she was living in her own apartment. I gave her a dual boot system that I set up to do the things she normally does: dial-up internet check e-mail, browse the web, rip CDs, listen to MP3s, internet telephony (with me since it was long distance at the time), etc... Here were the basic results:
The Windows 98 partition took me six hours to set up and have her up and running fully functionally. She could use it with little trouble to do all those things. There was some additional functionality that I added (firewall, virus scanner, office software (OO.o), etc...)
The RedHat 7 partition took me about six days to get set up. It had a bit more functionality to it (proxy server, firewall, virus scanner, samba, web server, etc...) than the Windows system. She told me that she actually found it easier to use, due to my customization of her desktop and wound up staying in Linux 100% of the time. The old Windows partition was soon toast so that she could store more music. Note that she is NOT a technical person. In fact, when I first met her, her first comment on computers was, "I hate those fucking things".
Her first experience with her own computer (after I got her to like them a bit more than she did initially) was a PowerPC Macintosh. She wanted to go that route to be sure she could use the machine. She used it for about two or three years before I set her up with a Linux box as an experiment (not the one noted above). Her comment on the Windows/Linux dual boot box was that the Linux side was just as nice as her Mac. Again, this is with basic customization of the Gnome desktop. And we're talking Gnome 1.x!
This leads into the answer to my main question (Why is Linux "Hard" for so many people?). I think the problem is that people do not explore the customization features of ANY desktop environment they use. They simply go with the defaults and therefore base their opinions of the environment on those settings. Take for example a Windows 9x desktop that had the "Active Desktop" feature. You know the one where the desktop was essentially an HTML document and all the desktop icons could be activated with a single click. To some people this was "easy" because they just clicked once on an icon and something happened. To veteran GUI users this was a mess because it flew in the face of the established double click to open/execute paradigm.
Then Microsoft changed the paradigm and went back to the normal desktop, by removing the default Active Desktop features. So now all those single click users were confused and frustrated by having to double click. But to compensate they started double clicking on EVERYTHING that could be clicked. Sometimes it works and sometimes it causes problems. Especially if you have the Windows quick launch bar enabled. No easy fix for this as the users really don't think about when and why they should single or double click.
However, this is where both the beauty and the folly of customization show up. In the latest Gnome environments, I've found that they've taken a more Mac-like approach in terms of limiting you by default to a smaller set of features. There is also an attempt at abstracting the underlying filesystem a bit. One of the reasons I've had a lot of success converting my family to Linux is that I understand their needs AND I know how to make Gnome address their needs. However this doesn't just apply to Linux.
A few years back, I knew that my in-laws were very tentative about getting a computer. They're in their 70s and while they were interested, specifically in a laptop, I also knew that they wouldn't have had much patience in waiting for me to get the system "just right". So I recommended they get a Windows XP system (the first version of Windows that *I* was actually satisfied with at a basic level) and then helped them configure it for what they wanted: e-mail, web, dial-up internet, word processing and watching the occasional DVD. However, I also wanted to make sure I could help them remotely, so I installed my own custom compiled version of ssh and a custom CMD file to launch it and vncserver so I could have remote access. To them, it's just a double click on an icon on the desktop that says, "Connect to eno's Network". I knew what they would need and I addressed it.
I think the problem with Windows however is that there are TOO MANY ways of doing the same thing in the GUI. So when my in-laws get help from me, they get confused when I do something a bit differently than my sister-in-law. This is a huge problem because nearly everyone assumes that their way is the only good and "right" way to do things. I think this is less likely to happen when the GUI restricts you to fewer approaches. Hence the success of the Macintosh. One mouse button on their default mouse instead of the confusing right mouse button option. Granted, I'd never give up my three button scroll wheel mouse... but I'm not the beginner or average user and neither are you.
Still, even with all the extra options in Windows, I was still able to get my in-laws set up with a fairly customized desktop (just using what most of us would think of as very basic Windows skills, but the average user sees as "magical") that lets them do what they want to. This is possible in ANY desktop environment. And so I suggest that the main reasons people find Linux as a desktop confusing are:
1. Lack of pre-configuration of the underlying OS to support the expected functionality in terms of software and peripherals
2. Lack of any real customization to the desktop environment itself
Oddly, those are the same reasons that Windows can suck for the end user as well. Think about just how much difficulty most average users would run into, installing WiFi onto an old Windows system (pre XP). It's not so bad on an XP box these days, but even now there are some gotchas. Especially if the end-user wants to buy inexpensive hardware that didn't get XP certified. The big difference however, is that a lot more of both the underlying OS and desktop environment configuration is handled by the vendor. This is something that doesn't currently exist for Linux systems on any grand scale.
When you buy a PC from HP or Dell, you NEVER get a standard, plain vanilla Microsoft desktop. You get custom desktop wallpaper from the vendor. You get bundled apps that make the base system feel more complete (DVD player, limited versions of CD/DVD burning software, Office suites, Photo Editing software, Movie editing software, etc...) and provide the illusion that Windows systems are "easy". I am positive that if Dell and HP were forced to ship the PCs to the owner with plain vanilla installs of Windows and that the end-user was responsible for selecting and purchasing the extras, there would be a lot of griping about how hard Windows is to use as well.
Sadly, the same could be done for Linux (and there are a few outlets for this but not enough) only there wouldn't be a need for limited editions of various bits of software as most applications that most users would want are freely available. If they were bundled into the base install, along with plenty of customizations, Linux on the desktop would appear easier and friendlier than Windows. The only exceptions are users that need a specific very niche application that doesn't have a Linux version. But most home users don't have that outside of something like Quicken (whose utility still escapes me
So there you have it. My suggestion on how Linux on the desktop is certainly possible and could be made even easier than Windows, if only... It can be done on a personal level and it really isn't that hard. But I do wonder in amazement at the Windows users who never explore their desktop and just go with the defaults. At most, they might change their desktop wallpaper. Once. Maybe move the icons on the desktop a bit. But as far as actually manually creating program or folder shortcuts, making custom icons, setting up custom and meaningful sounds, I don't really see even that basic level of change happening. I just don't know why...
Because it should just work (Score:2)
It shouldn't be necessary to become an expert to use my computer. It shouldn't even be necessary to be as much of an expert as Windows requires one to be. There's really no reason that the computer can't alwa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that making it "just work" out of the box means removing the possibility of tinkering for those who like/want to do so.