Breaking Down Barriers to Linux Desktop Adoption 821
Jane Walker writes to tell us that in a recent interview with SearchOpenSource.com Jono Bacon takes a look at why some of the reasons people give for not switching to Linux might not stand up under closer scrutiny. From the article: "For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features."
It's a nice sounding excuse. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think, that in essence they honestly just want to justify the decision they make. It's harder to go out on a limb and go open source if you are the person making decisions. The old addage that "Nobody was ever fired for going Microsoft" is still correct, it's still correct as ever.
Re:It's a nice sounding excuse. (Score:2)
I was was ever going to make that point, it wouldn't be because I want "desktops cluttered with unnecessary features".
It might have something to do with the fact that when I need to use some random feature of MS Office, it's there.
I checked out the new AbiWord yesterday because it has a grammar check.
Well... the grammar check still isn't ready
Re:It's a nice sounding excuse. (Score:2)
Of course, the Mac development community doesn't have anything, either.
Re:It's a nice sounding excuse. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a nice sounding excuse. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason why the general public isn't moving to Linux is simple: Nobody wants Linux.
Now before you string me up by my pinky toes, listen to me for a moment. Consumers don't purchase something they don't want or need. If you go into the store and see a flashlight, you won't pick it up unless you have no flashlight and absolutely NEED one. And even then you'll probably look for the cheapest one that meets your needs. One of those needs may be familiarity. If Brand Y is cheaper than Brand X, but you can't figure out how to turn it on without a manual, you're going to purchase Brand X.
Now consider for a moment that you're walking by the flashlights and see one that loudly proclaims "No Batteries needed!", "Super Bright Halogen Performance", "Tiny, Palm fitting size!", and "Laser Guided Beam!" Suddenly that flashlight is appealing to your baser instinct of "cool". Even if you don't need a flashlight at the moment, you're going to pick it up, look it over, and perhaps even convince yourself that you need a new flashlight. Then you'll get it home and read the manual to figure out how to turn the blasted thing on. You're then going to share your experience with your friends and family who may catch your enthusiasm and grab one of the new flashlights next time they're in the market. (Consider the fact that ThinkGeek has made an entire market out of "cool" objects that you don't need.)
Linux appeals to techies who want to try a new OS, but it doesn't universally impress people as being "so cool they need it". Ergo, they don't need it, so they don't get it. (It's really a matter of they don't *want* it, but they think in terms of needs.)
The same thing happened to Microsoft when they tried to get people to move to Windows. No one wanted the Microsoft Kool-aid. DOS worked just fine, and no one was going to switch to windows unless they had applications that required it to run. (And they usually grumbled about that.)
Enter Windows 95. Microsoft convinced the public at large that Windows 95 was SO important, that thousands of customers who didn't even have computers lined up to purchase this wonder-product. Sure, they were disappointed when they realized they needed a computer, but the millions of others who already had one, happily installed Windows. (Some even purchased expensive memory or hard drive upgrades just to run Windows 95.) Whether Win95 lived up to the hype or not is a different matter, but consumers were enamored with exploring the new features in this OS. (Almost) All of their old programs ran, and they could run these snazzy new Win95 apps that looked nothing like those ugly old Win3.1 apps. It was a revolution!
So what does Linux give consumers to make them want it? Cool features that Windows doesn't have? Not really. (At least, none that the consumer sees.) Pretty graphics? Nope. Linux lags behind, often showing ugly text screens. How about "killer apps" that exist nowhere else? Nope. Either they're ported to Windows, or they're just a rip-off of something consumers already have. So what does Linux have that makes the average consumer WANT it?
Absolutely nothing.
That's why I suggested technology [blogspot.com] to take Linux far out into the lead. If Linux can get there before Microsoft and Apple, it might actually have something to offer consumers that would make them want it. Otherwise it will continue to lag behind as the red-haired step child of the Desktop world.
rejection (Score:5, Insightful)
We can sit around all we want and say stuff like "when people get tired of (malware|viruses|spyware|whateverelse)" they will switch to (Linux|Mac).
It's just not true. People will switch when they are told to. Nothing else. Until Companies FORCE people to switch, there will be no switching.
Similar, but different. (Score:4, Insightful)
90%+ of the desktops out there are Windows. If you have a problem, even if you cannot get it fixed, you'll be among other people who have had problems.
With Linux, you have to expend effort to find such a group of people.
What benefit is there for any particular individual to do so?
So, home users won't migrate until businesses do. And for a business, there are real benefits to migrating to Linux. Which is why more businesses and governments are.
Re:rejection (Score:3, Insightful)
People will switch when everyone else switches. Yeah, sounds stupid but its true. When you can go to BestBuy and pick up Turbo Tax and a World of Warcraft for Linux then you'll start getting some converts. And running if some 2 bit emulator doesn't count. I'm talking native apps.
Re:rejection (Score:2)
Yup. I loaded OppenOffice about two years ago, after being told how wonderful it was. Pentium 4 with 512 megs of RAM on a fresh boot.... 60 seconds to load. More disk thrashing than I get when performing a defrag.
But, I don't know different.
And no, I would not mind dumping Office... However, I love Outlook because of its highly configurable and programmable scheduling and task assignment capability, and Excel has many feat
Re:rejection (Score:2)
Try that line somewhere else.
Um...Incompatibilities? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's also not forget hardware issues. Yes, there have been major strides since I first experimented with Red Hat 5.2, but the fact that I couldn't get my non-winmodem or sound card to work under the OS turned me off from using it for some time.
There gets a point where it's not so much of lethargy as it is a hassle to deal with and *still* not being able to do everything you need/like to do on your computer.
Re:Um...Incompatibilities? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Um...Incompatibilities? (Score:3, Informative)
If you just want to take a peek at the current state of Linux, I'd recommend going with a live-cd or dvd distribution like Knoppix or Gnoppix (I'm not putting a link so it will hopefully moderate them getting slashdotted...).
It's not perfect but the combination of a boot DVD and USB thumb drive is pretty cool. You can pop the thumb drive in the usb and boot from the D
Interesting (Score:2)
That's a major difference between Americans and other people in the world:
we don't care if we need something, we just want it dammit.
Flawed reasoning (Score:2)
So some way to make use of that feature may be a business requirement whether I plan on using it or not.
LetterRip
Chuckle (Score:3, Insightful)
Q: So. Why don't you like Linux?
A: Well... Office doesn't have features you want.
Q: Are you a freaking moron? Few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, you're saying you want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features.
I can't imagine why Linux zealots have a hard time communicating with the masses.
(asbestos jockey shorts on)
Re:Chuckle (Score:2)
Yeah, but they've got a server setup.
Unnecessary (Score:2)
But they sell anyway, and unneeded features in office software are a world cheaper than hot cars. Hell, MSOfice is cheaper than the monthly insurance on hot cars, and you have a much better chance of talking $EMPLOYER into paying for MSOffice than for a Ferrari.
Re:Unnecessary (Score:2)
Re:Unnecessary (Score:2)
Arguing (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop and think for a minute (Score:2, Informative)
So in order to sell Linux to Average
uh huh (Score:2)
Desktop Change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Desktop Change (Score:2)
The mechanics of change (Score:2)
Step 2 would be where the curious users give linux a try (I'm talking curious users, not curious geeks)
Step 3 would be where some of the curious have liked it and it spreads via word of mouth. Then the less lethargic try Linux out. At each of the above steps, the number of Linux users grows.
Step 4 is when Lethargic user 1 has a majority of people in his/her cyber communication cirle use Linux and has to think about switching out of necess
Back in the day (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Back in the day (Score:2)
Re:Back in the day (Score:2)
Simple answer. (Score:2)
Windows and Office is good enough for most people. Why is Firefox doing so well? Easy IE isn't good enough. Yes I use Linux for my desktop but for most users what do they gain by going to Linux. For a company what do they gain? Forget about free as in speech as a motivation for a company. They don't care ab
Re:Simple answer. (Score:3, Informative)
Another reason people don't switch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people don't switch because the computer they buy already has Windows on it. Whether its from Dell, Gateway, or Best Buy, the computer already comes with Windows and it works. Considering you can buy a pd from Dell for $500 with XP, why would anyone venture to Linux? I'm an of course asking that question as the average computer user. Obviously more tech gurus like Linux, but thats a small percentage of the user base. Windows works ok and already comes on the PC. That's about it.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:Another reason people don't switch... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually the commoditization of hardware is *precisely* what is going to drive the adoption of Linux in the long run. The price of Windows wasn't such a big deal back when the computer that you really wanted was $2000, but as the price of a computer continues to drop and the margins on hardware continue to get smaller and smaller eventually hardware manufacturers are going to look at cutting the amount that they spend per machine on software.
You'll notice that I didn't mention anything about consumers, a
Re:Another reason people don't switch... (Score:2)
Games is the only reason for me (Score:2)
Drivers are another issue but ehh, whatever.
Re:Games is the only reason for me (Score:2)
I'd only add that the reason my dad had for not going with Linux was that he could not figure out how to install stuff. Having to use the command-line is a real pain-in-the-patootie for people like my pop. Now, to be fair, my dad was using card-stack programs for years before the PC came around (worked as an accountant at Control Data back in the 60s) and command-line tools for years once the chaplinesque PC hit the desktop, but he's become accustomed to the advances in simplif
OSS's lack of concentration (Score:2, Interesting)
I think a lot of the problems with OSS stem from one issue, the fact that the developers are very out of touch with the average user. I'll give you an example:
I have been striving to use all open source or free software on my latest windows machine. I found that winamp had become problemsome for multiple reasons, and that I disliked windows media player 9 for certain reasons as well. So for video playback, I've attempted to use VLC (something I'm still trying to play with). Now, VLC seems all-in-all li
The problem is not with OSS (Score:2)
But hobbyists are not the people who are going to do, "Hey, let me drop work on this neat feature that really interests me, that doesn't exist anywhere else, and instead work to dumb down the desktop interface in a manner that would be conducive to stupid users, and write my own device driver for X that the manufacturer is too cheap to do themselves." AND have it
Let's talk about irrational (Score:2)
Its all about the apps, baby (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a ton of reasons... (Score:2)
1. It's what "everyone else" uses.
2. They think they'll someday need those features, and don't want to invest time in other tools.
3a. For most people, it's already paid for with their computer (not free but "sunk cost").
3b. For most of the reminder, it is "free as in beer" *cough*
4. Most people have it preinstalled with the PC they bought, and changing it is inconvieniencing them.
5. It's easier to blame something you "can'
Let users decide (Score:2)
I hope this is not the common development mode in Open Source, because it's just arrogant to presume what a user might or might not want to use.
And so what if these users really want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features? Let's face it, if that's what they want and you couldn't deliver these to them, you have failed.
Open Source should really do more on marketing (finding out what consumers want) than sales (selling
Absolute Arrogance (Score:2)
Bad logic (Score:2)
Someone needs a wacking with the clue stick. I don't use all the unnecessary features of Microsoft Office. But at some future unspecified point, I may need one of those obscure features. If a client sends me a particular file that uses one of them, or if I
They've got it wrong. (Score:2)
Why I don't... (Score:2)
Re:Why I don't... (Score:2)
BTW, every Linux distro I've tried lately has a big help icon on the taskbar. I've always resorted to Goo
pretend it isn't so (Score:2)
Deja-vu?
Instead of pretending that people don't perceive Linux as a good enough desktop, why not just improve the Linux desktop? I mean, if Linux is usuable to users, then users will start using it. Period. I find the whole "Linux as a desktop is good" skew a bit of a twist on reality. It's like the article (Bacon) wants Linux to be a better desktop system and figures if it covers it
It just has to be better (Score:2)
With a user's desktop, they don't look at specific features as much as the whole experience. It's a flaw that's been with Linux (and its various desktops) for a while now, and is just beginning to get better: feature-based instead of user-based design.
Honestly, we all know Linux has all the capabilities (and then some) of Windows and OSX, but still everyone insists on asking, "gee, why isn't everybody and their mother switching? It's FREE for god's sake!!" So why isn't everyone switching?
I think it's ju
why i don't (Score:2)
http://jrv.oddones.org/x300.html [oddones.org]
http://chris.quietlife.net/2004/05/29/linux-on-a-d ell-x300/ [quietlife.net]
http://pof.eslack.org/blog/2004/01/06/linux-on-del l-latitude-x300/ [eslack.org]
http://www.irvined.co.uk/x300.shtml [irvined.co.uk]
long story short: sweet mary joseph mother of PETE! i guess it serves me right for buying a crazy little dell.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. And wrong. (Score:2)
Sadly, much OSS works better on Windows (Score:2)
Who cares about "need", this has it, this doesn't! (Score:2)
Appearantly, not even if it's free. Then again, for most people, MS stuff is "free" as well. Stolen, but still...
Predictable possibilities are important (Score:2)
Try "Linux on the LAPTOP" (Score:2)
There are still shortcomings (Score:2)
(1) Lack of drivers. True, this is generally because the manufacturers don't support Linux. So what? Sorry, but it's still a valid argument against Linux. My Canon scanner doesn't work, and there's no driver for my particular
There are logical reasons for rejecting Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
1) OpenOffice.org doesn't use
2) Linux is different. Anytime there is something different, there is a cost of switching (you have to learn something new which costs you time - time you could use doing something better). Now, if Linux ran 2 million times faster, it would be well worth the effort to learn it since it would greatly increase your productivity. But Linux isn't amazingly better than Windows - I use Linux as my primary OS, but the difference is marginal, not night and day. Plus, there are consumer things (streaming audio and video, flash. .
People buy Windows with the expectation that "anything I want can run on Windows". There is a lot of great Linux software out there, but it just isn't the same as being able to head to BestBuy and grab the latest version of Civilization and be playing it that evening. And please don't say things like "Well, there's FreeCiv" or "They could use WINE" because we all know that it isn't the same. Also, please don't say, "they can replace iTunes with Rhythmbox" because they also are not the same.
The fact is that there are many logical reasons NOT to switch to Linux. Linux is great, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it beats Windows at every turn. There are many things that Windows does better (whether this is an outcome of market conditions or something inherent, consumers aren't going to care - telling the consumer that proprietary codecs and archaic market conditions are the things to blame for why they can't play their iTunes in Linux or watch a video online isn't going to make those files play any better and consumers don't care, we care but consumers don't).
Let's live in the real world where we can fight to get rid of the problems in both Linux and the market for operating systems so that we don't have to go around waving our arms saying "Linux Rules" - consumers will know it for themselves.
Swapping hardware (Score:2)
More is better, and free software. (Score:2)
Is this surprising? Many of us find ourselves living in a society that promotes the idea that "more is better". Many people go to restaurants where quantity is promoted over quality. Lots of individuals prefer to buy a large number of cheap goods over severa
The problem is complexity (Score:3, Insightful)
As an example, contrast installing NVIDIA's drivers under Windows and Linux. Under Windows, you download a driver file from NVIDIA's site, run it and then reboot your PC after clicking next a few times. Done. On Linux, however, that process is more like go to NVIDIA's site, download file, kill X (not a very simple task for newbies on distros which have things like GDM and KDM), find the file you downloaded using a terminal, run it and follow the instructions. If you're LUCKY, you won't need to build the kernel module and a prebuilt one is available. For everyone in the world ever, however, you need to futz around with GCC versions and kernel sources and what have you...
You see, most people would have given up as soon as GDM popped back up. Installing using apt-get or shell scripts or even configure; make; make install doesn't seem very logical to most people, they prefer just going onto a website, downloading a file and double clicking the icon.
Then there's the software which has numerous features missing. OpenOffice.org shines as an example of what software should NOT be. I tried running it on a fairly new PC, running WindowMaker on Debian. It was dog slow; menus took seconds to open, rather than being instant as they are on Windows. Just unusable. And it might sound like a small thing to some people, but there's a complete lack of decent MSN Messenger clients for Linux. The closest is Kopete, with Gaim frankly unusable, as Kopete has support for webcams and personal messages while Gaim does not. But still, on both a simple task like changing your nickname, changing your personal message or setting a display picture is a darn sight harder than it really needs to be. Hell, custom emoticon support would be nice. You might scoff at this, but for most teens and even some adults this is an important thing.
AmaroK is a nice application for Linux, one I do miss while on Windows (I run Win2K as my primary OS). But still, what Linux is missing is a Windows Media Player/iTunes-alike. Something that rips CDs, syncs to iPods, burns CDs and plays music files all in one program. Yes, you may cry, there's Sound Juicer/KAudioCreator and yes, there's Rhythmbox but both of those have very serious flaws. KAudioCreator is, and not to mince words here, a pile of shit. It is a pain in the ass to use, a pain in the ass to configure and a pain in the ass in general. Sound Juicer follows the GNOME philosophy of hiding features from the end user, and so is a pain in the ass to use. Grip, for all its power, has no usability whatsoever. What most people want to do is just open Linux Media Player, insert a CD, click the start rip button, wait 5 minutes and come back to find a load of MP3s. That's it. This is a serious failing on the part of Linux desktops, people like this sort of integrated functioning.
I'm not going to bother with the arguments about not having MS Office or games, because they're bleeding obvious and have been rehashed many times before. But Linux has a long way to go before it is even remotely as usable as Windows or Mac OS X. It's simply far too complex for the average end user to understand, and the software which most people want and need to use day in day out is woefully inadequate.
Re:The problem is complexity (Score:2)
I do this all the time with Grip (well, to oggs but otherwise); what's the problem you're having?
TWW
Re:The problem is complexity (Score:2)
It could be (Score:2)
There is no object analysis of what is holding people back and what the driver would be for people to switch and assumes that everyone else is ignorant and lazy. I know linux and every year try open office and am always disappointed with it. It many ways it is inferior and I prefer to pay MS $100+ than only use open office for free.
But I must be stupid and lazy.
Getting there (Score:2)
Anyway, I do think things have improved. Pretty much everything "just worked". NIC, Monitor, Video Card, Mouse, Sound card (Really!), SATA disks the lot. The install was very very simple, when I logged in all the updates came down from a local mirror (i'm assuming) at about 800 k/second and within a single reboot I had an entirely up to date syste
Bunch of reasons (Score:2)
I can think of a bunch of reasons:
Bad driver support.
Lack of adoption of automated installation tools.
Lack of core/common tools easily visible (simple stuff like a file system explorer or search).
Lack of easy to install software
Lack of ease when it comes to updating.
Complex folder naming convention in root folder (bin, boot, dev, etc, home, lib, mnt,usr)
Its easy for me to do
What stupid arrogance (Score:2)
What idiocy. It's people like this that hold back OSS. In essence, it's the same old "if only people weren't so stupid they'd all switch over from Windows."
What doesn't occur to this guy is that Microsoft doesn't sit around thinking of "unnecessary" feat
Too many people misunderstand. (Score:4, Informative)
Office alternatives are never going to unseat office until a few things happen:
1) The ease of use and development of a databse similar to Access is created. I've used a lot of databases, and none of match up feature-wise to Access. Yes, I know, there's more powerful databases out there, and ones that can do X. But none out there use the native Operating Systems widget set to build applications.
2) The interoperability of the various Office programs is unmatched. The ability to use a custom Database built in Access to pull information from the corporate server, which then uses Word to display reports, and Excel to put the information into usable formats is currently unmatched, and a bigger "unnecessary feature" than OpenSource developers give it credit for.
3) A long, hard, cold look needs to be taken at Office. As long as people continue to beleive that Word is "just a word processor" and Excel "just a spreadsheet", and Access is some "database throwback to the 90's" then you're never going to make any headways against office. The Win32 API/OLE/ActiveX/Acronym of the Day combo is a much more powerful set of tools than most people give it credit for.
4) Hardly anyone buys Office for home. Most of them pirate it from work. As long as work drives their usage of Ofiice, it's going to stay entrenched. As long as companies continue to use the "unneccessary" features of Office, nothing else is going to manage to make a dent.
Open Office isn't just a scapegoat (Score:2)
The real barriers of Linux desktop adoption (Score:2)
Unnecessary features?? (Score:2)
Thats not at all why we're not using Linux across the board at our company. We've used it as a server in the past, but never as a client. We use knoppix to debug hardware and the network but thats about it.
X's latency was an issue. This was brought up a few times on slashdot with the fanboys yelling and pretending there was no latency issue with X + decent windowmanager. Now both redhat and novell are releasing opengl-based X servers which will fix that issue. Next in the line is bin
400 users says its not that hard. (Score:2)
Whats hard w
It's the pro apps that are missing (Score:2)
I already use OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird in Windows XP. I'd love to convert to Linux, but the professional audio and imaging applications are still amateur.
The Gimp can't touch Photoshop for crucial features (CMYK, Pantone, for starters), and the GUI gives me migraines. Audacity is a decent audio editor -- not as nice as Wavelab, but useable. But there are still no audio content creation tools that can hold a candle to Calkewalk's SONAR. I could go on about Nvu versus Dreamweaver, or Sodipodi ve
A few reasons to switch. Many more not to. (Score:2)
There are a few reasons for wanting to change (expanding my resume, coolness factor, security), but there are far more reasons for not changing:
Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop: (Score:3, Informative)
2) Hardware. Since Linux only commands about one quarter of 1% of the desktop market, it stands to reason that hardware manufacturers are not overly concerned with making Linux compatible products. Linux will always lag MS in this area. I don't think I have seen Linux drivers included with any PC hardware. It is possible to put together a Linux box that runs all the hardware you need, but it takes a lot of careful planning. With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typically pre-installed, and any PC hardware comes with windows drivers. You can read right on the box which windows versions will work with the peripheral. With Linux you have to look it up, or guess. Even if a driver does exist, you may have to go all the web to find it, you may also have to compile the driver - which most average users don't want to do.
3) Cost. Practically all PCs come with MS operating systems installed. PC buyers will never get their money back for those operating systems. Which mean Linux is just an additional expense. You may also have to buy an emulator if you want to run your windows apps, or partition magic if you want to dual boot. Yes, OS-less systems do exist, but none of the majors sell them (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, Apple). Most people don't feel comfortable buying Wal-Mart or no-name PCs.
4) Performance. Without a GUI, Linux is very fast, and will run with minimum hardware. But, once you run KDE or GNOME, Linux performance is much worse than windows. I know there are other trimmed down GUIs, but they don't generally have the functionality of GNOME or KDE, and certainly don't approach the functionality of Windows or MacOS.
5) Lack of standards. No standard distribution, no standard interface, no standard way to upgrade, no standard installation for OS, or applications, or drivers. Frankly, no standard anything. Those who like to tinker endlessly consider this an advantage. But, the vast majority of desktop users don't want to endlessly tinker.
6) Support. Your ISP many allow you to use Linux, but don't expect the level of support a windows user would get - not even close. If a peripheral isn't working correctly, don't expect the hardware manufacturer to you if you are running Linux.
7) Convenience. With MS, the user can purchase a PC, with OS installed at any department store or electronics store. Applications are also easy to find and install. You never have to wonder if a particular peripheral will work with windows. You don't to search all over the web for drivers. You don't even have to install the OS. With windows you just go to CompUSA and pick up what you need.
8) Relative reliability. Linux advocates like to say that MS systems are too unreliable. That may have been true, with Windows 9x, but 2000 and XP seem reliable enough.
9) Available free software. Linux advocates also like to point out all the free applications that come with Linux, but there is tons of free software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice.
10) Ease of use and installation. Linux is getting better, but still lags MS.
Re:Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop: (Score:3, Informative)
True enough, although I anticipate this is going to be less of an issue. As more apps move to web based offerings this will go away for most users. Unfortunately there currently are often apps that users want to use that aren't available for Linux - this makes it difficult for the average user to convert. This is one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest.
2) Hardware...With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typica
Re:Top 10 reasons not to use Linux on the desktop: (Score:3, Informative)
My experience:
- My very standard HP Laserjet Series II has never worked with Linux. No problem with any version of windows, or MS-DOS.
- Even getting a DVD to really work can be a pain with Linux. Hate to even think about a DVD-RW.
- Scanners are a pain. Those multi-function printer/copier/scanners, almost never work.
- About 50% of the USA population still uses dial-up, and you
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of devices out there without ANY Linux drivers, such as recent ATI video cards, various wireless chipsets (and NDISWrappers is only a partial solution to some of them, especially if you need to do more advanced things like netstumbler), etc.. that's not even counting the stuff like the USB video encoders and the like.
This whole "out of the box" argument seems to be a smokescreen put up by people that don't want to argue about absolute driver availability.
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:3, Interesting)
This last week I did a massive hardware upgrade of two of my home machines, which required a from-scratch reinstall of Windows and Suse. I lost count of how many times I had to reboot with Windows - not just from the endless security updates and upgrades from Microsoft, but because I had to download the latest drivers for most of my equipment, install them, and *they* wanted to reboot as well.
Hours upon hours of acquiring drivers off the internet, downloading them, installing them, rebooting the go
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:3, Interesting)
If everything must 'Just Work (TM)', then you should not even need to install drivers on your system.
For this to work, one needs to be able to design an OS that can take into account the set of all hardware that exists and will ever exist, and to accomodate for that you should have a (very) limited set of hardware interfaces together with a limited set of protocols for each of these.
Of course, USB comes very close to this ideal. However, protocols depend upon their application area, and for every kind of
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
What should happen though, is that Windows Update should either find the new drivers for me, or tell me where I can get them.
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
Linux has more drivers out of the box then Windows does.
That might be, but how many of those drivers are actually useful to the average computer owner? In my experience, when buying new hardware, it usually isn't supported by Linux and is by Windows... for example, I bought two new computers last christmas - both really new hardware... guess what ? No linux support, only FreeBSD and Windows (ofcourse) supported it...
So next time you make those kind of claims, please consider that the amount of drivers
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
None of the things you mention is relevant to the "average" computer user. Whereas many of those devices are commonplace among Linux users.
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
Linux is wonderful when it works out of the box. But what's in the box is pretty much all there is, or at least there's usually a good reason it's not the in the standard kernel. Where does that leave you? Beta drivers? Experimental drivers? Cobbling together a wrapper and some DLLs from a random site you found on google? Kernel recompile? Face it, once you step outside the box 90%+ is crap and 90%+ of your users
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, but nevermind. As previously mentioned, XP "sucks out of the box" for drivers.
Forgot to mention: I do Apache devel... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's just not easy "enough" to switch, yet.
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
Re:Is the lack of drivers... (Score:2)
Re:That's Asinine; Preinstallation=Drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
As for 64-bit, can someone give me a good reason to have this on a machine who's primary purpose is to be an over-glorified typewritter? On a developer mach
Re:Which 50 features is that? (Score:2)
Re:Zealotry at work. (Score:2)
Exactly! Users aren't anything we can change, they're our measure of how well we're doing! Any excuses they have should be listened to. If we give excuses back, not only are we alienating them, but we're also failing to improve on their behalf, both equally bad.
"The customer is always right" is true. Anyone who thinks otherwise won't have customers anymore.
Re:Why they don't switch (Score:2)
I think Microsoft stopped documenting with an actual "manual" somewhere around MS-DOS 2.0. The "getting started" blurb which basically tells you how to load the CD and use a mouse hardly counts as "documentation" does it?
I'm mostly a Windows user but even I can manage to read the linux documentation that comes with knoppix, etc - not to mention the man pages.
The irony is delicious. (Score:2)
We are talking about the same person who owns a computer that, by every standard that matters, owns a computer more powerful than the supercomputers of the previous decade. That they have little technical skill is the problem. Mind you, windows does not magically alleviate that, but it does make them forget it. "Gee, it's almost like I have a skull that's not full of shit, sometimes windows does something like what I want, if I could only think
Re:Because installing/configuring Linux still suck (Score:2, Funny)
Re:FOr me, its (Score:2)
Or since you were likely a mandrivel weenie, it was "rpm -i"... not even 3, but one.
And that's somehow worse than install wizards that have you click on 40 buttons? That are obtuse, indecipherable, and install things you don't want, like adware? The ones that refuse to do what you want, even when you know what it is that you want, because it assumes that it knows better?
Sure, keep windows. I know better than trying to talk a masochist