Microsoft Plays Linux Games at Work 632
When I called him back, he thanked me for my quick response and said that he was new to Linux and wasn't sure if he'd installed the game right. He then said, "This machine is going to used for... well, I'm a Microsoft employee and my group is doing a usability study on Linux."
As it turned out, he had unpacked the tarball (I had to explain what a tarball was) on the CD by double-clicking its package icon in gmc and then double-clicking the install icon that came up. He had absolutely no idea where the game had been installed, and didn't know how to search for it.
At this point I pointed out to him that CivCTP came with a graphical install script, conveniently labeled "install" and placed in the same directory as the tarball. And in fact, in that same directory was a text file labeled "README" that explained how to run the install program.
I had him pull up a terminal window and run `sh install` (since he had a 4.5 GB drive containing only a fresh install of RH6, he wasn't too concerned with finding his previous installation just yet), and as the graphical install smoothly copied the files into their proper place, we chatted amiably.
Me: "So what kind of system are you using for this?"
Him: "It's a... [pause to read label on the case] HP Vectra."
Me: "Umm, what processor does it use?"
Him: "It's a Pentium III, uh... 450 MHz?"
Me: "Yes, PIIIs do come in 450 MHz."
Eventually, the installation finished. I encouraged him to grab the patch from our website, and he thanked me and hung up.
Ordinarily, I am very respectful to newbies. I don't even laugh at them behind their backs--especially if they have been looking through man pages and reference books trying to figure things out. This time I almost peed my pants.
Then the big question dawned on me:
What does it mean when Big Bill gives brand new P-III 450's running Linux to game-playing newbies who don't read reference books, manuals, How-To's or README's for a usability study?
Can you say "viable desktop environment?"
Note from RM: Yes, we verified the story. All parties are real.
What I want to know is.... (Score:2)
i can see it... (Score:2)
--Siva
Keyboard not found.
Figures. (Score:2)
I'm going to whack anyone who's asking why they're using clueless newbies. Microsoft is doing it for two reasons; one, a clueless newbie is the typical Microsoft customer. Two, a clueless newbie will easily get frustrated and say that Linux sucks, giving Microsoft more FUD ammunition. Both of those points should be obvious.
Microsoft is loading for bear with this. They're going to put all these total idiots on overpowered machines. They're going to have them use Linux for a few weeks. Then Windows 2000 for a few weeks. Release the 'study' as 'fact' and genuine 'scientific research' in their battle against all unixes.
Even Linus says Linux isn't ready or meant for the desktop. *sigh* Oh well. More Microsoft FUD on the way.. excuse me while I put on my PR Flak Jacket.
-RISCy Business | Rabid unix guy, networking guru
Former microserf (Score:5)
--Shoeboy
Hmm (Score:2)
BTW
And you know what ? They would be right.
Linux is NOT ready for the market MS owns now and won't be for some time ( and don't forget,it is unlikely that MS will be waiting for them to catch up.)
Bigger deal than we realize (Score:5)
While all the gnome, redhat, etc people involved can pat themselves on the back, this does point out some things that are really small that *NEED* to be done... off the top of my head I can think of:
1. Autorun.
2. a dummy-fied RPM/DEB/any other kind of package installer/viewer/uninstaller that can be used cross-distribution and cross-version with similar functionality to the dreaded "add/remove programs" control panel
3. less jargon.
We're getting there. While things may be in a state now where linux+gnome/kde+icewm/enlightenemnt/* may be "mom friendly". It's certainly not friendly to someone who's going to be installing hundreds of programs cluelessly every day -- like your average computer using teenager.
-Chris
Installing... (Score:2)
This isn't surprising at all. (Score:4)
Developers? No way! Once they got a hold of Linux they'd never go back to Windows.
Marketing types? Would you even try to sell Windows after using Linux?
Sales? See marketing.
FUD slingers? Nope. They couldn't even do their job anymore.
So who else do you hire other than someone expendable? Someone with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever? They'll probably poke his eyes out and sew his mouth shut after they're done with him.
Re:What are they doing playing games anyway? (Score:2)
Games are installed by users. Only.
-Chris
Re:Figures. (Score:4)
Id say: Leave a clueless user (tm) who has no idea about this whole computing thingie and whos not even willing to read any sort of documentation alone with a blank harddisk and a W98 install CD and guess what he will achieve? Yeah nothing. Right.
Windows has nothing to do with intuition, its only got to do with being used to it since years. Anyone whos grown up on Linux, will consider this an "intuitive" install:
$ tar zxvf tarball.tar.gz ./configure
$ cd tarball
$
$ make
$ su -c "make install"
Get the point?
-martin
The last Linux Frontier- Games (Score:2)
Perhaps not all that it seems (Score:4)
He may have been clueless or he may have just been acting that way.
Many people would just put the cd in the drive and *expect* an auto-install to start. If nothing happens, then they'll double click on some likely looking filenames in gmc/whatever.
Game installation now is a complete no-brainer compared to the bad old days when you had to run install programs from dos, make custom boot disks, maybe find a working video driver, yadda, yadda.
Win9[58] as a gaming environment is pretty good - most of the time you don't have to worry about stuff.
As for the 'newbie' not knowing what his pc is: chances are he was given a blank pc and a stack of CDs and told to install them and see how easy it is and if the platform is sensible for a *real* newbie, i.e. the 'foot pedal, cup-holder and monitor-stand' brigade.
dave
Re:Figures. (Score:4)
But take a deep breath. Microsoft is in the operating system business. I'm sure they've got legions of people doing "usablity studies" on MacOS 9, BeOS, OS/2 5, Solaris 7 and so on. Eventually reports get written, MS finds a few new features to steal, some contractors get easy money and everyone is happy.
Also, don't forget these guys are paranoid as hell. Why should they believe either Linus or the trade press when they say "Linux is not ready for the desktop", when they can afford their own usablity lab to make that determination for them.
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:2)
--
Jeremy Katz
Re:Installing... (Score:2)
People should know and never forget that EVERY SINGLE TIME security and/or stability collide with simplicity and slickness Microsoft opts for the latter. Yes, that means they get "cool stuff" like Autorun. They also get DLL hell and corrupted Registry information.
If you want to compare Linux's ease of use with Microsoft Windows' ease of use, you would have to have a Linux setup in which every user was UID 0, because that's the fair comparison: the guy in front of the terminal can do _anything_. Many of us find that an unacceptable practice.
Love to see the results (Score:2)
It will be, as you said, for a *nix vs. W2k study and there would be nothing better than releasing the rebuttal before the conjured up findings. So...
All you Linux techies get your facts straight on each of these calls, document them and be prepared for another X vs. M$ fiasco.
Relevance? (Score:2)
Furthermore, until you know what group the Linux newbie was from, you'll have a hard time finding the meaning of this (non-)event. And even if you did know, all you could deduce is that some pointy haired manager somewhere got a pawn of his to write him a "report" about Linux.
In short, if you think this is news, you need your head examined. MS has lots of Linux users on campus, lots of independent groups with their own motivations and interests, lots of competitors and lots of clueless contractors.
Move along, now.
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:3)
The one thing Microsoft has done right in that regard is the Office2K installer; it sets everyting up for autorepairs (even cooler than the Mandrake self-update, in some regards). We need an installer that's an imitation of it (but better!).
Off-topic, I know, but only a little bit.
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:3)
Keep 'em. Just associate a new looonngger version (perhaps to give a bit of context) with grammatical (not cryptic) switches.
Once people learn the long version they can still pick up the short one later.
The first one to create a very easy Linux will cash in, just watch.
Re:Usability study my foot... (Score:2)
Re: former Microserf (Score:2)
Re:Installing... (Score:2)
You can think about it this way... the install functions that actually do the install are not really part of Windows proper - but are usually components of a third party program called Install Shield. By the way, there is a version of Install Shield that will run on any operating system that will work with jars and has Java installed; it looks and works great in Linux!
NEXT QUESTION?
Re:What are they doing playing games anyway? (Score:2)
Yes, they are. Games on Windows are in VERY good shape. Two clicks from CD/Net to action. Most are quite stable. I'm just starting Linux gaming, but already I know it is WAAAY behind. When terms like "Good luck, not for the faint of heart" comes up in the help file, well, it's time to buy more caffeine.
Thus, an independant study shows, in 1999 Win98 is a far superior gaming platform. The 1999 part will most likely disappear after 2 years or so. Cynical and Microsoft = Effect and Cause.
Re: former Microserf (Score:2)
March of 99 was when I left MS. I have no idea what the current situation wrt linux is.
--Shoeboy
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:4)
there is this trend to hide the difference between data and programs, but it's absolutely WRONG. all it achieves is to blur the difference in such a way that you can no longer use your computer SAFELY without actively thinking about safety every five minutes. installing or running a program is supposed to take an actual (even if fairly minimal) effort, if only because it can do "very bad things" (tm) to your computer.
Re:Installing... (Score:3)
Wait a minute. Have you ever noticed how elegant the packet managers are in Linux distributions? You can update a lot of software by just giving one simple command. And if you don't like typing, do it with your mouse. There's no need to answer a lot of questions, shut down other programs or reboot.
I use NT at work and Linux at home. If I update Netscape on both, my RedHat-box does it in notime with a simple command:"rpm -Uvh nets*.rpm". On NT I have to shut down other software, dblclick on the icon, answer a few sets of questions, wait a longer time, reboot the computer and pray that it boots and doesn't give me a BSOD.
I used to pretty much trust NT until a simple installation of a sound card and it's driver resulted in constant boot-time-BSODs that required a reinstall from scratch.
Hello People!! You don't get it! (Score:5)
According to the fellow in question, they were performing a "useability" study. That means just that: useability. How easy is Linux for people who are not already accustomed to it to use?
So, why are they having people do studies on Linux? It's competition, and anyone who wants to compete will take a gander at the competition.
Why are they using "newbies"? Think about this. What good would it be to do a "useability" study on WordPerfect 3.1 using people who have already memorized all the fkey combos, or who know to look for fkey combos? NONE! Why? These people have already adjusted to the environment, and so any reports they have on how "useable" that environment are are SKEWED. People who don't know to read the manual, and don't know much about linux (or even computers, for that matter) are PERFECT for a true "usability" study. They allow a clearer look at how obvious and easy it is to do what you want to do. The question of useability attempts to answer the question: what do I have to learn in order to use this? Do you have to learn to install software in at least 5-6 steps (gunzip, untar, cd,
In this case, the answer is a resounding NO. Linux is complicated. Many if not most applications are distributed primarily in source-code format, which requires compiling, which requires installation of all the development libraries and toolkits, which requires keeping up with the most recent versions of these same libraries, which involves visiting ftp sites, which involves knowing about ftp-commands....and if not that, it requires discovery of rpm and it's man page, which requires discovery of man pages (not exactly the first thing that comes to mind when presented with a command prompt for most people), or it requires the discovery of gnorpm (not advertized as much as it is), which requires knowing why you need to be root for some things, but don't want to be for most things. Even just typing "help" provides you with a bewildering list of commands and a fairly cryptic set of symbols describing their use - BUT NOT WHAT THEY DO! (please, is anyone so deluded as to argue that any os that provides "trap [arg] [signal_spec
Suffice to say, to use Linux pretty much at all, you need to know A LOT about how it works, how computers work, how unixes work - some mixture thereof - to get ANYWHERE.
And why would they want to find out how "useable" Linux is from someone who already knows all about how to use and configure it? They don't. Because that information would be WRONG. At least, it would be in all areas that they care about.
Yes, it's funny. No, I don't know why. But it's newbies because that's the only kind of "useable" that counts for the mass market. "Useable" means "really fricking obvious" in the mass market. What's obvious to you and me is quite often nowhere near obvious to anyone else. Microsoft may be all about FUD, but that's not what it's doing here...at least, not yet.
Origin of GREP (Score:2)
[from the qed/ed editor idiom g/re/p, where re stands for a regular expression, to
Globally search for the Regular Expression and Print the lines containing matches to
it, via Unix grep(1)]
Don't be too hard on the guy (Score:2)
Linux users, of course, don't have it so easily. You have to deal with downloading libraries, extracting stuff from tarballs, fooling with gcc, and so on. Reading documentation is a necessary part of the Linux culture, and Linux users have accepted the complications as part of the package.
Unfortunately, we live in a point-and-click, plug-and-play world, and most people have different expectations of what computers should be like. Most computer users are not programmers, and they don't want to learn how to do anything complicated. The doctors and lawyers and teachers and car mechanics and whoever else demand SIMPLICITY, so they can continue to go about their daily lives.
You can't even expect programmers to part with this "I don't wanna fool it" mentality. I got my first exposure to UNIX in a CS course, and I got my first Linux CD from a CS professor. However, it's possible to go through college, major in CS, and graduate without having touched UNIX at all. I've taken courses at three colleges, and only one of them used UNIX in CS courses.
I guess my point is that the guy calling tech support represents most of the computer using public and that Windows 95 and the Mac OS set the standard for ease of use. People are beginning to demand that from Linux, and if it can't deliver, it's the fault of the OS, and not the user.
Take care,
Steve
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a supporter of Microsoft and am writing this from my Linux workstation.
Have you Beta Tested Win2k? (Score:3)
Three whole bloody hours.
I don't care what you say, even with all the dicking around it does not take that long to install any other OS, Linux included. The fact that W2k asks about one question and then goes "Please wait" is good, but jeez, I reckon they could warn you that you may as well go and watch "The Matrix" while you wait.
Easy installation is one thing, but trying to detect over a thousand devices over a two hour period is another.
Read the story again. (Score:3)
Re:exactly (Score:2)
Viable Desktop Environment... (Score:4)
Then the big question dawned on me: What does it mean when Big Bill gives brand new P-III 450's running Linux to game-playing newbies who don't read reference books, manuals, How-To's or README's for a usability study? Can you say "viable desktop environment?"
So, Microsoft's been touted for years for hiring smart cookies. Even with the degradation of its standards and practices, and the complacency of being the largest corporation with an enviable bottom line, it's not easy to walk in and get a Microsoft job.
I still expect that the guy who called up wasn't an idiot. Sure, hadn't yet looked at the machine that Bill bought him, sure, hadn't used Linux before very much. Isn't that the perfect useability test case ? And given that... how did Linux perform? The out-of-box experience seems to have failed.
I was on the team when Windows 95 was still called Windows 93, before it even grew the codename Chicago. At that time, the general manager of the desktop Windows Business Unit, Brad Silverberg, coined a mantra of the ideal in useability. He said that his [nontechnical] mother should be able to use Windows. Personally, I think we failed at reaching that ideal, but we made the right evolutionary step from Windows 3.1.
Now, how well can your mom use Linux?
What can we learn from this, boys and girls? (Score:2)
On another note: regarding the kick-arse computer this clueless user had, it's pitiful, but another painful truth is that the newbies, for some reason, always get the best boxen. I'm a developer for Intel (yes, spawn of Satan), and I work on a Pentium Pro 200. Meanwhile, the marketing guy next to me who has to call tech support and pay someone to come out and install his shareware for him, has a PIII-550 with gobs of RAM and a monitor the size of my cubicle wall. Go figure. And you'd think Intel wouldn't have any problem supplying the cool chips to its employees...heh, yeah, right. I'm sure Microsoft is much the same way...
Re:Perhaps not all that it seems (Score:2)
I expect once features like this become more common in Linux, game vendors will want to take advantage of them.
using clueless newbies for usability is correct! (Score:5)
In this one example they seem to be looking at
games. A game that can't be installed easily by a 10 year old with 6 months experience pointing and clicking on things is not a market threat to them. That's all they care about. The fact that it's "obvious" to you or me or anyone else how to install it does not matter. That's not the target market.
Put it this way: Have you ever been asked to do QA on or write docs for code that you've written? For real end users I mean here, not man pages or READMEs or comments in the Makefile. I have and I've seen the results of these attempts many times. IT DOES NOT WORK. you are too close to it. You don't know to explain the parts that the end user will find confusing because it's not confusing to you. You don't know to test a part of the program in a way you didn't think of because... well you didn't think of it.
Same goes for usability. You bring in the intelligent but ignorant. If they can't make it work it doesn't work - because they are the customers. After your ignorant pawn has done this
for a while they lose their usefullness because they also know it too well and are too close to it. And LO! a tech support rep is created! Been there, done that. Eventually the smart ones understand it too well and become terrible tech support reps because they can't explain it to the end user in tiny words that they understand.
MICROS~1, and any other company that actually delivers products to "normal people", understands this early on or they go out of business. This is often a blind spot for OSS advocates but ICROS~1 has always understood it quite well. Technology, Quality, Stability - these may be their blind spot but this isn't.
garyr
Re:Hello People!! _You_ don't get it! (Score:3)
This is actually an idea that I've stolen from Jurassic Park, but I think that there is a real (and bad!) movement in the US to make everything brain-dead. We try to minimize the amount of knowledge that you need to start doing something, at expense of how well or fast it can be done.
Oh well, I'm probably the only one who thinks this.
Prolly get moderated to flamebait, but oh well... (Score:2)
If there was one thing I could tell MS... (Score:5)
Use tcp_wrappers. The security benefits of tcp_wrappers have been proven by Wietse Venema; the rest comes only from my own meandering experience.
Run
If you're going to be paranoid and deny telnet and ftp in favor of SSH, don't send your mail passwords plaintext with POP3.
Maybe Linux will take over the desktop, maybe it won't. Maybe InstallShield for tarballs will be created; maybe it won't. Either way, your Mindcraft scores are half chance -- and so are everyone else's.
Be kind to your root partition. You'll miss it when it's gone.
If you don't know which direction your favorite window manager will go, don't worry. A lot of the greatest programmers I know had no idea what they were doing at version 2.2
Each day, activate a compiler flag that warns you.
Do not read Slate Magazine -- It will only make you feel ugly.
Accept certain truths as inevitable: USB support is dodgy, "stable" kernels will crash, and you too will lose your CHANGELOG -- at which point you will fantasize that when you were at version 2.2.x, USB suited your purposes, kernels never crashed, and people read their source code.
Read your source code. Source code is a form of nostalgia... it lets you pick it up, parse through the comments, and audit it to make better code in the future.
But trust me on the tcp_wrappers.
/* thanks to Baz Luhrmann */
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:5)
DON'T YOU DARE DUMBDOWN THE TERMINOLOGY!
Those are the words, new users have to learn it. Whenever you start something new, there's a learning curve. New terminology is part of it. UNIX is designed by a fundamentally different philosophy. If you want the M$-suck way, then stick with M$. (I really hate the concept behind fvwm95. The best way I've heard it described is as "methadone for windows users".)
Hell, even if you replaced "tarball" with "thingy" and "keyboard" with "doodad" you'd still have people saying "Ehhhh! That's too hard! `Thingy?' Why don't you just speak English!". ("tarball" is a perfect word. It's a ball of files and it ends in ".tar" what's so wrong with that?)
I've said it many times before (and people don't like it), but I don't think "Linux For The Masses" is a good idea. Does the person thinks "me too!" is being insightful really need (or should even have) a UNIX box sitting in their home? One of the major things that makes Linux great is the community, and the fact that the community as a whole doesn't just whine and complain, but is actually useful. Why is this? There's an entrance fee to be paid to get into the community, and you pay it by critticaly thinking. The Unwashed would do nothing but drown out the original community members with, "This is too hard!" (Don't believe me? Right now there's a Visa radio commercial running talking about online shopping that says, "Clicking is hard work." (And no, the don't say it in jest.)) These are the people I'm talking about. Give them a dreamcast-esqe device with email, a web browser, and a wordprocessor that's they all they need and really want. (I'm distinguishing between the "ignorant" and those that don't even try. It's the second group I don't think Linux should be marketed to.)
Personally I think the the people that spout that are either
People ask now, "Yeah but can my mom use it?", but a more question would be, "Yeah but does my mom need this?" (You don't see particle accelerators being sold at Sears now do you?)
</rant>
This is probably going to get moderated down as "flamebait" because it's a rant (and I don't deny that there's a viable reason for moderating it down), but Mr. Moderator, before you hit "Moderate" just think about what I'm saying. Which is basically this, "Linux is more OS than most people can handle. Sure they need something, just not this."
This brings up some nasty issues (Score:4)
The newbie doesn't understand mounting. That's step one. You can't even *read* the README on the CD until you do that. When you explain mounting, they usually say something like, "that's pretty stupid."
But that's not so much of a problem. The biggest problem, as I see it is the variable filesystem structure among distributions. There's tons of work being done on useability, etc, but it is pretty much in the context of one distribution at a time (SuSE installs KDE in
What is needed is an agreement on a filesystem structure, first and foremost. There was work being done on that, but where is it now??
How come I haven't heard a thing about it in *months*? I've heard so much news about new releases of XX distrib, XX desktop, etc. LSB? nothing.
I think that the importance of GUI install work should be downgraded to make room for this. When a developer can release a package and not have to supply different binaries for different distributions, we'll all be happier.
Ok, for small packages,
The worst thing is that this is an aspect of open-source that "low-ranking" people like me and many others cannot really make an impact in. This has to be done by Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, Debian, Corel, among others.
from another former microserf (Score:3)
This is a little bit off topic, but here goes...
For just everyday use (and not this usability study) - Microsoft doesn't really care what OS their employees use as long as they can perform their job functions. You can get quite a bit of functionality on their network with a Linux machine, especially with Samba.
The only thorn in its side that I heard of was that Linux didn't have an equivalent to the MS Proxy Client. I'm not sure if that has changed these days (someone chime in here?). So you couldn't really access the internet, except when web browsing.
But you could still use Netscape of course, and anything else provided it was not illegal software. Microsoft certainly endorses their own products, but if an employee feels more comfortable using Linux, and is still productive, then Microsoft doesn't care.
Just don't try calling their support desk for help
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:5)
I don't CARE what the difference is between 10W30 and 10W40 motor oil is. I don't care what my "CV joint" is. I don't have to know the difference between shocks and struts to drive my car. I never want to have to do more than put gas and windshield wiper fluid in my car in order to drive it. When I use my car, I want to get in, turn the key and go somewhere. Yes, I *do* have to know about the steering wheel, turn signal, gas and break pedals, but I don't have to know anything technical about the vehicle to use it properly.
That's how computers *HAVE* to be. Slashdotters and geeks in general have to get over this elitist view that newbies (and the general public) must learn how to do X, Y, and Z just to get their brand spanking new Linux install to a usable level and then do A, B, and C to get Whizz-Bang New Game(tm) working. Linux CAN fulfil this role, much better than Windows (or BeOS at this point). From a technical point, it's better than MacOS, so us geeks like it, but that has to be the target for a UI. Not just a GUI... the ENTIRE USER INTERFACE. Macs don't have ejects on the floppy drives for a purpose; it simplifies things. Yeah, us PC geeks get pissed off when we can't get our disk out when we want to, but that's life.
In order to win in the Real World, you have to cater to the masses -- NOT MAKE THE MASSES CATER TO YOU. Granted, many companies have made the public bend over backwards in the past (utilities come to mind real fast), but if it isn't easy to use, do what users need, or doesn't work, then they will move on to something else.
--
Here's the back-on-topic part:
Linux MAY be more than Mom needs right now, but she certainly doesn't need $400 worth of Microsoft OS and programs just to email Junior, surf the web, and type up her resume. As in the Dvorak article yesterday, when PCs get to be sub-$300 items, the OS and basic set of utilities and programs better clock in at free or darn close or it will completely screw the vendor. If we want Linux to be on there instead of WindowsCE, we better get a UI For Dummies on there. And fast.
-Chris
Re:Have you Beta Tested Win2k? (Score:2)
Well, it can take longer if you do an FTP install. However, it blows people away when you tell them that you can install 5.5GB of software from a single floppy disk.
Linux at Microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Origin of GREP - that guy got it right (Score:2)
Correct. The other answers aren't correct (especially not the one that mentioned "Gnu", given that grep existed long before the GNU project ever existed...).
Re:Origin of GREP - that guy got it right (Score:2)
Well, the other guy who said Global Regular Expression Print was right as well.
Usability study of what? (Score:2)
They get some guys who pretend to be clueless, make some calls and some mail list posts and see what kind of response they get. They can then tally up all of the RTFM responses, the support engineers who "almost peed my pants" with laughter (and then promptly posted to a Linux advocacy board), and compare those with the quality responses.
Unlike some hypothetical desktop-battle, this information can be effectively used by Microsoft in FUD tactics. "Our informal studies show that if you aren't proficient in Unix, the Linux tech support companies will just ignore you or laugh at you." This can go along way in scaring managers that are (rightfully) worried about the skill gap of their staff when it comes to Linux.
Re:Prolly get moderated to flamebait, but oh well. (Score:2)
It seems to me (any many others) that this is a wakeup call regarding how easy Linux (or any UNIX, for that matter) really is to a new user.
I want to see Linux flourish as a desktop environment. In many ways it has surpassed Windows. However, the battle isn't over yet. There are many issues that still have to be solved. The problem is that us "advanced users" don't think about them enough.
I have Beta Tested Win2k. (Score:3)
Or I tried to.
Easy to install? Not really. RC1 took two hour-long installs to actually get to the point where it would boot. When it did boot, the high-end video card in the machine (An Elsa GLoria) didn't work in anything other than 640x480 in 16 vibrant colors. There were no drivers for the card on Elsa's site, but I managed to convince the NT 4 drivers to work, after a fashion.
Easy to use? I guess, if you don't mind waiting. The default install came with all the needless crap turned on -- menus that fade into existance, all the ugly extras in Explorer that seemed to chew up CPU time rather than offer any useful features, even a cute little shadow under the mouse pointer that probably took up its fair share of processor cycles. Even after turning all the cruft off, the machine still ran like a three-legged horse. It felt _much_ slower than NT 4, which really is saying something. The video was unbearably slow, though using NT 4 drivers might have been the cause of that. Programs loaded slower. The machine took longer to boot and longer to shut down (which needed to be done often, even moreso than NT 4). Although it had a later version of DirectX than NT 4 SP3 did, none of the games I tried to use worked with it. (A few of them did in NT 4.) Internet Explorer kept forgetting that I'd told it to use a proxy server. Eventually I got sick of it and reinstalled NT 4.
The SP2 CDs just arrived yesterday. I'm very afraid.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:using clueless newbies for usability is correct (Score:2)
I agree, a newbie is the best possible person to use for usability studies. That is actually one thing MS got right: pop in the cd, wait, press the install button, fill in a few fields, (usually) reboot and off you go. Anoying for the advanced user, but extremly easy for the newbie (this is after my recent experiences of installing both NT and 95). However, anything more complicated (eg downloaded drivers), their model just doesn't work as well, nor for installing the os.
Poor Taste (Score:2)
Re:Have you Beta Tested Win2k? (Score:2)
Re:Viable Desktop Environment... (Score:2)
She manages quite well, thank you very much. Seriously, I set up a dual-boot for her a couple of months ago since she was curious about it because to all the recent hype. Now she uses Linux for some things and seems quite pleased that it never crashes. Surprised, even. She said one of the things she liked about it the most was the feeling of being "in control".
I think a lot of non-geek people will gladly learn a few more commands and what-not in order to have a PC that doesn't BSOD on them every time they turn around. Not all of them, but a lot of them.
Re:Hello People!! _You_ don't get it! (Score:3)
For a first-time experience, for the 'usability tests' that we're talking about, if you're looking to change something in the way your computer behaves, Windows gives you some clues from the get-go that the command line simply doesn't: try the big friendly button with the bouncing arrow saying "Start Here."
Inside there, a clearly-marked "Settings" menu, and inside there, Control Panels, Printers, so forth. Clearly-labeled hierarchical menus that lead you to figuring out where you're going, even if you're not sure. Once you get "Control Panels" open, there's a mess of nicely labeled icons to poke at and try to figure things out. From context, you know that everything in there is going to change some setting on the computer, and can poke around inside that context for a while until you get what you want.
The original poster's 'easier' alternative, the command prompt, offers no such context. Finding out that 'ntsysv' can change around certain settings is nice to know, but offers no context in finding out how to change _other_ settings -- commands starting with 'nt'? command ending in 'sysv'? Nope. No rhyme or reason. Or clues. Or hints. Or help. You just scratch around until you stumble across what you're looking for, and slowly accumulate knowledge. Maybe you find 'man,' maybe you figure out how the GNU info viewer works, maybe you have Gnome or KDE installed and can use THEIR visual context.
But if you plunk down newbies to a Win32 desktop and to a command-line Unix environment and just say 'go' with no further instructions, I think you know where my money'd be.
Now, me, I'm a command-line junkie. I _love_ it. I live at the bash or tcsh prompt all day, even on Windows boxes I administer (Cygwin's getting pretty cool these days). But to say that command line is '_so_ much easier' is simply wrong, and so I, too, hope the original poster was being tongue-in-cheek.
--
Innapropriate and pointless.. (Score:3)
Personally, I don't really think this is a good thing to point out at the end of a tech support call that outlines several of Linux's and it's various desktop systems weaknesses. Also, this should have never been made public. It gives Linux (and Loki) a bad image.
Employee: I can't get Oracle for Linux installed.
Boss: Call tech support.
Employee: But what if I ask something dumb and my call shows up on Slashdot and I have to quit my job and become a hermit?
Boss: Hmm.. good point. Let's use Solaris.
Re:from another former microserf (Score:3)
Re:Figures. (Score:3)
...but perhaps also an irritating one; much nicer might be:
where install_source is a script to do all of the above.
Yeah, I do that stuff by hand, but that's at least in part because I read the README and/or INSTALL first - which raises the point that it's not necessarily as simple as you describe.
Then again, a fair number of Windows programs installed with those Wonderful User-Friendly GUI Auto-Install Tools pester me with a bunch of questions about what directory I want to install the program in, blah blah blah, although at least there it offers me a default that's usually what I end up picking anyway.
Some of them also offer me different types of installs - Basic, Full, or Custom, and stuff such as that.
So not all Windows software is trivial to install, either, even with autoplay, etc.. (That stuff might, to some extent, be the equivalent of the details in a README or INSTALL file.)
So:
A better installation process than either the traditional UNIX one or the one I've seen with some Windows applications might be interesting. Is there any OS out there that's done it "right" or, at least, closer to "right"? Have some Windows applications managed to avoid an installation process that asks you lots of questions to which the answers might not be obvious? (Applications, that is, that aren't so simple as not to have to ask you questions. Or is that, perhaps, the way to simplify the installation process - Keep It [i.e, the product] Simple, Stupid?)
Linux, The Masses, and Information Appliances (Score:2)
I agree. Personally I don't see anything close to the Holy Grail of an "Information Appliance" yet. (Which is basically what we're talking about here.) Everything seems to be cheap PCs, or something that doesn't even come close to the versitility one needs. There doesn't seem to be a happy middle yet. You don't necessarily need majorly upgradeable hardware. (These things should be cheap enough for you not even really have to think about just going out and buying a new one.)
There needs to be the right kind of software too.
I agree it needs to be inexpensive, but by the same token it doesn't really need to be "full featured" either. Just all the common stuff. (Gimp is good example of this. It's powerful enough for you use without feeling tied and gaged (i.e. Paintbrush or xpaint) but it's not something the CIA would use to doctor photos either.) And of course the Interface needs to be clean. Personally I like the PalmOS UI. (Except for the dedicated writing area. I like WinCE's way better.)
Of course any IA is doomed to fail if you can't share files with the rest of the world, but again this is a software issue.
Bad, bad, bad, bad Loki (Score:3)
I'm even more disgusted with the
Please join me in boycotting Loki. I'm not about to trust these clowns with a tech support call, much less my credit card number.
chris
Re:You've got some problems with your story there (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, what are the circumstances under which you wouldn't just hit the "Next" button on the install "wizard" at that point, and would, instead, specify a place to install it other than the default? I've always found that particular part of the installation process for Windows to be an irritant, but there're presumably users for whom it's a necessity (installing on a file server? Or something else?).
(The stuff that offers you various types of installations, including "Custom", is also sometimes a pain; I seem to remember not always getting a good idea from it of what the consequences of choosing different types of installations, or of choosing to or not to install some particular piece in a custom install, would be, other than "it'll take up this much disk space" - but I think I've seen the same thing installing, say, various UNIX-flavored OSes, so that's not unique to Windows.)
The debaters here have largely talked aboot software installation on Linux (as a proxy for UNIX-flavored systems in general, although others may do things differently) and Windows; how does, say, the MacOS software installation process differ?
Starting with Civ? (Score:3)
Re:Hello People!! _You_ don't get it! (Score:2)
Re:Have you Beta Tested Win2k? (Score:2)
Nothing beats NFS installs though. At my last school we had a 100MBit network. I stuck Slack on a box and everybody installed from that. The teacher's jaw dropped, being used to the 10 MBit network at the university.
Yes, everybody in the class were Slackers (the teacher, too). I had a SuSE system for myself, though. I installed PHP and Apache on a Slackware box before, and it just took up a lot of time. SuSE can just make it work at installation.
Don't get me started on Win installs. I buy all "name-brand" components and still it crashes over and over on install. I think it averages about 5 during the install alone, in my experience.
Then, I have to, ugh, install all of those damn drivers and then apps. It takes about a week (a conservative estimate) to get to where a big distrib like SuSE or Debian gets in a day (including apps).
Anybody who thinks Linux is hard to install is living in a dream world. It's after the install where everybody should be working on useability now.
Warning: I like subclauses. (Score:2)
$ tar zxvf tarball.tar.gz
$ cd tarball
$
$ make
$ su -c "make install"
- what are you, retarded? unquote, will say "No, *that's* retarded. The mouse has been around for 15 years. Why can't I just poke the file with it?" And so Corel tries to make it happen, while RHAT makes its manual a hundred pages longer.
Now, before you get all worked up and start goin' root-this and null-that, you should know that I *want* to use a *nix, because I know what's good about all of 'em: they work right. That's why I don't use WinAnything, even though I "should," being a luser. I've got a relatively useless iMac staring at me right now that I want to run YDL on once the G4 arrives, because I figure a Linux OS will make better use of the little girl's limited memory while doing silly crap like slashdotting and visiting alt.fan.traci-lords. For me (non-sysadmin, non-dev), that's about all Linux offers right now. But to do work, I need two things (aside from Photoshop; don't get me started about GIMP (argh!)): solid uptime (which *nix has) and a GUI for every occasion. Mac OS 8.6, though it chews through memory like mad, almost has the second. There are Windows-style pop-up menus down in the left corner, GNOME-type open-app buttons in the right, a bunch of specialized 3rd-party menu-bar pulldowns and "virtual desktops," and, as a plus, the native scripting language is ridiculously simple (and works with almost every application). I use all of these, all the time. What I want is a command line. I know how much faster it is to grep than it is to use the Finder, and I'd like to be able to do more while keeping all my windows open (script-on-the-fly, for example). A real "EasyLinux" would be perfect. But there isn't one. Not even close. I don't wanna *make* nothin' but pretty pictures and invoices.
And unfortunately for The Movement (which I truly do love), Mac OSX Client, a prettied-up and expensive BSD, probably will be exactly what I (and most everyone I know, almost uniformly Mac- and Be-using graphics/publishing/music pros) need. We don't like that it's not really Free(TM) and isn't particularly anti-MS, but so what? Got work to do (if I ever shut up).
And if Linux can't even convince a super-luser like me, it's valid to ask what my mom (whose computer is so damn nice I pray for her death daily) and some doofus trying to play CivIII and listen to Korn mp3s are going to think of it. The word "retarded" springs to mind.
Re:Figures. (Score:5)
My father has spent some 20 years working with computers, most of them in a DOS environment. Recently he had to adapt to win95 and I was trying to teach him the basics. Now my father can issue 'arcane' commands like copy and mkdir and fdisk, and he has even mastered wildcards and such. He can program, and he can compile his own programs. Yet, it took him some thirty minutes to grasp the idea that "when I drag a file on another directory, the file is not moved, not copied, instead just a shortcut is created" After some frustration, he realized it'd be quicker to do it through the prompt, and he never used windows eplorer again since. Then I had to explain about shortcuts on the menus and desktop.. which eventually led to the question "can't I just add the damn directory to the $PATH??" Great fun!
Intuitive interface is an interface that provides you with an easy-to-grasp expectation as to what will happen when you do some action, and that fullfils that expectation. Well, I never really understood how that applies to Microsoft's interface. It harldy ever manages to do what I expect to happen.
It is natural with users of an interface to get comfortable with it over time. But intuitiveness does not refer to that. It refers to making users comfortable with the interface without prior experience and habitual familiarity with it.
Nick Moraitakis
Re:Bad, bad, bad, bad Loki (Score:4)
Um, this wasn't exactly a Loki press release. This was an individual employee, not speaking for the company, who I doubt even asked his supervisor if he could spread the story.
A few people here scream "boycott!" at the drop of a hat (which is often red, incidentally).
It doesn't solve anything.
You boycott a company that hires child/slave labour in foreign countries. You boycott companies that destroy the environment or personal freedoms. You don't boycott trivial stuff like this. Few people will listen to you.
Instead, a linux company does the same thing and suddenly it's "Microsoft is hiring idiots and trying to spread FUD, blah blah blah".
Actually, most of the talk on this story is about useability issues with Linux. To top it all off, I see lots of agreement that Linux does lack useability in many areas.
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:2)
That's the fucking point. There are people out there for whom even having to know about the steering wheel is "too technical". And their number will only grow if this "dumbing down" philosophy goes on.
Maybe we should remember the old adage that "there's not such a thing as a free lunch"? If you want to enjoy all the wonderful things that a computer can do for you, you'll have to make a little effort to learn about it. I'm not talking about writing your own device drivers; I'm just talking about knowing that you cannot drive your car telepathically.
Re:Bad, bad, bad, bad Loki (Score:4)
Like hell, they didn't. They said that he was a male Microsoft employee that worked on a project which was evaluating Linux. He had a 450MHz PIII with a Loki game installed on it. Believe me, he would not be that hard to track down.
Since this was never a "real" tech support call, is any "real" privacy being violated?
Uhm, it looked pretty damn "real" to me. What, are you saying that this tech just made up this story?
Are you also going to boycott all Microsoft products because they are trying to fake a study on Linux usability?
Who said anything about faking a story on Linux usability? Corporations test out competitors' products all the time, to help them improve their own products. The only thing we know about this was that this was a usability test. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:2)
If it found dpkg it converted itself into a deb and installed itself.
The same with rpm. If it found nothing it just installed as a TGZ.
If you want it, email me and I'll dig it out. Its just a bundle of shell scripts.
Re:Bad, bad, bad, bad Loki (Score:2)
I agree with you that my use of the word "boycott" was a little too strong. I'm serious when I say that I have doubts about Loki's concern for customers' privacy but I will not judge them until I see an official Loki press release on this. If they publicly apoligize, then I will know that this tech support person screwed up and that this is not the way Loki treats their customers. Otherwise, I can assure you that I won't buy any of their products.
chris
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:2)
I'm guessing that quite a few folks feel like me, that is to say, if it becomes reduced to a toy for the lowest common denominator, then I will seek a new platform. I always liked FreeBSD
Linux didn't get to be even this grown up by pandering to every trivial fashion to come along.. Frankly, if I wanted a brain-damaged box, hobbed by trying to be overly friendly, I would have bought another Mac...
Re:Hello People!! _You_ don't get it! (Score:2)
For the kinds of operations that average users spend most of their time doing - moving files around, cutting and pasting bits of documents - Windows has plenty of shortcuts that even occasional or inexperienced users quickly become accustomed to, but at no stage is the user thrown in at the deep end and expected to pick them up straight away. Result: for an average user, Windows is easier to learn and easier to use.
"Designed by idiots for idiots" should be the mantra of anyone who seriously wants to take on the mass market.
Re:You've got some problems with your story there (Score:2)
In linux, if I have multiple drives or partitions, I mount them accordingly, and netscape goes where it should by default! It doesn't need to know or care what is happenning on the FS or hardware level.
Also, that "Last Known Good" hardware choice for NT has NEVER worked. I support 60 NT boxen, and 5 NT servers, and I have NEVER been able to get that to work. Even hardware profiles being created don't help, for some reason. And guess what Tech Support is gonna tell you to do?
And hopefully noone is an idiot enough to overwrite their old kernel without first booting to the new one...
Descent from Paranoia (Score:4)
This is NOT a competition against Microsoft. Don't use Linux as your private banner for campaign against Microsoft - or any other competitor. Those of you who do are working directly against Linux. I refer you to the crusades, the spanish inquisition. Both done in the name of Christianity. Both waged against an enemy that any convert could see was evil.
Microsoft is big enough that if the Linux following tries to make sure Microsoft can never out do Linux *by observing* Microsoft at the microscopic level, then Linux will turn into a Windows parasite.
I would suggest that Netscape's biggest undoing came not from Microsoft, but from Netscape. They got too obsessed with 'beating down Microsoft', and less and less focused on 'making a better Netscape'.
By Netscape 4.5, Microsoft didn't really have much to compete with.
I realise people are going to jump up here and tell me how the court case helped thus and something else did that.
But do we have a great web-browser? No.
Microsoft play a game, a competition. Linux has no need to enter the bullring. Remember what makes Linux what it is is people developing Linux for users, developing Linux for sys admins, developing Linux for deployment. Don't turn this into Linux development for comparison charts.
Oliver
Dangers in dumbing down (was Re:Bigger deal than (Score:3)
One of the reasons I use Linux is that I'm relatively immune from the viri and other nasties which affect the Windows world. An important reason why I'm immune is that foreign software, if it is to do anything serious to the system, must be installed as root, and anything which I install as root I have the sourcecode to and have usually compiled myself. I usually haven't crawled through that code to check for hidden nastiness, but I could if I wanted to.
Recently I've had packages (mostly Java ones) which come with MS-Windows-like graphical point and click installers. To install these you've fundamentally two choices: to install them in the user space of some user, as that user, in which case you've immediately got problems with other users using the same software; or to install them as root, without being able to do 'make -n install' first to see what the hell they're up to.
This is what you're asking for if you ask for a point-and-click RPM installer. It would have (in the general case) to be su root, because otherwise it couldn't install into privileged parts of the filesystem; and before you know where you are you would have masses of hostile variants of well-known RPMs installing trojans and trap-doors and worms all over the shop.
Now, of course, we elite
but the newbies and journos and other less elite and refined Linux users would be, and they would not be impressed. And then the media would be full of stories about how insecure and risky Linux was and we'd lose all the ground we've gained over the past years.
There really is a significant engineering trade off to be made here. Microsoft (and Apple before them) know this perfectly well and have made a conscious choice to go for ease-of-(unskilled)-use over security and stability. And Microsoft are now moving from that extreme ease-of-use position towards a still easy to use but more secure position by using installers that look at digital signatures and so on before installing a package.
Remember, we (the Linux community) are not competing with a bunch of incompetent morons here. We're competing with an extremely slick and professional marketing organisation, who hire very capable software engineers. We've got where we are because we occupy an ecological niche that Microsoft hasn't yet occupied: something with better security, but a bit harder to learn. I don't believe we can compete with Microsoft in their core market, because they are already established there and they are very good at what they do.
If we erode the things which make our product distinct from theirs we risk losing our market share, with (in my opinion) little prospect of taking theirs.
What we need to do is not change our product (at least, not radically) but to educate the marketplace to see its benefits. Our message must be 'Yes, linux may be a bit harder to learn, but the improved stability and reliability are worth it'. Instead of going out to capture their market, we need to bring (some of) their market to us.
Standard development machine... (Score:2)
--
Linux usability and its implications (Score:2)
It's not FUD. Linux is not usable by most of the world's population, and it was never intended to be. Linux remains a technical, enthusiasts' OS; to use it to do almost anything at all requires a vast store of knowledge and familiarity with the functioning of the OS and programs. Think of all the concepts we understand and take for granted:
This lends itself to more of a learning cliff than curve. Most of the world's population doesn't even want to know what a filesystem is. They just want to be able to press a button to send email to Jimmy. If they're going to use Linux as a desktop OS, they need to be abstracted from all the internals of the machine.
Linux, even pre-installed with KDE/Gnome, is nowhere close to this. I would never recommend Linux to a non-technical-enthusiant in a million years. If you had to give OS support to your clueless grandmother/uncle/neighbor, which you rather they use--Linux or 98?
The important question is: do we really want these people using linux, in any form? It's not as easy a question as it might sound. On one hand, pretty much all Linux users dislike Micro$oft. We're all happy to see a proprietary, closed, inferior OS get trashed by Linux. The rapid expansion and public hype has also benefited the Linux community immensely. A couple years ago you never would have seen useful things like QT, XFS, and Darwin open-sourced, major games on Linux, or graphics companies releasing Linux drivers... Such benefits will continue to flow as more people and hence desktop applications support linux.
But there are also dangers if this increasing popularization of Linux were to occur, more than just the irritation of having users that don't understand what a tarball is. The reason most people I know use Linux is because it's so complex. What first attracted me to Linux was its complexity, its power, and the ability to manipulate, control, and monitor the OS on a low level.
The problem is that while ease-of-use/idiotproofing and power can coexist, it's a difficult and unstable situation. As it stands now, most programs cater to advanced users -- text
Programs that might otherwise be ported to Linux as it is now, with full functionality, could work only in user-friendly mode. Hard-core Linux users could face the unpleasant choice of either 1) contuining as they do now, compiling software, not using insecure features, and being unable to use most software out there, or 2) having to deal with many of the annoyances of Windows, except on Linux.
So think through the issue carefully before espousing Linux as the OS of the masses... do we really want Linux to be an OS usable by those who have no idea how it works? Or do we want to keep it an OS for technophiles, one that chooses power, flexibility, and security over ease-of-use and simplicity? I know why I use Linux; the choice is clear to me. There are enough tech-loving people around to make linux a viable, well-supported choice without opening it the masses.
Ali Soleimani
Caltech math/physics undergrand
alis@caltech.edu
Re:What are they doing playing games anyway? (Score:2)
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:3)
Coaxial, you are the voice of reason. Thankyou for speaking in defence of Linux. When Linus began Linux, he set out to build a free Unix-like operating system, not a contestant for dominating OS of the Universe. He wanted Unix, but now so many people who want an alternative to MS have attached their allegiance to Linux. However, they don't want a Unix-like OS, they want an OS for everyone.
Unix isn't about dumbing down, it is about empowerment through knowledge. The more I learn about Unix, the more I discover I can do. Most of the things I am thinking of here cannot be expressed efficiently in a GUI (OK I can think of a way to make a GUI environment for shell-scripting, but it doesn't speed things). Unix isn't about catering to the consumer.
Essentially, to cater for the consumer, you would have to remove most of the things that make Linux so great. The multi-user environment is fundamental to Linux security, both from the outside world and poor-quality local code, but logging in and maintaining user accounts gets in the way of the consumer, so throw it away! Then we don't need to worry about file permissions and ownership, after all they just get in the way of the consumer, so throw them away! The consumer finds it inconvenient and difficult to build from source, so throw away the development tools, and open source! Eventually you end up with a free Win9x.
I'm not saying that consumers shouldn't be allowed to use Linux. I'm saying that consumer interests should not be allowed to damage Linux. If you manage to create a Linux distribution that caters for the consumer without damaging the source tree by removing things, just by setting things up so that they are easier, it will likely get Linux publicity. It will give the wider populace the impression that Linux is a low-end OS that doesn't doesn't have powerful (OS) features, and probably with masses of people that find clicking difficult, low stability.
Let consumers have Linux. But don't prevent anyone from having a free Unix-like operating system. Don't let the one of the most brightest public displays of open source go out.
Re:Figures. (Score:2)
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:2)
Computers should be as easy as cars? Well, do you have to have a driver's license for a computer? Do you have to take a driver's test? Nope. You just have to learn a few things about "driving" the computer.
Cars are really not that simple. You have to know about all the traffic rules. For some people that's really tough. However, you learn them by reading, not by just driving around hitting people and then complaining how this thing crashed :-)
You really don't have to change engines or gas in your car. You don't have to change network cards and hard disks either. Where's the difference?
But then again, if you want to use the computer easily, I have one for you. It's called Barney. :-)
I understand MS's position (Score:2)
Disclamier: I do not hate Linux. I think it's a good OS depending on what you want to do. I just feel like MS is a better choice for a newbie and for me
Re:Document Reading. (Score:2)
What's so special about this event? (Score:2)
From the point of view of "Microsoft spying on Linux" it is not exactly breathtaking news that Microsoft might be playing around and doing tests on competitor products. I would bet my left hand that it's not the first or the last time they do this, and it's not even worth noting as a practice in this industry.
I can hardly consider this article "news".. I would more easily classify it as "gossip", given that I also have my doubts as to whether it is an admirable practice to publicize the contents of private support service calls.
Perhaps this article has given foot to an interesting discussion over UI issues.. but nevertheless this could have been achieved without introducing tabloid-style gossip headlines such as "Microsoft plays Linux games at work" What's next? "Microsoft runs out of sanitary paper?" or "Bill's X-lover reveals true nature of company name?"
Nick Moraitakis
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:2)
I don't CARE what the difference between glibc 1 and 2 is. I don't care what "CVS" is. I don't have to know the difference between kernel 2.2.6 and kernel 2.2.10 to run my desktop. (Faster and stabler than Windows, but that's another post). When I use my desktop, I never want to have to do more than turn the computer on and change my screen-saver. When I use my desktop, I want to doubleclick on something and start writing my reports. Yes, I *do* have to know about the mouse, both buttons, and my username and password, but I don't have to know anything technical about the O/S to use my desktop properly.
Am I missing something here, or is this already the case? RedHat 6.0 will boot from my CD and do everything except note that my mouse is an intellimouse on its own*; if they included AbiWord (for example) in their install, I'd never have to do anything else.
Nonetheless, I happen to know the differences between shocks and struts, and the grades of gasoline, and what the difference between 10W30 and 10W40 motor oil are because they make me a more effective user of my automobile. I also happen to be an inveterate tinkerer, so I also know how to rebuild an engine from scratch, if you'll send me the plans. Heck, I'm building my own car right now, from parts and plans other people supply; I'll be selling the plans into the public domain once I finish.
As it stands, most people are ignoring the vast majority of things they can do with 'computers' (in most cases, with their favored productivity app(s)) because they are either unwilling or unable to learn about the rest. I am an elitist; I don't necessarily believe that the Linux Command-Line Way is the Right Way, but there is a learning curve, especially for Windows**. (I went from an Apple IIGS to a Win3.1 PC box, and I was lost as all get-out until I sat down and read the manual cover-to-cover. The Apple IIGS was a triumph -- an totally general information appliance. Only if you stuck the GS/OS or Finder disks in specifically did you even realize there
However, alot of the general resisistance to dumbing-down comes from (geek) culture rather than technical issues***. It goes against what's valued (especially in the gift culture that's developing these applications and operating systems about which you're pontificating) to dumb things down, though not to make things better. In many cases, the two are diametrically opposed. (Also, the less-choice-is-simpler camp attacks the liberterian in every geek.) Our gift culture values displays of competence, pretty much. Social standing is generally taken in terms of competence (up to wizardry in areas); it's no suprise that Joe WinBloze user is universally reviled. No one objects to mpeg123 front-ends, but using a front-end in this case actually gains you a significant amount of functionality; and the command-line is still there if you ever (cronjob alarm clock, anyone?) need to script it. So there's a certain prestige attatched to the mpeg123 front-end builder.
I personally used fvwm95 until I got my hands on KDE, so I don't find it particularly disturbing. It also means that I personally know that it's possible to move from the wrapper to the real thing (so to speak -- not to be dissing fvwm95). On the other hand, while WinLinux is technically impressive (slurping h/w settings out of the windows registry and translating that into Linux drivers & setup is decidedly non-trivial), not many
Elegant (in the classic sense) designs are always easy to use, and that's what we should be aiming towards. The opposition stems from the dumbing-down process not generating an elegant design. If you
Intuition is wrong enough frequently that it's not always a good design...
-_Quinn
* Admittedly, the defaults aren't particularly brilliant, but that's life.
** The major advance of Windows 3.1 was the GUI for applications, not for the system. This is where Win9x went horribly wrong. It's a given that the computer won't always be right, so treating cases where it isn't as exceptions is a Bad Idea and tends to break things. (That is to say, I
I know it's admitting to being horribly inadequate, but I don't know TeX, and find that WordPerfect 8 and/or AbiWord satisfy my writing urges completely (except for WP8's broken postscript generator). I know I'm not a Real Coder because I like using jcc over emacs or pico. (Though I do keep an xterm handy for doing the makes, because my Makefiles would give makemake the shaking fits.)
*** IE, we're not building a homogeneous system here; interoperability is going to be a bitch. IE, mounting is the Right Thing to do; is automounting? (For the "Why should I have to 'mount' CD-ROMs when they 'just work' in Windows?" questions.) It is the Right Thing to distribute applications as source; should we adjust the LSB so that there's a user-writable subset of directories for scripted installs? Should we ship our distro with '.rpm' as a MIME-type for netscape so we can 'just download' a binary-form application?
Re:using clueless newbies for usability is correct (Score:2)
1) HELP is not cool (kewl/c00l);-) ("If you can't find it out by reading the manual or the README, thou art not worthy")
2) HELP-files are really hard to write. Big companies have people working for them doing nothing but making manuals, and these professionals are the people that make those incredibly clear, easy to read, VCR-manuals!!!
Truth is (IMHO) that if you guys want to give Linux a place on the desktop, you will have to cope with (l)users.....
What Linux probably needs is a "TESTGROUP" of some kind. Maybe just a bunch of (ex-)WIN users that are genuinely interested in Linux, but just can't get it working.
Truth is, I am such a person. I'd love to try and get Linux on my machine, but it's just too damn hard... Well, maybe I'm just a lazy bastard....
Bauke
_
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Cars/Computers: BAD analogy (Score:3)
If you must have an analogy, I suggest computers to vehicles. Maybe you need a car, and I need a dump truck, and someone else would need a jet.
If you must have an OS for the masses, then why don't you write one? Linux was written to be a powerful, Unix-like OS. That's why Linus started on it in the first place. I don't see why it has to meet the needs of every single person. If you want a free home-user OS, there's plenty of GPL'd code you could use to start building one.
Linux Passes, Civ:CTP fails (Score:3)
I think in this case Linux actually passed extremely well. This guy has done a complete install of Linux, obviously got the desktop working to the extent of browsing the filesystem and CD in the GUI.
It's CIV:CTP that's failed if anything. I bet if their install had been called setup instead there would have been no problem.
I've seen plenty of software that's difficult to install under Win, and most that's impossible to uninstall. Quite often with NT some stuff can't be installed without administrator perms because obviously all DLL's have to go in the system directory.
I used to use Linux as a Microsoft Employee (Score:2)
Mounting disks (Score:2)
Somebody (if I ever get the time I'll look into it myself) needs to modify autofs so that a mountpoint can be specified, and will show up in the automount directory, but won't be mounted until you actually try to enter that directory and retrieve the file list. That way, under [Gnome|KDE|Enlightenment|*], there will be an icon for drooling user boy to click on. This would go a long way to making Linux easier to use.
Now, re: Loki's install. The biggest problem with the install script that I had was that it was not tagged as executable on the CD. That means that:
Now, I agree that autostart on programs is a BAD IDEA. I turn it off on my W9bluescreen systems, but it does make it easier for luserboy to run his stuff. I have a friend who has a five year old. She can play her games on the computer, since they all autostart. She finds the CD, puts it in the drive, and there is her game. There is no way my friend will leave that system in Linux and have to deal with a cranky kid! But, autostart should be an option (perhaps a daemon that is launched (or not) on a per user basis when you log in AT THE CONSOLE.
Lastly, the LSB needs to push some sort of standardized installer, be it RPM, DEB, or supercilfragoulishexpealidous. But it needs to be standardized, it needs to be able to set up any and all desktop managers (i.e. the various GUIs need to settle on a standard, common way to set file associations, icons, etc.), and it needs to work both as a GUI and CLI app.
Make no mistake: if we do not make Linux desktop ready, Bill will bide his time, gather his strength, and when he is ready, destroy us. In his world view, "There can be only one."
Does my girlfriend's mother count? (Score:2)
It's running RedHat Linux 6.0, updated with KDE 1.1.2, and heavily tweaked by me to make it easier to use. Sure, it took me two days to configure the machine so that I was happy with it - but after I was done the result was really very good. With constantly improving distributions and apps, I expect that next time it won't take me two days to get even better results...
Linux just works. Making it work the way you want it to is getting easier every day - and that includes making it user friendly.
The problem with most usability tests, is people are testing users who already have Windows or Mac experience, and therefore expect certain things from their computers. If Windows users hate using Macs and vice versa, is it fair to expect either to like Linux? A valid test would involve a well configured machine and a complete newbie. I'm getting the distinct impression that Linux can do a pretty good job in that scenario.
IE, Microsoft are stupid... (Score:2)
If Microsoft needs to do hands on tests to figure that linux is unfriendly to newbies who can't rtfm and are trying to manage their own machines, they really are as stupid as many people here seem to think.
The problem for MS is that a large portion of their constumers are not in this situation at all. I probably could not get many of my non-geek relations to move to Linux today, because they manage their own machines to some extent and don't have the enough interest to learn something new and complex.
My parents (and my surfin grandma), however, never do any management or installation on their own windows machinse anyways, so if it wasn't for the MS-Office thing I could move them straight over any day now (if they were still living in the same country as me that is). All they have to do is learn to click on an icon in KDE instead of Windows 98.
As Linux gets more and more simple and the average knowledge of computer users increases, the middle group is shrinking.
-
Here's your new Turing Machine, Mom. (Score:3)
That's the drill: put a Turing Machine on your mother's desk, but hamstring it first, so it won't do anything that would make her need to ask a question or two.
That's fine for an appliance, but let's not call the result a computer.
Ease of learning vs Ease of Use (Score:3)
Windows is much easier to learn than Linux. Sit pretty much anyone down who knows how to mouse, and (for example, an experienced Mac user) and they'll probably be able to get a lot of things done. The reason is that the GUI provides a lot of context for you- look at an empty screen, and there's a big start button that will lead you to almost everything that's useful on the computer with nice hierarchical labeling.
This does NOT mean that Windows is perfect in this regard- knowing to move a little box with a wire sticking out of it to make an arrow on the screen point at something is a new concept for a LOT of people. But it's possible for a reasonably computer literate person to use without reading any documentation.
It is not possible to find most of the useful things on your average Linux box by pointing and clicking. Yes, it *can* be set up this way for "normal" end-user tasks if someone knows what they are doing comes along and puts all of the right things in (for example) the KDE menuing system. But putting anything new onto the machine (or doing serious reconfiguration work) requires a lot more knowledge than you're likely to get by pointing and clicking. Even finding the right docs can be a real challenge.
But this is all about the first time you use a system. What about the 100th time? If you're a patient user and have taken the time to learn what to do, the problem changes entirely from "how do I find things" to "how do I get to what I need efficiently". IF you know Linux, it's very efficient to get around in. The command namespace is flat- there is no hierarchical set of menus to click through to get to what you need, so every command is at your fingertips if it's in your brain. Most things can be automated with scripting if you know what you're doing, and if typing three keystrokes to get your favorite text editor open (vi) is too much, you can alias it down to two.
My point is that "usability" is not a simple scale with things that are "usable" and things that aren't. A lot of you who love Linux today (including me) would hate some of the changes that would be required to make it more friendly for newbies, because it would sacrifice one kind of usability for another. And no, you can't always have it both ways... some of the properties of Linux that make it so powerful (customization) also fundamentally decrease the newbie-friendliness.
Re:Linux usability, and its implications (Score:2)
Actually, Linux might be able to have it both ways, by providing an ease-of-use layer (aka straightjacket) on top of the naked power of the basic system. I just urge those building the EOU layer not to introduce incompatibilities with the base system, so that software not explicitly invoking EOU features will remain portable.
And don't saddle us with a Macro Virus Support System under the title of "integration".
Re:i can see it... (Score:3)
Or VCR's. I still can't get mine to work;P
I'm a recovering Windows user, and for the most part using RH6 is at least as easy as the first time I tried to use Windows 95.
The fundemental problem with computers exists most often between the chair and keyboard. Hoew much easier is it supposed to be exactly when Microsoft even takes care to put a help entry two or three spots up the bottom from the start menu? The guy in this story saw the words README and didn't even think to check there first.
Don't get me wrong though...It gives me hope that Red Hat may be onto something basing their business off of supporting people. They'll always need it.
This simply isn't right.. (Score:3)
I don't care if they changed the name or not.. It was tacky, and makes Loki look bad..
"Hey guys!! I work at a sex hotline, and I just got a call from ".
For all the complaining about privacy, apperently it doesn't apply to Microsoft and their employees..
Computer Difficulty (Score:3)
The car analogy works in other ways, too.
When I did tech support for an ISP, it amazed me how often people moaned "Oh, this is SO hard" over the phone. I would tell them "click here... click there... click 'ok'" and get "Ohhh... this is sooo hard. How do you learn all this?" But I'm a "computer person" and they're not - why should I be amazed?
When's the last time you heard a reporter on TV moan or joke about the complexities of cars? "Yes Corky... I know what you mean. Last night I went for a little drive and there was a light blinking on the dash. By the time I figured out I needed something called 'gas', I THEN had to figure out what 'octane' to buy! Those cars are sure difficult" (group chuckle).
I'm sure this kind of car conversation wouldn't be as out of place if it were 70 or 80 years earlier. But these days, its ludicrous. Furthermore, no respecting "intelligent" public figure would repeat such absurdity. Cars are old hat. EVERYONE knows how to operate them. If they break, most people shrug and hire someone to fix them. When we're "car newbies", we take Driver's Ed. classes to get the basics. Then we build on the basic knowledge with experience. Its all very simple.
Welcome to the "computer generation". Pundits used to love talking about how computers will be in everyone's life during the 80s. We're there now. And how does popular culture refer to computers? "Ohhh... they're so HARD!"
Hobbiests are going to enjoy the ins and outs of their chosen interest. They'll tweak and tinker. And they'll smirk at those who don't have their understanding. Even if that hobby involves what others see as simple tools. But that works well for the hobbiest - they can make their interest their profession. Provide the casual user with a simplified interface so they can use their tool. Then take over from them if their tool breaks. It works for cars; it'll work for computers.
What we don't need is the continued absurdity that, in this day and age, computers are "too hard" fostered on us by popular culture.
Re:Bigger deal than we realize (Score:4)
It was this thinking that allowed for the rise of Microsoft. Or maybe it was the huge licensing fees. From the GNU Manifesto Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air. Following that, shouldn't it be just as easy to use?
I'm not saying that consumers shouldn't be allowed to use Linux. I'm saying that consumer interests should not be allowed to damage Linux.
I don't see how they can, other than invading newsgroups and flooding newbie questions. But, when this happens, paying for Service comes into play. Regardless, the whole thing is based on choice, even if a new super-easy GUI distro comes out, you don't have to use it. Just because there are more layers on top doesn't mean you have to use them.
Change is always difficult to deal with. What I see in this post (and the others like it) is akin to a father watching his daughter go out on her first date. "Touch her and die!" You may shout, but if you had listened to that advice, she would never have existed. Trust that you raised her well and gave her the tools to deal with unwanted advances.