Comment Linux usability and its implications (Score 2) 632
FUD from Microsoft about Linux's usability.
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: .config files, libraries, multiple users, devices, mounting,... the list goes on and on.
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 .config files, lots of command-line options, etc. The average user wants the opposite--simple gui, no questions. This does not lead to good security or powerful programs. If an idiotproof easy-to-use desktop environment is layered on top of Linux, it's likely that many companies releasing software for it would not include the power, behavior, and configurability we now expect . Also, programs might begin to depend on various functionalities of the user-friendly shell to do irritating things without telling us.
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.
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
