Re:We need to get hardware going autmagically (Score 1)

I found that hardware support was only the tip of the iceberg. I am a long time PC and OS X user, and was forced to use Linux on my laptop for about six months (the video chip on the motherboard died, and would crash windows but not linux). I had always wanted to play more with Linux so I was excited about having to use it. I looked around and eventually decided to go with Kubuntu (Ubuntu's gnome interface looked a little too ugly and bland for my taste - and yes, I want to use an OS that's pretty these days, OS X has spoiled me).

Installation went okay as the Kubuntu installer was easy to use. However, my wireless ethernet didn't work. Having no expereince troubleshooting hardware issues on Linux, I spent about 4 days trying download a beta driver and getting it to work. I shouldn't have to spend that long getting a driver to work - maybe its because I'm used to doing it with Windows, but the average user needs to be able to get his/her hardware running a little faster. Not having wireless makes my laptop just about useless.

After a couple of reinstalls of Linux I was finally able to get wireless working and connected to my router - though at one point I was connected, then lost connection and could not get it back on my router without reinstalling everything again. Clearly I lack certain understanding of how linux works, but if I can't make it work reliably, there is no way my mom is ever going to be able to.

So eventually I got wireless working and was able to get online and started using my laptop. I found the KDE to be a little ugly and unrefined compared to OX X and yes, even Windows XP. The default font was ugly, and the icons on KDE's equivalent to explorer or the finder where lacking - not to mention there were too many of them. I prefer a more simplistic look and KDE's interface is too overwhelming.

Next problem - installing software. Yes, being able to download packages from one interface was nice, but also very lacking. Searching for software was often hit or miss, and a lot of the stuff I wanted to use couldn't be found. Specifically I was looking for Opera and Java and even the beta version of Open Office (it was beta at the time). Installing software you download off the web is, for the most part, a pain in the ass. I don't understand why Linux can't have a basic graphical interface that installs and configurings your software to work, without having to edit text files all over the place. I think it took me about a week to get Java working in Firefox properly. It seems to me that any modern operating system would provide such a feature. Can someone tell me why no one has made or users a gui installer for applications??

Of course, the other problem I had, which is problem most Windows/OS X users are going to have if they switch, was lack of the software I am acustomed to - specifically the Macromedia and Adobe suites (Macradobe now). Yes, I know this is a catch 22 situation, but until this software is easily run on Linux, I can't give up windows.

The other thing that tends to turn myself and others off is the elitism surrounding Linux, especially on this website. I'm sure if anyone reads this, half of them are going to be thinking that I'm stupid for not being able to do something as simple as install Java into Firefox in under a week, but its that mentality that really puts people off. If Linux is ever going to be a viable option for myself and the rest of the world, it really needs to be simplified and easier to use. I'd think that OS X would be a great example of an OS that is easy to use yet powerful. I understand that power users want all their options and to be able to tweak every single element of their OS - but after running Linux on my laptop for 6 months, I'd say I spent 90% of my time trying to deal with the OS rather than actually using my computer to get stuff done. Using an operating system should be a transparent experience, not a full time battle.