I'm confused
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jacog May 02, 2007 12:54 AM EDT |
Surely all the proprietary non-oss stuff the reviewer was complaining about is easily installed via Automatix or somesuch? And there are legal reasons why encrypted DVD (and mp3) support is not added by default. I do prefer critical reviews over mindless cheerleading, but I also want criticisms to be valid ones. |
| richo123 May 02, 2007 4:09 AM EDT |
Direct quote from the article: "At this point though, I'm getting somewhat skeptical about Linux on the desktop anyway (with the exception of Xandros and a couple of other distros). If you really want a simple and easy alternative to Windows that just works right out of the box, buy yourself a Mac." Sheesh. Don't let the door bang on your way out buddy. I read the review and the only legitimate gripe I could see was the nvidia driver issue. All the rest could be solved by an hour on the Ubuntu forum. A mac would definitely be the better choice for this lazy sob. |
| devnet May 02, 2007 6:09 AM EDT |
I agree with the reviewer here..."out of the box" Linux Ubuntu is not...I think the reviewer is looking at Ubuntu here as something that Dell is putting on its desktops/laptops now and is reviewing accordingly. But I disagree that they should have graded Ubuntu in this review based on that criteria. After all, they haven't graded distros in the past on this criteria...why did they start now? The bad part is that if Linux on the desktop is going to become something of a competitor to Microsoft...it has to be equal or above the ease of use Microsoft has pioneered. I know that most of you probably will flame me for saying so...but Windows is pretty damn easy...and if Linux wants to make it as a competitor, it has to be just as easy or easier. There has to be incentive for users to want to switch...because philosophy of FLOSS isn't going to magically pull over tons of people. Heck, even the threat of DRM isn't going to pull over tons of people... People want to use something that works with the smallest amount of effort...something they can buy and immediately begin using without much effort. Apple has pioneered this idea with the Ipod - it's sleek, it's simple, and it works out of the box. No freely available distro out there can legally contain what this reviewer wants and until it does happen...headway on the desktop won't be made. Despite what I want to happen...despite what I feel should happen...despite what my philosophy about open source and Linux is...and despite anyone else's feelings/philosophy on what open source and Linux is or should be. |
| NoDough May 02, 2007 6:23 AM EDT |
Quoting:...it has to be equal or above the ease of use Microsoft has pioneered. I know that most of you probably will flame me for saying so...but Windows is pretty damn easy...and if Linux wants to make it as a competitor, it has to be just as easy or easier.I think you've hit the wrong target. If ease of use were the only criteria, Macs would have displaced Windows years ago. The problem is not ease of use, the problem is human nature. People have a tendency to stick with what is familiar. Furthermore, people fear the unknown. Lets face it, for most Windows is familiar and Linux is unknown. |
| azerthoth May 02, 2007 6:41 AM EDT |
Dropping a soon to be former windoze user into Gnome isnt doing them much of a favor either. |
| bigg May 02, 2007 6:53 AM EDT |
> but Windows is pretty damn easy Well, it's easy to turn on a Windows computer and run some applications, but it is by no means easy for a new user. Let's do a test. Put someone in front of a Linux computer every day for 10 years. There's no way the Linux user is going to find it easy to move to Windows. This is what you'd hear: I want to install software...hey, where's Synaptic? Antivirus software? Spyware in the registry? What the heck is a registry? It's easier to install multimedia applications? In Linux, I at least had Automatix and Synaptic. And by the way, what an ugly interface. A short list, but that is pretty much the same short list that Windows users throw at Linux to say Linux is not ready for the desktop, plus the addition of problems with security. (There's also something about application availability, but that's a different issue from ease of use.) They stick with Windows because they don't have a good reason to not use Windows. |
| dcparris May 02, 2007 7:15 AM EDT |
The old Windows-is-easier-than-Linux argument was killed a long time ago. Computer novices were set in front of both OSes, and found them to be about the same, in terms of Ease of Use. The only really new things for Windows users are: software choices and installation virtual desktop concept possibly the re-arranged locations of the desktop panels Otherwise, you typically have some sort of "start" menu, a settings manager, a file browser, and fairly typical productivity applications. Clicks and double-clicks do the same thing as they do in Windows, or can be set to do so. Icons are still icons - they just look a little different. I don't see the big deal. |
| devnet May 02, 2007 11:10 AM EDT |
dcparris, That's not quite true. For example, people have an innate curiosity as to what error messages mean and say. If you don't think this is true...you haven't worked a helpdesk. I get tons of people just reporting random message popup errors from office and they want to know what caused it and if something is wrong. Now while MS error messages aren't that informative...they often link to KB articles, etc. That makes a user feel more comfortable whether we like it or not...in Linux, we don't have such luxuries..Now I'm all for Linux and I'll be championing its use for years and decades to come...but I can't sit back and say it's just as good as Windows when it isn't as good in areas and needs improvement. If you sat a user down in front of a Linux machine and a Windows machine...fully configured for watching video, etc. They'd use Windows. Why? Because the minute they went out there to find something to either install or watch...Windows would work better...because most websites and most tools on the internet are marketed at Windows. Instead of arguing IF this is true...we should be talking about SINCE this is true, how can we make it better. Whenever I point out shortcomings, people often say "fix it then...code away". But what happens if I can't? What If I'm just a designer and can't code? What if I know usability and have that concept down but can't code a single line? Does that mean I can't talk about it? I don't have the right? Most seem to think so. I don't think Linux is LESS than Windows...I just think that in order to succeed it needs to become more usable than Windows...and unfortunately, this is dependent upon other sources catering toward Linux (websites, software vendors, etc.) |
| Sander_Marechal May 02, 2007 1:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:Now while MS error messages aren't that informative...they often link to KB articles, etc. That makes a user feel more comfortable whether we like it or not...in Linux, we don't have such luxuries Well, why not add a "google this error" link to the default GNOME error box? Same thing for KDE, XFCE, $DESKTOP. It shouldn't be too hard. |
| dcparris May 02, 2007 1:57 PM EDT |
I don't think you're denigrating Linux, by any means. My point is that you need to be more specific when you argue that Windows is easier than Linux. To argue that multimedia is pre-configured, or that it works out of the box with Windows, as compared to Linux, is quite different from arguing that Windows is easier than Linux, in some general sense. Your argument struck me as being too general - and you really should know better. ;-) |
| dinotrac May 03, 2007 4:51 AM EDT |
>To argue that multimedia is pre-configured, or that it works out of the box with Windows, as compared to Linux, is quite different from arguing that Windows is easier than Linux, in some general sense. There are several decent arguments that Windows is easier than Linux in a general sense, although I don't know if they apply to Vista, with which I have no experience. In my view, the best arguments are: 1) it's already on your computer 2) it's easy to find somebody to help you -- you may even live with somebody, or, at the office, need go just a cubicle or two down 3) Pre-Vista, at least, you didn't usually have to check whether the new gizmo you were buying would work 4) There's no way to use those nifty ACT! templates (feel free to substitute some other essential aid) you got from your business referral group. Those are big things. They are big things that have absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of using a system that is set up and running. No matter how well Linux works -- and, you've got to admit, it's getting rather brilliant, those things will create problems for a sizable portion of computer users. |
| devnet May 03, 2007 5:22 AM EDT |
This is precisely my argument...people don't have to do much work to get Windows going because of those items Dino listed above. With much work and cooperation, Linux can be made a valid competitor to windows on the desktop...but it will take time. Ubuntu on a Dell is a step in the right direction. I heard that Toshiba is going to follow suit with a Linux laptop also. These are all positive things. What chaps my hiney, is that when I say these things, people often brand me as heretic. But is it heretical to want Linux to become all that it can be? Is it heretical to desire usability changes to make Linux make more sense to someone who hasn't been using it before? I don't think it is...but sometimes I strike a nerve with this rhetoric. |
| dinotrac May 03, 2007 6:02 AM EDT |
>What chaps my hiney, is that when I say these things, people often brand me as heretic. Oh my, I really don't want to see your Chapstick bill. |
| dcparris May 03, 2007 5:40 PM EDT |
I haven't thought of you as a heretic, devnet - haven't even implied it. Dino's thoughts build on what you've said, and that's all well and good. As to Dino's points: 1) GNU/Linux does come pre-installed on computers. There are over 100 vendors, not counting any Tier 1's - who sell it that way. I can't help that many people either don't know about or don't choose those vendors. 2) If you still need someone to help you, how much easier than GNU/Linux can it be? 3) You're right. Most hardware is advertised as working with Windows - no matter how truthful the advertisement is. Which is why many Windows users need qualified computer experts to spend a week wrestling with some stupid driver for a printer or other device that "just works". 4) I'll give you that one. Maybe I'm just being pedantic or a pain-in-the-neck tonight. ;-) |
| devnet May 04, 2007 6:24 AM EDT |
Quoting:I haven't thought of you as a heretic, devnet - haven't even implied it.of course not! I know that...but others have :) Sorry if I made it sound standoffish :) |
| dinotrac May 04, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
>2) If you still need someone to help you, how much easier than GNU/Linux can it be? Rev, I think you've fallen into the tunnel vision trap. The entire computer experience is more than just the parts. from my post: They are big things that have absolutely nothing to do with the mechanics of using a system that is set up and running. No matter how well Linux works -- and, you've got to admit, it's getting rather brilliant, those things will create problems for a sizable portion of computer users. I much prefer my Linux desktop to Windows. I find it easier and more flexible to use. But then, I already know how to use it AND I know quite a few tricks WRT to the OS underneath it. When I started out in Linuxland, I was already writing scripts as part of my job in a Unix development shop AND I had a genuine Linux geek (now doing some kernel development, BTW) to help me learn. No matter how inferior the Windows OS may be, having someone to turn to, or a "Dummies" book, or both is a factor in how easy your computer is to use. As somebody who has done system administration or development, you should know that. I wonder how many people out there have had my experience of about ten years ago: I threw out a proprietary build system that worked because I couldn't hire people who already knew it, the official documentation was terrible, and nobody sold books on it. System was very powerful and flexible, but we were spending too much time and money maintaining it. In desktop terms, thats' what the helpful guy one cube over does for you -- brings you up to speed quickly. |
| bigg May 04, 2007 7:49 AM EDT |
@Dino: What you are saying is usually correct. Sometimes it isn't, which is why I use Linux now. In my case, I had problems with Windows XP, such as not being able to get Adobe Reader to work. After updating to SP2, I had problems I could not fix, such as certain programs not running, or that would not run all the time. I had problems with spyware and viruses. What all of these things had in common was that I had no idea how to fix them. Even Google was of no use. I would ask the "experts" but they knew nothing that helped. After using Ubuntu for a while, I realized I didn't have any of these problems. Moreover, it wasn't like Red Hat 9 and some of those other complicated Linux distributions. After a while of using both XP and Ubuntu, it got to the point that XP was sitting idle for weeks at a time. Surprisingly, the very programs that wouldn't work properly with XP ran using Wine with no problems in Ubuntu. While my case is unusual, I guess you could say that lack of support was the main reason I gave up on Windows. After getting a keystroke logger, and not knowing how to get rid of it, the camel's back had been broken. |
| dinotrac May 04, 2007 3:44 PM EDT |
bigg - I am optimistic that Vista is just the thing for new Linux users... their creation, that is. A very cool thing has happened over the last 5-10 years: Desktop Linux has gotten better, easier, and more capable. Desktop Windows has...not. |
| jdixon May 04, 2007 5:19 PM EDT |
> I would ask the "experts" but they knew nothing that helped. With Windows, reformat and reinstall. That's the only way to fix some of the more deeply embedded spyware and virus problems. Make sure you have your drivers disk (make one before hand if you manufacturer didn't provide one) and have backups and install disks for all of your software. Then be prepared to call Microsoft and have XP reactivated. Oh, you also need to have broadband for downloading all of the patches from Microsoft, or you already need to have them saved to disk too. I've had to do it on occasion (except for calling Microsoft, I leave that to the user), usually after a virus scan blows up the system while removing a virus. It's not fun for either me or the user. Yeah, Linux is better. |
| dinotrac May 05, 2007 3:45 AM EDT |
bigg - There is also one more thing I left out. I call it the "faith factor". Most people are surrounded by Windows users. It's kind of like the marketing pitches that go "9 out of 10 so and sos prefer brand x". With everybody using it, it must work, if only you get the magic key. OTOH, if they see any Linux users, they are highly likely to geeky sorts, which leads to the "faithless corollary" - Well, sure, if you're a computer genius, I'm sure it's great. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!