OSNews

Actually it is the issue. Linux on the desktop will succeed, mostly because the details have been addressed. That's one of the reasons people like Apple because they address not only the needs, but the little details that move an experience from "yeah, so what?", to " a joy to encounter".

Agreed... for example:
Kmail vs. Outlook Express
Kontact vs. Outlook
Kaddressbook vs. ?
Kolourpaint vs. Paint (no difference, really)
kbattleship
kbackgammon
kcalc
kcolorchooser

The list goes on...

There's also plenty of Gnome examples. Gcal, Gnumeric, Gaim, Xchat (obviously chat related), etc. The choice of distro dosn't effect the good/bad name choices of programmers and application designers. Chuck this article into the "stupid Linux analysis" bin.

Good point, although I wouldn't necessarly throw gaim into the mix, since gaim can easily be pronounced as one word, as opposed to "k-colorchooser" or "x-chat".

Or Winamp vs. Beep Media Player. Also users could just surf over to freshmet.net or there distros package manager to search for applications.

which is media player. next...

Actually he didn't.

People tend to knock on Gnome because they spend too much time tailoring to the "idiots". However, their HIG is a wonderful set of guidelines.

Sure, GNOME itself might not be fully compliant with them, but it is certainly moving closer towards compliance every release.

I agree for the most part except for all the name-calling. There is only one thing that will truly and efficiently drive Linux uptake for non-techies, increase the use of Linux in schools. Nowadays, most people have their first real experience with computing on a windows box, they memorize the applications and actions that they use often and are lost when they have to do something new. Anyone who does family tech support can attest to this. If the early experiences they have with educational software, word processors, email, and browsing are on Linux, they will prefer it to something alien like Windows or OS X.

We should be taking projects like Edubuntu very seriously. Learn from what the cigarette and fast food corporations already know: The earlier you enforce brand recognition and loyalty, the better. It is very difficult to get someone to change their habits when they are already set in their ways.

You know, I really don't think Linux should become comparable to the cigarette companies.

I didn't mean it in that sense. It is a successful strategy, that was just the most visible example I could come up with.

I generally agree with "if it ain't broke, dont' fix it." But -- it *is* broke. Now, before you tell me that "broke" is a matter of opinion, I want to remind you that "functionally fulfilling users' needs" is not enough to be "not broke".

My car gets me everywhere I want to go, completely fulfilling my needs. However, my (highly trusted) mechanic tells me it is "broke" because I am spewing out 10 times the pollution I should be. I will not argue that my car is not "broke". Instead, I should evaluate the costs involved in repair versus replace. Replace may involve me learning some new stuff, like where the windshield wiper control is in a new car, but the cost of learning that may be cheaper than trying to repair the current problems.

So, to bring this back to computers, if some large percent of the (trusted) Computing (Technology/Security) community tells me that Windows is "broke", then I need to determine the cost of repairing it vs replacing it. Saying that it isn't "broke", therefore I'm not going to do anything, is not an option. So, for XYZ Linux (or Apple, or anyone else...) to make a dent in the home consumer market, the cost of replacement needs to be reduced (through naming conventions, simpler installation, etc) , *and* the public needs to be made aware of the brokeness and lack of repairability (thereby providing the motivation that you were looking for) of Windows.

Although who knows -- maybe Vista will be "fixed", and there will be no good reason for users to make the jump!

Just my $0.03,
-dotMatt

Yes, and one of them is that Windows users are already productive in their Windows environment. The old adage "if it ain't broke, why fix it?" applies here more than anywhere else. Say, for example, I'm a happy Windows user. Why should I go through the trouble of learning an unfamiliar OS based on an entirely different philosophy, if I'm already productive in my current OS?

Answer: Once you acquire familiarity with the "other" OS, you could well be more productive in the new OS. That's another old adage: a small investment now can reap big profits later.

It's difficult to convince people of that, and even a few years ago Linux wasn't sufficiently useable to be worth the trouble, unless you were religiously inclined to FLOSS or a geek. Linux' useability has bettered by leaps and bounds though, and it's actually getting to be fun. I've gotten to the point where I find Windows to be less productive (for me) than Linux.

Really, the "what keeps people from switching en masse to Linux?" crowd needs to get a clue. It has nothing to do with how complicated the installation is, or the steep learning curve, or naming conventions. It's simply the lack of motivation.

Alright, go say that to my 70-year old Grandma

Oh, and it's not always the lack of motivation, but the lack of time for most of us. We need to sleep too. Linux geeks don't sleep, this is known.

Things that will drive people to linux:

1. Interesting new challenges
2. Abillity to relax on the constant virus/malware cleaning
3. The "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" crap
4. The vast array of legal applications availible through a package manager
5. Coolness
6. Controll over the environment (IT-managers)

"Things that will drive people to linux:

1. Interesting new challenges"

Your average user doesn't want to be "challenged". If the average Joe User got a kick from being challenged by some OS-related problem, then there wouldn't be much need for OS customer support.

"2. Abillity to relax on the constant virus/malware cleaning"

I haven't had a single virus since the Loveletter days. I don't have a software firewall. I don't have any anti-virus software. And I'm not the only one. So, what do I have to relax on, once again?

"3. The "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" crap"

That's an advertisement lullaby. Why should anyone give a crap?

"4. The vast array of legal applications availible through a package manager"

You're missing the point: why do I need those if I'm already productive in my current environment? E.g.: why do I need, say, Xine, if Windows Media Player (or whatever else they use on Windows) fulfills my needs?

"5. Coolness"

Subjective and therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, if anyone runs Linux because it makes them feel "cool"... Well, that person is a pathetic, image-obsessed monosynaptic twit.

"6. Controll over the environment (IT-managers)"

I'm sorry, I was talking about home desktop, not the corporate one. I apologize for not making myself clear. Thus, I'm afraid, your last point is kind of irrelevant.

I didn't mean to argue things that will drive _you_ to Linux. I was talking about _people_ in general. 1 & 2 drove me to Linux...

The gunine crap isn't just advertesing, you have to _proove_ that you have a genuine windows to download some stuff. As many people can't proove this (pirated software you know) I gather it is one of the things that will drive them to a free system.

"I didn't mean to argue things that will drive _you_ to Linux. I was talking about _people_ in general. 1 & 2 drove me to Linux..."

So, is it you or people in general? Make up your mind, pal. I've already explained to you why the reasons you've listed won't apply to people. You have yet to address my point about user inertia due to the fact that they already are productive in Windows, which very well may be the number one factor that keeps people from switching.

"The gunine crap isn't just advertesing, you have to _proove_ that you have a genuine windows to download some stuff."

Oh, I see. I'm sorry, I didn't understand you. I thought you were referring to MS's self-advertisement jibba-jabba. You know, those big, high-tech-sounding polysyllabic structures like "trusted computing" that MS's marketing department keeps regurgitating at the unsuspecting world.

"As many people can't proove this (pirated software you know) I gather it is one of the things that will drive them to a free system."

This would be true only if the majority of Windows users had illegal copies of the OS, which is not the case, since most of them run the copy that came pre-installed on the computer when they bought it. Once again, your argument doesn't hold water.

As many people can't proove this (pirated software you know) I gather it is one of the things that will drive them to a free system.

No, they just won't bother downloading it. End of story. Most people don't know Linux exists (or care). They are quite happy - rightly or wrongly - with Windows.

"Things that will drive people to linux:

1. Interesting new challenges
"

In general users don't want to be "challenged" with a new OS. Hell the geeks in me *sometimes* finds it fun to mess around with a linux install and find it challengind to get my hardware to work and everything configured to at least a usable state. But my grandma certainly doesn't want or need the "challenge"

"
2. Abillity to relax on the constant virus/malware cleaning

Mostly viruses find their way into a Windows box thanks to an unsuspecting naive user. If you know what you are using, how to use it and how to protect yourself you'll be ok mostly. If you don't then you are open to all sorts of problems, Putting a user into Linux won't magically make him immune to such things, instead it will just open a whole new world of problems

"
3. The "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" crap
"
People won't switch becuase of the MGA , if you have a legal copy of windows then this is nothing at all, if you have a pirated copy then im sure you can find ways around it. No need to jump ship.

"
4. The vast array of legal applications availible through a package manager
"

Granted. Yet the question is. How many software they will actually care to use be available from such a package manager. Can he get MS Office? can he get Macrommedia software? Matlab? Maya? The latest half life game? I consider myself to be a heavy downloader, yet I have just about a list of 9 maybe 10 apps with Linux equivalents, the rest don't. When I reformat I just download these programs and install them, presto. It could be easier with a package manager but I can sincerely manage(pun intended) without it.

"
5. Coolness
"

uuummm mmkay

"
6. Controll over the environment (IT-managers)"
[/i]"

Most IT managers I have encountered touch a computer only to use MS Office and Outlook or Lotus Notes.

I say some will be diven by x and you say some wont... yeah so?

I say some will be driven by y and you sat some wont... correct again, not an argument aginst me thoug...

The MGA thing makes it harder on nontechies to pirate, thus it's likley that 2 & 3 (plus a geek friend) might drive those peopel... again some.

By control for IT-Managers I menat the abillity to lock down what binaries you can run, what removable media you can connect, what you can install an such. I've seen first hand what people do to circumvent company IT-policies, mor controll would be godsens in these environments.

"1. Interesting new challenges "
There are more interesting challanges than figuring out why many OS's half finished works doesn't work, like developing your own application, understand how neural networks works, develope a revolutionary I.A, do your homework, do tasks for your hobbies etc...
You can study sourcecode, manuals and serious math and info textbooks almost regardless the platform you love to use.

"2. Abillity to relax on the constant virus/malware cleaning"
For home user XP SP2 was an huge improvement.
Use Opera for mail and web and you will not get nags (neither the traking cookies that you will get wit default FF settings even on linux).
If you got some nags anyhow, AVG and SpybotS'N Destroy are not hard to use at all and are free.
And although viruses are rare on *x, intrusions and rotkit are possible, moreover, application level troubles can be disastrous (see that sometimes someone steal millions of codes and credit cards numbers from well administered *x servers?), and moreover Linux doesn't prevent the user to fall in phishing: so you shold not sleep about security even when using *xes.
And noone prevent someone to multiboot Win and Linux (that is not "switching") in order to do sensible tasks with Linux.
It is a (now, after SP2) weak point and is not strictly toward switching to Linux but rather to use it without throwinh Windows away.

"3. The "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" crap"
I definitely agree with this point!

"4. The vast array of legal applications availible through a package manager "
I agree that package manager is a superior form of philosophy for control and update the wole machine, but sadly things aren't perfect and still for many software
doesn't exist the package for the distribution X, or exist for X distro but at the release $last-1, or that package requires also package y and z (and maybe on your system you already have newer version of y and z!), or you find dozens of users on ng complaining that thing gone weird and so on.
Windows lack most features of a modern package manager but from the home user, sory, win installers *usually* simple works and it's *usually* very easy to understand what do you need to complete the install, and you usually find the most popular open source software released at the same time of linux version and usually befor other *xes versions!

"5. Coolness "
I agree, but likewise point 2, it's a reason to use also Linux, not a reason to switch and throw away Windows.
Figure out a developer that throw away Windows and so doesn't even test his software on it...
Figure an home user that throw away windows and is not able to run his last game / his newest piece of hardware / the new cool shareware /... on Wine...
They would like to save a 5GB partition on their 250 GB HD for XP rather than throw XP away so regardless of how much Linux is cool, useful and secure they will not be "switchers" but will be "multiusers".

6. Controll over the environment (IT-managers)
That's true.
However IT people often have to deal with propietary environments, like i-series, that cannot be easily replaced with any other environment (so neither Win nor Lin will be the solution), or have to deal with legacy application or to dumb untouchable developers that still deploy dos applications or VB crap so Windows may be a better solution, on certain machines, than Linux.

Things that will drive people to linux:

1. Interesting new challenges

I knows a LOT of interesting new challenges (hacking and programming my PSP, learning more about 3D physics for game development, etc. The last thing I found interesting is a challenge jumping in a new OS.

Don't get me wrong, I had my own OS fixation once (around 1999) when I could boot on Windows, Linux, BeOS and QNX on my PC. I played a lot and learned a lot about them. Yet at the end, when my OS curiosity faded away, I came back to Windows 2000 (then XP). Simply because it's the one I'm the most productive in.


2. Abillity to relax on the constant virus/malware cleaning

The last time I got infected by a virus or malware under Windows was a half decade ago. This is definitelly not a god reason for me to change.


3. The "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" crap

I'm not sure what you means with this one, so I'm gonna pass.


4. The vast array of legal applications availible through a package manager

I don't have a package manager on Windows. But everytime time I search an app on Google, I get to find an application that run 99.9% of the time on Windows. I don't know any applications that are available on Linux (Apache, GIMP, GCC, etc) that are not on Windows, except for the very GUI specific ones (KDevelop), but their Windows counterparts are better (Visual Studio 2005 > any Linux IDE in my opinion).

Then add all the commercial softwares available on Windows and not on Linux.

So as for software availability, Windows beats Linux any time of the day, simply because most Linux softs are available to Windows and then much more.

5. Coolness

If "coolness" was my driving decision force, I would have to pick OSX. Linux would actually be the last one, simply because of the thick "nerd-driven" reputation and the often obnoxious minority in the Linux community.

QNX, BeOS, Windows, OSX are all cooler to me. Heck, even the limited SkyOS sounds cooler to me.

Subjectivity.


6. Controll over the environment (IT-managers)

Nothing I don't have controls in my Windows PC. Nothing. So it's still not a good reason for me to switch.

CONCLUSION: The original Snifflez's post is dead on. Unless Linux let me be more productive, there is NO *logical* reason whatsoever to leave my Windows box behind. The only thing would have been an emotionnal motivation, but my curiosity about exotic OS ended 5 or 6 years ago.

Yet the Linux user base is gorwing steadily... how strange.

Yet the Linux user base is gorwing steadily... how strange.

OSX is also growing. Windows is also growing. As a matter of fact, computer usage in general is growing. If you're talking about percent share of the market, then yes, Linux is progressing, a 3-4 percent over almost a decade. Quick, celebrate !

"Yet the Linux user base is gorwing steadily... how strange."

Really? That's interesting. Now, do you have some objective data to back your statement up?

You sir, are full of ...

Lack of motivation? If someone has never eaten anything but oranges and they think that the only other option is lemons, do they have a lack of motivation if they never ask for a mango? Maybe, you'd consider this a better example: if that same person was getting those oranges for $10 a day and bananas were available for $9 a day but they had to pay $100 for the tools to open the crate that they came in, is it a lack of motivation if a person can't afford the extra $100?

Maybe analogies are too complicated for you. Obviously, you can't comprehend something as simple as the fact that ignorance/brain-washing != lack of motivation.

MS and DELL have people so completely brain-washed that Windows is the only option that if a person is asked about installing a different operating system the response is one of confusion. I'm sorry that your reaction has turned from confusion to anger, and that you decided to lash out at an alternative OS.

If Windows were capable of doing half of the things that I expect Linux to do every day, I might be able to tolerate using it on my own computer instead of being forced to use it on others' computers. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be satisfied using a serious OS and not bother switching.

>"It has nothing to do with how complicated the installation is, or the steep learning curve, or naming conventions."

Possibly because these are no longer the issue, but if they weren't addressed they would create a barrier. Lack of motivation, because of concern over change (as in everything), I agree, is a major limiting factor in the adoption of "Linux".

>"Yay! Let's dumb Linux down, maybe then people will switch!"

Ignoring the sarcasm, simple processes that serve the same purpose as complicated ones waste everybody's time and energy. We should not complicate things needlessly. This is a golden rule of engineering, and should be applied to "Linux".

>"ya bunch of desktop Linux-obsessed lunatics"

Well it's better than being called interface Nazis, I suppose. Still rather petty name calling though.

That's because the argument is bunk. It's always been a stupid excuse, and the fact that KDE, and I think Gnome, provide a way to see what the app does instead of its name just shows how silly this is.
Ever tried to find a program in the Windows start menu? Do you know how to find these well named programs:
Software House -> App Name -> Run App
So, how many people know who made every application on their computer? Almost noone (every computer geek in the world doesn't account for enough here).

But people find it. Partially because the first time they install it XP shows them where it is. However, they found them for 6 years before XP: Because it's not that difficult and people are willing to look.
People always remark at stupid names they haven't heard before. Remember XP? I haven't met a single person who doesn't think it's an idiotic name when I tell them what it stands for eXPerience. It only sounds cool because they think it's technical .
But people get used to the names and they seat in their mind. Almost like a new word in your vocabulary.

The idea that developers should go ahead and pick user-friendly names is ludicrous. People put thousands of hours into applications and I see no reason why they should be told what to name it (other than having conflicting names of course).
FOSS consistently lacks marketing teams (except Mozilla) and that's a good thing.

Windows users seem to have no problem remembering things like "firefox." Kazaa. Napster. Trillian (a reference from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), Nero, etc. Nero isn't the common choice of CD burning app over Easy CD Creator because of it's great name; but because it's actually a well written piece of software. Easy CD Creator on the other hand is not so grand.

This isn't details. This is nitpicking to the nth degree. Where n tends to infinity .

Yes. People find it, but that's probably because they installed it and expects the software to be there. If you look at the typical PC it only comes with a few programs as standard. If you buy a Dell you get Office/Works, PowerDVD and CD burning software. Most of the software is installed later by the user.

With most Linux-distributions you get mabye hundreds of programs already installed, so the program menu is probably overwhelming at first sight. But I don't think that's a problem. People are willing to explore, and it helps that KDE displays a description after the name.

Yes, but when you have a menu where the first letter of every item is the same (K in this case), it makes more difficult to find the needed option. In this respect Gnome menu (as it looks say in Ubuntu Breezy) is much more sensible and usable.

GNOME, and some distributions, now tend to designate applications by function, rather than by name.

So yo have :
Menu -> Office -> Word Processor
Menu -> Office -> Database
Menu -> Internet -> Web Brower
Menu -> Graphics -> Image Viewer
Menu -> Graphics -> PDF Viewer
Menu -> System Tools -> Configuration Editor

Maybe this will become the norm, if enough people like it. In any case for the new user you couldn't have much simpler.

Yes, but "Web Browser", will this name replace Epiphany or Firefox?

There's an obvious brand-recognition problem for the end-user here. If he clicks "Web Browser" for the 1st time, he doesn't know what to expect as a web browser.

And which browser should be chosen as this default "Web Browser" ?

PS. There's a very strong art community in and around the FOSS community. You might check out things like crystalforgnome, kde-look, linuxcult.com, and etc.

The point is: The people doing the actual work don't care about branding; they like the names they've picked for some reason or another and shouldn't be bothered with the idea naming things for those users who will likely never even file a bug report .

It's a practical part of the way FOSS gets written. You can't really fix it. The best fix is to tell people to use the other 70% of their brain they're leaving dormant and try to remember a few things. They've been doing it on everything for years.

It's really not asking a lot. FOSS doesn't have many of the same problems which commercial software has to overcome. For example: Selling in a retail store. People are walking by quickly, often talking, or being talked at by a salesperson. They're not going to stop and say "GIMP" I wonder what that stands for? But, they will see "Photoshop" and think "hey, I need a program to work on my photos!"

When they're googling on the internet and they come across GIMP for "photo manipulating program linux" they'll have plenty of time to look at screenshots, read feature lists; or just try it and see.

- click on Menu/Start button
- go to Programs/Multimedia/Video
- select an Application
- try out if that app is capable of viewing an mpg

My first try would probably be "Applications->Sound & Video->Movie PLayer" ...

OR:

- click on Menu/Start button
- go to Programs/Multimedia/Video
- select an Application
- try out if that app is capable of viewing an mpg

You can just double-click the file in linux, too. Or you can right-click the file, go down to "Open With" and get a sub-menu of all programs capable of opening/playing that type of file.

> Starting with Linux. From now one it will be called:
> kernel. Just so everyone knows what it does.

Being hard to bite and leave a nasty taste?

Sorry could not resist

- Morin

Unless you use the KDE version, Korn . They're in the process of being sued over the name.