Linked by kvaruni on Mon 11th Jul 2005 14:48 UTC
Linux The true reason for this article is to point out some sensitive points and to start a discussion. Hopefully, this discussion will produce some useful outcome and if some people in the Linux community are willing to listen to them, I would already be very enthusiastic. Let's start, shall we?
Permalink for comment 2574
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
At article
by somebody on Mon 11th Jul 2005 17:03 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

The true reason for this article is to point out some sensitive points and to start a discussion. Hopefully, this discussion will produce some useful outcome and if some people in the Linux community are willing to listen to them, I would already be very enthusiastic. Let's start, shall we?

We would, but you seem somehow determined to already know the answer

Strange, especially when you see how successful an operating system like OS X is becoming, simply because this operating system is so simplistic and easy to use, even for a complete newbie, that it gives the user a very powerful feeling.

Powerfull feeling and simplicity like installing applications for example?

Yeah, right. I'm not a newbie, but I was just f...ed by OSX. I'm on OSX because it is on one of my work places (and I'm too lazy to take out my notebook).

Example of this minute: Reply isn't working on OSNews. So I looked FFox version. 1.0.1, now hell, I'm sure I put 1.0.4 on it. So I downloaded FFox again. Unpacked and thrown in Applications folder. Right side is displayed as list. From my MacOS times I'm used to throw on a list. Not even asking about replacing??? Run FFox, check version. ??? 1.0.1. After that it became obvious where the problem is. I thrown FFox on the Applications in the common places. Now OSX asks me if I'd like to replace??? Ok, I've now got 1.0.4, I've got about 5 versions of FFox copied under different application folders, because I always did the same mistake, and I still haven't got working reply on OSNews.

Point of this charade is that no OS without bugs and quirks does or will exist. In my case usability of OSX (I ccan name numerous features that are to be considered hidrance for being desktop usable) is far away from being desktop ready. Neither is Windows and neither is Linux.

And for some reason, the entire Linux community seems to hide themselves behind the idea that one needs to "grow into" a distro. One should apply for leave for a month before being able to actually getting used to his or her distro of choice. Some may find this absurd, and it is, but this is actually advice people have given me in the past. A lot of you will also agree that if you do want to get acquainted with Linux, you should do it like this, one does need to grow into it and that's where the shoe pinches. People do not like to be told to grow into something, unless it is worth it. And Linux simply is not worth the trouble.

Why do you ask about opinion if you're predetermined with the answer?

But then, why is it that operating systems like OS X and Windows are so much more suited for end users? One needs to look beyond his own nose to see why this actually is. If you only focus on the end-users, this is essentially a computer-illiterate, it is hard to see why Windows would be any better than Linux. They both have a start menu, they both have a taskbar, they both have a traybar and I could go on summing things up that are exactly the same for most users. If a user is unable to operate a mouse and point and click on an icon, then he won't be capable to do a single thing with a computer nowadays. If he can, then he can do all he wants, as long as the computer has already been configured and all his favourite apps are to be found on the desktop.

Windows is just something you're used to. But you're used to its design flaws also. Mac always had its fanclub.

At this point, you should start to see where I am taking you.

No, but then again you don't either.

What is important, is to see how many people are around that can actually configure the operating system to the needs of this end user.

At one point you preach about preinstalled system and now the other???

Final thing to look at when it comes to installing software

Read my example on OSX. I blame windows for allowing to specify where you would like software installed. It would be a lot simpler without that. I blame linux for many package managers. No one is perfect.

Too bad for Linux, but it is time to evaluate them too. Linux has some share in the end user market, about none when it comes to the disciples and way too many geeks. This is caused by, again, numerous factors. Linux has outgrown the hobby stage, and a lot of geeks had a hand in this. However, as popularity grows, the other two groups should have started building them up themselves and grow into a nice looking knowledge pyramid. But for Linux, this has not happened. Why?

It happened, alright. But you seem to have missed it. All the HIG efforts. All the usability efforts, help for dissabled. Talking about Gnome here, but probably KDE has its own (except that being as configurable as it is, kcontrol and 3 types of Preferences in menu is too much, but this is just my opinion not a troll topic).

Linux has a learning curve, that is more than just steep.

Not even one of my half iliterate friends said soo. The only ones who say that are the same ones that expect OS to behave as they are used to. I have few friends like that. And I ignore them (they seem happy to me already).

when one needs to simply know how to install a driver

I don't remember when I did that last time. If I take out NVidia. But even there I already incorporated a little php script that autoconfigures xorg.conf for my friends.

When it comes to consistency, I'm afraid to express my opinion.

Distros mostly are consistant, but if you're talking about *THE* one distro, that is a myth. And unfortunately that myth is not to be taken to the geeks side. It has to be corporate decision, where corporations decide on one and only distribution.

For some unclear reason, Linux users are in constant conflict with themselves, trying to outperform the others and building a better copy of what they are making.

This is what is result of freedom and diversity, yes. But then again sometimes not. Enlightenment is a clean example.

Not only does this waste most valuable time, it also makes that Linux has too little money to do something (however, combined, Linux would be quite wealthy) and that the good programmers are spread out over projects that are making exactly the same thing.

Problem is not in the waste. Why would I use the same and only editor as you. Maybe I find another much better. Same goes for coders. Why would he help code some other editor when his wishes don't comply with the way project is going. Again, who is gonna tell him that his idea sucks?

The other deficiency that Linux has, is even more important than the one I just stated. It is their localisation. Getting Linux to work in English is no big deal, however, trying out other languages is a huge challenge.

Now, here is where you got the best. You obviously haven't seen windows or OSX in our language. Windows translations are often used for jokes between ITs and OSX can't translate to our language. Linux is much better at this department (at least our country).


...
Let me once again remind you that this article only holds a very slim amount of reasons for Linux not being successful on the desktop.
...


This article is either bad approach to bash over linux or good example of how *NOT* to become self proclaimed genius or political (OS) figure


Epilogue>
Quoted from Anonymous (IP: 208.54.94.---)

i officially swear I will not waste any posts on obvious flamebait, no one who thinks linux isnt ready will ever accept the argument that it is and vice versa, but the fact is that numerous people use it and I dont think the fact that YOU dont use it somwhow concludes that it isnt ready for anyone....

Amen, this sums all

Reply Score: 1