"Over the years, I've had a number of people asking me what I believe the problem was with further migration over to Linux by the public at large. To be frank, I don't believe that there is a simple answer to this. To me, there are a number of factors that play a role in keeping Linux out of the mainstream limelight" writes Matt Hartley in his opinion piece.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-12
I've been using Linux since SUSE 9 but I was generally disappointed with 10.0 with the change in package management, bugs, etc. Yeah, I know, try this, try that. But enough of that. In some ways, Linux is regressing, not advancing. I want a system that works without having to chase down packages, dependencies, get ndiswrapper up and running, etc.
To some folks, I am a new user, to others, they look at me and say, Wow, you really know Linux. I just want to get my work done and have a lot of fun. SUSE's tag line. Ironic.
Member since:2006-02-15
Those who have problems with it are those that usually buy a computer with a pre-installed system and that have NEVER in their life installed an OS.
That's a persistent myth, but I'd like to see some hard numbers.
Most of the people I know who have problems with Linux are OS developers and embedded systems developers. They tend to run into hardware compatibility issues most frequently, followed by system administration problems.
Member since:2006-04-19
Hard numbers are not easy to find. I can only speak of my own experience. Right now, I have migrated over 200 people to Linux and of those, every user who had previously installed OSX or MS-DOS or Windows (3.1,95,XP,etc) or OS2/Warp was able to install Linux with very little to no assistance. It was only those users who never installed any system before (roughly 75% of those whom I migrated) that were unsure where to start. They usually didn't even know that you can boot from a CD, nor did they know that they can enter the BIOS and change the boot-sequence there. It was all caused by a lack of teaching.
OS Developers have usually problems on every OS that they are not accustomned to. Windows develoers, for instance, work day in and day out with Windows and it is their "second personality". They think like their operating system (this is not a negative remark, to mind you). So, if those developers try a new OS, they usually apply their knowledge, their thinking of the old OS to the new OS and fail, because they have to understand first that e.g. Linux is not Windows. If you don't throw away the old Windows habits and Windows-thinking, you will fail sooner or later. Same with OSX. If you are a ting-time Mac developer, you think in "Mac-terms" and will have a very hard time on Windows until you manage to throw the "Mac-way-of-doing-things" away.
Hardware compatibility can be a problem on any OS, thus it is not a valid point imho for saying "linux is for experts".
For those whith system-administration problems, there are chats, forums and - Books!
Member since:
2006-04-19
"Imagine a distro that was unified with all of the best work and buid on that."
Some distros try that already (e.g. Yoper), but it is VERY hard to create such a distro as not all things are easily compatible due to the layout of some distros. Furthermore, who decides what is the "best" of all distros? Every user has a different view on this. Some users swear on packman, others on emerge, some on apt-get, some on urpmi or yum or <enter tool of choice> and then there is the endless discussion if KDE or Gnome or Fluxbox or yet another DE/WM is the best solution. You see, it is more complicated as it seems at first glance.
"3. Perception that Linux is too hard
That's because it is."
This - again - depends on the user. For some it is easy, for others not. Those who have problems with it are those that usually buy a computer with a pre-installed system and that have NEVER in their life installed an OS. Let them install Windows. They fail. Let them install OS9 or OSX. They fail. Let them install Linux. They fail again. This is not Linux fault but a general lack of training/education imho.
"4. Should windows user swtich? is asked at the end of the article.
I believe that if you don't mind paying for Windows then you should not switch. Because Linux does not provide the new desktop user with any compelling reasons to switch other than cost, at the detriment of learning to use something that is far more difficult to use with much less broad hardware support."
You must be new to Linux or you probably haven't used Linux at all. Otherwise I cannot understand your comment. If it were only cost, then many users wouldn't have switched to Linux. Ever heard about system-security? About some superior GPL software?