"Linux has made major inroads on servers and in data centers running both open-source and proprietary applications on millions of computers worldwide. We've recently seen the rise of Linux on mobile devices. But the Linux desktop remains elusive. We know it's out there, but it only now seems to be approaching the tipping point."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Most Windows power users have an unfailing loyalty to Microsoft, and going from being a power user to suddenly looking bewildered in front of a different OS only adds to the hostility they have towards Linux.
That's just false. I've never met people that cared about Microsoft the company. The general attitude seems to be that MS software is slow and buggy which isn't very true either. On the other hand, the (loud ones from the) Linux crowd are heavily biased against MS and Windows. Not that I've met anyone in real life but OS sites like this seems to be crawling with them.
And the lazyness you talk about, yes people are lazy. If something requires reading man files it ain't going to be used by "normal" people. Improve the application/OS instead of blaming people.
Member since:2005-07-06
And the lazyness you talk about, yes people are lazy. If something requires reading man files it ain't going to be used by "normal" people. Improve the application/OS instead of blaming people.
This line of argument is pointless without examples. What exactly requires reading manpages that doesn't require prior knowledge or reading help files in Windows? This is the thing you seem to miss: improving the OS can't help in many of these cases --- the problem is that some of these things just require some learning, and in Windows people get that learning through experience and friends teaching them, things that aren't available for Linux. It's a social problem as much as a technical one.
Examples: in Ubuntu, configuring networking is quite easy. There is a network applet, listing all the connections (much like Mac OS X, btw). In Windows, people are used to a pseudo-object oriented setup of connections. If someone cannot figure out how to use the network applet, whose fault is it? Is the software overly complicated, or is the user just enable to take advantage of his existing Windows knowledge? Another example: in Ubuntu, you're supposed to use Synaptic for adding and removing programs. Many new Linux users start out trying to download RPMs from the internet instead of using their package manager. Is the software flawed because it uses package management instead of installers, or is it just a mismatch between what users are used to and how things are done on Linux?
Member since:
2005-06-29
I agree, but I'd like to add that if you sat a grandmother in front of any computer and she hadn't used the OS before she wouldn't know the first thing to do. It wouldn't matter whether she was seated in from of OS X, Windows or Linux.
And if the Grandmother test is really that accurate than I feel compelled to point out that windows couldn't even stand up to the mother test in my household, nevermind the grandmother test. One of these days I'll have to see how mom handles a Mac, but I'll have to get one first.
"The actual test you want to see Linux pass is the "Windows power user" test."
In my experience it's hard to find a Windows power user who won't intentionally play dumb on a Linux machine and then claim that it's unintuitive or primitive. Most Windows power users have an unfailing loyalty to Microsoft, and going from being a power user to suddenly looking bewildered in front of a different OS only adds to the hostility they have towards Linux. Then of course there's lazyness, Windows users can learn enough about Windows from their friends to climb the geekdom ladder for that OS, but when it comes to Linux they actually have to find some documentation before they learn (and that involves more work than having a friend show you how to use the OS).