“I assumed I could boot the well-known Linux distributions from a CD-ROM drive, make some on-screen selections, let the distribution know what hardware to use, twiddle my thumbs for a while as it loaded software and configured itself, and then have a working system. Was I ever wrong.” Read the long and interesting article at LinuxWorld.
Migrating to Linux Not Easy for Windows Users
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“For a customer to switch products, the alternative product HAS to be considerably better than the previous product.
That’s not entirely true. Otherwise we would all be running Macs or OS/2.”
Surely the people who were running Macs are still running Macs? They have not, in general, switched to windows. The Windows users are the generation of computer users who joined in the 1990s.
“The fundamental paradigm of Unix is that everything is a stream of ascii text.”
This is one of the fundamental flaws in Unix. ASCII (the A stands for American) is only suitable for text in the English language. Even French, German or Norwegian users are locked out, let alone Chinese or Japanese.
It is a great pity that a standard with 7 bits per character rather than 16 ever became widely accepted. Bad planning.
“…and I have yet to successfully burn a CD…”
He ‘d better to concentrate to configure CD burner /Linux rather than to write OS’s reviews
No. Not in the case for extended ASCII. You can write in any language which requires diacritics with 8-bit ASCII. Sans Unicode, je ecrire Français bien suffit. A bientôt
Looking at the names on the stuff in the case: Sony, Toshiba, SoundBlaster, OKI, US Robotics, CIS … this was not no-name cheap crap bought out of the back of a truck. It was and is working well, and passes any diagnostic I throw at it, including mem86.
Linux aficionados brag on how well it supports older hardware, and every bit of hardware was supposedly already supported by the distributions I tried. I gave it plenty of RAM and even bought it a new CPU and motherboard.
When the install procedures don’t recognize the bog-standard devices they claim to support, and more suspiciously, when they don’t all have the same problem with a certain device but show different problems on the same system, I have a hard time accepting that its the hardware.
Not migraters. At least Red Hat understands this. I had Linux installed on my PC before I had even touched Windows 95.
Alike a previous commentator, I have also helped a friend of mine to migrate from Windows 98 to Windows XP. It took, well, around a week before everything was decently working, and the number of oddities out there is still big.
I myself did a different kind of leap, from Windows 98 to Red Hat Linux 8. It was a hassle as well (god be my witness) but not any different from the hassle there was with Windows XP.
I’m sorry that you had such a hard time installing Linux. One thing you need to understand is that the different distros have different target audiences. If you want to use Linux, it’s best to pick a distro that fits your needs and stick with it. Mandrake 9 seemed to work perfectly on your hardware and is well-known for being newbie-friendly.
Also, it was really irresponsible of your office geek to just give you CD’s without being available for support. Linux installs are easier with each release, but only the most rabid aficianados would claim that it’s as easy as plugging in a new television and turning it on. If you still want to use Linux, you should make your office geek install it for you and show you around.
One way in which Linux is made difficult is that people try to install both Linux and Windows on the same computer. We all know this _can_ be done, but it is a major complication.
Many of the complaints in that article were about conflicts between two OSes fighting over one computer. There will be far fewer problems if each computer uses only one OS.
Windows in particular is not designed to share a computer with Linux or anything else.
Most people complain how difficult it is to install, configure and use computers, operating systems and applications in general.
Most often they point out a computer is a tool and therefore it should just work.
Well, a welder is a tool, too. But nobody would expect it to be foolproof. Just because you know what a welder might do, doesn’t mean you will be able to create a perfect weld (or a decent one at minimum).
Most people know what a paintbrush is, yet no one assumes because they know what it is they can just sit down and recreate the Mona Lisa.
Most people know how to use a pen yet noone complains because they aren’t able to write a bestselling book like Steven King .
Talking about computers, why don’t people complain about how they’re able to type/use the keyboard and still can’t programm that pc game they’ve been wanting to programm?
Nobody expects to just get in a car and be able to drive away. You have to learn how to drive, have to learn the rules, the traffic signs…
You cant just pick up a tool and expect to be an expert with it. Why is that so different with computers???
Imho it can be contributed to the marketing engines selling people the hardware. I’m not giving any examples neither am I going to delve into this deeper since anyone can just pick up a magazine, newspaper and take a look at the advertisements.
Wait now, can EVERYBODY? Nope, analphabetics can’t, neither can blind people. Where are the people complaining about that? There are hardly any, because it’s common knowledge you have to be able to see and read to be able to read…
(I didn’t mean to offend anybody disabled. If that’s the case take my apologies.)
…but you just have to accept a few little bumps along the way.
Are there any guides for migrating the other way?
I was using my Mandrake 9.1 and wondering what someone who had only used Mandrake would feel like going to Windows XP. I can just imagine the complaints..
Where the gimp? Why has the menu not got open office in it? Why does all the ‘Windows software’ I download only work for a few days, and then aks me to buy it? Why do I have to install drivers for my web cam? Why does realplayer now keep keep advertising at me? Why does ‘Media player’ not play my quicktime files? Why did Windows wipe out my /home during the install? Why can’t I open gzipped files? How do I select KDE for my window manager?
Ah well, back to reality, a pure, untainted Linux user probably does not exist, but it’s an amusing thought.
Step into reality and buy some new hardware! There are multiple flavors of linux that are mindless to install these days. Redhat 8.0 and 9.0 are easy as it gets. Yes and Redhat 9.0 even recognized a snd card that 8.0 couln’t. If you want your old files with a dual boot box parition with Partition Magic and you can dual boot , if one would ever need to go back to Wintel land.
My reasons for loving linux RedHat follows…
1. It does everything my Mac OS 10.2 and Win XP Pro can do.
2. It does these things a lot cheaper ($39.00) for a retail CD set,
which we know includes all the apps most folks will ever need.
3. DHCP on linux these days is as painless as my OSX Mac box
4. The fact that so many brilliant people around the globe donate their
gray matter to make this OS cheap is very appealing.
5. I don’t get hit with $200.00 upgrades from Microsoft or $89.00
upgrades from Apple.
6. Its as easy to install as Apple or Microsoft, these days.
7. Switching between Gnome, KDE and X-Windows is far more exciting
than changing Themes in Windows, or being stuck in Aqua in OS10.
8. I haven’t been able to crash my RedHat box yet. ( P4 intel 2GHz ),
something I can’t say about my G4 Mac or Win XP OS.
9. Open Office is free!
10. Security is as strong as you want it to be and the updates seem to
be created quicker than Windows security updates.
My first try “learning Linux” was in 2000. It took several tries to put RedHat 6.1 onto a old Win95 machine (“Ananaconda segmentation fault” is forever etched into my memory). Finally upgraded to a new machine and I’m looking forward to trying the newest versions of Suse and Mandrake as soon as the hit my local Best Buys. (I don’t do the download thing. I want TFM.)
The key arguement of the article was that linux is diffult to USE, installation aside.
I think you’d all agree improvement is desirable. A brief surf @ kde.org reveals a team attempting to address this
http://usability.kde.org/
lets hope the author’s next article can report improvements in the linux user experience.
Are there any guides for migrating the other way?
I was using my Mandrake 9.1 and wondering what someone who had only used Mandrake would feel like going to Windows XP. I can just imagine the complaints..
You actually see this quite often in Unix forums where people who are primarily Unix users start using Windows. They have different kinds of complaints. They can figure out the install no problem, what they have a very tough time doing is
a) fixing any problems that occur since windows doesn’t log nearly as much
b) getting the tools they need to be productive (since in general windows tools tend to be pretty lame)
c) frustration at feeling like they are in OS prison.
— why can’t I log on as two different users at the same time?
— why can’t I see processes running and am just limited to threads
— why aren’t the apps scriptable? Why do I have to go throw point-and-click monotony to do repetetive tasks.
etc…
A pentium 266. You wanted to use microsoft formats (presumably office). LOL! You are one very patient man. A system like that would take in excess of a minute to boot OpenOffice.
whereas under Windows, Office 2000 running on Win98 or 2000 would open in seconds on a Pent 266. All I see nowadays confirms my suspicions that far from being a fast OS, modern Linux systems are freakishly power-hungry.
I’ve run several of the Linux versions this reviewer used with similar effects despite my own competence at IT and problem solving.
migrating to mac is not easy for c64 users… migrating to amiga is not easy for apple II users… migrating to beos is not easy for UNIVAC users..migrating to windows is not easy for acorn users…. etc etc
when you go from one system to another you have to learn new things.
period.
no matter what the advertising says about “ease of use”
All I see nowadays confirms my suspicions that far from being a fast OS, modern Linux systems are freakishly power-hungry.
Ah no. Linux systems are super fast. Linux systems running software for people who yearn to use Windows are power hungry. BTW windows boxes running server apps tend to be rather power hungry too. I’m running about a dozen servers on a Pentium 166 mmx with 64 megs of ram including an X server from which I can use a 1/2 dozen different apps at a time. It runs with almost no delays supporting a small number of users. Try doing that with windows.
But OTOH I don’t run openoffice.
Well, what did I expect? this thread is full of the usual Linux morons. I see no need to debate any of their points as they themselves have again shown the wellknown attitude: bash a user who had problems instead of tackling the problems. Dismissed.
PS: guess what? I installed XP recently on a system here and haven’t touched a Mircosoft OS in roughly 6 years. Did I have any troubles installing XP? None at all. Everything is supported. Did I have troubles installing Linux/FreeBSD/QNX RTP/whatever else over the recent years? Hell yes. Am I the average Joe User? Defnitely not. My point? Linux has the chance of a snowball in hell to be widely adopted by average users.
….
HAL said:
PS: guess what? I installed XP recently on a system here and haven’t touched a Mircosoft OS in roughly 6 years. Did I have any troubles installing XP? None at all. Everything is supported. Did I have troubles installing Linux/FreeBSD/QNX RTP/whatever else over the recent years? Hell yes. Am I the average Joe User? Defnitely not. My point? Linux has the chance of a snowball in hell to be widely adopted by average users.
….
I proclaim this post-o-the-day. Please leave in an orderly fashion, following the illuminated EXIT signs. Refreshments will be served outside. Thank u, that is all.
Is it just me or have there been numerous recent articles that seem to have no purpose other than to incite an emotional response and create more hits/posts without having any real substance or value. It seems these articles are nothing more than the equivalent of “trolls”.
And to stay on-topic:
My view of all this is that there is a place for everything. Linux has a niche, a growing niche. Right now, I think Linux has a strange niche. One one end, certain distros are good enough for average users who do common tasks such as email, web, word processing, listening to music, etc. On the other end it is good for very technical users who need lots of power, tools, customization, and are willing (and eager) to put in the required tweaking time to get the specific results they want.
The problem area is between these two. It’s the users who want the power, tools, and customization that the group mentioned above wants, but they aren’t willing to put in the time to learn how to do it and get frustrated when something can’t be done with a point and click.
You make a good point. But not for a desktop operating system. My guess is you just don’t see Linux that way – that is as an operating system installed for everybody. You see it along the lines of DOS, CP/M and other awkward, but reliable business, network tools.
That was not my point at all. My point was that people CAN use systems that are quite difficult (especially Pick) and systems that are not Microsoft’s. All I’m saying about Linux is that it’s different. There are no C:, D:, and E: drives (thank goodness). There are new ways of doing things that one must learn. I do not think that Linux is any more awkward or difficult to use, configure, or troubleshoot than Windows is. I do think it is more stable and more powerful (or at least it allows the user to do powerful things).
You say – if it’s too hard – just “Dont use it (pretty simple). Just don’t whine about it.” I don’t know if you realize, but if the linux developers (the vast community behind it) actually thought the way you did – not only would Linux still be a hobbist operating system without ANY user base, it would probably still have the “features” or limitations of DOS.
Linux was better than DOS in the early 90s. It offered a drastically superior computing experience. As for the rest of your comment. I think that the Linux community does think the way I do. If they didn’t then you would probably have an exact replica of Windows, which seems to be what many Windows users want and expect.
My point really has nothing to do with Linux, however, and everything to do with the mindset of new users. If your mindset is “I’ve heard a lot of good things about Linux. I’m going to learn how to use it”, then you will probably have a good experience. If your mindset is “Microsoft sucks. I’m going to use Linux. Hey! Linux isn’t like Windows! That sucks!”, then there will be no appeasing you. For people with this mindset (which I think the author fits into since they limited themselves in unrealistic ways in order to simulate a real-world environment) there’s nothing to see here. Move along. My point is if you are looking for Windows, then why not use Windows? It seems pretty simple to me, but mysteriously a wide swath of people fail to get it.
The article we’re both commenting on focuses on Linux as a desktop operating system. If you don’t see it that way – no problem, but that doesn’t mean the author was wrong!
No, I think the author was wrong in setting up an unrealistic, artificial environment and then blaming Linux for the self-inflicted shortcomings.
You say that some day people “will be forced to learn Linux ” – so you admit that currently Linux is difficult to master and is not a straightforward experience.
That is not what I said at all. I simply believe that more and more companies will begin to grasp the benefits of Linux and incorporate it into their organizations. Once this happens, people will learn Linux. This is exactly what happened with Windows. To extrapolate from this that Windows is difficult to master and not straightforward defies logic. Let’s measure Linux using the same yardstick.
A desktop computer HAS to be easy to use. Maybe Windows is easy to use only because people have become used to it.
That is exacly why Windows is easy to use. If OS/2 had gained wider acceptance in the early 90s, then everyone would complain because Windows, Linux, etc. were not as easy as OS/2. (That we don’t commonly use OS/2 is proof that a desktop computer doesn’t have to be the best or easy to use to be successful).
But that only means that Linux will have to become better than WindowsXP – and then users will migrate. Let’s hope that happens.
I disagree. Most people didn’t learn how to use a computer at home by spending their own time learning. They learned it out of necessity at work and then bought a computer for home once they were familiar with how to use them (or they were children, who are naturally inquisitive and willing to put forth more effort than their adult counterparts).
I have a seven year old daughter who uses my Linux computer all the time. If she can do it then any adult can; if they are willing.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59774&cid=5673614
Well the author replies.
Make of it what you will.
I’ve out right bought Suse and I’ve tried Mandrake & Knoppix. Documentation for Linux is very important! Far more so than with Windows. Every distro I’ve tried has gaping holes in the documentation–at the worst times. It’s good documentation, but there’s always some critical step missing at the worst time, usually when you’ve just messed up your HDD! I’ve tried to set up dual-boot systems like you-all here say too: win, kernel, swap, linux but no distro setup lets you perform that properly, without going to expert mode and having to do it from scratch.
Expecting all the needed documentation in your hand at install isn’t really that demanding for a product intended to be radically different. That’s what you’re paying for in a distro after all. If distros want to sell to Joe sixpack, they have to realize that he’s only got one computer–hose it and he can’t get “no” help! usually the case when people give up and quit. Extreme extra work is needed. You should be able to “design” your install ahead of time and get all the documention, with gottchas included!
Hardware under linux for joe sixpack is hell! Stupid, simple stuff that just works under windows has no equivalent drivers under linux. Distros need to realize this and deal with it-not stick their head in the sand. They need to create some kind of pre-install routine for windows systems to help these people out with hardware! You should know success “before” you start installing, not half-way thru. Fewer people would feel cheated that way! Granted, typical windows users just grab the hardware disks and insert when asked. Why can’t distos work that way. They may have to create the disks online and scrounge for stuff, but it would give more credibility to Linux. The side effect would be to get a much better handle of what kinds of things people out there are still using and deticate resources to driver dev accordingly!
That said, Knoppix is the very best Linux I’ve ever had! I’d be nice to lock down the configuration [it re-detects certian stuff every time] after you set it correctly. There’s still stuff that it supports, with drivers, but doesn’t work. It works and does far more that any windows expect perhaps XP too!
See header.
Whether or not you subscribe to my politics, I think you might agree that some distributions are making progress in this direction (that is, of an easy-to-use Linux), and also that making more progress isn’t impossible.
I totally agree that making linux easier to use is good. Maybe I am just overly defensive because it seems most people think Windows is the Pinnacle of easy to use. If it is so easy to use how come I am bombarded with questions from friends and relatives ALL OF THE TIME?
I don’t feel that making a Windows user feel at home is necessarily the right approach because I feel Windows users are trained to do things the hard way sometimes. Linux in it’s current state isn’t really any better as there is plenty that is counter intuitive to it. A newbie will find both linux and windows hard to get along with. If we are going to change the way we interact with linux drastically the aim shouldn’t be making windows users feel more at home, but instead making everyone feel more at home.
I doubt this will honestly ever happen. However, whenever I read remarks that sound like people want linux to be more like windows it bothers me. I just can’t see any future in that strategy.
duh!
Heh, I know what you mean regarding constant questions. Every time my caller ID registers my grandfather’s number I start thinking Windows before I pick up the phone. I don’t necessarily think that means Windows is hard to use, as much as it is easy to break, but that’s another story.
I think you’re right, though, that the goal should be to make everyone feel more at home. A good-looking, intuitive, well-designed gui will succeed whether or not it’s “like Windows.” In a Windows-dominated world it has to be similar enough that a new user isn’t *completely* lost (that is, they can at least figure out how to open and use the most important applications they need), but we’ve long since reached this point, I think. What I think needs the most work is 1) documentation and 2) software installation, not the interface. I will most certainly grant that Windows help files are often utterly useless, but they are at least comprehensible to a new user and they have some semblance of being complete. And as far as the second item goes…I just don’t understand why package management in distros like Red Hat and Mandrake are the way they are. A new user should *not* have to track down lists of packages to install some piece of software that they want to use immediately. (This is why I think Debian was in fact a good choice in the article about new users, above.) I’m not saying that Linux should be at all like Windows in these areas — it should be better and easier in both of them.
from the very first sentence…….
>Windows 95 works well enough for my needs.
then why are you installing another OS?????
> Ah no. Linux systems are super fast.
pathetic. Linux requires twice the hardware to do half of what Windows does. I ran Windows 2000 with 64 MB of RAM for a year. On a P2 350. The only way Linux could run as fast was with just fvwm or similar “minimalist” crap. I don’t want less, I want the same I had on Windows. Linux can’t give me that
In fact, Linux can’t even give me Internet connectivity over ISDN (and please, don’t mention ISDN4Linux. It’s laughable, and it’s almost the sole reason I’ll never, ever waste so much time and bandwidth downloading and installing such a piece of pretentious crap as a Linux ISO image). Nobody uses ISDN in USA, right? so I don’t have the right to own an ISDN card in Italy, right? much less use it to connect to my ISP, right? and I have to recompile both the kernel and pppd, right? because loadable drivers suck, right? and the only reference for me has to be a German site, not even fully translated, that goes in great lengths to describe what wonderful technology ISDN is, and for what cool things it can be used, and devotes only a fraction of itself to what I actually want to use ISDN for? The sheer absurdity, the pathetic status of ISDN on Linux (in case your reply is entirely based on it: don’t assume my problems with Linux were limited to this) was the last drop. At least, I finally had a chance to free up precious GBs of hard disk space
> Linux systems running software for people who yearn to use
> Windows are power hungry.
do you know Phaedrus’ fable, “The fox and the grapes”? The fox tried hard, but, jumping the highest it could, it just couldn’t reach the grapes to eat them. So it had to lie to itself that “those grapes were sour, after all…”
“Linux can do more than Windows can! Except, of course, if you try to use it for anything you use Windows for”
Please. Do you think this will get Linux more users? it just creates a false myth around Linux, that the first experience of anyone will immediately disprove
In my case, my Linux experience only made me rush back to Windows, and the total clueness/attitude/rudeness/sheer stupidity/near-sightedness the Linux community never appears to be short of made me actually *happy* of my choice, even if I’d normally find abominable to “love” such an inanimate thing as an operating system – but the disgust for everything Linux-community is just too strong
And please note: by “Linux community” I don’t mean all the Linux users. If I’m referring to you, Random Linux User reading this, you already know it *perfectly*
One last thing: if you think that, just for the fact you use Linux and I use Windows, you’re automatically in some position of superiority above me, think again. Realize that just because I don’t use Linux, and so I haven’t filled my mind with tiny irrelevant details about configuration files, it doesn’t mean I can’t mop the floor with your ass about Unix internals (even more so, in fact). Add to that the fact that I can mop the floor with your ass *and* face at the same time about Windows internals, and you’ll get the picture
> BTW windows boxes running server apps tend to be rather
> power hungry too.
oh, please. To be clear, I couldn’t give a damn about the status of Windows on the server side, because I’ve never used it as such and never will, but, come on, here you’re just assuming
> I’m running about a dozen servers on a Pentium 166 mmx
> with 64 megs of ram including an X server from which I
> can use a 1/2 dozen different apps at a time.
let me guess: xterm, gvim and xeyes on fvwm? I’ve seen a Windows NT 4 running almost the full Office 2000 suite at the same time, on a P166 with 32 MB of RAM. And, despite Office being defined “slow”, it can go from full stop to alive and kicking in less than 2 seconds. Beat that
re: KJK::Hyperion
you have to realize the differences before you start! I like linux a lot, but you have to be prepared to dive in with the right tools. Unfortunately for linux, MS has huge marketing and can get it’s drivers put in the box rather than making people hunt for them–the rest it corperate laziness.
linux requires compensating ahead of time for what you want to do! An internal ISDN modem will probably cause lots of trouble–most older ones can’t run on XP either! [lazy corp] It’s too bad more computer/electronics stores don’t learn about linux because they could make more money that way! Unfortunately, they sell mostly cheap, buggy, Wintel stuff. A great deal of driver energy goes into making Wintel hardware run with windows in spite of all the hardware/software bugs–this creates a “house of cards” effect. Buying linux ready hardware up front usually means better quality hardware too. Serial modems instead of PCI, network attached internet adapters, printers, etc… I play on a stock Dell Optiplex 350 at work and linux works great! BUT, I have network attached storage, printers, routers and firewalls–things are designed to play nicely because my environment is already mixed! The stores and distros need to learn how to market this stuff–without the MS tax that’s more money to go into other people’s pockets!
Linux seems to be less goofy than windows. There’s less Auto### and that’s a good thing. You have to tell it exactly what you want it to do [hard], no guessing, but then it doesn’t change on it’s own like MS stuff. That’s where the savings is! That it stays doing what you tell it! There aren’t any “secrets” in linux, it just takes time to learn them all.
That said, vendors should work harder to teach users about linux to end the bad feelings!