[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: When Will GNU/Linux Be Ready for Joe User?
Re: When Will GNU/Linux Be Ready for Joe User?
Wed, 19 May 2004 05:07:23 GMT
:) wow is your circuit breaking? (j/k no offense intended)
as a programmer and a tinkerer myself, i generally agree with you.
but there are things that my mom, sister or lil nieces and nephews need to
be able to do with the computer without spending too much time learning how
to use the computer. linux on the desktop, just to be fair, does need some
improvement in this general area. i think that's what the guy meant when he
asked when it's ready for the average joe.
honestly dude... whether it's linux or windows or what have you, technology
(hw/sw/os/app/embedded-os/etc/etc) in itself is interesting enough and big
enough of a subject that no one person can master it completely. still
sometimes i still wonder why understand the debate between which one is
better persists. when an employer pays me to do something either in linux or
in windows, i do it to their satisfaction. and fortunately for me, i'm
pretty proficient in linux/java/oracle/jsp camp as well as
windows/.net/sql/aspx camp that i really don't have to choose between the
two. whatever whoever pays me says he wants that's what i'll give them.
we're all just working folks trying to put foods on the table here; whatever
works works. and to that end... it's really just a matter of preference
(though some might convincingly argue otherwise, each has its own pros and
cons). potato po-tah-toh.
just my .02.
"Circuit Breaker" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:43:49 -0400, Simon wrote:
> > I'm doing a survey.
> > When do you think GNU/Linux will be ready for the average Joe? What
> > obstacles must it overcome first?
> It already is ready. The average joe just needs to learn how to think
> instead of expecting to have someone hold his hand the whole way through.
> One of the things I hated about the "other operating system" was that by
> default it was set up with this "let me help you through this difficult
> procedure" mindset. Every damned thing I tried to do out of the box had
> some frickin' wizard associated with it. While this is great for a
> 5-year-old's first toy computer, this isn't something that an intelligent
> person needs to have.
> Some things it's good to have wizards for. For instance, setting up
> e-mail or a network connection. What would be better would be INTUITIVE
> configuration windows. My God, what is so hard to understand about "mail
> server login name" that you have to explain to these idiots that "this is
> the part to the left of the at (@) sign"? Maybe it's that I grew up
> dealing with computers and specifically BBSes. Maybe it's that when we
> got our first AOL account I noticed that my login and my e-mail address
> "on the left part of the at (2) sign" were the same. I guess expecting
> normal people to recognize something so frickin' blatant is asking too
> much. These are things we don't need wizards for. These are things we
> should simply teach people about so they don't NEED the frickin' wizards.
> For me, I actually am more disturbed to use a wizard than to use the
> configuration window. Think about it: when you're doing your job, or
> getting a loan, or signing up for some service or whatever, do you want
> someone sitting there explaining things to you, and telling you to "sign
> here, here, and here" when you already know what they're telling you and
> you already know that your signature goes on the lines marked "signature"?
> So, if the "average joe" wants wizards for every damned thing, well,
> there are Linux distributions that would suffice. Mandrake is a good
> example. However, there are many things in Linux that there simply are
> no wizards for. The "average joe" has to be able to learn and think for
> himself before he can truly make the most of using Linux, or, even to
> make the transition from the "other OS" worth it. But, he doesn't /have/
> to. Anything the /AVERAGE/ user wants to do, can be done. Mind you,
> some things are not fully 100% cross-compatible, like converting between
> proprietary MS file formats and open formats like StarOffice uses, but
> the average joe won't need to share word processor files with other
> people. At least, I never did. I only had one or two professors at
> college who wanted homework turned in via e-mail, and they were just as
> happy with plain text as with full blown Powerpoint presentations. In
> fact, my last Humanities professor preferred plain text.
> It all comes down to what the average user wants to do.
> OTOH, I have always been a tinkerer and that gets me in trouble
> sometimes. Yet, I learn. It makes me think. I get stuck, and then I
> have a problem I want to solve, and I think until I solve it. That's one
> reason I ditched Mandrake. It got boring. It wasn't screwing up. I ran
> out of things to try, short of getting a high-speed internet connection
> so I could download tons of stuff. I also got tired of having the
> feeling that I wasn't putting my computer to full use. I wanted to
> expand. My brain needed some lebensraum, something new to try.
> So a few days ago I took the dive and reformatted / repartitioned my
> drive to run Debian. Didn't have to wipe it like I did, but I wanted to
> so I could reorganize after having gotten rid of that other OS so many
> months ago. It was an exercise in thought as well as irritation, I'll
> admit. Installing Linux can be hard if you make it hard like I do. I
> demand to install individual packages so I know what's there and I know
> that only what I [think I] want or need is there. By the same token, the
> average user will probably see Mandrake's installer screen, see
> "Graphical Desktop", "Network Server", and maybe "Game Station" and click
> those options and think "gee, this is swell" as it installs the most
> commonly used X Windows applications and windowmanagers like KDE, Gnome,
> and maybe Fluxbox or WindowMaker along with some form of Apache web
> server and some games like Tuxracer and some card games. All behind the
> scenes, all unbeknownst to the average joe who is installing it.
> The average joe doesn't even have to know what a hard disk is, to install
> Mandrake. Debian requires a little more of a brain, though.
> So, as I consider how long I've been typing this reply, and how
> incoherent it might seem (as I've gone through and added to it as new
> thoughts came to me, and I've certainly forgotten to add key points I
> wanted to make (I'm tired, leave me alone) ), I can sum it all up with a
> few key points. Whether or not Linux is ready for the average joe
> depends upon:
> * What you call average.
> * What he wants to do with his computer. Specifically.
> (i.e., activities)
> * What he needs to get from his computer to "use" it.
> (i.e., how it helps him; what benefits he receives)
> * What distribution we are talking about.
> (or, are we going to use whatever works best for A.J.?)
> * If something happens to not be perfect,
> * Will he try to fix it himself?
> * Will he want a wizard to do it for him?
> * Whether or not he is willing to accept Google as a reference tool
> * Ditto Usenet
> * Ditto mailing lists / list archives
> * What kind of software installation he can live with
> (most of the popular distros use some form of installer tool.
> Debian has apt-get / dpkg, Red Hat & Mandrake have RPM, etc.
> Some software simply has no package form as they're not
> popular enough to warrant the work that would go into it,
> so can our buddy A.J. learn to "./configure, make, make
> IMHO, Linux is ready. It was ready a few years ago when I first picked
> up a copy of Mandrake 8.1 from the local Wal-Mart. Best purchase I ever
> made, next to my Dodge Daytona. Some hardware has limited support, so
> you do have to be careful. This is the price you pay when you're
> competing against only the world's largest software conglomerate that
> tries to set its own "standards". Of course, he with the money has the
> power to put his OS on computers sold by Dell, Compaq, and
> Hewlitt-Packard, to name just a few, making it the most recognized name
> in computer OSes, and therefore being the most likely OS for people to
> get software for, and therefore the most likely OS for hardware
> manufacturers to write drivers for. Plus, unlike ATI and nVidia and
> Matrox, many hardware manufacturers think that by writing drivers for
> their hardware, they have to give away all their money making secrets and
> codes. Of course, they *DON'T* have to, as nVidia has shown. A quality
> product will still earn money regardless, so maybe the other
> manufacturers are just scared that they can't live up to quality enough
> to make money without MS. I don't know, I don't care.
> I use Windows for one thing at home. Need for Speed 4: High Stakes,
> Need for Speed 5: Porsche Unleased, Descent3: Mercenary, Delta Force,
> and Viper Racing.
> The one bad thing about linux is the game support. Most of the working
> games I have played on linux look like the old DOS games that I ran on my
> 486-DX4/133 back in 1996. The others were simply too damned slow with
> that OpenGL or Mesa, which were slow in windows, too (but not as slow).
> DirectX in Windows seems fast enough, why doesn't Linux have something
> along those lines? Or does it, that's not being implemented by coders?
> I see so many games that look like they have kick-ass graphics, but they
> require this GL crap that doesn't run worth a flying squirrel's tail on
> my system. I was able to play Descent3 on this AMD K6-2/300 in Windows
> running DirectX, but not very well on my Pentium-III 700 in Windows
> running OpenGL. I have yet to find a game remotely as elaborate as
> Descent3 that I can play in Linux. Tuxracer is the closest. XRacer, the
> Wipeout lookalike, is completely unplayable even on my P-III laptop.
> Now, I've noticed Debian has ***MUCH*** better use of memory than
> Mandrake did. Mandrake regularly ran me half out of RAM and swap,
> whereas I have /yet/ to see Debian hit one quarter usage on either.
> Maybe it will run my games better.
> I've installed a few. I'll try them out.
> Aside from games, though, Linux has done everything I ask of it and then
> some. It is certainly ready. I use it for NAT/Masquerade, firewalling,
> office productivity, web browsing, Usenet, e-mail, watching TV on my
> ATI A-I-W Pro, listening to MP3s, blah blah blah it does it all. I've
> got my instant messaging, which I can get apps for everything from Unix
> Talk to AIM to ICQ to Yahoo! to MSN to Jabber to even VoIP applications
> like GnomeMeeting -- the Netmeeting compatible program, along with
> several others whose names I do not recall (hit google, I'm tired).
> There are applications for turning your computer into a PBX switchboard,
> a voicemail machine, and even an automated menu-based phone program
> thingy. I forget what they called it. Can even do fax on demand, IIRC.
> As I was installing packages today, I ran across what must have been two
> or three DOZEN ham radio related applications, applications for tracking
> projects, applications for
> damn, just about everything INCLUDING games (if only I could figure out
> how to get DOOM or QUAKE to use the WAD files I got...) (some other
> Is Linux ready for A.J.? You tell me. I've been typin for an hour and
> it's bedtime.
Re: When Will GNU/Linux Be Ready for Joe User?, ray, 2004/05/18
Re: When Will GNU/Linux Be Ready for Joe User?, Ministry Of Jute, 2004/05/18
Re: When Will GNU/Linux Be Ready for Joe User?, David Kastrup, 2004/05/19
Re: When Will GNU/Linux Be Ready for Joe User?, Peter Köhlmann, 2004/05/19
Re: When Will GNU/Linux Be Ready for Joe User?, Alan Connor, 2004/05/19