digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Is Linux really ready for Simple Users?

desktoplinux.com — This engaging and insightful eight-part series explores the suitability of desktop Linux for ordinary computer users. The author investigates a veritable alphabet soup of Linux distributions -- from Damn Small Linux to Zenwalk.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cstrippie, on 10/10/2007, -20/+36Article should be titled: is Linux ready for users who will drop it at the first sign of trouble? Not a single issue he encountered was even *difficult* to resolve, let alone impossible. Then, after he was forced by repeat encounters with the Intel resolution issue to actually LEARN how to FIX it, he never revises his opinions of the distros he dropped when the problem occurred. Useless.
    • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Linux isn't ready for Middle America, I think most users who use Linux have another computer or run Windows or Mac Platform for most things if anything. I use Fedora Core 5 but I'm not about to drop Mac OS X over it.
      • BlackAle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4This might surprise you, but there's a world beyond 'Middle America'.

        Though I do agree with you that Linux isn't ready yet.
    • solonGFX, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Of course it's ready; this is the year of the linux desktop. Again.
      /sarcasm
      • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Of course, the parent post is still getting Dugg up by people that just blame their users instead of the OS.

        Yeah. That's going to help you win market share. Blame the users. Isn't that what RIAA does?
        • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Yes if the user drive the car into the tree, do users blame the car for their stupidity?
          So yes, sometimes you do blame the users because after all technology is merely the tool. You are supposed to have a brain to use that tool. It doesn't think for you, not yet.
        • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0When it comes down to an issue where simply educating users would have solved the entire problem, like getting people to tell the difference between a real Windows dialog box, and some random pop up on a web page saying "your computer needs to be checked", then yes blame users when something they did causes harm. If people took 10 minutes to look at what the real ones look like they wouldn't have so many problems. Most people refuse to learn anything, they just want to get their email, open their private bank account, and buy something with a credit card, all with a computer that is likely compromised because of something they clicked on.

          Is it really so much to ask that users in a large network be encouraged to learn how to use and protect the computer and network that they commonly use for personal emails, banking transactions, purchases etc.

          Thats not to say people should have to drop to the commandline for basic stuff, thats Ubuntus fault and most desktop distros have GUIs for things (why ubuntu is wasting development time i dont know).
    • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Are your glasses broken? He said SIMPLE USERS.

      People shouldn't have to learn to be technicians. It should just work. That's like saying that if I have a new car, and it has issues, I shouldn't be mad that my new car is having issues. I should just learn mechanics on the spot.

      Looking down your nose at people and saying "You're just giving up too easy" is passing the buck. And it doesn't win over any new users.
      • lemac, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2You should buy a Fisher Price computer with an on and off button only.
        • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I run an office with over 100 users in one site, and a few hundred over Western Canada. I fix a lot of computers.

          Because my users shouldn't have to. And I wouldn't be so conceited to suggest that they're childlike. Way to win users, with more elitism?
          • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would agree that users should not have to do basic things by hand, Ubuntu and the others should all be writing management apps and making the system less manual for basic stuff, and to their credit most of the desktop Linux systems have, like Freespire, Xandros, and Opensuse. Why anyone would push Ubuntu on novice users is beyond me, those people are stupid.
      • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Yep. Simple users. So why start by installing the OS? It should be pre-installed. Show me a simple user than can install Windows XP... and don't get me started on trying to install XP with AHCI SATA drivers. :P
        • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Except you want to make people switch to a new OS. You have to make it easy to install on existing PC, so the user can switch themselves.

          No one is going to order a new computer with Linux if they've never tried it before.
          • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Why not? People order Windows PCs when they've never used a computer before. What's the difference, pray tell? Same with Mac - people switch to those too, without trying them. At least a lot of Linux distros offer a LiveCD now - you CAN try before you buy.:P
          • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You see, your problem is that you assume that all SIMPLE users all used Windows. You made the same mistake as the writer.
            Do Microsoft make it easy for me to install over Mac? No
            Do Microsoft make it easy for me to try out Windows without ***** up my whole system? ***** NO
            I have no ***** idea why dick heads like you are getting digg up.
        • mrsteveman1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You must realize that the Windows XP installer is one of the worst, its probably worse than Debian. Dont refer to the XP installer as if its easier to use than everything else, its not.

          Ubuntu has a simple one, thats for sure. Want to see a nicely written one? Look at Xandros or Opensuse, they aren't dead simple but users could figure them out much easier than Windows XP.
      • leohart, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3If users really want simple then PLEASE use Mac OS X. Linux is here for people to learn and appreciate its power.
        • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Funny how when I call Linux users elitist, they all show up to prove my point right.
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The problem is that he said Simple users, but he doesn't REPRESENT a simple user. So his comparison is ***** wrong. If you are going to do a test case, then the general consensus is to use REAL test subject.
        Conversely, if I was to use Windows, then I would be ***** ***** because I can't apt-get my software! You see the ***** point?
      • dimension128, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you buy a new car, you cant get the windshield wipers to clean your windshield.
        So you say this car sucks, and go to car B.
        With car B you also cant make the windshield wipers work.
        So you say that car B is useless as well, and move on.
        Now when you get to car F, you realize there is a pattern here, and decide to look into the issue further.

        Ahh there is the problem, you never put windshield fluid into the car, and never hit the button or moved the leaver to turn them on. OOPS :-) Well I suppose car F is cool! Oh wait, car F locks the door every time you start driving. That's an annoyance, instead of going back and looking at any of the first cars that I said suck, lets just move on to car G.
    • mscf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Hey, I am with you. I have dealt with a lot of issues that required just a little research and configuration. I have found the reward of understanding how and why things work to more than outweigh the time and trouble.

      He makes a good point, though, when he emphasizes that his experiences are what users new to Linux and without that drive are likely to encounter. I handle IT for a small group home, and have begun (starting with Ubuntu 7.04) using Linux instead of Windows for resident computers. I installed and configured these computers for them, and as long as they are using them for their intended purposes they work fine, but if, for instance, they need to install a new printer even computer savvy staff generally find themselves at a loss, and that is just an issue of unfamiliarity - not troubleshooting an actual problem.

      I think Linux is almost there for general consumption, and it gets closer everyday, but it is a mistake to think that it will convert "normal" windows users without a little more simplification of configurations and settings. I recently upgraded my own installation to Gutsy Gibbon, and it is another solid step in the right direction. Another iteration or two, and I think they will have taken care of most of the major stumbling blocks.
      • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4You like to know how things work. You're a geek. You can't just look at the outside without hacking in.

        Simple users aren't like you. Stop designing for yourself and design for your target market.
        • mscf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Uhh, isn't that what I just said?
        • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1In more words, yes.
        • mscf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4And if you mean the computers I maintain for my employer when you say "design for your target market," my target market is a small company that doesn't have much money, and just needs to provide computers for, primarily, word processing. As I said, Linux is the perfect solution for that.

          I have had to provide much less support for these machines than the XP machines, where residents decide they want to install a game, but when it won't run for lack of RAM they decide to start deleting files out of system32.

          So, I did design for my target market.
          • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Cool.

            Right tool for the job. By the way, I started out in IT administrating Redhat Linux servers. Before Fedora/Enterprise. It was the right tool for the job as far as web and email servers at the time. Still is.

            Stop being so defensive. You don't need to explain yourself to me.
    • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Are you THAT naive?

      People don't want to think they want the computer to worl and do what they want when they want. Windows does that, Linux does not.
      • thesquirrelwood, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3really?

        Windows doesn't do that at all. Most people have just been forced to use it and thus are now comfortable with how to use windows. Windows doesn't play my mp3, I have to go scour the internet to get that to work. How about Ubuntu? I click on an mp3 and it asks me if I want to enable the functionality. *g*
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Really. Do windows open up PDF automatically even if Adobe Acrobat isn't install? No
        Do windows automatically play Divx movies? ***** no. Does it offer an instruction or a guide to play divx movie? No
        So what's the point you are trying to make? That you can belt out rhetoric one-liner with nothing to back yourself up?
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's a nice enough idea, but I've noticed that when something doesn't work in Linux people'll grumble about how 'Linux sucks' but if it doesn't work in Windows they'll actually try to look for a solution.
    • 350Zed, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Most of us prefer to MAKE MONEY and SPEND TIME WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY, rather than what you call "LEARNING" about Linux through wasting hours of time troubleshooting hardware/driver issues. Linux distributors should be FIXING their own mess instead of pushing it on the user population. That user population has better things to do with its time.
      • thesquirrelwood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6like commenting on digg... heh
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3***** then you probably were born known how to used Windows.
        The truth is, you have to learn doesn't matter what operating system you use. I make money with Linux and still spend time with friends and family. I don't have time to go through the Vista ***** wasting reducing my productivity by asking dumb question every 10 seconds. Neither do I have the time to ***** relearn the interface.
        Nobody here is forcing you to use Linux. If you are happy with Windows, then ***** stay there. But at least be honest that there is a learning curve for every operating system.
  • schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -12/+46As long as they realise that Linux is not Windows (i.e. it requires some learning), then yes -- it's ready indeed.
    • baalzebub, on 10/10/2007, -7/+31you have that right, just a few days ago i was in a computer store, and was talking to another customer and i brought up Linux because he seemed stressed about viruses & malware, and told him that Linux runs great on my PC & no need for anti-virus, spyware scanners & etc, (the benefits of Linux) and this person could not fathom the idea of another operating system, he asked "does that run on windows?" and i explained that Linux is another operating system (an alternative to windows) and he still could not grasp the idea that there are other operating systems besides windows, i just shook my head and walked away leaving him in mid sentence...
      • subgeniusd, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Most of the public don't even get the "I'm a Mac - I'm a PC" ads. They are watched like all the competing car commercials. Same basic power train with different shells and prices. They think Mac and PC are just different hardware configurations running the same software programs.

        I couldn't even get the blockheads at work (many in their late teens, 20s) to try FireFox on the break room XP computers. Learning Windows is about all they ever want out of IT and alternatives just challenge their precious comfort zones.

        I think I'll save this and paste it next September in the inevitable thread about "Is Linux finally ready for the average user?" story.
      • Roger, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9"i just shook my head and walked away leaving him in mid sentence"



        Damn thats rude.
      • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11So...you want to win over simple users by being rude and impatient?

        Are all Linux users as elitist as you?
    • Roger, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2(Stupid comment system)
    • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9What these reviewers need to do is to actually get a SIMPLE user and ask him/her to use the system. Most people don't do that when they write reviews. They assume that this is how a simple user would do and extrapolate their annoyances because of something different than what they are used to.
      Get a simple user, like a grandmother or a teenager who usually use email, watch videos, word process, then write up a conclusion of their experience.
      • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I've read articles like this before, by lay users.

        Digg responded with the same elitist BS, about how he gave up too easy or was too used to Windows.

        Do you guys have these excuses scripted now, or what?
        • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Because that's what these so-called lay users are: Typical technical writers who were trained to used windows and freak out when they can't find a start button.
          Most people who never used operating system would have no problems. Training a computer illiterate is much easier than re-training the computer-literate.
        • cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No. re-Training a "computer literate" is much, much easier than training a computer illiterate...
          What you are referring to is the problem of training a "Windows literate" user to think beyond their previous training.

          A truly computer literate user is familiar with the seperation between hardware and software, and are not as put off by the initial lack of familiar interfaces. A truly computer illiterate user doesn't even have the concept of familiar interfaces to work with, they have to be exposed to basic assumptions about CLI, GUI, and WIMP interfaces before even starting to work on applications and OS navigation.
    • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Arg - installation is NOT use, for *****'s sake. Simple users can't install Windows either - and it's a damn-sight harder to install than a lot of Linux installs these days.

      Linux IS ready for simple users: word processing, spreadsheets, Internet, e-mail, IM and media management. It's all easy, and it's all in the default package. It's not ready for power users (ex-Windows power users, more to the point) and techs without some time to spare. If you want to do something fancy, you need to learn the Linux way of doing it. If you don't have the time or the inclination to do it, then Linux is not ready for you (and perhaps never will be, or ever should be).

      ^^ this represents my experience of Linux, as a highly-skilled MS PC tech. Retraining my brain to use Linux is harder than giving it to Joe Bloggs and saying 'Have at!'. By the way, if anyone has figured out how to use the latest nVidia drivers, Compiz Fusion and Xinerama, tell me. :p
    • HonestAbe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Linux will be ready when it doesn't require "some learning".
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Same with Windows. When somebody who has never used a computer before can come to it and use it, with no instruction, and then get help and solve their issues, it will be ready
    • Fentekreel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you tell that to the customers i deal with trying to get an email to send with a picture and outlook cant send a mail because ....well outlook sucks .. ... . . or when they keep opening new messages to send one mail.....you have to learn something *****....
    • annenk38, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Linux will never set foot into the mainstream so long as Windows remains effectively free.
      http://articles.tlug.jp/Windows_Is_Free
  • Spr0k3t, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Looks like this one has been in the editing room for quite some time. Or is it just me?
    • Onestone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Yeah. In September 2007 he is talking about Ubuntu Edgy.
  • ttamshadbolt, on 10/10/2007, -18/+22no
  • backwoodsbob, on 10/10/2007, -6/+40Is any os suitable for simple users? There are a lot of Windows users out there that don't know what they are doing, according to the stats on the number of computers that are infected or turned into bots. Linux is the least of their worries.
  • nemoder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+58Simple Users don't install operating systems.
    If you want to compare usability then skip the install process and buy systems with Linux pre-loaded then write your review.
    • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3You'd be surprised how many Windows users know how to reformat their own machine.

      Or you might not be surprised. Either way, installing software isn't out of the realm of most user's skills. In the Windows world, it's "Next, Next,
      Next..."

      Linux is supposed to be free. If it's not easy for users to install themselves, they'll have to pay someone. Then it's not so free.
      • renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10You'd be suprised how many widnows users think Internet Explorer "Is the Internet" The concept of even another browser baffles them
        • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No I wouldn't. It's the Big Blue E (TM). I have an office that is about half those users.

          These people still know what "Installing Software" is. Otherwise they wouldn't fill their computers with crap that we have to clean out.
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You are a ***** moron. Linux is free. The software is free and the source is also FREE for you to modified.
        If you complain about the cost of a free thing then you might as well complain about how a free country like America cost millions of lives to maintain its freedom.
    • bieber, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Hahaha. You'd be surprised how many Windows users you apparently haven't had contact with.
    • ReadItAndWeep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There seems to be a false dichotomy here between "simple users" and "Linux geeks". If "simple users" means people with the computer knowledge of your average grandmother, then there are a lot of people who fall somewhere in between these two extremes, including myself and this author. I know all the basics of windows and the internet, I've installed and reinstalled operating systems before, I understand how drivers work (but don't like having to mess around with them), I know how to set up a home network, etc., but I'm also not a "computer geek". I don't understand all of the alphabet soup acronyms that "computer geeks" use, I don't understand a lot of the processes that work behind the scenes, and I don't really like having to mess around with command lines (or the Windows registry for that matter). If Linux wants to become a major player, it must first be able to convert people like me before it worries about people who don't even fully comprehend the idea of different operating systems.

      I've been using Windows my whole life but, for the first time ever, I've seriously thought about getting a different operating system. The mediocrity of Windows Vista was the final straw. I actually would rather keep using XP than use Vista. I've been very impressed with many of the Linux distros, like Ubuntu. The main thing holding me back is the lack of third party support. I think the linux distros are making progress with this and it is only a matter of time before I do swich. However, the Linux fanboys need to aknowledge that, at the present time, there are still some drawbacks to their os and that not everyone wants their computer to be a hobby instead of a tool.
    • donte, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In addition to not installing their own OS, simple users like really simple installs of programs. I've got Ubuntu on my laptop and I really like the simplicity of apt-get, but my mother would most certainly not (she like most common users are scared and confused by a command line). And the package manager is an even more intimidating feature... just because it's graphical, that doesn't mean it's easy enough for the average person to use. If you really want to cater to the simple user, load the OS like nemoder said and make double click install more prevalent -- because that's what the average user wants. It's time to get over the "that's so windows" argument. Yes... for all its faults, it keeps the really simple stuff really simple and that's where even the more fully-featured linux distros still fall short.
  • google01103, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11This was a pretty fair and realistic realistic assesment of what happens when you try Linux (or any unkown os) for the first time. The disheartning things are what everyone has know all along - weaknesses in package management, hardware compatability, the cli, etc ........ that still need to be worked on. At some point the Linux community will learn that "united we stand, divided we fall" is relevant to them as it is to the world at large.
    • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Open source people like to bash Microsoft for taking a long time on Vista.

      How long has it taken the open source community to make a finely finished product? You have to actually pay people to code those little things that put the shiny finish on it.
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Again, I dont know if you are trolling or you are genuinely stupid. Unlike Windows, which is a product that cost money, most open source software are developed from hobby and dedication. It is a continual development process and there is no such thing as a finely finished product because there are always continual improvement. People can pay for those extra little things that matters to their business but that if those extra things are irrelevant to the open source software vision, it won't be included. It is exactly the same as a business who want something extra from a closed source project.
        It is obvious that you never work on any large project in either open source or closed source. Developers often keep different branch for different customers.
        Please go sodomize yourself because your ignorance is stinking up the internet.
    • bieber, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3***** you. If I lose the ability to choose my distro and window manager, I'm lighting a bag of dog ***** on fire and leaving it on your porch. This goes back to the "GNU/Linux, believe it or not, is not Windows" thing. Choice is actually a good thing.
      • CaptRR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And that my friends is why Linux will always be behind windows for the average user. Most of us care less about the window manager, we just want our computers to work.
        • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Which is why Linux should be really gaining ground. PCs that 'just work' are becoming rare with the advent of corporate-driven spyware and adware programs. Finding a Windows box WITHOUT bugs is the rarity these days. :-(
  • waterdrop, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4For internet, email and word processing than Linux is ready for simple users. For basically anything else then no.
  • KyjL, on 10/10/2007, -15/+11No, and it hasn't been for decades. Stop beating the ***** dead horse with a bloody rock.
    • bjweeks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Linux hasn't even been around for two decades yet... Nice try.
      • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Approx. 1.6 decades. For the plurality.
        • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1And Gnome and KDE has only been popular since 2007. So what's your point?
      • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1...
      • KyjL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Seconding Bromac. It's been longer than a decade, thus the S at the end.

        But also since Linux is essentially Unix but thrown together by random people across the globe, you could count that as well.
  • chrisinsocalif, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3I really want more Games for linux.The game servers run GREAT and i hope someday it can be used as an alternative gaming platform.
    • Fentekreel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree....though watch something shifty come from the next version of windows about that :) hopefully a directx port :) Impossible i know but would be interesing..or there could be the use of ..... opengl? havent seen that in too many new space age games :( Thought it allways looked better than directx
      • dimension128, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No offense intended here, really, but you apparently haven't looked to hard.
        Games that use OpenGl and run on natively Linux, off the top of my head:
        Doom3
        Ut2004 and Ut4(Ut2007)
        Quake 4
        If your thinking about Microsoft specific games like halo, or registered "Games For Windows (tm)" games like Bioshock, well I cant help you much there.
  • mdollarsign, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5no
  • ryand124, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6no.
  • cfd339, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18Is Windows XP? I'm not kidding. I don't do this often (because I'd rather cut my hands off) but I spent the day cleaning up a neighbor's XP/Home machine. It was so fully riddled with spyware and malware that it could no longer be used. The network stack was destroyed by partially installed firewall software from multiple vendors, and for some unknown reasons something set the keyboard type to dvorak -- THAT took a bit of figuring out.

    It took me several hours rebuild this PC and save the owner from having to "nuke it from space" and reinstall the operating system. The fact is that if I were to bill the person for the time at my consulting rate it would have been cheaper to buy three different new computers. This is true for anyone qualified to repair such a mess.

    The average consumer cannot reasonably secure and maintain a Windows based personal computer.
    • williebee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Your silly, I would have used the old windows rhyme.
      "fdisk, format, reinstall, Do Da, Do Da"
    • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5That's silly.

      Why didn't you back up his data and then nuke the OS instead of rebuilding it from scratch? You had access to his data apparently...

      If you consulted and did work like that for me that wasted more time and made your bill bigger, you wouldn't be around after the first invoice.
      • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, because no-one customises there PC set up at all.

        Easy to say, not easy to do. The majority of PC users have software on their machines they MUST HAVE, but don't have the discs to re-install. The most common one is accounting software, followed by anything that uses a database. Just 'wipe & reinstall' is not a valid or cost-effective option for these people. They're better off spending the 3-4 hours labour it takes to get their machine back to running as it was, than spending an hour formatting & re-installing, then 5+ hours trying to setup the machine again just the way they had it (excluding software costs, as they invariably need to buy the software again).
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Were you there when he ask the owner whether it's ok to nuke the system? No
        So I don't think you should assume much.
        You seem to assume quite alot.
        You assumed all Simple User have used Windows.
        If you do consulting work for me and automatically assume without consulting me, I would fire your ass instantly.
      • cfd339, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, as I said in the comment, this wasn't consulting work. Had it been, the billable hours would have been 4 or 5 times the cost of replacement for the PC. Rather, this was for a neighbor who had been kind to me and my family in the past. That's entirely different economics where I come from.
    • gcauthon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31: User refuses to run spyware or virus protection. 2: User installs everything they see as an administrator without thinking twice. 3: User continues this behavior despite obvious signs that a problem now exists on their system.

      How exactly can any OS prevent this problem, given the user's stupidity? Your only hope is to pick an OS so obscure that spyware/virus authors don't bother porting their wares to it. But then it won't have the popular software either. In short, this type of user will be screwed no matter what OS is leading the market.
      • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I think OS X deals with user stupidity pretty well, actually. Most MS bigots will tell you Mac users are morons and simpletons - yet somehow they manage to keep their machines running without bugs, while their Windows counterparts format and re-install every 6 months. OS X is hardly obscure, and it's got great software support. Your argument doesn't hold water at all.
        • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Because there's isn't much viruses or worms on the Mac.
        • cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"while their Windows counterparts format and re-install every 6 months."

          Which the majority of Windows users would consider a bigoted statement coming from the other side.

          Are there Windows users who reinstall every six months? Yes, but they are in the same minority on the "PC" side as the number of Mac users to seem to encounter consistent bugs or limitations on that platform.

          OS X does deal with the perception of basic user stupidity well, it also was developed from well over a decade of isolating user assumptions on the more limited Mac OS systems 7 thru 9; and starts with a framework considered "closed" compared to the rest of the PC industry.

          That there are flaws in their design is evident from the release of Safari for Windows, which showed that many of the same bad assumptions about programming that have plagued the Windows platform also exist on the Mac development side.

          User stupidity (or ignorance, and unfamiliarity) are not going to go away until we learn to address peoples understanding from both ends of the user spectrum.
  • repete, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Lets reverse the question. "Are simple users ready for Linux?". Mate, simple users aren't ready for Windows, let alone Linux. I've been helping friends and family so much recently, I need to drag out my "No I will not fix your computer" t-shirt. So...Is anyone with any ability to problem-solve ready for Linux? Sure. Is anyone who panics as soon as an error message appears on the screen, and doesn't think to google it, ready for Linux? No.
    • bromac, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1So, people like you who fix computers and problem-solve can move to Linux?

      Right. Why does it always come back to the geeks saying Linux is so wonderful, and having to explain why Linux users have to be above average. It's the Elitist OS.
      • Coldkill, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4SHUT UP! BROMAC
      • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"So, people like you who fix computers and problem-solve can move to Linux"

        No...People who can problem-solve (And let's be Frank, or Sam if you prefer, computers can be maddening at the best of times), can move to whatever OS does the job for them and they are ready to use. Some people just shouldn't use computers...
    • LingNoi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Very true. I have tried repeated attempts over the phone to get my girlfriend to change her ip address and failed every time. It's buried so deep in GUIs that its impossible to tell someone how to navigate to it over the phone without physically sitting down at a computer yourself and repeating the steps with her.
  • goyney, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5If you know how to Google, fixing Linux problems is easy.
    • bjweeks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6"Most people" can't fix Windows problems, even if fixing Linux problems is a tad harder it is still too hard.
    • KyjL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Now what happens when their only computer is Linux and they ***** over the entire thing?
      • repete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Same thing that happens with any OS. 1) Do they know how to fix it? Yes -> Fix it. No -> Find a way to fix it. 2) If it can not be 'fixed', reinstall and restore. You did backup your data, didn't you?
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So, how does one use google to get their wifi working when they can't get on the net without their wifi working??
      • Oronar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Cups and string.
      • repete, on 10/10/2007, -1/+199% of machines probably (At least in my experience) have a wired connection available to them. Now that being said, I have a wired connection, and I can't get wireless to work on my Ubuntu laptop, and I don't have time to look in to it in any more depth than I have to date (Probably something to do with fixing everyone else's computers. Well...That and trying to spend time with my wife and daughter).
    • Rhythmicidea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I've learned that it is a mistake to install an operating system you are unfamiliar with when you don't have a hardwire connection. Wireless is slowly getting there on Linux. But it still does need some work.
    • HonestAbe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0... if you know what to search for.
    • monkeyboy7706, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think that may be one of the things that would put people off linux if they don't know much about it or are lookin in to switching.

      If you search for how to fix something in linux you tend to get hundreds of forums all with people asking "how do I get this or that to work?". While useful for someone using linux I think that for a simple user ooking to switch it would make inux look overly complicated.

      For my definition of simple user take a look at the compuer section in Yahoo answers.
    • monkeyboy7706, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sorry double post
  • nobogeys217, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2If there was a graphical installer for linux distros instead of command line install or the various package managers, then a lot more people would probably switch.

    People also need to realize that Linux is not windows. Linux developers don't want to recreate the wheel. They want something different from windows.
    • bjweeks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11There is a "graphical installer". See: Ubuntu.
      • monkeyboy7706, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes and fedora core has a live installer as does mepis, mandriva and even Gentoo has one in fact very few these days don't.
    • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Err, welcome to 2005. :P
    • CraigRat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Have you actually used any recent Linux Distros?
      I haven't used a command line for package management in AGES, and I haven't needed to use a command line for a Distro install in years....

      I suggest you try a current distro and see for yourself.....
    • renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Any modern popular distro has an installer just as easy if not better than windows.
      • BassJunkie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd actually say most are better then windows.....especially if you get a LIveCD based one you can actually surf the net or play a bit of Solitaire whilst your installing your OS instead of sitting there staring at the screen as Microsoft try to explain just what's so "brilliant" in the release of windows your trying to install!
  • EnderMB, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7For once, let's actually be realistic.

    Linux isn't supposed to be easy! As far as being a finished article goes Linux is still in Beta. There are many problems with it, good UI and HCI concepts are thrown out of the window with many Linux distro's, and the plethora of options available to users is somewhat overwhelming.

    Windows 'just works' for a lot of people out there. They want a machine that will surf the Internet, write a few letters, play some music and be able to run anything that is popped in that CD tray. Until Linux can do all of that in an easy and straightforward manner it will always be at the bottom of the barrel.

    Now for gods sake, can we give the whole "Linux will overthrow M$!" debate a rest for a week or two now? Linux was never about being number one so I really can't see why people make it out to be.
    • bjweeks, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The fact Windows will "run anything that is popped in that CD tray" causes many problems (see: Sony rootkit) and frankly is harder than the "Linux way" of having the drivers already on the system ready to go.
      • EnderMB, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2That is a terrible excuse. Every CD/DVD in the world isn't full of rootkits.

        If I were to buy, let's say, CorelDRAW from the shop and put it into my Ubuntu PC, it wouldn't work. That's a sign of Linux not working. If I were to put it into my Windows laptop, it'd work.

        Linux cannot even handle certain hardware yet, so it's definitely not ready for the mainstream. Additionally, Linux is well made, but as far as UI goes it's terrible. The minimalistic look will work for some people, but it's really not very well designed. Good design practices are rarely found on an open source team.
        • cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Um, what? Gnome's design beats the crap out of the Windows UI. Much simpler, and easier to find what you want.
        • bjweeks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Wait, what? Because Linux doesn't support software that wasn't coded for it that means it is broken? So I guess when I install OS X software on Windows and it doesn't work Windows is broken?
        • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3> If I were to buy, let's say, CorelDRAW from the shop and put it into my Ubuntu PC, it wouldn't work. That's a sign of Linux not working. If I were to put it into my Windows laptop, it'd work.
          No ***** ***** sherlock. If I buy a PS2 games and put it into my XBOX, it wouldn't work as well. If I put it into a PS2 it'd work.
          >The minimalistic look will work for some people, but it's really not very well designed. Good design practices are rarely found on an open source team.
          The minimalistic is Gnome. If you want to full feature you use KDE. "Wow, ***** there's a choice??". Yes there is son.
          You know jack ***** about the open source team. Open source people are also the people who work on commercial project.
          Take your ***** dumbass misconceptions and stereotypes to somewhere you are welcome.
          Here: http://digg.com/windows
    • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Make sure you actually used Linux before posting dumb comments like this. From what I gather, you probably think you are educated about Linux based on reading digg comments.
      Linux can already play music, surf the net, pop in a CD, burn movies, email and chat without any user effort.
      • EnderMB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I run a Ubuntu PC at home, and from my experience the simple things are too difficult for the typical advanced user, and those things that are easy aren't as seamless as they are in Windows. All the regular programs people know aren't available and things are bogged down by the need for codecs.

        I'd post from my PC, but Ubuntu doesn't seem to recognise my router. Another simple thing Ubuntu cannot do.
    • leszek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Autorun of windows cd's is coming. Support for it has been commited to the svn yesterday:
      https://wiki.ubuntu.com/autorun
    • LingNoi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I understand what you mean but you said it wrong.

      Simple users want to be able to do anything on their computer by not having to read anything and by just clicking a button. That is the windows way.
  • xXMetalJesusXx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I know Windows, I know Mac OSX...and I just started to get into Yellow-dog and Ubuntu Linux. (Both PPC).

    The only issue that have with Linux is the installation process. Mind you, both times I've installed them as a dual boot OS...I hope to god Linux can make their installations a lot easier for first time users.
    • cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Have you ever tried to install Windows?
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Here's a typical Windows Installation:
        "Windows will now nuke your drive" or something like that.
        Automatic installer like Wubi will leave your windows untouched on the other hand.
  • animus, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2linux is for neurotics who like wasting their time.
    ms sucks but it "works."
    • n0ia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So all those people out there downloading antivirus software, spyware software, and spending hundreds of dollars at a Geek Squad are proof that it "works"?

      I've been using Linux since 1999, started with RedHat 6.2, moved to 7.3, 8.0, and eventually to Fedora Core 4. Now I have one PC that runs Ubuntu (7.10) and one that runs Fedora 7.

      I had to spend a little bit of time on the Ubuntu machine to get it set up for the people in my house that would actually be using it regularly (I use the Fedora one exclusively), and other than not being able to install Comcast Rhapsody and MySpace IM, I haven't had any complaints.

      If you want to IM people, then use a real IM client anyway, not some piece of junk from a social networking site.
      • coldpockets, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0A good portion of the malware that effects windows would in concept work equally well on a linux based machine. People willingly install it; social engineering is the main problem. Linux/Windows/OS X don't intrinsically know that a program has bad intentions. If linux had 99% market share 13 year olds would just be installing virus-laced programs for new smilies on the linux version of AIM. Whatever OS leads the market will face these issues.

        Linux is a community based project, not a for profit company, there's no harm in admitting faults and there's no reason to crap on Microsoft just to sound cool.
        • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, the fact is that Linux works on a trust-paradigm. People install things from the repository. Linux train people to be secure from the start. So the only thing you have to train Simple users is to install software ONLY for the standard repository. That's it!
          All though it does allow for third-party install, most virus exploits software bugs. When you have millions of people looking for bugs every day, chances are they would be fix very very quickly.
  • nitrojunky24, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3the question isn't whether the software is ready but or the people ready to change? do they want to change? for the most part the answer is no! it won't happen!
    • HonestAbe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0The question isn't whether the people are ready to change but are the developers ready to change? Do they want to change? Do they want to create a useful operating system? For the most part the answer is no! It won't happen!
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Do a little programming before you actually talk.
        Open source developers are not a different species of developers. Alot of open source developers work on commercial projects like IBM, Microsoft (yes microsoft employees do contribute), google, etc.
        Changing a few words probably make you think you're smart but you're not.
  • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8"Is Linux really ready for Simple Users?"

    This is answered in a MAN page somewhere. I know there has to be a FAQ or HOW-TO somewhere that has all the details on this.
    And all of the command-line switches for it too.
    • SuperCheese, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"Is Windows really ready for Simple Users?"
      Well, I'm not sure, but I think I can go ask my neighbor's nerdy teenager, since it's impossible to actually find a simple answer to this myself.

      Don't try to convince us that ample documentation is a bad thing. Windows takes all kinds of black arts to keep it functioning.
  • ender42081, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Installing any OS is a hassle for any end-user, those who have gone through loading of strange drivers on an old windows machine will vouch for that. I think that using an old laptop was a bad choice.. it WILL run Linux but Ubuntu is a bit heavier typically, when people say that they mean spending a few hours with a custom-compiled gentoo install. oh, and Ubuntu is VERY ready for average power-users provided the graphics are set up for them (Xorg is holding everything back) and they have Synaptic and Alien up and going.
  • Phenax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Most of the complaints could be solved by companies distributing computers with Linux pre-installed, which is becoming a reality.
  • Subvexer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6The problem with switching to Linux is that it turns into an 8-part ***** series. I just want to play some San Andreas, then maybe some Half-Life 2 or Halo before a movie or something.

    I don't find inner fulfilment by messing with my network settings and marvelling at the uptime of a system I can't use to play most games on.
    • link5280, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You're so right on!
    • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2No but there exist other users in the world whose lives doesn't revolves around games and don't suffer from ADD.
      • Subvexer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, chicks really dig uptime.

        Mounting drives to move around logs doesn't do it for me.
  • nextyoyoma, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9I'll tell you one thing....the linux community is not ready to accept such "simple" users. The fact that asking a question about something simple in linux will get you flamed and labeled as a n00b. I'm sure there are many of you linux users who aren't that way, but last time I tried to learn linux (about 6 years ago on Mandrake) i gave up because I couldn't get a straight answer to any of my questions.
    • n0ia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think Mandrake was probably looked down upon because at that time it was (and IMO, still is) a bastardized version of RedHat with some other junk slipped in between. I've found nothing but great help on the Fedora and Ubuntu forums. If you ask a silly question, then you may get flamed a bit for not using the search, but most of the time you get pointed in the right direction.
    • cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The only Linux distro I really know well is Ubuntu, and it has a great community. The IRC channel and the forums are great places to ask for help, and the only people who get flamed are the people who say things like "I downloaded the OS, and I'm ENTITLED to support. You'd better help me with this problem, or I'm switching to Windows." When you're in an environment where you're getting the OS for free, and the people giving you the free support are volunteers, treat them with a little bit of respect. That said, it's the people who flame the silly-question-askers who get flamed in the Ubuntu IRC channel... most of us are completely happy to answer what you may think is a stupid question.
    • HonestAbe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Try Ubuntu. I tried about 6 different distros over 4 years, and Ubuntu's the only one I could put up with. I finally converted for good around February. It's working well for me.
    • Narshe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I've had this problem too. I've seen this with Gentoo, Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian (especially) and others. They expect you to have googled, read man pages, etc, for hours and to use the forums, irc, mailing lists, etc as a last resort. Most new people to linux don't even know what those are. Yeah... great community. The C community is even worse.

      Once I got good with linux, I tried to help "n00bs" as much as possible, because of the crap I went though. Most linux users are elitist zealot douche bags... and that's being nice.
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Then that's good. But honestly, sometimes it is extremely annoying when people as the most simple thing when the answers are clearly documented. It's like they are saying "I could be ***** bothered reading. so just tell me". Furthermore, most people asking question are extremely DEMANDING as if they paid for their answers.
    • LingNoi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You got to be kidding me.. 6 YEARS AGO!?! THAT'S YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH LINUX?!?!
      Was windows XP even out then!? Thats like 2000 to 2001 WINDOWS ME WAS RELEASED IN 2000!
      Therefore windows sucks because I used Windows ME based on my 6 year old experience.
      • nextyoyoma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Geez...way to go to the extreme...I didn't say "LINUX SUX" All I said was that I couldn't get anyone to help me learn it. I included the 6 years ago part to say "well, it's probably a little different now." Actually, it's people like you that make me shy away from linux.
    • LingNoi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You got to be kidding me.. 6 YEARS AGO!?! THAT'S YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH LINUX?!?!
      Was windows XP even out then!? Thats like 2000 to 2001 WINDOWS ME WAS RELEASED IN 2000!
      Therefore windows sucks because I used Windows ME based on my 6 year old experience.
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 Not always...It depends on what forum you use.
      I used to actually get all my answers at the Linspire forum,before it was killed.
      Ive also used a few other good moderated forums,including Klikit and other beginner Linux forums.
      http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/mandriva-linux-help/14132-linux-beginner.html

      Google can provide some nice beginner forums to use.
  • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Its still not that easy yet, if you install a distro be prepared to visit that distros web forum. At some point you will have questions, linux is for those that are done with xp, they have mastered it, or those that got away from it, tired of the spyware and viriii, and didn't feel like feeding MS
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 i found Linux very easy and seldom hit a snag.
  • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3simple people should not have computers.
  • skinjester, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1it seems to me that people are interested in applications, not the OS itself. And not necessarily the best or most innovative applications - usually the ones that everyone else uses too. Most *nix users I know (myself included) are developers or people who like "playing" with computers
  • chronichyjinx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1All I know is ATI is making it bloody impossible!
    • pwnmasta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1fglrx!! Just have to work with it a little and it works fine.
  • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Whoever wrote this article has no frigging idea. Things such as claiming to have a 300Mz Pentium in his thinkpad when the fastest that chip ever did was 266Mhz destroy all credibility he has.
    Besides, his writing style is painful.
    Seriously, what does "So getting Windows to boot up from a Linux CD is a cinch" actually mean? It makes no damn sense, like most of his points.
    • 350Zed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I have a half-dozen 650MHz IBM Thinkpads in my office collecting dust. Where did you get the stupid idea that they stopped at 300Mhz?

      ...and Ubuntu runs like CRAP on all of them...

      ...but Windows XP runs just fine.
      • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Of course. Try Xubuntu. Ubuntu is not for older machines. You wouldn't want to run Vista on it as well.
      • leftyfb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The "Pentium" (Pentium 1) chip never got faster than 300Mhz, but there was a 300Mhz. The Pentium III however was capable of doing 450Mhz to 1.5Ghz.

        But yes, this guy was an idiot. Referring to booting Windows up from a Linux CD and I THINK referring to Linux as being from Mozilla or having anything to do with it other than providing some applications like Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, NVU, etc which are developed by the Mozilla Foundation.
  • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I've tried Linux four or five times over the years and every time I ran into problems *quickly*. My first experience with Ubuntu bricked my system and made it incapable of booting from any hard drive partition until I used my XP disk to re-install Windows. About four years previously, I had had a Win98 and Suse dual-boot system that worked okay but I had absolutely no reason to actually use Linux.

    My most recent attempt to turn an old computer into a *simple* playback machine once again drove me away from Linux. I just wanted to use the thing to play back video files on my TV. Not Myth TV or anything like that, just play a file and output to TV. For about a day, it worked. Then the audio mysteriously stopped working and soon after, the thing stopped displaying to the TV altogether.

    NO, Linux is under no circumstances ready for the masses. I'm usually pretty good with computers. Back in 386 days, I had no problem creating the half-dozen boot disks that were necessary to configure the system to play the games I wanted to play. I do 3D modeling (Cinema4D) and did quite a bit of scripting for modules on the original Neverwinter Nights. I am used to being able to figure things out pretty easily. Linux just flat out sucks.
    • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So let me see: you think you are good with computers because you seem to be doing well on Windows. Once you switch to something extremely unfamiliar you said it suck.
      Yep it's like saying "I'm really good with driving and I can drive any car but motorbike sucks"
      Creating boot disk is nothing to brag about and neither do scripting module for NWN. When you can write your own gfx engine or set up a Webserver cluster then you can brag.

      How about you try and get that same old computer and put Windows on it. See if that works.
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Windows WAS on it. I built it, installed Windows 98 and used it for years.
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 So you made two attempts and because of that you think it's useless?
      My first distro was the now ill fated Linspire...And it worked out of the box...Next was freespire,even better...
      I've also tried PCLinux,and Mint...Very nice...When Klikit goes beta,I'm installing it.
      My point is,don't give up so easy...Just because one distro does not work that does not mean that Linux is useless...Try another distro and keep trying till you find one you like...There are PLENTY of choices.
      Some,quite charming:
      http://www.elivecd.org/
      • monkeyboy7706, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1First distro I tried to install was gentoo (probably a mistake but the DVD came on a cover disk and I didn't know better) Never got it working due to it not being exactly simple to install everything from command line and compile it all. But in 1 week of trying to install it I actully learned a lot about linux. I didn't give up and have since used mandrake followed by fedora core then moved to ubuntu which I used till it stopped liking my PC around Dapper (keeps locking and rebooting for some reason on dapper, edgy and feisty) and now quite happilly use Debian testing.
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Give me a *reason* to put effort into it. Tell me why I should switch to a less user-friendly system that doesn't even do half of what I want to do.
  • richdrogpa, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Absolutely. I'm by no means an expert in computers but have enough understanding and curiosity to try a new OS. It took me about two days to forget about Vista, XP and even OS X. Ubuntu, esp. the latest incarnation in Gutsy, is amazing and fairly easy OS to jump into... There is no going back;)
  • RichMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yes. I believe that it is, as long as everything is compatibile. I imagine that a Dell Linux-certified computer would be great for a simple user.
  • Isidore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3No it's not ready, unless the Simple User is well supported by an expert user.

    To move beyond the wishful thinking, the following are needed as a minimum before a Linux is a serious choice/competitor:
    - live CDs are great for trying but are slower than running from HDD.
    - need to have easy HDD installation from live CD which allows easy reversal without data loss
    - - no loss of existing Windows installation or existing data
    - - ability to edit existing docs and save them in the same format and folder/directory, use existing Windows IE favorites and OE settings and emails to surf and email etc
    - - safe dual boot
    And all reversible if user changes their mind.

    Firefox is successful because it exists alongside IE, imports Favorites and can be ignored or uninstalled if IE is preferred. It is therefore a safe thing to try without commitment.

    This is before we get onto drivers and games.
    • cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What you're talking about is already there :) It's called Wubi, and it's an EXE you can download that will install Ubuntu for you in a file on your Windows partition. You run the EXE, it asks you a few questions, and it downloads the CD image it'll use to install Ubuntu. When you reboot your computer, you have the option to use Ubuntu or XP. The first time you choose Ubuntu, it'll run through the install process automatically (no user input required) and boot you into a full, native Ubuntu system. If you decide to keep it, great. If you decide you don't like it, you can remove it through the Windows Uninstaller.
      It's still a beta product, and has some limitations that a normal Ubuntu install doesn't have, but as it matures, it'll become a better and better option for people who want to give Linux a try.
    • SuperCheese, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No offense, but judging by the "needs an expert user to support simple users" scale, Windows isn't ready either.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Funny...Yeah,Windows has always had it's share of blemishes as well..I used it for over 10 years before moving to Linux, so I can vouch for that.
        I'd say OSX is ready.
  • lemac, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The users need to understand that there is no such thing as a "simple" operating system. Users are getting more and more demanding about what their computers should do. The more the demands increase and the more complex operating systems become, the more technologically savvy the users will have to become. Another decade and there will be no simple users left.
    • HonestAbe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No. Developers need to start writing software for people instead of themselves.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1YES!!!! You hit the nail on the head, HonestAbe!!!!
    • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Actually, things will most likely split into "appliances" and "computers". Simple users will buy an appliance and advanced ones will get "computers".
  • link5280, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4NO! Most people have a hard time using Windows. I have tried several Linux distros and like many of them (particularly Gentoo). However, Linux doesn't have the usability or support that Windows has for the general user (i.e. those that don't care about the nuts and bolts, the non-geeks). General user questions! What the &*^$*^#$ is a partition? What the &*%$*& is root? Init scripts, huh, %&*&$? If you expect your users to have a degree in computer science it wont become mainstream, sorry!
    • cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you've tried a modern desktop-oriented OS like Ubuntu, you'd know that terms like partitions, root, and init scripts are generally hidden from the user. Root access happens automatically when you need to do something as root, it just asks you for your password and you're in. You don't need to set up a root password, any user that's been set up as an administrator can simply use their password when Ubuntu prompts them in order to access an administrative function. Init scripts aren't necessary to know about. It's only necessary to know about partitioning if you choose the manual setup option, because normally it'll give you a few simple choices that fit the needs of the majority of users. The last thing I'll say is, Windows is a LOT harder to set up than Ubuntu. Guess what... setting up Windows requires you know about Partitions. The difference between Windows and Linux here is that Windows is normally set up when you receive the system. Once Linux distributions start to come preinstalled with more computers, the hassles involved in installing the OS and dealing with drivers will be eliminated.
  • Dylson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4No.
  • n0ia, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2You mean to tell me that this guy can rattle off the chipset to his video card, but can't take the time to backup a file, edit it, and see if the edit makes his video card work?

    This is the worst article I've read in a long time. I guarantee when he first used Windows (whatever version it may have been) that there was a learning curve, but now that he's comfortable in the position he's in, he doesn't feel like changing.

    That's the real problem, not the fact that the OS isn't meant for simple users.

    I compiled my first kernel shortly after I started using RedHat because I needed to add support for my HP 4x CD burner. After many failed attempts I asked a friend who knew about Linux and we worked through it and eventually got it working.

    My Fedora installation automatically detected a new DVD burner that I installed after the fact, and haven't had any serious problems with it at all.

    For the average person who's going to be surfing the internet, writing a document or two, e-mailing, instant messaging, and who knows what else, most mainstream Linux distros work fine.

    If you're too inept to hop on Google and find an answer to your problem, then you're probably the same kind of person who's calling people for support when you get some crazy message on your Windows installation as well. And in that case, you probably shouldn't even be operating a computer.
  • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Who cares? It is not like there are any more people starting to use Linux now.
    • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Is that so...And you know this...How?
  • T8erT0T, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Not to call this guy a liar, but I feel like he's trying real hard to encounter some of the problems he's mentioning. Plus this guy seems a little too naive for a tech guy to question the safety of partitioning a drive and so forth. Not to say that problems don't occur but this guy seems a little too lucky at being unlucky.
  • Oronar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"I couldn't read a thing even when using two sets of glasses, trying different angles or turning the room lights off. "
    Perhaps that leads to an answer as to why this guy had so much trouble.
  • Redemption289, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2No, but then again neither is windows or osx
  • mohamedmansour, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Linux is not ready for simple users because experienced and novice users still have troubles.
    For proof, lets take a look about Ubuntu (assumingly the easiest linux distribution) People who come to freenode in #ubuntu are novice/to experienced. And just look at the chatroom's activity. Problems and support everywhere. Look at their forums, problems every minute. I am not saying this is bad, all I am saying is that there are still problems that a normal user wouldn't even do. How can you tell a normal user to open command prompt and enter a few lines of commands? Do you think a person would understand that? No

    Some people replied that if the company preloads linux on their desktop and makes sure everything is working, and make sure the user who is buying that system knows the applications, then sure put it to the test and see how the user reacts. There are not enough solid applications out there. Big applications from big companies have 100's of developers developing a single software, open source applications only have 1 to 5 people developing. So There is quality in the latter.

    Still, I still believe Linux is meant for Servers not Home Users.
    • Phenax, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Yes, and on the Microsoft side; how many people do you think contact technical support each day? How many people have problems in which they ask "the tech guy" to fix. In my personal experience, that's quite a bit.

      And for the record, Microsoft often makes you use their cmd.exe while debugging problems. Even my ISP does this (ipconfig, traceroute, etc.). If a user can operate cmd.exe, I don't see what stops them from operating a Linux terminal.

      Go look at the Linux kernel, or KDE project. You'll see they are often backed by huge cooperations and have thousands of active contributors.
    • cynicist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You could say windows isn't ready for the exact same reason...
    • LingNoi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thats crap. Its much easier to tell someone to
      go to start -> run "cmd" -> command
      then to tell them
      click on start -> control panel -> network options -> the network connection -> right click properties -> click the general tab -> click tci/ip -> click properties -> change the ip address
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's weird... in one case you actually described how to accomplish the task, in the other all you did was tell them how to open the command line. Kind incomplete, isn't it?

        Not that it's really relevant. A GUI makes these tasks much, much MUCH easier. There's really no comparison. A GUI inherently guides the user. Buttons represent a discrete, limited set of choices unlike a command line where essentially, you have the entirety of possible letter combinations to select from. A GUI inherently informs the user what his choices are and most of the time offers explanations as to what the choices mean... and it's all right there in the display, not buried in some help file or waiting to be invoked by some *other* command. There is much less opportunity for user error with a GUI... there's no danger of getting "unrecognized command" type responses because you're trying to type an esoteric string of letters.

        GUI's are infinitely superior the command line. While it's true that a very experienced user can accomplish many tasks more quickly through the command line, the majority of users are just as *fast* with a GUI as with a command line and are much better able to discover and learn with a GUI. A GUI can be explored in an intuitive and predictable manner... visual systems are just more compatible with human psychology than plain text. THAT'S WHY THEY EXIST.
  • brakezone, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Do simple users know how to read and type?
  • nixfu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4INSTALLING AN OS is not what "USERS" do...when was the last time grandma installed an OS? Ummm never.

    These reviewers pretending to be "users" are a joke, they never actually have the real perspective of an actual user.


    This article should be titled:

    "IS LINUX READY... FOR SIMPLE SELF-PROCLAIMED WINDOWS EXPERT POSERS - Who have no other computer skills and get a frustrated and scared at the first moment when they start to feel that they LEET WINDOWZ SKILLZ are not working"



  • brakezone, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I'll take that as a no.
  • 3Den, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Comparing linux in general is pointless.

    Is Ubuntu ready for simple users? Heck yes.
    • oobuntu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if simple means not upgrading, customizing, etc, then i guess so, (i.e. buying from a OEM)

      maybe when ati and nvidia drivers are open and part of the kernel, and when netgear and linksys wireless cards are working as part of the kernel (would that ever happen?), then maybe even more people can use it without needing to know a linux geek to set it up.
  • buckrogers1965, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Simple users, you mean like with Tivo, or on a cell phone or a PDA or in a web kiosk at a coffee shop or store? Where you just have an application locked to the hardware so the user can't mess anything up?

    Yeah, Linux is really the best for a user in those cases.
  • ilikechaitea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd say Windows is moving away from simple users, though most likely this is not on purpose.
    Persoanally, I really like Vista...probably not so much cos its a good OS but just cos I'm a geek and its like a new toy...but seriously, I think for a simple user, who doesn't care about configurations etc, Vista's pretty complicated.
    Like the whole User Account thing that pops up all the time.
    I think MS have done a good job in really trying to improve security, but I wonder if they haven't sacrified simplicity....?
  • brakezone, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0It isn't that Linux isn't ready for simple users, it has been waiting...

    Linux has been waiting for simple users to learn to read and type so that they may be ready for Linux
    • HonestAbe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The command line is not a user interface.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.