digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Is Ubuntu usable enough for a non-tech-savvy girlfriend yet?

contentconsumer.wordpress.com — The author asks his girlfriend to perform simple tasks using a fresh Ubuntu installation. It's surprising how some of the simple things we assume to be easy are actually hard for someone who's never used Linux. Interesting insight into how ready Linux is for the desktop.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • knight666, on 04/28/2008, -14/+437This is an EXCELLENT article.

    I remember reading that it wasn't the dads that are lagging behind technology wise, it's the moms.
    For Linux to truly become a desktop alternative, it needs to pass the "girlfriend-test".
    • rpgmaker, on 04/28/2008, -23/+7The second task was stupid. On Ubuntu Firefox tells you that there are options available to install the Flash codec, you don't have to install it manually.
      • trogdoor, on 04/28/2008, -1/+34Firefox will give you the option of installing flash if you go to a website that tries to display flash content BUT youtube is "smart" enough to not try to present you with flash content until they have done a javascript test to see if you have the flash plugin installed, if you do not they link you to the flash download page @ adobe.com and never attempt to display any flash content, so Firefox stays ignorant of your flash needs :(
        • fkr3, on 04/28/2008, -33/+7YouTube is more popular than Ubuntu will ever be. It's almost guaranteed a person is going to view a YouTube video, if Ubuntu were "smart" they'd detect your first visit to YouTube and make the process more easy.
        • sirhomer, on 04/28/2008, -3/+11@fkr3

          That is a terrible solution. It makes an unsubstantiated claim about what people use the Internet for, and the implementation would basically require evaluating a regular expression on every page view in Firefox, which slows Firefox down for everyone. The best solution for this is getting Gnash or swfdec up to par and bundling it with Ubuntu.
          • fkr3, on 04/28/2008, -16/+4It's not unsubstaniated. YouTube is amongst the most popular sites on the internet and it's videos are embedded on god only knows how many other websites. If Firefox and Ubuntu want to be proactive about being compatible with the #3 most popular site in the world they would do a check.

            The speed/processing implications are negligible. Popular browsers all manage to check anti-phishing databases on every visit to a site without affecting the speed and processing and that's a lot more work.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -1/+8Firefox does check, it pops up a thing telling you to install plugins, which then opens a mini package manager which installs flash in teh background.

            Its better than it is on windows, where firefox asks you if you want to install flash, fails, points you to the website, where you download and must close firefox to install the plugin.
          • expert01, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Hmmm... why not find some way to get it installed automatically, either through bundling or prompt on first run?
          • fkr3, on 04/28/2008, -2/+10It doesn't do it on YouTube because YouTube sniffs for the plugin first and doesn't bother trying to create the Flash object if you don't have the Flash Player. Firefox isn't told it's missing the plugin.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6Makes sense. Adobe and all these other companies need to allow Ubuntu to bundle stuff people use anyway, i think OS X leopard comes with flash, because i never installed it myself.

            Of course then the free software purists would complain, but i dont think Canonical cares, they wrote an application specifically to install non-free drivers, i think they value usability more than freedom.
          • Tenoq, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Well actually, fkr3, the phishing checks DO slow down the browsers - quite significantly in some cases. Try IE7 on an older machine or a slower connection... it doubles or triples the load time of your average page.
          • MKdx, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1It does it automatically on youtube unless you find a way to bypass youtube homepage which has a flash object always there.
          • CarzorStelatis, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Or why not just have a 'would you like to install proprietary media software' popup when the system first connects to the internet. This would mean that users get the Flash (etc.) that they need to use their computer, but would keep the FSF 'PROPRIETARY IS TEH EVILZ !!!1!1!one' crowd happy.
          • black27696, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2@fkr3

            It's a horrible idea. Youtube is extremely popular with most demographics. Reddit and Digg are popular with the demographic that would most likely use linux. CNN, Fox, NBC, and ABC.com might be popular with elderly people.... There are too many websites that may or may not use flash content at some point in the future. This means that you'd have to have firefox check for a million different websites and have specific instructions to install flash to itself. That's retarded. Here's a few more reasons:

            If adobe changes where the Ubuntu compatible flash plugins are located, firefox will suddenly break and not be able to install flash.

            If youtube changed how their site was set up, say they used a different plugin at some point (who knows, a new vector format might suddenly kill flash) and it's in between firefox updates then suddenly firefox would be broken again.

            Let me give you a summary:

            You're an idiot.
        • daverave999, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Perhaps a Flash object on the Ubuntu home page that first comes up on Firefox after install? A sneaky way round not including it.
      • secrity, on 04/28/2008, -3/+12She shouldn't have to install Flash, she has a boyfriend to do that for her.
      • Tenoq, on 04/28/2008, -0/+18TBH, a lot of the tasks are a bit silly - in that if you weren't familar with Windows, they would be equally difficult. The bit that made me laugh though was the conclusion:
        "...what chance to the elderly or at least the middle-aged stand?"
        Well if you've actually tried to teach an elderly person to use a PC (a Windows one) they learn everything by wrote anyway - none of it is by intuition. Most of them write down the methods to do certain tasks because they can't (or won't) look at a computer logically. In fact that problem extends to many, many PC users. For some reason people seem to think computers are mystical, magical creatures with a will of their own. NO. They are logic boxes that do what you tell them. 90% of the time, if you take a step back and look at what's on the screen with reason and logic, you can find your way. But most people just don't do that. I'm buggered if I know why.
        • vahirua, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3The last 10% is pure magic though
        • black27696, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Actually, it's 8% magic, and 2% pixie dust.
    • BlueSkyfish, on 04/28/2008, -9/+4http://digg.com/linux_unix/Ubuntu_for_my_Mom
    • synystar, on 04/28/2008, -8/+31No really. This ought to be a standard test for all software interfaces and not just OS. Get a couple hundred girls between the ages of 13 and 21 to test the basics. If they have the attention span to make it work then you are so golden.
      • katie10, on 04/28/2008, -1/+26Hey, now. They've got to be tech-ignorant girls between the ages of 13 and 21. Be more specific, please. :)
        • synystar, on 04/28/2008, -2/+11I have a proposal for you. As long as you are between the ages of 18 and 21.
          Good point Katie.
        • KMartSheriff, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5His girlfriend (the pic from the article) is pretty cute.
      • DeathfireD, on 04/28/2008, -0/+9I agree, and while their at it they should get girls that have never used Windows before. Most of the problems this guy's g/f had are due to her experience using nothing but windows. I set Ubuntu up for my grandpa who had never used a computer before and shes had no problems with it. Sure I had to explain what the Internet was and how she could receive e-mail but after that she picked things up fast. People like gram and graps wont need half the stuff teens and young adults will need so their basically set with Ubuntu out of the box.
        • GabooGaboo, on 04/28/2008, -0/+14I think there's a problem when your grandpa's a she. ;)
          • DeathfireD, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6***** I was thinking one thing and writing another. I ment grandma. Thanks for pointing that out haha.
        • HonoredMule, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Windows-related experience tainting expectations and preconceived usage patterns are the norm though, so that is a valuable baseline to test against.

          No one really has a hard time with ANY OS...that is IF they are willing to try, and do so by putting even the slightest amount of effort into simply paying attention to what is on the screen and noting the effects of their own actions.
      • cawpin, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I thought this was a good article until "This is pretty ridiculous – you can’t make it shorter and you can’t move it up past the top of the screen. There’s no way I can see of being able to change the resolution using that menu when you’re on a small resoltion – without tabbing to invisible options that you don’t know are there. Maybe I’m just missing something, I’d be happy to be enlightened."

        If you don't know how to use the OS you shoudln't be testing somebody on it.

        Alt+click and drag will move the window around.
        • qaelith2112, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5This makes the point even more relevant. How obvious would that be to someone who is unfamiliar with the OS?
    • inspecality, on 04/28/2008, -4/+91I wish I could pass the "girlfriend test".
      • Burn, on 04/28/2008, -0/+15Which part are you failing, the 'girlfriend' part or the 'test' part?

        :P
    • wispygalaxy, on 04/28/2008, -3/+47Ubuntu passes for me, and I'm a girl. However, I'm more geeky than the average girl. I think that Compiz Fusion should be advertised more. I hear girls all of the time saying that they love pretty themes. Wait until they see what Compiz Fusion can do! One of my friends said that Linux was boring and only for geeks after I told her that I use it. I quickly changed her mind by showing her a YouTube video of Compiz Fusion in action. She had no idea that Linux was that cool. You won't believe how much Linux is misunderstood. Girls go for aesthetics, trust me. I grew up with two sisters who whine about not having the coolest purse.
      • wphj, on 04/28/2008, -5/+25Linux isn't misunderstood.
        People would need to have heard of it first...
        • expert01, on 04/28/2008, -1/+15I would make the bold claim that most people have at least heard of it, they just have the wrong impression. Just like (I swear to god) when I tell customers at work that we have inkjets with a lower cost per page than most of our lasers, they call me names, yell at me, even swear at me because of their misconception.
          • theaceoffire, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4"I don't like the linux computer"
            Many people do not know what a browser, OS, or program is. They think Linux is an OS instead of a category.
            So a good number of people I meet don't even have an impression...
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -1/+21Flashy for the sake of flashy isn't cool

        Functional flashy is cool
        • Skooma714, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8Unless you're a girl apparently.
          • Kyan, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2mrsteveman1 probably doesn't known many of them.
        • HonoredMule, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Compiz IS functional flashy. It's the thing that makes Gnome's window manager usable.
        • mossblaser, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2 @HonoredMule
          It doesn't make gnome's window manager useable, it replaces it...
          • HonoredMule, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I suppose that's technically true. At any rate, it's a drastic improvement to the Gnome operating environment.
      • Amiga500, on 04/28/2008, -55/+3Wow, one lesbian likes Ubuntu. No one cares what passes for you. You need to close your legs before we "pass out".
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -1/+19wtf is wrong with you
        • theenginedriver, on 04/28/2008, -0/+20Someone took their asshole pill this morning.
        • nationalist, on 04/28/2008, -1/+9wtf?!
        • SysstemLord, on 04/28/2008, -4/+2Will you bury your daughter alive or lock her in the basement as a sex slave?
          Oh yes, you won't have children.
        • daverave999, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2*block*
      • thinkalone, on 04/28/2008, -0/+13fortunately the issue isn't just being a girl or someone's level of geekiness. there's a huge learning curve to linux because of what it is -- powerful. if every option is available and every task doable, it's difficult to get a grasp on it. i'm geeky and i love learning how the OS works, but honestly i'm tired of having to dismantle the whole world whenever something goes wrong. instead of the "girlfriend test" it should be called the "It 'Just Works' test"

        also, very good point about the Compiz-effect. it's probably not a coincidence that one of the main developers of Beryl was a girl ;) i think the aesthetics of technology is frequently overlooked, and that usually results in less people using that technology. when done correctly, aesthetics has more to do with usability, not simply being "flashy" or "pretty"
        • mossblaser, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2The whole dismantling the OS point is a good point but as yet there is nothing in existence that won't require some sort of deconstruction when it fails. I agree, something I'd really (really) like in Ubuntu would be something like system-restore in windows (while it is much criticized it is shocking how effective it is at sorting out some simple problems!). In terms of being pulled appart though, as I said, other OSes like Mac os or Windows need pulling appart to be fixed. Ubuntu has "the open source advantage" in this department, so it is dismantled not hacked appart.

          With regards to the visual stuff, the three big things preventing open source stuff getting lots of attention to flashyness is that the people who enjoy working on open source in general are programmers and programmers (in general) cannot design for toffee, the people who can design often don't want to give it away, or are just not very good at it. Finally flashy stuff gets a lot of hammer for being a waste of system resources so it is difficult to convince organisers to include it.
      • infection0, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0nice post, i'm a guy and half the reason i started to use ubuntu is because of the functional eye candy (hot corners and multiple desktops ftw). that compiz fusion advertisement made me realize the other greats of ubuntu, such as the fact that most software you can install can be had by checking a box. I make it a point to make my ubuntu look and work better than a mac (so when you close a window, it BURNS!) so when people notice I'm using linux, I can show off and not look like a total nerd. that alt-tab ring switcher and scale switcher always impresses too.

        p.s. i bet a lot of linux fans got a hardon from your post. just sayin...
    • Brainmodder, on 04/28/2008, -10/+50Ubuntu and girlfriend are 2 words seldom used in the same sentence.
      • InferiorWang, on 04/28/2008, -11/+3I've got another one. I can't find a girlfriend because I spend all my time playing with Ubuntu.
      • Fratz, on 04/28/2008, -3/+14How about Ubuntu and wife? I just switched my wife to Ubuntu 8.04 from Windows XP after it had become infested with adware and spyware. Did an rsync of all her data to a RAID box (also Ubuntu) using the live CD mode, then did the installation. She knows it's different, but it also doesn't pop up fake windows all the time telling her she needs to buy something.
        • flangepiece, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6"but it also doesn't pop up fake windows all the time telling her she needs to buy something."
          ...In that case I think my wife's mind is infected with malware,
        • HonoredMule, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4I was just about to say I can't have a girlfriend because my wife wont let me.

          She does, however, let me make the technical decisions (which means an Ubuntu network, dual-booted with Windows Server 2003 where necessary, served by an OpenSolaris file server with ZFS). She would be perfectly happy with Ubuntu alone were it not for losing Guild Wars, which runs fine on her machine in Server 2003, but would need 4 times more powerful hardware to only sort of work in Wine. I'm a developer, and sometimes vendor lock-in isn't my choice. Also, I can die a happy man when my dream of melding the source code for Nautilus and TortoiseSVN comes true.
      • rotten777, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Har har I get it people who use Ubuntu can't find a date. It is hard keeping up with all these Internet jokes! /s
    • barius, on 04/28/2008, -13/+16I liked the article and I think the author has some useful ideas to improve the polish of the distro, but his conclusion was way off. If anything he proved that Ubuntu is ready for the desktop. All the features and tools necessary were there and nothing crashed or malfunctioned. His GF was able to most things without any direction at all and the things she failed at were mainly due to her being a Windows user.

      I find it very hypocritical of Windows users to say that Ubuntu is unready for the desktop because it 'lacks polish'. Consider older Windows versions (Win95/98/2k) were they 'unready' for the desktop? If you applied the same 'lacks polish' logic then you have to agree that they were not. So, if no version of Windows except the most current has ever been 'ready for the desktop' why hasn't everyone moved on to Vista yet?
      • iofthestorm, on 04/28/2008, -5/+8You can't compare current Ubuntu to old versions of Windows, especially anything pre-XP since XP came out in 2001, and pretty much everything before it with the exception of 2k was buggy and crash-prone as hell.
        • barius, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4I think you missed my point. The problem with the statement "it's not ready for the desktop" is one that is biased by your current perceptions. People who have used WinXP for years have a bad tendency to claim that some minor usability flaw in another OS is a sign that it is not 'ready for the desktop'. However, in many cases the same flaws existed in earlier versions of Windows yet those same users did not consider the OS 'unready for the desktop'. The double standard is obviously a result of their familiarity with their current OS. Thus, people should stop using the words 'unready for the desktop' when it is clear that Ubuntu is in fact ready for the desktop. The state of Windows users however, is still unknown.
          • CarzorStelatis, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4So your point is that Ubuntu should be judged on the same standard of quality as Windows 95?
          • bahmak2004, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3@carzorStelatis
            are you pretending to be stupid? barius point is plain and simple.
      • thinkalone, on 04/28/2008, -0/+16the phrase "ready for the desktop" bothers me as well. evaluating the difficulty of a transition from Windows to Linux is one thing; declaring something as not being ready for desktop/home use just because it involves learning to do tasks in a different way is a strange conclusion. when i switched to Ubuntu i found it very confusing to start using the command line and trying to compile/install programs, but that doesn't mean that Linux isn't "ready for the desktop." if you install a new lock and deadbolt on your front door, it doesn't make your house less secure just because you have to use a new set of keys.

        not to be a Windows-basher, but looking at it from the opposite direction (a user comfortable and used to Linux switching to Windows) it would be even more confusing and Windows certainly wouldn't pass the "ready for the desktop" test.
        • CarzorStelatis, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2'ready for the desktop' isn't solely about having to learn the way a particular OS does things. Switching to Mac from Windows will require some relearning, but nobody says OS X isn't 'ready for the desktop'. The point is though that there are still quite a few important things that don't work on any Linux distro but work on both Windows and OS X. Radeon 3d acceleration for example.
      • joebaloney, on 04/28/2008, -2/+10I think "ready for the desktop" means "works exactly like windows so no one will ever be 'confused'". If they girl had been used to installing software in Linux, she might not have had any clue that she had to download some software and run "setup.exe". She would say "where's synaptic?" or something similar.
      • djbon2112, on 04/28/2008, -3/+10I agree. The problem is everyone says "is Linux ready for the desktop" looking through Windows eyes. Linux IS ready for the desktop, but the way of doing a lot of things is much different from Windows, and hence "harder", especially for a computer-illiterate user who's just barely grasping Windows. But that doesn't mean the OS isn't "ready" or anything like that, it means that the people are used to what they're used to.
        • Kyan, on 04/28/2008, -5/+1And since 90% of people are sued to windows, don't you think introducing a windows user to linux is a fair take on the subject?

          I mean unless you want to just bring up kids from preschool on in Linux. But then you still have to get their teachers used to Linux and chances are the teachers are used to windows.

          Whoosh.
      • Ademan, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Well more importantly than anything else, i've noticed this very interesting pattern in windows vs linux problems.

        in linux when something goes wrong, doesn't work the way they expect it, or otherwise confuses them:
        1. They blame linux
        2. they decide that linux is too hard (neglecting the fact that they have a library of XP 'behavior hacks' that they've remembered in order to use the platform)
        3. they decide that linux is cheap, it has no cost (most of the time), and doesn't function properly (in their minds)

        in windows when something goes wrong:
        1. they don't specifically blame windows
        2. they use a workaround they've used several times before
        3. they continue about their work

        I've only realized this since my transition to ubuntu. I criticized it alot at first, and then got used to it, and now whenever I'm on an XP machine i'm constantly annoyed at little things that I can't do, and i blame windows! And i thought back, and realized that was never something i did until i switched to ubuntu.

        so my conclusion is that my attitude approaching an XP machine is one of distrust and annoyance, and my experience is colored accordingly because of that, and I extend that to XP users trying out ubuntu, without understanding the open source business models people go into linux assuming it's cheap, and they are told that linux is hard, or at least different, and their experience is colored according to these preconceptions.
    • Zaarin, on 04/28/2008, -3/+8The only major issue my girlfriend had with Ubuntu was using a instant messenger that wasn't similar enough to MSN/Live messenger. We ended up using Emesene, which is quite similar, but she was still frustrated with it. She doesn't use the computer for anything other than messenger/web browsing. We did eventually go back to XP for her benefit, and so that I could play C&C3.

      Unfortunately even now she cringes when she see's the Ubuntu logo anywhere saying something along the lines of she doesn't like it, or doesn't want to go back to it.

      As mentioned in the article, I think it's the linux applications themselves need the work. The Ubuntu/gnome desktop is as easy to use as Windows.
    • fatas, on 04/28/2008, -6/+6all lies Ubuntu users at best only have imaginary girlfriends.
      They are usually great with computers.
      • arobicha, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4He was initially a Mandriva user. This was an experiment though, so I assume he's also a scientist of sorts. We have girlfriends who like to experiment.
      • macoafi, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3I don't even have an imaginary girlfriend. But then, I'm not a lesbian, so it makes sense.
    • VinnieDaMac, on 04/28/2008, -0/+17It's not really about gender, it's about people who have been Windows users for theirs whole lives. If I wasn't allowed to use Google, I doubt I'd be able to complete all of those tasks.
    • sarixe, on 04/28/2008, -2/+7"girlfriend-test", eh? is there a place i can download this script?
      • Skooma714, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7
        while (girlfriend = 1)
        {
        system.out.println ("Snee!")
        }
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/28/2008, -1/+27My only gripe about this is that it's only taking into account the initial learning curve. How difficult was Windows to use the first time we all tried it? I bet most people here can barely remember a time when they had absolutely no understanding of computers at all. Learning anything new to you is going to be difficult. I really don't think that most people would notice a big difference between GNU/Linux and Windows once they became acclimated to both. Everything in this article was either an initial system setup issue (getting flash installed, finding codecs etc.) or a basic learning curve issue (not knowing Transmission is a BT client or that Pidgin reduced to the taskbar, realizing OOo Draw isn't paint, understanding the difference between PS and the GIMP interfaces [which, for the MILLIONTH time is the way it is for a good reason. Mostly because it doesn't have to fight with a crappy window manager like Windows and it also has multiple moniters in mind. Shoving everything into one window IS A BAD THING. Don't believe me? Look at PS on the Mac, and feel free to call Adobe and let them know they don't know how to design a UI]). And, honestly, how many common computer users even know what a partition is?

      The point I'm making is that most of these are one time issues. Once you know Transmission is your BitTorrent client, you know. Once you have your codecs and flash installed, they are there. And of course once you know the package manager exists your PC life will be transformed. Very little of this dealt with actual usability. In fact, real usability issues (knowing where applications/preferences/etc are, accomplishing simple tasks like searching for files, using a flash drive, accessing a person audio/data CD), many of which are easily simpler in Gnome than in Windows, either were not tested or eluded the testers consideration because they are so transparent coming from a Windows perspective. One omission that really caught my attention was not telling her to listen to some music stored on the computer. Even my mom does that!

      I'm not saying there isn't plenty of room for improvement. Getting a hold of codecs and But I don't believe in gauging the ease of something as major as switching to an entirely new operating system based on the first hour or so of use. Would you conclude that manual transmissions are simply harder to drive than automatics just because you stalled out a few times on your first try? Well, you shouldn't, because once you get the basics and spend some time with it things start happening without your even thinking. The same goes for all learned systems. Give it a week or two and see how much trouble someone is having and has had by then. That is the real test in my mind.
      • npinski, on 04/28/2008, -0/+12Fair points, but at this point "Windows" may as well be synonymous with desktop operating systems to >90% of the people of the world.

        Asking them to forget what they are already used to from Windows, and say "look at it from a fresh perspective, this is FAR easier!" is like trying to market a car with the gas and brake pedals reversed.
      • addiktion, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8You can't really do a good comparison with learning curves. Much like npinski said about 80-85% of the market is Windows. So whether you like it or not they are going to get fairly frustrated in the differences when they can't even install a damn RPM file or see where it went too. This article is spectacular in pointing out the weaknesses. I had a friend try opensuse and he uninstalled it a week later because he couldn't cut the meat. He just didn't want to have to google every little thing to find out how to do simple tasks. This is why people are instead switching to the mac versus linux
      • Peterix, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I use both Windows and Linux (both with various DEs and terminal only) and to be honest, I miss features in all of them.
        Gnome: There's no worthy Subversion integration in Nautilus. (this is an application thing, but it still bugs me). Hard to use with keyboard only (yes, Windows is better at that. kind of ironic.).
        KDE 3.5: No sensible find-as-you-type (only first letter) or I couldn't find it.
        KDE 4.0: Still a bit buggy, the new menu sucks more than any other (doesn't sensibly work with click&drag). Also no find-as-you-type. I haven't tested this one thoroughly enough... maybe it's better in the newer versions.
        Explorer (XP): doesn't support many networking protocols apart from FTP and WebDav by default (this SUCKS). No find-as-you-type (only first letter). It's BUTT UGLY. The start menu sucks compared to the gnome menu (Apps/Places/System vs Start).
        Explorer (Vista): Way too many wizards for everything (it took me half an hour to FIND THE FSCKING NETWORK CONFIG DIALOG. Wizards opening wizards opening wizards ... etc.). The new start menu is crap. I like the oldest one (from Win95/98), because it's easy to control with keyboard (it's better than the Gnome menu in this).
        So, who wins?
        Gnome - because of the find-as-you-type feature being consistently used in all the window elements. This is a huge time saver.
        • celticchrys, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Re Vista start Menu: Easy to control with a keyboard. Windows key opens it. arrows up and down. right arrow to open a folder and left to close it. Tab to move between panes. I actually prefer it to the previous start menus in Windows because it doesn't cover my entire screen, and there are no more strange mouse gymnastics where you miss the edge of the third nested fold-out menu and the whole thing hides, requiring you to start again. Always disliked that old menu design, since Win95 was first released.
        • ukblacknight, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1In XP, find as you type works as long as you type it fast enough, there's just no visible text entry for what you're typing.
    • lumpyup, on 04/28/2008, -0/+23My boyfriend won't switch to Ubuntu. So there's a "boyfriend test" too, and he failed it.
    • phlux, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Funny thing, I had *JUST* finished installing 8.04 for my wife for her first linux laptop... and then I come here and find this article....

      Sadly, I havent gotten wifi to work though yet on the Dell D610 that I installed upon, so there is still a bit of work before Ubuntu is "Woman worthy"
      • kineticarl, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1That's too bad, I just installed 8.04 on a dell e1505 two days ago, and all I had to do was click on an icon, enter my wpa password, and I was off to the races. I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it was. Of course, 3 days ago I installed vista business on the same machine (dual-gooting), and it was nearly as simple. I only had to update three drivers, but it worked fine from the get-go regardless.
        • phlux, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Thats the case with my 810, 620 and 820 - for some reason though, the 610 just wont work...

          Hmm the others have 2915ABG cards, the 610 im not so sure... prolly the old 2100 or 2200... Ill have to see if I can find an ABG...
      • jav1231, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1D620 here. LiveCD didn't work with the WiFi. It found it but didn't really work. It's the same...old...sad...story for Linux. When it comes to WiFi we're stuck in 2001. Oddly enough wifi is the ONE fscking thing that SHOULD work. Wake up, People, wired Internet is passe' to laptop users.
    • simonnnomis, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Agreed. I think they are sensible tasks too.

      Really points out where ubuntu needs to become more user-friendly.
  • wigren, on 04/28/2008, -8/+157While my wife doesn't do most of the things listed in the article, she's fine with any OS as long as she can find the Firefox icon.
    • weizbox, on 04/28/2008, -20/+24Even if Firefox doesn't play Flash and embedded Windows Media by default?
      • VIrus9, on 04/28/2008, -23/+9How long does it take to enable them? Two minutes?
        • weizbox, on 04/28/2008, -6/+41It would easily take less than two minutes if you already knew how to do it, but we're not talking about people that already know about it... we're talking about people trying to do it for the first time without much/any knowledge of the process.

          Did you not read the article? I would hope so since you already had made the 4th comment two hours ago.

          Check the article again...'Second task: Watch a video on YouTube.'
          It seems like it took her quite a while.. and ultimately didn't get it working due to giving up. I personally would have kept going till I got it.. but you can't expect everyone to do that. A Google search would have certainly helped her go in the right direction, but generally Windows users don't need to Google HowTos on installing something as simple as Flash.
          • theeldest, on 04/28/2008, -0/+11I've said before, that I don't think Ubuntu should ship with the capability due to the legal aspects. But they should make the solution easier.

            There should be an intro wizard thing that asks if you would like to add mp3, flash, etc capabilities, then proceed to enable the repositories, and download the codecs and such. I know there was a script for Feisty that did this, why not ship one for Hardy?
          • weizbox, on 04/28/2008, -1/+10@theeldest,

            I completely agree that doing something like having a post-install or intro-wizard would be a great idea. But at the moment.. there is none, and that is the issue.

            Hopefully on their next release they will do something like that... I don't see why not if the aim is to be user friendly.
          • abhiroop, on 04/28/2008, -6/+2I doubt a windows user will actually understand what "flash" is!
          • DracoFlameus, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1@abhiroop
            That attitude is exactly the reason why ubuntu is still not common.
          • Theli, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"That attitude is exactly the reason why ubuntu is still not common."

            While it may be obnoxious, it is not the reason.
        • sirhomer, on 04/28/2008, -4/+11@weizbox

          All you need to do to get Flash working is to go to a website that uses Flash. Firefox will tell you need Flash to view the content, and it is a two click process to download it from there. This is admittedly a new feature in Ubuntu 7.10 (the last version), but it should be roughly the same experience as it is in Windows.

          As far as bundling Flash with Ubuntu there are serious legal implications to such a move. Even the Flash player package does not include Flash, it merely aids in downloading it directly from Adobe's servers. The only thing we can hope for is for Gnash or swfdec to get better, and you can be sure when they are ready (one of them) will be included with Ubuntu.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3If adobe said ok to bundling there are no legal issues.

            There are however issues with fanatics bitching about the inclusion of a non-free piece of software by default, but whats the difference if people are going to install it anyway. Fanatics can remove it if they want to.
          • djbon2112, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Precisely! They've got Gobuntu for that. Let the rest of us have usability!
          • int19h, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Remember that "the fanatics" are the ones that made GNU/Linux possible in the first place.
        • weizbox, on 04/28/2008, -7/+10@sirhomer

          Did you not read the article?

          Check the section titled 'Second task: Watch a video on YouTube.' and tell me again that it's a simple two-click install process for her.

          What two-click method were you talking about? Was this girl just exceptionally retarded and missed an obvious link or notification somewhere? I don't have Ubuntu 8.04 installed on my box atm to see what happens exactly, so I don't know for sure how other people are normally installing Flash.

          As for bundling flash with Ubuntu, I agree that there might be some legal issues to deal with.. so it is a good idea that it isn't bundled by default. I really liked the idea 'theeldest' had of having some sort of post-install/intro-wizard that would help you get some basic stuff installed like Flash, DVD playback support, wmcodecs, etc. I'm pretty sure something like would be just fine on the legal end.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2What legal issues? It's adobes codec and software, if they say its ok, its ok.
          • AndrewJC, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5In all fairness, the article does say that he made a mistake by telling her to go to YouTube because it doesn't utilize the two-click method for installing. Had he told her to go to any other Flash video site, it would have been a MUCH easier process.

            Personally, I think YouTube was the smart place to go, because it's the number one video sharing site in the world, and it, like Google for search, is the first place a person thinks of when the words "video site" are uttered. All his YouTube test does is illustrates that there's a shortcoming when Flash gets installed to Ubuntu machines—and that's that there isn't a straightforward package available directly from Adobe, and there should be. Adobe hasn't updated its download page for Linux in forever, except to offer new tarballs, but it's been a long time now since Fedora or any other RPM-based distro was top dog. Adobe needs to get on top of things.

            Another alternative would be for Google to reprogram their pages so that if it detects that Ubuntu and Firefox are running together, it simply sends them to a page displaying the Flash object, which would prompt the automatic plugin installer to run instead of sending you to the Adobe download page.
          • djbon2112, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1@mrsteveman1: It's on the GPL side, not Adobe's side, that the issue lies. The GPL is a viral license, and including non-free software in a GPL-licensed distribution opens a bunch of problems with that. Don't ask me to explain, I don't know the specifics of it, but that's the gist of it.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2GPL viral stuff only applies when the code is linked together. Simply including an adobe flash plugin on the CD doesn't count as linking. I'm also pretty sure that even when flash loads on a page, it actually runs in its own process, it isn't being linked into the browser code.

            In any case, Firefox is also MIT licensed, you can link it with whatever you want.
          • sirhomer, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Firefox is not MIT licensed, it is MPL/LGPL, which is copyleft (you can not make a close source Firefox). Even if it was completely legal, there is a lot of ideology that would get in the way of bundling properitary software. It would violate one of the principal mandates of Ubuntu to only include "free software applications". Doing anything otherwise would prove extremely unpopular and would probably lead to mutiny among the majority of Ubuntu developers. Similar things happened in the past.
        • sirhomer, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5@weizbox

          She probably clicked the link YouTube displays when you don't have Flash. Unfortunately this is completely useless. Since Adobe doesn't package Flash for anything but YUM-based operating systems, the link of little use. Instead she should have listened to what Firefox is asking, which is along of the lines "This page requires a browser plugin to be viewed properly. Do you wish to install this now?". I mean, there is little you can do besides that without making the web experience too annoying.

          On the unrelated note, I completely agree with the need of a post install system for making stuff simpler for new users. I think that would be the ideal way to handle these issues. It should also explain the basics of how Ubuntu works. But it should also be easy to uninstall or ignore for advanced users.
        • shownoregrets, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1lol @both of you
        • NikoKun, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Not even 2 minutes.
      • Wakuko, on 04/28/2008, -11/+0Winblows media?
        WHAAAAAAAA?
        What you need that ***** of piece for???
      • simonnnomis, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1No - the point is with Firefox and the internet you can troubleshoot any other problem.
    • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -5/+8"...she's fine with any OS as long as she can find the Firefox icon."

      In other words, all your wife really needs is an internet appliance. Nothing wrong with that but it says next to nothing about the operating system.
      • theaceoffire, on 04/28/2008, -1/+11Which is the way it should be.
        The OS should be invisible, never in the way, and only the programs should matter.
        • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1The job of the OS is to facilitate and coordinate the interaction between software, hardware and the user. To this end, it needs to support the installation, removal and updating of both hardware and software and oversee and manage the use of applications.

          Finding the Firefox icon isn't exactly a thorough and adequate evaluation of the OS function.
      • simonnnomis, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1No - the point is with Firefox and the internet you can troubleshoot any other problem.
    • DangerCollie, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3My wife and technology have a problematic relationship. But she jets along on Ubuntu with no problems. In fairness I administer the box and set up her email and file shares. But she manages browsing, spreadsheets, letters and email...what I'd consider average user tasks, with no problems.
      I still appreciate new user experiences, even if they're not entirely positive. Insight from fresh eyes.
    • lacronicus, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4No one ever has a problem with their computer until it ***** up. The true test of a computers appeal to the masses isn't how intuitive it is from day to day, but when something goes wrong. *That* is why I don't think Linux will be mainstream for quite a while, as, though it may be great for normal use, fixing a problem is not an easy task.
      • jhodapp, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3And it is on any OS? If something goes wrong out of the ordinary, isn't that beyond the scope of any average user on any piece of software?
      • mossblaser, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Fixing problems is easier on linux than other OSes. Though how easy or hard it is is irellevent. The average user does not expect to fix their own problems, neither will they attempt to.
      • saftaplan, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I don't think that's the problem. It usually goes like this:
        Windows: "Error #118002, General Protection Fault"
        GNU/Linux: "There seems to be an error. This is what is wrong and here's how to fix it, would you like some coffee?"
        But maybe you're more used to fixing things in the Windows Register than in the command line terminal.
    • enterneo, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1same holds for some of my friends too, they just need firefox and limewire
  • 3242130193, on 04/28/2008, -9/+86I had a bitch of a time learning how to install programs in Ubuntu when I first got it but after googling around for a while and learning how to use apt-get (I suppose the same could go for synaptic), it became easy. Plus it's just so much more organized than double-clicking an executable.
    • Gregsaw, on 04/28/2008, -3/+11my girlfriend wouldn't think to google stuff like that. Also, the fact that there's an entire community devoted to helping solve ubuntu problems isn't even considered some times
      • MCee, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0Google can help solve lots of things, both windows and linux related. And each has their own respective community, which is also a great place to look (actually, it might even be the first place Google points someone too). I know a lot of people probably don't think to look there, but I think that's a problem with the way people think about computers, and not with the respective operating system that they may be using. Tech savvy people should probably inform people of this concept more and more, and sooner or later it will be common knowledge.
        • DracoFlameus, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Maybe, but an OS shouldn't rely on that, at least not if it want to grow outside of western-world countries.
    • Ademan, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I had a similar first experience, a friend of mine convinced me to install ubuntu on a spare box of mine (it took a LOT of convincing) and I went into it thinking 'linux must be hard'. The first thing I went to do was install gcc (since you have to compile everything on linux right?), so i googled 'gcc ubuntu' and eventually stumbled upon packages.ubuntu.com and downloaded the gcc package, and tried to install it, no go, needs glibc something or other (it's been over 2 years). I download that , try to install it, no go (it needs gcc to be installed). later i find out dpkg -i will take multiple packages at once and in that way resolve cyclic dependencies. Anywho, i went to #ubuntu on irc.freenode.net, and within a couple of minutes found out what an idiot i'd been. Once I figured out about synaptic and apt-get I was in love, the system was so elegant and easy.

      tl;dr; I did it horribly wrong, then was corrected and liked it.

      So, maybe what should happen is some sort of 'guide' system, where people who are active enough in the community to spread ubuntu around, are there at first to help the new users out and teach them 'the linux way', solve possible initial problems, and show them how and where to go for help in the future, and just generally hold their hand through the transition period. I could see having a little pocket in the ubuntu CD sleeves where you could leave contact information for a local LUG or linux guru, that would be pretty cool in my opinion, at least in some way have the people handing out cds be able to help those willing to try them out.
      • daengbo, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4What Ubuntu really needs is a video on first start which explains the simplest functions. Want to find your files? Look in places. Want to install a new program? Go to Applications > Add/Remove. That would solve most of the issues.
        • ikkefc3, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0Ubuntu has this already.
          Click System -> Help
        • daengbo, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0Can you read? I said a video on first start, not a textual help system based on the request for help.
    • aethelberga, on 04/28/2008, -0/+12Google is the first place I turn for practically any computer problems, Windows or Linux. Sure, I could look in the Help menus for a few minutes, but why when Googling will get me the answers in seconds?
      • mossblaser, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Only time "help" works better is on linux: man pages for many programs out there are worth hours on google.
    • peestandingup, on 04/28/2008, -19/+25Bottom line: As long as Ubuntu (or any Linux distro for that matter) users have to "apt-get" anything or use the terminal in any way, its not gonna appeal to the mainstream.

      Cant wait to be dugg down for speaking the truth.
      • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -8/+13I dugg you down because saying it's "the truth" doesn't make it so.
      • InferiorWang, on 04/28/2008, -3/+19Good thing they included a package manager with a gui.
        • DracoFlameus, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Which should be mentioned and explained in an introduction video, otherwise the user has no clue its there.
          • ikkefc3, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1How do you know how the package manager in Mac OS X or Windows XP works? They also don't have an intro video.
          • daverave999, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1They have a package manager in XP!? Where?
      • WildTang3nt, on 04/28/2008, -2/+16There's Synaptic and Add/Remove programs (it *actually* adds programs, unlike it's Windows counterpart.) if you're afraid of the terminal. That said, I find terminal to be much faster for myself personally...
      • insllvn, on 04/28/2008, -2/+12Everything you can install by default with apt-get can also be searched for and installed by clicking a box in Synaptic. Synaptic is a graphical interface for apt-get. There is really no need to go into the CLI or open a terminal unless you are comfortable there, and it will save you time.
        • DracoFlameus, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1yeah, but tell that to a n00b, how should she or he know?
        • yetAnotherCroc, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6@Draco: Why would a noob try the terminal when there is an entry called "Add/Remove applications" on the menu?
      • viggooo, on 04/28/2008, -1/+8I can inform you that "Add/Remove" works fine in the GUI. It's under Applications -> Add/Remove. You should try it out sometime.
      • dcherryholmes, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I am not writing to say you are wrong, because I do think many people just sort of freak out at the sight of a command line and all that (to them) gobbledegook. But what I don't understand is how people are ok with typing an email address somethingsomething@somewhere, but not OK with typing sudo apt-get install something. I also know windows guys who have no problem wallowing in their registry all day, and then turn around and say CLI is "cryptic" and "80's." People just need to be educated, in a non-zealous and friendly manner.
        • daverave999, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I think that might be because the email address would use words familiar to the user, whereas 'sudo' or 'apt-get' are not familiar, everyday words to non-linux users.
    • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -3/+13"Plus it's just so much more organized than double-clicking an executable."

      Organized but with unfamiliar names and limited descriptions. Most users don't decide to install software by looking at short text based descriptions. Therefore, they do the only rational thing and search the Internet for some decent information. But once the quest for info is over and a decision has been, they can't really install directly from the Internet; they have to go back and and play with apt-get just to do the install.

      Yeah, it's more organized ... in the same way that a Wal-Mart store is organized ... like a maze that forces you to take more steps than should be necessary to get what you want.
      • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1So your complaint boils down the fact that you need two windows open to install software, synaptic and a browser.

        Which is completely different than Windows where you need the browser open to find an .exe, which you download and then it opens another window, saving you what exactly?

        I much prefer the repository as it's already organized into the purpose of the app, the software comes from a fairly trusted source, and you don't have to screw around with spyware/adware/shareware applications.
        • theaceoffire, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3Actually, in Ubuntu you can install stuff straight from web pages.
          Just stick this into a page: <a href="apt://pidgin">Install Pidgin Instant Messenger</a>
        • CarzorStelatis, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2His point is that in Windows you click 'download', it downloads the exe and you can open that from WITHIN your browser's download manager. Whereas in Ubuntu you have to find information about the program you want, then MINIMISE your web browser and open the 'installer program' (ie synaptic) manually. Then search for the program AGAIN.
          • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1It works exactly the same as that when you download a .deb or .rpm file. You download, it loads gdeb package manager or whatever and you just click install. His fault with linux is really just his own ignorance or ineptitude.

            (pulled out the elitist prick linux user attitude for ya, booyah)
      • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6"So your complaint boils down the fact that you need two windows open to install software, synaptic and a browser."

        The initial complaint is that it takes two tools to do a job that should only require one. But this is just the first, most obvious complaint. Later, many users find that the repository is not always up to date nor does it contain everything they need. Once they attempt to step outside the repository "sandbox", the complaints really start rolling in.

        The bottom line --- the repository concept is more of a limitation than a strength.
        • daengbo, on 04/28/2008, -2/+0If the repo is done right, then it's a real strength. I'll never get version conflict. I'll never have unresolvable dependencies. I'll never get DLL hell. Repositories are what makes most Linux distros incredibly stable. People forget that.
          • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2"If the repo is done right, then it's a real strength."

            But logistical issues make it unlikely and unrealistic to expect that it can ever be "done right" for any but the most simplistic users. Think about it --- the basic idea that a single source will provide all applications is impractical and restrictive.

            For example, a business user in the US needs competent payroll software. Try finding it in your repository.
          • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0That example doesn't break the idea of a repository, it just requires them to allow third party packages to be installed also (which all of them already do). A .deb or .rpm package works essentially the same as a .exe installer, and even when you're using a repository, nothing prevents you from installing from source (which may appear scary your first time, but is usually the same 3 commands in the terminal: configure, make, sudo make install).
          • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"That example doesn't break the idea of a repository ..."

            Step back and examine the overall picture you're painting --- the number of different methods (apt-get, .deb, .rpm. source) that may have to be employed to get things installed. Look at the likelyhood that something can and will go wrong with each of these; particularly for a novice user. Remember that installing and managing applications is one of the most fundamental jobs of an operating system.

            Add it all up and what you have looks pretty broken to most users in comparison to the simplicity of a double click.
          • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0Alright, you're just a troll or you've never actually used any of those methods.
      • rzrgenesys187, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Using the package manager to find the program you are looking for isn't very difficult, and if you ever have to install the application at a later date it is one line you have to type in, much easier than browsing the web looking for an exe
        • DracoFlameus, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Actually no... because typing some orders is just not what users want to do. If it were that way, Windows would still be DOS.
          • ikkefc3, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0And you nevert type in your web browser?
        • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"... and if you ever have to install the application at a later date it is one line you have to type in ..."

          Unrealistic assumption --- the average user will *not* remember the line.
      • dazparkour, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1The text description is normally as lengthy as your post. Dugg down for your post being too short.
      • dcherryholmes, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1For the most novice users, I just tell them to use Add/Remove, which is right there on the top level of the Applications menu (if you can't find that, you aren't trying... at all). There, software is broken down logically by category, has a user "star" rating, and a very human-readable description of the software. Plus it has a search box. It just doesn't get any easier than that.
        • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"Plus it has a search box. It just doesn't get any easier than that."

          Most people already have a search box called "Google" that provides more better results than synaptic. If you want people to adopt your new, re-invented wheel, shouldn't it be at least as good as the wheel they already have?


          I need software for US payroll. Try finding that in synaptic.
          • dcherryholmes, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2How does a general google search provide better results? Is it limited to only software downloads? Does it screen out trialware? Does it guarantee secure MD5-summed binaries? Are you one click away from the search to installing the software, or do you have to dig around a bit?

            As for the payroll question, I just typed in "accounting" and got what looked to be some promising results back. Maybe you just need to refine your search a bit.
          • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1"How does a general google search provide better results?"

            For starters, it does usually provides results. Unless an exact match happens to be in the repository, you will often get nothing of any value from synaptic.

            "As for the payroll question, I just typed in "accounting" and got what looked to be some promising results back. Maybe you just need to refine your search a bit."

            Yes, and does any of those "accounting" results include US payroll with support for multi-state taxes? It's impossible to tell from the short description in synaptic. So what to do? You fire up the browser and go looking for better info ... which is precisely my point --- people don't choose software the synaptic way.
    • silfiriel, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1well you can't say that it's more organized than double clicking an exe, but it's doable and it's not quantum physics we're talking about. It's just a bit different way of getting things done. I am sure if linux got first to us, windows would look a little confusing at first.
      • dcherryholmes, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1It's way more organized. Plus, if you want to go to www.getdeb.com or another website, you can download a .deb, which opens a dialog box and let's you click "install." And after it's installed, it goes into the menu under the category of software it belongs to, not some arbitrary name of a software company. Linux is *WAY* more organized, logical, and intuitive. What it *isn't* is what most people are accustomed to using, but that's not the same thing at all.
        • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"What it *isn't* is what most people are accustomed to using, but that's not the same thing at all."

          What it *isn't* is the most direct, obvious, intuitative and practical way to evaluate and acquire software. And being accustomed to it or not doesn't really change this.
          • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1You've just got to be trolling now. You're saying "open web browser, search random sites, find random exe, install" is obvious and intuitive, while that same procedure still works for linux, plus there is a solid repository system also, and somehow being limited by not having a repository option at all is a strength for Windows? Troll.
          • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"You're saying "open web browser, search random sites, find random exe, install" is obvious and intuitive, while that same procedure still works for linux ..."

            The "open web browser, search, find" is pretty much required and the same in either case. It's the only practical way to really evaluate software and decide if you even want to install so the average user is already in his browser. The difference is the next step, the install --- double click versus switching to some other tool (apt-get/synaptic, .deb, .rpm, source from command line, etc.) and the likelyhood of success (or lack thereof) for the average user.

            "... somehow being limited by not having a repository option at all is a strength for Windows?"

            I never said that. Windows does have repositoriies (plural) but is not limited to a single source. MS has a repository for their software, Mozilla has one too ... as do lots of other providers.
          • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1". MS has a repository for their software, Mozilla has one too ... as do lots of other providers."

            Those aren't the same and you know it. And you're not limited to a single repository in linux either, it's quite easy to add additional sources to the package manager if needed.

            Steam is about the closest analog to a linux repository on the Windows platform.

            Still labeling you troll.
      • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"It's just a bit different way of getting things done."

        Is it just different or is it actually less intuitative and less flexible than it could be? A competent answer would require a detailed usability studiy. MS and Apple have done quite a bit of this. Needless to say, they decided against the single source software repository idea.
        • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Citation?
          Apple and MS probably decided against it because they would need to have license agreements to distribute third party software from other companies. Free software isn't as limited by redistribution issues.

          Apple and MS can't do it because they would need all software providers to be on board to provide a complete and satisfactory repository, or they would have to provide the software themselves.
          • JQP123, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1"Aple and MS can't do it because they would need all software providers to be on board to provide a complete and satisfactory repository..."

            They could have dictated that the only approved way to install software is through their repository. Apple is doing something similar to this with the iPhone; a move that may not play out so well in the long run in my opinion.
    • MightyE, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Try "Add/Remove Programs" under the main menu. It's an end-user front-end to apt. Categorizes programs according to their general purpose, lets you see how popular those programs are, gives you descriptions of each one, and lets you install them by hitting the checkbox for all the ones you want then clicking install.
    • xdevnull, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I think the problem is that it makes too much sense. The idea of downloading a file and double clicking it is a bizarre hold over from windows. If you had never used a computer, wouldn't you instead click on "Applications" and the "Add/Remove..."? How much simpler could you get???
  • VIrus9, on 04/28/2008, -17/+37I did the Wubi install on my girlfriends machine last night and left the DVD in the drive with specific instructions for her to remove it. The first thing I hear from her today was, "There's this menu on the screen I've never seen before."
    Sure enough, it was the DVD menu.
    I'm starting to think the only way I'll get her to convert is to take away her anti-virus software and spyware blocker.
    • mediaphile, on 04/28/2008, -20/+7All it took to get my technologically retarded friend to switch away from windows was a couple months of his girlfriend downloading stuff on Limewire, and the billions of viruses that came along with that. When formatting your Windows drive can't stop a virus because the virus has inserted itself into the bios, it's time to switch.

      But it was OS X I convinced him to switch to. He would have been even more lost on Linux, though at least he wouldn't have any viruses. He was able to pick up OS X in absolutely no time.
      • KloroFormd, on 04/28/2008, -1/+17Show me a virus that can flash itself into the BIOS, and I'll show you a load of BS.
        • zwaldowski, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Isn't that backwards?
        • ism70605, on 04/28/2008, -6/+0"Show me a virus that can flash itself into the BIOS, and I'll show you a load of BS."

          Haha you think you know it all; there are indeed BIOS viruses. Here you go. This is an example:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIH_virus
          • CarzorStelatis, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Catch is that page doesn't say that CIH installs itself into the bios. Epic fail.
          • ism70605, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Me looking on Wikipedia is hardly epic, dude. If that is epic, we have problems. Get a life or learn new slang.
          • odganarb, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because KloroFormd couldn't have gone and changed the page to say that it didn't do that. Either way, Wikipedia is not a vetted source, although you can check revision history and see if some data has recently been removed.
          • KloroFormd, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I personally tend to have more faith in people than to think that someone would edit a wiki article just to make themselves seem correct. I don't go for that pseudo-intelligence BS.

            And the wiki article does say that the 2nd payload is to attempt to flash junk to the BIOS. Just the likeliness of you having the exact hardware this would work on is very slim, especially today.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -1/+11Nothing can just insert itself into the bios, for one thing a lot of bios protect themselves from writing, which is why you usually have to use freedos to update the bios.

        Second, there isn't a universal bios that can be reliably overwritten without screwing the box up. They are all highly specific to the hardware involved. Its not like hijacking the windows kernel, which is for the most part identical for every machine.
        • gudnbluts, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6At a guess, the virus was probably in the boot sector, rather than the bios, and he did a quick format which didn't erase it.
    • stubear, on 04/28/2008, -37/+81Why not let her use whatever the ***** she wants to use and quit being a dick? Instead of doing the Wubi install on her, perhaps you should pay more attention to meaningful relationship things like doing the ":wubi install" on her. If you're going to insist onmaking her use a variant of UNIX, get her a Mac Mini or MacBook and let her use OS X. It's the most humane thing to do.
      • EnderMB, on 04/28/2008, -10/+22If I could Digg you a thousand times I would.
      • nationalist, on 04/28/2008, -9/+2maybe you should install ubuntu in her...ya know
      • KMartSheriff, on 04/28/2008, -4/+12God damn, get this man a beer and a medal. I'm so sick of these idiots pressing an OS on their girlfriends and then posting about it. I mean come on, seriously!? It's just a ***** OS. You have this relationship with a beautiful girl and all you can think about is getting her to switch to Ubuntu.
        • dcherryholmes, on 04/28/2008, -2/+8The motivation is not sheer dickitude. It's that we... the boyfriends, husbands, sons, and nephews, always get the "unpaid tech support" role. If I've got to do tech support, I'd rather it be linux and make my life a thousand times easier (most of these women just need an internet appliance with flash and java and w32codecs). That gives me more time to spend with them, instead of working on their virus-infested bot-netted machine.
        • jhodapp, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3That is exactly why my parents have been running Ubuntu for the last 3 years (very successfully I might add). My life couldn't be any easier and the best part is, their machine is still fast and there's no threat of spyware or virus for them to worry about!
      • VIrus9, on 04/28/2008, -1/+16"Why not let her use whatever the ***** she wants to use and quit being a dick?"

        A little self-righteous there, aren't we?

        Let me put this into terms you can understand.

        After five years of having to fix her computers on a bi-weekly basis, I've kind of nailed down the fact that she's not the type who handle the "regular maintenance" thing very well. The least I can do is to try to save us both a lot of frustration by getting her onto an OS where all she has to do is click on the little button that says "security update". Hell, she won't even have to defrag her hard drive anymore (not that she ever did to begin with).

        And I'm sure as hell not forcing her. All it is is 6GBfor the OS and virtual drives, leaving plenty of room for her Windows stuff, and she has the choice of what OS to boot to whenever she turns on her computer.

        As for getting her a Mac, it wouldn't be any different from her point of view. She still have to learn how to use different programs to do anything she wants to do now. In fact the only difference it would make to her is that I could have used the $600 spent on the Mac mini, to make a car payment for her and AND take her out for a nice dinner. The hardware she has now is fine for her purposes (email, web browsing, customer databases, etc). All she wants is to be able to use her computer without having to worry whether or not some script kiddie is going to crack her firewall and start making charges to her paypal account (again).

        Oh, and before accusing someone else of being a dick you might want to stop and think about what kind of person makes rash assumptions about other peoples' relationships based on a four sentences.
        • crowbar77, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1Since when does the user need to do any regular maintenance? pretty well any internet security software has a scheduling feature.

          btw OS X is way easier to pick up than linux, but i do understand not wanting to spend $600.
        • jhodapp, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2That might be true, but it's not as true anymore. OS X is very confusing for a new user on how to install an app the first time. People don't understand what a .dmg is and that they need to open it up and drag the application package to the Application folder. Most people just expand the image, double click the app, and then wonder why it's gone when they log out or reboot their computer. I'd say someone could discover how to install and app quicker and sooner on Ubuntu with Synaptic more easily than on OS X.
    • HaloZero, on 04/28/2008, -11/+29WTF, if your gf wants to use windows then let her use windows. Sheesh.
      • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -12/+10I have to disagree. If someone keeps breaking something and "forcing" you to fix it, you have to do something eventually. Either you eventually wash your hands of it and say her computer is not your problem anymore, you switch her to something less problematic, or you continue to waste your life fixing the same problem over and over again.
        • theaceoffire, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7I have to agree... I keep having to fix my family's computers because they don't grasp the whole concept of "Don't run everything".
          Darn you Bonzai Buddy!
        • EnderMB, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5Have you never heard of the term 'Sexual Favors' before?!
          • burrgrinder, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0You've never had a long term relationship before have you?

            Three years into a relationship, try...just try to trade a disk reformat for a blowjob, let me know how that works out for you.

            Face it guys, computer work is like being a plumber where you're entire purpose is to fix their *****, except computers are way easier to break than plumbing.
          • EnderMB, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I'm in one right now. I do these repairs for nothing and my girlfriend appreciates that. In my eyes if you can help someone then you should.
        • VIrus9, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8"I have to disagree. If someone keeps breaking something and "forcing" you to fix it, you have to do something eventually."

          I'm glad to see that someone gets it. The way I see it, the less time I have to spend fixing her computer, the more time I have to do other things for her.
    • TypeEE, on 04/28/2008, -4/+3If you know what you are doing, you won't need an antivirus software, spyware software on the other hand is quite important.
  • akkibaba, on 04/28/2008, -5/+242Absolutely brilliant article.

    It's these little annoyances that make switching from Windows to Linux so difficult. We already have the major software in place, we just need to clean up and polish the GUI. The vast majority of people look at computers as tools equivalent to refrigerators or lawn mowers. They should not have to Google their way around these simple tasks.
    • xkorbin, on 04/28/2008, -34/+3***** polished fonts.
      People may like them. I hate them.
      Sharp fonts are the best thing about Mac and Windows.
      First thing I do when I install Linux is change my font set.
      • QurrUm, on 04/28/2008, -0/+16What? He wasn't talking about fonts, he was talking about the little things, like the filesystem issue mentioned in the article.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -4/+3You know, considering that the way fonts look in ubuntu by default, i think i can safely say id rather have anything else.
        • gudnbluts, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4"i think i can safely say id rather have anything else"

          First time I saw them, I thought the installer had got my screen resoution wrong.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Whats odd is, its easily fixed, so why it isn't nice looking by default i don't know.

            I was under the impression that Ubuntu wasn't based in the US where all these supposed patents apply. I hope they aren't just making it look bad to avoid violating patents, because Suse did that last year on purpose, i had to recompile the font library to make it look nice.
    • peestandingup, on 04/28/2008, -1/+11Well said. I agree 100%.
    • DangerCollie, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3It is a great article and it's interesting getting the perspective from Windows users. What I hope is that Linux and Ubuntu will be flexible enough to offer some kind of newbie switch. Something new users can turn on to provide more guidance for basic tasks and some way to switch it off for more advanced users.
      Start loading down Ubuntu with crutches for Windows users and advanced users will revolt...ala Vista.
    • handband2, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1"They should not have to Google their way around these simple tasks." ??

      System -> Help and Support

      Windows and Apple users seem to never use help files. Now it is new Linux users.
    • ExRe, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2What it needs is better driver support and easier installations (supporting stuff like .exe's and having them easily available). The package manager is very nice if it has the software you are looking for, else you are probably going to have a pain in the ass time trying to get what you need and install it.

      One thing that _really_ needs work on is better mouse support. I don't care if 90% of people have 2 button mice, support every button on the mouse from the start and have a GUI configuration for it! Using any logitech mouse is bad enough on windows with their ***** drivers, but using them on linux is just plain horrible.
    • glxyjones, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2I agree as well. Also, I think the biggest thing holding Ubuntu back is the amount of linux knowledge you need (or have the capability to acquire) when something goes wrong. I am not a Linux expert, but I consider myself a typical expert on computers in that I can solve (or again, find out how to) almost all problems I run into. However, it took me a couple of hours just to find drivers that worked with my USB wireless adapter when I tried to use it with Ubuntu. It was by no means a straightforward fix and while the wireless network utility that comes with Ubuntu is nicer than most Linux distributions, it is no where near Mac or Windows as far as ease of use go.

      I do agree that my driver problem would've been a very easy fix if Linksys created Linux drivers for their product.
  • colincornaby, on 04/28/2008, -14/+82No.
    I did a fresh install of Ubuntu a few weeks ago for Postgresql. Yesterday I tell the package manager to upgrade to 8.04. It starts just fine, but about 3/4 of the way through installing all the stuff it downloads, everything starts to fail, and I start to get a series of error dialogs, telling me my system might be unusable (keep in mind this is a pretty fresh install). Now for me, that's not so scary. But if I was just joe six pack, I would be freaking out.
    • nailer, on 04/28/2008, -5/+4What are the error messages?
      • colincornaby, on 04/28/2008, -2/+6It was something about the installation failing, with the option to send the error to the Ubuntu folks (which I did.)
    • barius, on 04/28/2008, -0/+19I've had that happen too, and it's scary but it's fairly easy to fix. However, I don't think I would consider this a task for the 'average' user. When was the last time your girlfriend (the average user) upgraded from one version of Windows to the next? I bet she's never even upgraded MS Office. The fact is, the average user will likely buy a computer with the current LTS release and not upgrade it again until she wants a faster computer. Frankly, I think that's exactly the way it should work for 'average' users.
      • colincornaby, on 04/28/2008, -7/+1Average users do it on the Mac all the time. 10.5->10.5.1, etc. Even on Windows you have service pack upgrades.
        • vertexoflife, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7I've had to upgrade thirteen people at school to SP2 because they werent there yet.
          • colincornaby, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1Really? These days Windows updates itself without the user even doing anything at all...
        • barius, on 04/28/2008, -0/+110.5->10.5.1 is not a major update. Updating Ubuntu from 7.10 to 8.04 is more like moving from OSX 10.4 to 10.5. In the case of Kubuntu, with it's move to KDE4, it is more like an upgrade from OS 9 to OSX 10.0.

          Unlike on Win/Mac there is no such thing as a service pack in Ubuntu. There are only package updates between major releases, and these have been foolproof for me since...well since forever.
      • jc1985, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Don't get me wrong - I really like OS X. I also don't dislike Windows or Linux, I use all three on a regular basis, but I need to use software that has no Linux equivalent & find that OS X runs faster on the same hardware than Windows does (especially for tasks that can make use of the 64-bit CPU). However, out of the three, OS X is the only one that's ever royally ***** itself trying to perform a software update. For some reason the 10.5.1 update failed (no other applications were open at the time & I didn't do anything stupid like cut the power half way through) and my system was left in a limbo-like half-updated state. Several system applications, including Mail (pretty important!) refused to open at all. After several long chats with tech support the only way of fixing it was to reinstall the entire OS - they seemed as stumped as I was (although Archive & Install made that a much more pleasant task than a Windows reinstall!).
    • TypeEE, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I had the same experience and I had to manually force remove some of the packages. I understand how freaky it is. Every other time there is a kernel update, my video driver will completely screw up and I would need to go to single user mode to fix it. I think that's not acceptable for a mainstream user.
    • seshomarusamma, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6My wife uses Ubuntu , she would never choose to upgrade, she would just ignore the upgrade message
    • thedragon4453, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3One of my biggest issues was trying to do things the windows way on ubuntu. I kept expecting to download executables when you would obviously use synaptic or add/remove. Add/remove actually being functional was pretty cool.
  • UltramegaOK, on 04/28/2008, -82/+10Buried as Irrelevant.

    Diggers don't have girlfriends.
    • Johnny1337h4x0r, on 04/28/2008, -4/+41you're ***** hilarious


      / sarcasm
    • Smegzor, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2I'll sick my sheep onto you!
    • Dr00pieS, on 04/28/2008, -3/+2Sorry to rain on your parade, but I do.
      Unfortunately, after I pick up GTA IV...wait, no she loves GTA! Guess I'll still be the only one with a g/f according to your scientific theory.
  • vroom101, on 04/28/2008, -7/+47Sobering. Excellent. Required reading.
    • mpwoodruff, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1Did you seriously no know this already?
  • sloppychris, on 04/28/2008, -6/+78Installing flash would have been easier if Adobe provided a .deb.

    That said, it's a bit outrageous to ask software developers to provide executables for all these different distributions. The community needs to work together to make life easier for everyone on this one.
    • airencracken, on 04/28/2008, -21/+19If you attempt to access Flash content, Firefox will prompt you to download the plug in with a drop down menu. Can't be any simpler.
      • weizbox, on 04/28/2008, -14/+19Than why did this girl have issues getting it installed? Did you not have the same result when you went to a site that had Flash? Was she just exceptionally retarded?
        • weizbox, on 04/28/2008, -7/+9/sigh...
          I really wish you could see who dugg down/up peoples comments. I just wanted an answer.. and apparently someone thinks that's wrong.

          what is wrong with having a discussion?
          • alexforcefive, on 04/28/2008, -3/+10how DARE you try to converse with someone on the internet! *click click click*

            Anyway, the girl wasn't retarded. She was just unfortunate that youtube complicates the flash-installation process. If there was a big blank space where a video should be, and a yellow bar saying "firefox needs to install a plugin..." like normal, there wouldn't be a problem. Youtube shouldn't be making decisions for you like that.

            The idea of a new user introduction thing is a good idea. It's actually already written, but you have to go to "Help > New To Ubuntu?" to find it. It should just pop up on your first login
          • weizbox, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3@alexforcefive

            Thank you very much for giving an answer! Very well said :)

            Does the 'New to Ubuntu' thing (app?) have direct links or buttons that allow you to install things like Flash or wm32codecs, or does it redirect you to HowTos or something like that?

            I def need to download the LiveCD so I can check some of this out :)
          • sloppychris, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2I just looked, it appears to be all text. Not the sort of thing I'd expect new users to sit down and study ;). Some type of animated slide show is in order, I'd say. Here's a screen shot from a random page of the guide:

            http://image.bayimg.com/oajfnaabi.jpg
          • newwatch51, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2@sloppychris
            Yeah, maybe a video would be nice.
        • ikkefc3, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0@ weizbox: Or you could try a distro that has Flash out of the box (Sabayon/PCLinuxOS/UbuntuUltimate).
      • ileftfark, on 04/28/2008, -3/+28Did you actually read the article?
        • weizbox, on 04/28/2008, -5/+9By the looks of it a few people didn't read, or at least acknowledge what was written in the article. Its like the whole 'Second task: Watch a video on YouTube.' section was invisible...
          • ileftfark, on 04/28/2008, -3/+13Here's a hint for you: Most people comment based solely on the headline alone, with no regard to the content of the article. It's just the nature of things, and I find it charming.
      • Daniel591992, on 04/28/2008, -2/+9Until it tells you that the install failed and you must install manually.
      • newwatch51, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3But YouTube detects if you don't have Flash and doesn't display the video. Thus, Firefox doesn't alert you that you don't have flash.
    • nailer, on 04/28/2008, -4/+8Some moron's moderated you down to -2 without reading the article.For those who missed it:

      " Erin went to YouTube and searched for a Beatles video, and seemed to assume that it would work straight away. When it told her that she needed a plug-in she groaned, but clicked the link they gave her. It took her to the official Flash plug-in page, and gave her the option of downloading a gzipped tarball, an RPM or a YUM."

      Provided a Debian page would have allowed her to click the .deb, and graphically install flash, and prompt her to restart her web browser.

      Better yet, for Ubuntu 8.04, you could also make a link to apt:flashplugin-nonfree, which would download and install it by simply clicking it.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/28/2008, -2/+48.04 just asked me if i wanted to install flash in the situation you described, then went and did it automatically in the background.

        I don't see what the issue is.
        • nailer, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4The problem is, for her, it didn't do that. And the Adobe page recommends using the command line to install a desktop app.
      • srg13, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2The problem seems to be that she didn't click the Firefox button that would have appeared, which would have installed it automatically, but followed the link in the text that YouTube shows when you don't have flash, which recommends installing with the command line.
        • Kyan, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2And clicking that link seems a completely rational thing to do. The user opens a YouTube page and so obviously the user is going to be focussed on that page NOT on the peripheral Firefox comments. The user reads the YouTube page, sees "click this link to get Flash" and does so.

          If FF hit her with a popup window to get her attention over the YouTube page, she would have done what the popup window said. So, FF coders should write that in and the problem would be solved.
        • wiresjr, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1Yeah! More pop-ups!
          Wait... what?
    • Pake, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Agreed. I tried going to YouTube when I first installed Ubuntu w/ Wubi a couple days ago. Went off to find another flash page to see if there was an easier method and ended up getting a different flash plug-in. Now I need to go back and remove that plug-in since it doesn't seem to like flash based applications much and I'm tired of clicking a play button twice.
    • sloppychris, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Unfortunately these types of problems are the consequence of closed source platforms becoming web standards.
      • pyrates, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2How exactly did you come to that conclusion? When they are easier to use and the only defense you can say that Linux is better because it's free, you have failed in your arguement.
    • MightyE, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Actually Firefox does a good job on Hardy of offering to install the correct plugin for you when you encounter Flash content. Unfortunately, as the article points out, YouTube detects you don't have Flash, and overrides the browser's behavior (more accurately preempts the browser's behavior) giving you a link which is less functional than if they'd done no special handling.
  • DrCalculus, on 04/28/2008, -4/+75Installed Ubuntu Hardy two days ago on my laptop. I have never used linux before so I know where the article is coming from but I am very tech savy. I have used windows since v2.0 on my 286.
    Initially, everything seemed to work except my broadcom wireless card. After a few hours of searching, I found a great guide to build my own driver or some such thing using ndiswrapper. The guide was well written and I got my wireless working right away.
    I wanted to use winamp for music but they don't have a linux release. So, I decided to use amarok. I tried to set it up to use mysql for the database but couldn't figure this out either. Again, googled and found a nice guide. The average user won't know to apt-get mysql-server mysql-client and do all the crap to get it working.
    Overall, I think i am going to love my Ubuntu box, but the transition was a little rough. The average user isn't going to know how to get things up and running like their windows box was running. It's getting close but it's not there yet.
    • MKdx, on 04/28/2008, -1/+8If you like winamp, give Audacious a try. It's kind of fork of XMMS - an earlier winamp-like player. I use it on my machine with winamp skin.
      • aidave, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3I agree Audacious is the way to go. Almost every linux music player tries to copy iTunes. I tried every one in the Ubuntu repository. If you hate iTunes trying to manage your music, get Audacious!
    • theeldest, on 04/28/2008, -2/+13The average user isn't going go be using mysql at all.

      (I'm saying this under the assumption that you needed mysql for something unrelated to amarok. If you needed mysql for Amarok, then I don't know what to say. (your statement was a bit ambiguous))
      • DrCalculus, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6When I started up amarok, it wanted to build a database of my music. There were 3 choices for databases, the quickest of which (from what i've read) was mysql. You have to download mysql, set up the password and give it root access or something for it to work. Then amarok will build your database.
        • Ademan, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5sqlite is by far the lightest, i suppose mysql could end up being faster, but you're adding mysqld solely for amarok, which imho is insane (but you know... to each his own i guess....)
        • sloppychris, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Just so you know, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but that setup isn't necessary for most users.
        • mcmlxxii, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1If you just click through the amarok setup it'll us