Linux shouldn't be more user-friendly

[Urza9814]

I was just thinking...Linux shouldn't be more user-friendly. If people want to torture themselves with Windoze, that's fine, it's their problem really. I mean, we should show them how much better Linux is, and try to get it pre-installed on systems, but it shouldn't become easier to install and use. I mean, some stuff like tar.gz files could perhaps use some work, but we don't want it becoming like Windoze...First of all, Linux just isn't like that...it's not the OS for the people who don't know anything about computers. It never has been, and, IMHO, it never should be. Also, by making it easier, you're saying people don't need to know anything about their computers. The way it is now, you dont' need to know much, but you need to know the basics. I know people that don't even know what kind of internet they have! My brother noticed a bubble popping up on winXP saying some system file was messed up and to run the chkdsk utility, and he calls me down asking me what to do! I mean, I'd understand if he didn't know that was a DOS command, but he should at least think 'chkdsk...check disk...there's a program called scan disk'. If people knew a little about computers, then maybe they wouldn't have to call tech support for every little error message that popped up, and then they would save much time and stress, and it would be well worth the time it takes to learn it. They may be too lazy to just learn it now, but if they find how much better Linux is, and are mad enough at windoze, they'll learn.

[Ixthusdan]

I agree. Linux is not nor should it ever be "like windows". It would be nice if the installer worked, though! B)

[SwiftDeath]

recently having attempted and still trying to cross over, I learned about 2x as much about my computer than I did in 2 years.

 

IT forced me to learn some stuff, and actually use a console, which is a good thing. But I do agree, and fre things need some work.

• Tarballs and tar.gz's need to be easier to install. Sometimes the ./configure command doesn't work with certain installations of applications. We should also try to fix the whole library thing up. It gets really confusing not knowing which libraries you need, which ones you don't need, and which ones you already have. Its kinda hard to get the library your looking for easly.
  
• Urpmi needs and RPM drake need a lot of work. A lot of the time the signatures are invalid. They are also very confusing for new users. It took me a very long time to understand sources and what your actually doing in URPMI
  
• If we continue helping people on these forums like you all helped me, I beleive that more people will switch to linux, and learn more about their computers at the same time.
  
• We also need to really show the Micrsoft users that Linux really is superior in terms of reliability and stability and speed, by showing true facts and less opinion and hype. We also need to prove those doctored research results that Microsoft realeases are very biast and not realiable information
  

[bvc]

I've spent the last 2 days fixing the a/c on the family van. Why? $440 was affordable for me to do it myself, $1000 to the crooks (mechanics/federal freon laws) was not even an option. M$ cost $, linux doesn't. It's a big factor. If tinkering is your hobby, you do not make your $ with computers, and have an income that affords you the luxury to be able to pay someone to install, fix, take out the virus's and do without you pc for a week becasue you can spend your time and $ doing other things, then why not? Would I? No, but then I've always had to 'do it myself', so I'm used to it and actually prefer it that way on most things. Now, if I had $1000 to burn on a/c.....I wouldn't have sweat_wet and cut up knuckles for 2 days :D but I'll always build my own boxes (unless I inherit a G5), install os's and fix/upgrade things :D

 

There should be a line. Linux should get as easy as possible without taking the power of root/cli away. Files should never be changes or apps setup or run at boot without root knowing.

 

To say that the install shouldn't be easy is not good. If windozer's can't get in linux to try it, how could they ever convert?

Edited May 31, 2004 by bvc

[Pain999]

What are you doing using Mandrake? If you wanted something hard to use then they have distros for you like Gentoo or Sorcerer. B)

 

I am quite happy to have the chance to have a working Linux system like Mandrake and learn the console commands at my own pace. If something easy was not an option then I would never have left Windows. Eventually your forced to learn some of it anyway as soon as you want to install some non-prepackaged software or even 3D video drivers.

[gmac]

To remain in existence linux in some form or another has to be economically viable. If you can't beat microsoft on the desktop and break a monopoly by being a viable alternative then the long term future is bleak. People who don't try linux aren't stupid they just have other priorities.

 

Most people just use a computer and how it woks doesn't really matter. How many people do you know can drive a car but wouldn't know where the jack is?

 

To say that the install shouldn't be easy is not good. If windozer's can't get in linux to try it, how could they ever convert

 

This is bad I agree with bvc.

 

Cars are a good analogy, microsoft is like Ford, everywhere but you don't appreciate the alternative if you have to get used to having the pedals in different positions and different gear sequences and clutch every time you get in a new one, you just won't bother will you? cos the one you have works and you know where you can get it fixed

[SwiftDeath]

It seems that theirs two types of linux users, according to this.

 

Those who want it easier

 

and those who don't

 

I beleive those who want it easier will be better for converting users. But if you make easier, we'll kinda lose of pride of not being like everyone else with an operating system.

 

So I guess linux is fine how it is, but we should try to get more companies support and drivers, with other better stuff like I said before.

[Ixthusdan]

The great Microsoft plan only works if all the software is Microsoft. That is the real issue. My computer should have never been able to execute a file from India just because it arrives and says "hello! I'm an executable!!" Computers should have always been secure. So, part of the re-education of users is to realize that security is more important than convenience! Easy is limited by security.

[tyme]

I think we're all missing a very big point...

 

There's a difference between making things easy and taking away control. Linux can be -easy-, in the sense that it's not complicated to setup/install/use. But at the same time, it can keep the fun, complex way of doing things that many of us actually -enjoy- (and are often labeled insane because of it).

 

MS took away control to make things easy. We, as Linux users, have control. Whether or not that control is done easily with a GUI and some checkboxes are the hard way in the command line with emacs, nano, or vi is our choice...

 

After all, Open Source is about just that - choice. So argue all you want about whether or not it should be easy, but understand if the spirit of Linux keeps on going it will always -be your choice- as to how "easy" it is.

[SwiftDeath]

I agree, and I like easy but control the most! :lol:

[null]

I like linux just the way it is, not too hard and not too easy, just right. Besides, there are harder distros and distros that hold your hand alot, so take your pick. I like the ones in the middle.

[Darkelve]

I think you should be careful with your definition of user-friendly. User-friendly does NOT automatically mean 'dumbed down'. There is a lot in the details, like when select 60 or so image files in the file manager, then open it and suddenly 60 seperate windows start to open (but you expected just one window)! Or a game opens full-screen and then when you finished playing it, you can't figure out how to exit! Readable fonts is part of being user-friendly, as is installing new software. Small things like these can benefit everyone.

 

As said already, you can *choose* how much 3l1t3/dumbed down you want it to be, that's why all these different distro's out there are doing okay. No need being paranoid about this guys.

[Gowator]

recently having attempted and still trying to cross over, I learned about 2x as much about my computer than I did in 2 years.

 

IT forced me to learn some stuff, and actually use a console, which is a good thing. But I do agree, and fre things need some work.

• Tarballs and tar.gz's need to be easier to install. Sometimes the ./configure command doesn't work with certain installations of applications. We should also try to fix the whole library thing up. It gets really confusing not knowing which libraries you need, which ones you don't need, and which ones you already have. Its kinda hard to get the library your looking for easly.
  
• Urpmi needs and RPM drake need a lot of work. A lot of the time the signatures are invalid. They are also very confusing for new users. It took me a very long time to understand sources and what your actually doing in URPMI
  
• If we continue helping people on these forums like you all helped me, I beleive that more people will switch to linux, and learn more about their computers at the same time.
  
• We also need to really show the Micrsoft users that Linux really is superior in terms of reliability and stability and speed, by showing true facts and less opinion and hype. We also need to prove those doctored research results that Microsoft realeases are very biast and not realiable information
  

Im just quoting that for example but it does show *IMHO where the problem is.

Those who want easy dumb linux shouldn't be using FREE distro's, its liek bvc says the tinkering and understanding comes with a price. This doesnt mean windows, it can mean Linspire/Lycoris or Mac OS-X

 

The real prob with 'Mandrake' and some other areas is complete lack of documentation.

I remember urza having some issue with tarballs beyond installing, they were a mystery.

This isnt becuase people are stupid, its becuase people dont jknow where to look for documentation. I happen to knbow exactly what a tar file is but I know a lot of people think its some sort of zip file becuase that is the way its implied. (For those who dont know it is a Tape Archive Format and has no compression)

This is just one of those things that drifted away and people coming from Windows viewed them like zip files (which they can be convinced to behave as)

 

Another example is the kernel 2.6

I got used to 2.2 then 2.4 ... and the make process, now I find that its changed make now includes 'make modules' and make 'bzImage' and even alters lilo.

 

OK fine but I had to dig about quite a bit to find that out, its more form rumours than seeing it from the penguins mouth!

 

Now if I had a vanilla kernel from kernel.org I get the documentation BUT when i download kernel-source as an RPM it is optional and its not even available for some kernels. Hence the owness is once more on me to look for it.

 

I strongly suspect mandrake cripples its kernel-source anyway. They are most certainly NOT the ones used in the mandrake kernels. Once again its DOCUMENTATION. (I wouldnt mind if I knew the difference)

Ive asked many if anyone knows whats in kernel-enterprise. Noone does. All we have is RUMOUR. We know its got 4GB support enabled but little else? What patches were applied etc.

 

 

The same can be said for many other things like the drak wizards.

When they work they can work fine but I never found the workshop manual.

I found the Mandrake book with screen shots and completely DUMB ... 'selecting ext3 will select the ext3 filesystem' type of documentation BUT NOT

when you press OK diskdrake will use mk3fs and call it using the following parameters .... you can over ride these by seeting a variable XXX

 

The other end of the documentation is the source code.

 

 

So in summary, there is a difference between dumbed down and simple to use and the difference is documentation. Microshaft never documented anything, its all secret .... but linux had vastly differing documentation ...

usually the best is from the developers but once you start moving stuff like config files or install locations around the documentation becomes a lot less useful.

 

If a disto do move a config file they should rewrite the original documents to take this into account, unfortunately most dont. Hence we end up with documentation that sorta helps but is inexact.

 

Nothing is difficult about linux... it just needs documenting and explaining properly!

[Huerzo]

I hope I understood topic completely wrong: does somebody want computers, which make a big men cry? Do tears give extra value to computing? Please read my message written by a common user, not a war flamer. My opinions just may be so strong, that somebody may feel offended by them.

 

For me making things a more complicated/harder way won't give extra pleasure, if user friendliness is described a such thing. If some thing can be done by pressing a button instead of writing something into console, I prefer buttons to text. But maybe I see Linux as a tool like a car is, which enables me to do some things. The way how car or Linux makes things done doesn't interest me as much. I understand the existance of tweakers and tuners who want to keep their cars or Linuxes as polished as possible. I've seen some vintage cars and I agree they would certainly lose something if seat belts or better tyres would be installed on them.

 

But answer is under your nose, folks. Why vintage linuxers want to update their software? Let others have their buttons and help texts, but you can keep your systems the way they are made. Let other world fill their eyes with windows and colours. But if somebody else wants to have more candy, it doesn't take your Linuxes away. Vintage car owners probably are happy modern cars having seat belts and ABS even their car doesn't have such equipment. Masses have already taken Linux over and their vision of the future of Linux is menus, buttons and windows, not a command line. And I've a hunch that Linus himself is also sharing this view.

 

I may sound rude, but why development process should be stopped to a certain phase? Just because some things are done a way X dozen years? Gangsta-Linux wanna be still underground thing? I know those times won't come back. And IMHO, luckily.

Edited June 1, 2004 by Huerzo

[aRTee]

Linux should be made as easy as possible - no fiddling with anything to get hardware working properly.

This doesn't mean there should be a change in the control of root.

 

It should just get better and easier to use.

 

Note: easier is relative. I find the command line much easier to use for certain tasks, whereas other people find that per definition things are too complicated if there is typing involved.

 

IMHO, all that can be done correctly without any intervention should be done correctly without any intervention.

Certain basic things still don't work properly, like usb memory cards and such. Sure, often they work, but I have one colleague who is having problems, his memstick shows up as sda, unplug plug in again, then: sdb. Etcetc.

Loads more examples.

 

That said, work is in progress, in some areas linux beats the pants off of any other system, again: IMHO, and in other areas it is still somewhat behind.

 

What I think is more important are those points where it seems (to the newbie) that linux is behind, but in reality it is not since there are just so many more possibilties.

Example: console login prompt. Newbie thinks linux just sucks, since he gets no graphics. True: it should have worked. Not true that without graphics Linux sucks. It is still linux.

There are many more and likely better examples (no time now) where newbies think that some choice should have been made automatically for them, but it wasn't, since there are several equally viable options, or none are really desirable as default, or whatever...

So in those cases it must be made clear to them that actually, their lack of knowledge lead them to believe that the system didn't make the choice that they would think is correct.

 

 

So: defaults should be ok, autoconfiguration should work, nice wizards should do their job, root remains King and as such has the wizards at his command, and config files should be human readable, and good docs should be available too.

 

Whenever you have to config something that the system could have set up for you, to me, the system is a bit 'broken'.

 

And yes, I have upped the standard on how I see linux. A year or two ago, I wanted it to work. Today, I want it to work well, better than any alternative. In some cases, it does.