Sincere Question...What Does Linux Offer A Computer User?

[Wally Balljacker]

So this is a serious sincere question I'd like to pose. I'll be honest and say that I find myself spending more time on my xp computer because everything works and I've not had any problems in the 4 years since I installed it. I've begun to question exactly what advantage linux offers me as a DESKTOP computer user.

I'd prefer to stay away from stereotypes, cliches and fud. With all the talk of being ready for the desktop and needing more exposure I ask...what does linux offer for a desktop/laptop user that would make them switch?

I'm not going to regurgitate the same old party line about how Linux is superior to Windows. For some people it just doesn't matter and Linux doesn't offer them anything tangible as a desktop operating system. You seem to be one of those people. If XP works for you reliably and securely, I see no reason to kill a good thing.

[hellonorman]

From an economic (not just monetarily) standpoint, by installing Linux you are preventing an initial investment from influencing future decisions. When you purchase Windows and begin to use it, core functionality such as spreadsheets, documents, presentations, graphics, even fonts become an additional cost. Keep in mind, I am talking about a purely proprietary system. Around the time of Windows 98, functionality had a cost. If you needed special features above and beyond what was provided, not only did you have to search and hope that someone else provided the macro, font, etc., you had to purchase it. A lot of times, home users had to budget for features: "I chose to get this font instead of that one" or "I decided to buy this clipart disc because it was cheaper. Will it work with Publisher?" Every decision affected the next one and if you made a wrong choice, you had to correct that decision, often without a refund of your initial investment.

Wouldn't it influence future decisions if you made the investment to install linux and found out your hardware didn't work or that some other functionality was missing?

I doubt a desktop/laptop user is going to switch based on that argument.

[Colin]

What is a desktop user by your definition? I've been thinking about this question with the same goal of spreading linux...and I think the first task is to learn more about different types of computer users.

That's a great point that should be taken into account.
Zealots normally try to push things to you, saying stuff without really knowing it.
We should inform first and then allow them to decide.

[hellonorman]

I'd prefer to stay away from stereotypes, cliches and fud. With all the talk of being ready for the desktop and needing more exposure I ask...what does linux offer for a desktop/laptop user that would make them switch?

What is a desktop user by your definition? I've been thinking about this question with the same goal of spreading linux...and I think the first task is to learn more about different types of computer users.

Some are home users, some are corporate. Some have lots of investment in software and the configuration of their systems, some just use things out of the box. Some like to tinker with things and learn more while some just want it to work. Some go out of their way to live by their principles(RMS) and others are more pragmatic. There are lots of dimensions to using a computer and I think our first task should be to understand those dimensions and see where Linux does provide benefits.

The more detailed you can be about your desktop user(yourself?) the better we can help provide a path to fulltime Linux and free software use.

Very simply the computer user I speak of uses their computer for a variety of tasks that require the hardware and sofware to work, they use windows or osx and those operating systems allow them to complete those tasks. I'd say that describes about 98-99% of computer users in the world.

[weex]

Very simply the computer user I speak of uses their computer for a variety of tasks that require the hardware and sofware to work, they use windows or osx and those operating systems allow them to complete those tasks. I'd say that describes about 98-99% of computer users in the world.

Your words are simple but the users you describe are not. After writing that post, I came up with about 10 different qualities of a computer user. Ones like availability of tech support(email, phone, remote control), importance of their main machine, knowledge of file systems, knowledge of computer parts, use of web applications, openness to technology change, amount of customization they like to do their ui.

I have dealt with so many people and their computer issues that I can honestly say, each and ever person is different. In each area, Linux has something to offer but for instance, if someone only has one machine and is not open to technology change it doesn't matter what it is, Vista, OSX, Linux....there's no change they'd really want to make to their main machine.

So I think we should take a more case by case approach and as you say stay away from cliches and stereotypes. Is there a specific user you have in mind?

[hellonorman]

Honestly you seem to have your mind made up which is fine. Windows works for you and thats great. Linux can and does work for many and thats great too. So the below is not an attack on you or why I feel you are wrong (for you Windows is better and thats cool). The below is just my opinions from my personal experience.

I didn't make up my mind overnight. I have run linux for about 9 years. In the last couple of years I have talked to people about linux in the hopes that they might like to try it. 14 people have been interested enough to have me install it on their computer. I have made myself available for personal phone and in person support to those people.

Much of the support was teaching them how to do something in linux or which program to use for a certain task. Nobody had a problem with the fact that setting an option was a different procedure than in windows, or that the browser was firefox instead of IE, or that the email client was thunderbird instead of outlook or express.

However inevitably problems were encountered that caused all of them to not want to use linux anymore. Sometimes it was just the sheer amount of time spent on getting things that should just work to work. Sometimes it was non-functional hardware or limited functioning hardware. Somtimes it was unstable after I told them how stable it was.

I can tell you that none of them was interested in hearing about how there were different distros to try. None of them was blown away by how "superior" linux was.


I would agree with you about the security. The security was a big selling point for linux. However running an antivirus and spyware program was clearly not a big deal to them when compared to giving up functionality.

As far as the Lost or any other service not available on linux. It doesn't matter why they couldn't use them, only that they couldn't use them.

The problem I have with many of these arguments is the premise that they operate with. If we assume that most of the world is desperately wanting to switch away from windows then it may make sense to talk about a mostly capable linux system. To talk about how this or that is almost ready or to talk about less reasons to keep windows around.

The problem is that most of the world isn't desperately looking to switch away because their computer already does everything they want with windows on it.

The bare minimum that linux needs to offer is the same.

[hellonorman]

Very simply the computer user I speak of uses their computer for a variety of tasks that require the hardware and sofware to work, they use windows or osx and those operating systems allow them to complete those tasks. I'd say that describes about 98-99% of computer users in the world.

Your words are simple but the users you describe are not. After writing that post, I came up with about 10 different qualities of a computer user. Ones like availability of tech support(email, phone, remote control), importance of their main machine, knowledge of file systems, knowledge of computer parts, use of web applications, openness to technology change, amount of customization they like to do their ui.

I have dealt with so many people and their computer issues that I can honestly say, each and ever person is different. In each area, Linux has something to offer but for instance, if someone only has one machine and is not open to technology change it doesn't matter what it is, Vista, OSX, Linux....there's no change they'd really want to make to their main machine.

So I think we should take a more case by case approach and as you say stay away from cliches and stereotypes. Is there a specific user you have in mind?

How many computer users are there...100's of millions...perhaps billions? If linux requires us to consider millions and millions of individual cases then clearly it is not ready for the desktop or mainstream exposure.

[mikeh]

I didn't make up my mind overnight. I have run linux for about 9 years. In the last couple of years I have talked to people about linux in the hopes that they might like to try it. 14 people have been interested enough to have me install it on their computer. I have made myself available for personal phone and in person support to those people.

I would be curious to hear from others who have done a larger number of installs. I have done probably about 30 or so Linux installs for people (some full replacements, some dual boots). I have had no where near the failure rate that you have.

Much of the support was teaching them how to do something in linux or which program to use for a certain task. Nobody had a problem with the fact that setting an option was a different procedure than in windows, or that the browser was firefox instead of IE, or that the email client was thunderbird instead of outlook or express.

However inevitably problems were encountered that caused all of them to not want to use linux anymore. Sometimes it was just the sheer amount of time spent on getting things that should just work to work. Sometimes it was non-functional hardware or limited functioning hardware. Somtimes it was unstable after I told them how stable it was.

I am amazed that all of them wanted to stop using Linux.

I would say of my 30 or so Linux installs (for other people) about 20 or so were full installs and or situations where I did a dual boot and they stopped booting into Windows because Linux worked so well. So far I have had about 6 go back to Windows full time (some bought new systems down the road, and others just liked Windows better).

Now most of my installs have been for friends, family, and neighbors. None of them really advanced users. Most just wanting Web browsing, email, IM'ing, and an Office clone.

For those that are more advanced I have suggested they try Linux out, or given them a Live CD to experience themselves.

I can tell you that none of them was interested in hearing about how there were different distros to try. None of them was blown away by how "superior" linux was.

I'm sure telling them of multiple distros is something that they could care less about. As for not being blown away by how superior Linux was.. I am not sure I follow. Is this a knock from you against Linux or were you portraying Linux to them to be a vastly superior product and then they were dissapointed?

I usually tell people each OS has its benefits and problems. I don't try to sell them on Linux saying it is vastly superior. I try to let them know the pluses and minuses of Linux, Windows, and OS X. Try to find what makes sense for them.

As far as the Lost or any other service not available on linux. It doesn't matter why they couldn't use them, only that they couldn't use them.

Agreed. Some may not want to run Windows because it doesn't offer freedom or services unique to Linux. I don't think anybody would deny if you had needs a particular OS can only deliver, it makes your OS decision easy.

[weex]

So I think we should take a more case by case approach and as you say stay away from cliches and stereotypes. Is there a specific user you have in mind?

How many computer users are there...100's of millions...perhaps billions? If linux requires us to consider millions and millions of individual cases then clearly it is not ready for the desktop or mainstream exposure.

Yes, it's true in a literal sense that each user is different and that there are likely hundreds of millions of users. But with good documentation we may only need to deal with 10 or 20 user cases to get the vast majority on the right track. Again, for some that track has nothing to do with Linux. It's just that your question was simple to a fault. One way to make some progress might be to develop a "Linux readiness test" that spits out an "individual" plan. What do you think?

I've setup a site by the way that could host such a test. Check out trygnulinux.com and if anyone is interested in contributing to it, pm me.

[hellonorman]

I would be curious to hear from others who have done a larger number of installs. I have done probably about 30 or so Linux installs for people (some full replacements, some dual boots). I have had no where near the failure rate that you have.

I am amazed that all of them wanted to stop using Linux.

I would say of my 30 or so Linux installs (for other people) about 20 or so were full installs and or situations where I did a dual boot and they stopped booting into Windows because Linux worked so well. So far I have had about 6 go back to Windows full time (some bought new systems down the road, and others just liked Windows better).

I'd have to believe that if 24 of 30 people stick with their linux install that linux marketshare would be much much higher than it is now.
Yes linux would do most of what they wanted but there was always a catch. My grandpa became really excited about scanning his old photos. His scanner wouldn't work in linux. He wasn't going to spend more money on a new scanner. My brother was fine until he discovered no competent alternative to anydvd for backing up his dvd's.

I'm sure telling them of multiple distros is something that they could care less about. As for not being blown away by how superior Linux was.. I am not sure I follow. Is this a knock from you against Linux or were you portraying Linux to them to be a vastly superior product and then they were dissapointed?

The point being that linux didn't do anything better or superior to windows from a desktop user perspective. It provided mostly the same functionality in that they could get email, browse the web or IM. But they didn't somehow think this functionality was superior. They had no agenda to switch such that they were willing to accept the things that didn't work.

[mikeh]

Well I guess we can agree that our situations have been different.

The large majority of my Linux installs have gone well and the user stuck with Linux either in a sole OS role, or dual booting and using Linux more so than their old Windows install.

[hellonorman]

Yes, it's true in a literal sense that each user is different and that there are likely hundreds of millions of users. But with good documentation we may only need to deal with 10 or 20 user cases to get the vast majority on the right track. Again, for some that track has nothing to do with Linux. It's just that your question was simple to a fault. One way to make some progress might be to develop a "Linux readiness test" that spits out an "individual" plan. What do you think?

Here's the problem and I think that it highlights the problem with most arguments presented. Your plan assumes that people are looking to switch to begin with or that desktop users think they are on the wrong track. 98-99% of desktop users have fully functional hardware and software. So what does linux offer them that could make them switch?

More security, more stable, freedom of both kinds. While these concepts can get a lot of people to give linux a try it doesn't put them in a position where they feel they need to change. I find the reality is that desktop linux isn't really more stable than xp or vista. Any security benefits are moot when they lose functionality.

[LinuxMint-4]

There is one major problem with Ubuntu that needs addressing.


One of the biggest problem currently with Ubuntu, is that a simple kernel update has been killing wireless, add/remove programs, even the GRUB bootloader. Just tonight I looked at the network and wireless sections and saw three more new posts about losing wireless due to updates.

I already asked the dumbasses who run the Ubuntu Forums, to please put a sticky warning new users that this simple update can kill the wireless and other functions. This is the kind of fodder that the anti-linux crowd latches upon with why "Linux is not ready for desktop". As good as those forums are, the issues need to approached better from the standpoint of newer users.

Granted, the forums are there to help others in cases like this and usually a command line fix or two can cure the loss of wireless. Tell that to a newbie who just got their wireless finally all setup and everything set. And then lose it to the update.

I seen people state that if they can't get their wireless going , they will go back to Windows. They may have a point, and I could see where they are coming from. I never experienced a loss of wireless or internet due to a Windows update or fix. The wireless is indeed buggy, I have my wireless WEP working great and connect up to other unprotected networks if need be in Ubuntu 8.04. But my sister in law's WEP connection I cannot connect to on the same laptop in Ubuntu despite being able to in Vista.

The Ubuntu CD burning utilities need some work. Brasero the much bandied about CD burner has no capabilities for burning MP3's. I guess its a minor issue as one can buy Nero Linux for $24.

[mikeschoon]

There is one major problem with Ubuntu that needs addressing.
One of the biggest problem currently with Ubuntu, is that a simple kernel update has been killing wireless, add/remove programs, even the GRUB bootloader. Just tonight I looked at the network and wireless sections and saw three more new posts about losing wireless due to updates.

I already asked the dumbasses who run the Ubuntu Forums, to please put a sticky warning new users that this simple update can kill the wireless and other functions. This is the kind of fodder that the anti-linux crowd latches upon with why "Linux is not ready for desktop". As good as those forums are, the issues need to approached better from the standpoint of newer users.

I had similar problems with the nVidia drivers on my laptop. The proprietary modules appear to be behind every time a new kernel is released. I usually recommend the people I have installed Ubuntu for wait a couple of days before applying kernel updates, especially when proprietary modules are involved. This gives me a window to check the update out for myself. At least I know its going to break things ahead of time.

Granted, the forums are there to help others in cases like this and usually a command line fix or two can cure the loss of wireless. Tell that to a newbie who just got their wireless finally all setup and everything set. And then lose it to the update.

I consider forums as a supplement to tech support. If end users understand what they are doing, that's fine. A basic computer user shouldn't be following directions on forums. Somewhere along the way, a lot of people have garnered the idea that computers shouldn't need to be maintained or supported. That is far from the truth. I don't want to sound like a snob, but some people are not able to or do not want to fix things. Support needs to exist for them.

I seen people state that if they can't get their wireless going , they will go back to Windows. They may have a point, and I could see where they are coming from. I never experienced a loss of wireless or internet due to a Windows update or fix. The wireless is indeed buggy, I have my wireless WEP working great and connect up to other unprotected networks if need be in Ubuntu 8.04. But my sister in law's WEP connection I cannot connect to on the same laptop in Ubuntu despite being able to in Vista.

Have you tested WPA with the hardware? WEP has been completely destroyed as an encryption scheme. It's no longer safe to use WEP for security.

The Ubuntu CD burning utilities need some work. Brasero the much bandied about CD burner has no capabilities for burning MP3's. I guess its a minor issue as one can buy Nero Linux for $24.

Try k3b, it was designed to compete with Nero.

[HerbVista]

While LINUX may not easily replace Windows Desktop functionality due to the hardware of the Desktop of the type of media and data formats used (DVD's, ITUNES, MS WORD docx formats, etc), Linux does open up a whole new environment in which to use/learn program languages and server software that would be very expensive to use/learn on a Windows based desktop.
I feel that this is the biggest advantage of LINUX.

As many others mentioned, LINUX also provides more privacy and eliminates the need to repeatedly "validate" with Microsoft that the O/S is "genuine/legal".

Also important to many is that Linux (especially releases such as gnuSense), opens the desktop computer to participate in the concept of the Free/Open software movement which allows us to study and write and redistribute code based on work contributed by others and thus collectively enriching/improving the world software base. The Windows O/S environment is too limiting to have a rich Free/Open software movement, especially since the Windows O/S code is not available to examine and its programming interfaces limited and the MS programming interface libraries expensive.

I would not recommend Linux to those who need compatibility with Business Documents and Programs at this point in time.

Herb