A friend asked me a question

[magomago]

when I mean this though, i mean why would the AVERAGE USER want to use Windows or Linux. And i really couldn't respond. I mean i know for myself why I need it~ scientific applications, a lot of research stuff I look for around campus ask for ability to use a *nix based system, the geek factor, and an alternative to windows.

But why does the average user want to use Linux? They just want to word process, check e-mail, some may play flash games, watch a dvd, etc. etc..nothing that windows can't do.

I thought about the fact you could save noney by not needing to purchase windows when you biuld a pc, but most pcs out there are prebuilt.

Ultimately...WHY would the average user want to SWITCH?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Who cares about the average user? We aren't him.

 

[bersl2]

The "average" user doesn't care about things like software being Free. The "average" user wants things to "just work." The "average" user thus makes no attempt to meet the software and its makers half-way. Thus the "average" user is capable of being the scum of the earth.

That said, on properly configured systems, where said "average" user will not be doing self-administration, the two environments are more-or-less equivalent.

If you would like to know, then, why we try to get "average" users to use Linux, it is because we need an ever-expanding user base if we are to be taken seriously for desktop applications.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: bersl2
If you would like to know, then, why we try to get "average" users to use Linux, it is because we need an ever-expanding user base if we are to be taken seriously for desktop applications.

Who is "we?" You and the other kernel hackers? You and the other KDE hackers? You and the other Gnome hackers?

 

[magomago]

NocMonkey, then why do we want the average user to use Linux? Why do we want people to switch to Linux? IF "we" aren't the average user, then ultimately linux will never reach market penetration that "we" want to occur, right?

I guess I'm confused. I know why I want to use Linux, but for the average person I see no reason for them to use Linux. And if I cannot get others to use Linux, then the desire for developers to make Linux applications will decrease...thus reducing the amount of new software availible in the long run....

Am i thinking this correctly, or is there a flaw in my logic?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: magomago
NocMonkey, then why do we want the average user to use Linux? Why do we want people to switch to Linux? IF "we" aren't the average user, then ultimately linux will never reach market penetration that "we" want to occur, right?

Again, who is we? You use the word a lot, but I'm not sure who each "we" stands for.

When I said we, I meant us on this forum. We, the Anandtech regulars, aren't average computer users.

I guess I'm confused. I know why I want to use Linux, but for the average person I see no reason for them to use Linux. And if I cannot get others to use Linux, then the desire for developers to make Linux applications will decrease...thus reducing the amount of new software availible in the long run....

Am i thinking this correctly, or is there a flaw in my logic?

F/OSS will be there, whether "the market," or "average joe," or anyone else cares or not.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: bersl2
The "average" user doesn't care about things like software being Free. The "average" user wants things to "just work." The "average" user thus makes no attempt to meet the software and its makers half-way. Thus the "average" user is capable of being the scum of the earth.

That said, on properly configured systems, where said "average" user will not be doing self-administration, the two environments are more-or-less equivalent.

If you would like to know, then, why we try to get "average" users to use Linux, it is because we need an ever-expanding user base if we are to be taken seriously for desktop applications.

I sometimes wonder if that will ever happen not because linux isn't capable of evolving to that point...but because the attitude in some parts of the linux community seems a little condescending, wouldn't you say? Although I barely know how to spell penguin without helpful imput from you and a few others, probably would have bagged it months ago.
I am much more comfortable in windows. But am willing to get out of my comfort zone and test the waters thanks to the many people like yourself.

 

[santaliqueur]

But why does the average user want to use Linux? They just want to word process, check e-mail, some may play flash games, watch a dvd, etc. etc..nothing that windows can't do.

here's how i differ from you. i would say "why does the average user want to use windows? they just want to word process, check e-mail, play flash games, watch a dvd...nothing that linux can't do."

my parents, who know nothing about computers, and i mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about computers, run linux. they check email, go shopping online, and browse the web. if you think you need to pay $200 for an operating system to do those things, feel free.

I thought about the fact you could save noney by not needing to purchase windows when you biuld a pc, but most pcs out there are prebuilt.

if your computer ships with windows, you have paid for it, no matter what you think. i'm not knocking your decision to run your OS of choice, only your closed mind.

CJ

 

[drag]

Ya.. This is the major issue with Linux right now and probably for a long time.

Until people get Linux pre-installed on OEM computers, like they can run down to compusa and get a Linux machine, it's not going to ever be a OS for a 'average' person. It's always going to take at least one person to install and setup Linux for other people in a situation.

Right now the idea for Linux desktop is get Linux to get accepted in professional enviroments. For server usage Linux is perfectly acceptable, for instance industry analists figure over half of new Oracle databases run on Linux. The next step would be worstations and regular business desktops.

I figure if Linux is going to work their people are going to have to understand the customability of it. Windows takes a lot of knowledge for the average person to effectively work around in it. There is a lot going on in the UI and doing things like setting a network 'drive' is beyond the capabilities of most people. For instance a nurse I was talking to was complaining how hard Windows was to use because it's so busy, were as the dos-style data entry terminal-whatever things they use at work are much easier because they are straight forward.. everything that they need from the computer is setup to be there and ready to be used by default by the IT staff. With Linux it's a very small thing to setup the UI to do the same thing. For instance I could setup a LTSP-based X terminal system so that when a paticular type of user logs into any computer anywere that their paticular tools they need are up and running by default and in a consistant fasion between all computers. You could setup the default setup by user and or task/role.

So that's one possibility why you would want to run Linux on desktops at work.

Then because people are trained and are used to running that setup at work, when they want to run the same thing at home. So I could hand them to a Linux live boot cdrom that will boot up a computer, log them into a company VPN over the internet and use some compression technology like NX to setup a X terminal enviroment for them to use which would be identical to what they use at work.

So you get Linux at work, then at home. If you can do everything you want at work and home on Linux then why would you want to deal with windows? Then people would want Linux pre-installed on computers because that's what they use for most stuff and it makes it easier then having to deal with install cds and boot cds and such.

That's the idea anyways. I doubt that in the forseeable future (5-10 years) Linux will ever get past 10-20% of the market.

It's OSS stuff anyways, I can't beleive that somebody won't end up creating something better then Linux as a replacement or improvement.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: santaliqueur
i'm not knocking your decision to run your OS of choice, only your closed mind.

CJ

=_= I run Linux. I'm just asking a legitimate question. So next time read a topic entirely before you make that comment.


Anways thanks for a good response drag

 

[EatSpam]

The average user wouldn't want to switch....as long as they can download porn, read about celebrity crap, and email fowards, they're cool.

 

[P0ldy]

Originally posted by: magomago
But why does the average user want to use Linux? They just want to word process, check e-mail, some may play flash games, watch a dvd, etc. etc..nothing that windows can't do.

And nothing Linux can't do. It's not about the average user choosing to use Windows over Linux--it's what comes with their computer. They identify Windows with "the computer." Most don't even know Linux exists.

 

[sourceninja]

because you can get a PC for 199.00 at walmart with linpsire on it.

Its just an OS, we need to get over it. Average users use what ever the hell came with their PC. MacOSX, BeOS, Dos 6.2, or windows 98. it doesn't matter to them, they dont know better.

Advanced users use what they actually need to get the job done. They can play politics if they want, or save money, or whatever because they are skillful enough to do so.

When I build my own PC's. I choose linux. I choose it because it does exactly what I need and is free. I dont feel like paying an extra 150.00 for windows. Its not that I dont like windows. Its that I dont need windows. If I bought a PC and it came with windows, I would use windows. Its just an OS.

P.S. I do not want to see average users moving to linux. I would like linux to keep under say 25% market share. I do not want to see a single OS dominate any market. A mono-culture is harder to secure, more vulerable to attack, and can be less stable. If 90% of the people used linux, they would start running as root, doing dumb crap and worms, and virus's, etc would be rampant. As of right now I dont have to scan my email to make sure its virus free, I dont have to run memory resident virus protection to make sure a webpage isn't trying to infect me. And I dont have everybody and their brother asking me to come help them, because I play it off like I dont know windows.

My dream is a world where the OS does't matter. Where it is marginal. I dont care about linux on the desktop. I know linux works on the desktop and for the moment it forwards my dream. I want to see a world where your OS doens't matter, standards are important, and things just work.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
P.S. I do not want to see average users moving to linux. I would like linux to keep under say 25% market share. I do not want to see a single OS dominate any market. A mono-culture is harder to secure, more vulerable to attack, and can be less stable. If 90% of the people used linux, they would start running as root, doing dumb crap and worms, and virus's, etc would be rampant. As of right now I dont have to scan my email to make sure its virus free, I dont have to run memory resident virus protection to make sure a webpage isn't trying to infect me. And I dont have everybody and their brother asking me to come help them, because I play it off like I dont know windows.

My dream is a world where the OS does't matter. Where it is marginal. I dont care about linux on the desktop. I know linux works on the desktop and for the moment it forwards my dream. I want to see a world where your OS doens't matter, standards are important, and things just work.

And how do you suppose we can reach this ideal?

The answer is through competition, and through limited intervention to ensure that the forces of capitalism are not perverted or abused heavily by one party to the detriment of competition.

The current Microsoft agenda is not this, and its monoculture is held through externalities run amok.

 

[Armitage]

I would say that for an "average" user a default install of Linux would have less security/malware/virus issues then Windows. The avaerage users I know always seems to have alot of problems with this, whether it's keeping antivirus stuff up to date, getting OS updates installed without FUBARing the system, getting infected systems cleaned, etc. Stuff that I never even consider on my Linux boxes. Yea, I know Linux has its own security issues, and I'm not as safe as I think I am. But it sure seems alot safer then Windows - again, for the "average" asuer.

 

[DigDug]

I think there is a hybrid user that you all fail to see.

I for one am relatively computer savvy. I can build my own computers, overclocked a chip or two, do all the software installs, formatting, and installations required of any software, but at the same time have no experience with non-windows operating systems simply because getting a copy of Windows is no problem for me.

I'm neither your definition of an "average" user who just "wants things to work", nor a computer-loving equivalent of a car fanatic, endlessly tinkering around with my machine and with software to monitor CPU temps and all that crap.

How come I don't see the need to use Linux?

Advanced users use what they actually need to get the job done. They can play politics if they want, or save money, or whatever because they are skillful enough to do so.

..and what job isthat?

My dream is a world where the OS does't matter. Where it is marginal. I dont care about linux on the desktop. I know linux works on the desktop and for the moment it forwards my dream. I want to see a world where your OS doens't matter, standards are important, and things just work.

Version 2 of the Hacker manifesto? 🙂

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: DigDug
I think there is a hybrid user that you all fail to see.

I for one am relatively computer savvy. I can build my own computers, overclocked a chip or two, do all the software installs, formatting, and installations required of any software, but at the same time have no experience with non-windows operating systems simply because getting a copy of Windows is no problem for me.

I'm neither your definition of an "average" user who just "wants things to work", nor a computer-loving equivalent of a car fanatic, endlessly tinkering around with my machine and with software to monitor CPU temps and all that crap.

How come I don't see the need to use Linux?

My dream is a world where the OS does't matter. Where it is marginal. I dont care about linux on the desktop. I know linux works on the desktop and for the moment it forwards my dream. I want to see a world where your OS doens't matter, standards are important, and things just work.

Version 2 of the Hacker manifesto? 🙂

Because you don't know any better/your tasks are as well suited to linux. For normal usage, it's a toss up based on knowledge/skills (of you OR your admin) for linux/windows. If you run a web server, monitor networks, develop apps than mayb linux would float your boat. I can promise you that apache on linux will run better then IIS on the same H/W, because it's better at memory managment and can run without powering a gui. For network managment, you can't compare apps like nagios, ntop, MRTG, etc to windows counterparts that cost money. Some apps have windows ports, but most have issue and do not run as well (at least in my experience)

 

[DigDug]

Yeah, but os compatibility is a huge issue. If I hapen to run across a program I like, how times must I say "aww shucks, I can't use it on Linux"? Why should I have to search out a possibly inferior linux version, if one even exists?

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: DigDug
Yeah, but os compatibility is a huge issue. If I hapen to run across a program I like, how times must I say "aww shucks, I can't use it on Linux"? Why should I have to search out a possibly inferior linux version, if one even exists?

lol, that happens to me all the time...only opposite. THere are MANY great apps (that are free) in linux that I can't get on windows. As a comparison, I can build a suite of tools for free, that Solarwinds sells for thousands of dollers for windows.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: DigDug
Yeah, but os compatibility is a huge issue. If I hapen to run across a program I like, how times must I say "aww shucks, I can't use it on Linux"? Why should I have to search out a possibly inferior linux version, if one even exists?

I see plenty of applications each day that only run on Windows. I haven't lost a bit of sleep not having those programs. 😉

 

[TGS]

What types of programs will not work on non-windows platforms? How did you find out about the windows version of that particular piece of software, searching?

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: DigDug
I think there is a hybrid user that you all fail to see.

I for one am relatively computer savvy. I can build my own computers, overclocked a chip or two, do all the software installs, formatting, and installations required of any software, but at the same time have no experience with non-windows operating systems simply because getting a copy of Windows is no problem for me.

I'm neither your definition of an "average" user who just "wants things to work", nor a computer-loving equivalent of a car fanatic, endlessly tinkering around with my machine and with software to monitor CPU temps and all that crap.

How come I don't see the need to use Linux?

Advanced users use what they actually need to get the job done. They can play politics if they want, or save money, or whatever because they are skillful enough to do so.

..and what job isthat?

My dream is a world where the OS does't matter. Where it is marginal. I dont care about linux on the desktop. I know linux works on the desktop and for the moment it forwards my dream. I want to see a world where your OS doens't matter, standards are important, and things just work.

Version 2 of the Hacker manifesto? 🙂

Well for one, most of my job uses unix. So it helps when I have a similar enviroment at home to work with. This way I can work on bash and korn scripts, use most of the same software for testing, and have a similar look and feel. Some of the things I do for fun require access to source code and open source provides me with an outlet to have fun. I can use the web, check email, write documents, I have nice free compilers and very nice api's for things. I have a great choice of shell langauges. All of this could be done in windows. But it would require me to switch gears, use different tools, possibly buy some stuff. And my work would not be nearly as portable to my job. See an advanced computer user uses the tools to get the job done. If he finds better tools he will move. I find that the tools linux gives me are worth having to use cedega if I want to play a game. I didn't buy my PC to play games. I bought my xbox to play games. Playing games on a PC is just a huge huge bonus.

As for my manifesto...

I think if one thing should be free its the OS. At some point, the OS will stagnate. How much can you improve an OS. Bugfixes and secuirty / stablity should not be a selling feature! It should be a patch. Are we really going to be buying the same stuff, only slightly less bugfree in 10 years? Its a long term failing buisness model unless you keep vendors locked in with no choice. Thats why I think it should be marginal. I think a OS is as basic as a bios (something else which should be marginal by now). Think about marginal technology. How much more can you improve something like the syntax to a print statement? Well, you really can't. Its grown a lot in 10-15 years. But at least with the current tools (keyboard/mouse/monitor) I dont see much growth left in microsoft OS's. Because their changes have to make a way for them to keep making money. Linux can just grind away and bugfix. Apple sells hardware, they might get by with the same. I want OS's marginal, not software. You should be able to sell a great idea. But by now OS's are common, not great and unique.

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: DigDug
How come I don't see the need to use Linux?

Who cares?

 

[Nothinman]

Yeah, but os compatibility is a huge issue. If I hapen to run across a program I like, how times must I say "aww shucks, I can't use it on Linux"? Why should I have to search out a possibly inferior linux version, if one even exists?

But you didn't buy a Mac just to run iDVD did you? There are lots of apps for every platform that have no direct counterpart on the others, but for the most part it doesn't matter. The only thing that Windows has a true advantage in is games and most games suck these days.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: bersl2
The "average" user doesn't care about things like software being Free. The "average" user wants things to "just work." The "average" user thus makes no attempt to meet the software and its makers half-way. Thus the "average" user is capable of being the scum of the earth.

That said, on properly configured systems, where said "average" user will not be doing self-administration, the two environments are more-or-less equivalent.

If you would like to know, then, why we try to get "average" users to use Linux, it is because we need an ever-expanding user base if we are to be taken seriously for desktop applications.

I don't mean to be harsh, but I think that's a pretty close minded point of view. Computing is just a tiny part of all the products that exist in the world and there's no way we can be aware of the issues in all of them.

The average person shouldn't be aware of the issues behind the scenes because it would be a waste of time. Debating software freedom isn't something that directly benefits mankind, it's just that some of us have to do it to produce good software for everyone else.

To draw a bizarre parallel, imagine there was some great moral issue in the toothpaste industry and the "evil empire" happened to be the brand that sold the most. Are you aware of the actions of the company that makes your toothpaste? Even if you are, I bet there are many products you buy that you just want to use without hassle, regardless of how they're made. By your post, we could all be "the scum of the earth" in some manner.

</rant> 😛