Why Wait for Eiger When Linux Is Ready Today?

[kamper]

Originally posted by: bersl2
OK, I had a very long and very beautiful (and very buzzwordy) post which is now lost to the world after I closed the wrong tab. And to think I'm going to be late to class in the morning for nothing! :disgust: I'll rewrite it again if anybody wants to hear it. What other post might ever combine MS, Linux, consoles, DRM/TCPA, and outsourcing, all in the same line of thought? I could have hit the jackpot on that post!

Thanks for sharing

 

[IBuyUFO]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Kroeger
I have really tried to change over to Linux on many occasions over the last three years, but the killer for me everytime is Fonts. I don't know if I am in a minority of One, but every time I install Linux, no matter which distribution the fonts look like ass compared to Windows XP.

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Xorg_and_Fonts

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/index.html

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/FDU/index.html

http://jmason.org/howto/subpixel.html

On-screen display of fonts has always been a weakness.

That's exactly why I've stayed away from linux. I don't have time to read an epic novel on how to setup a domain.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: nweaver
I am going to say it again....

If you sit down a non biased computer novice (i.e. no windows/linux/unix/mac experience), I don't think they would find linux any harder then windows. They might find BSD even easier, as it has better documentation.

I really think that would be an interesting test, but it would be very hard to setup in a nonbiased fashion I suppose.

Take the major OSes that the usual computer user would run (OSX, Windows, Linux) and set up a basic install with proper drivers much like a typical OEM would. Then take a total computer newbie and have them do a variety of simple tasks (e.g. get on the internet, print a report, edit a document, etc.) and time them. Have them switch to the next OS and repeat. Do this for a few users and average the times. Do the same for an entirely different set of users, but alter the order they learn the OSes in, just to ensure that they don't learn so quickly that they expect the next OS to behave exactly the same as the previous OS.

I am honestly curious to see how something like this would work.

You could also do a similar test with fairly computer proficient types and 'intermediate' level tasks (e.g. basic system administration stuff, home networking, etc.).

I suppose a higher level test would be pretty much pointless to conduct, as the choice of OS becomes more about the specific needs of a company/network rather than about the overall ease of use of the UI (essentially the point where command line becomes king).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
You could also do a similar test with fairly computer proficient types and 'intermediate' level tasks (e.g. basic system administration stuff, home networking, etc.).

Only if those users aren't tainted by any one system.

 

[LBmtb]

On a network of 25 computers, I just setup a very reliable and very secure file server which is also the primary domain controller and handles logon scripts and such. Crazy thing too is that it's immune to 99% of the virii out there. Did I shell out over $1,000 for a Windows server and licences?

Or maybe I just installed Fedora and Samba

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: sparkyclarky
You could also do a similar test with fairly computer proficient types and 'intermediate' level tasks (e.g. basic system administration stuff, home networking, etc.).

Only if those users aren't tainted by any one system.

True. It'd be much harder to do than the basic level test. The basic test would also be the most 'usable' in a real world scenario.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: kamper
If it was really a problem with linux it would get fixed. The people who write the code don't sit there thinking "Hey, how can I dumb this down for someone who is bitter about linux being too hard to use?". They think "I know what I'm doing. How can I make the system more powerful for myself?" Too many people that don't use the os like to make declarations about What is Wrong with Linux, just because they didn't like it. Nobody is going to hold your hand while you learn but nobody's holding a gun to your head to use it either so if you don't like it move on and if you do actually want to use it then buck up and learn something. Maybe someday you can fix the things that bug you.

Fixed

I don't like linux because most of the community don't want to help you learn. "I'm not helping you, do it yourself, or go back to Winbl0wz, newb." That kinda sh1t just turns me off the OS completely.

 

[LBmtb]

Originally posted by: Raduque

Originally posted by: kamper
If it was really a problem with linux it would get fixed. The people who write the code don't sit there thinking "Hey, how can I dumb this down for someone who is bitter about linux being too hard to use?". They think "I know what I'm doing. How can I make the system more powerful for myself?" Too many people that don't use the os like to make declarations about What is Wrong with Linux, just because they didn't like it. Nobody is going to hold your hand while you learn but nobody's holding a gun to your head to use it either so if you don't like it move on and if you do actually want to use it then buck up and learn something. Maybe someday you can fix the things that bug you.

Fixed

I don't like linux because most of the community don't want to help you learn. "I'm not helping you, do it yourself, or go back to Winbl0wz, newb." That kinda sh1t just turns me off the OS completely.

Really, where did you get that kind of attitude? Everyone over on linuxforums.org has been really friendly to newbs like me

 

[Nothinman]

I don't like linux because most of the community don't want to help you learn. "I'm not helping you, do it yourself, or go back to Winbl0wz, newb." That kinda sh1t just turns me off the OS completely.

It's not 1995 anymore...

 

[LBmtb]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I don't like linux because most of the community don't want to help you learn. "I'm not helping you, do it yourself, or go back to Winbl0wz, newb." That kinda sh1t just turns me off the OS completely.

It's not 1995 anymore...

Exactly. My opinion is that if someone is willing to really learn and as long as they put in some effort, the linux community helps them as much as they can. If somebody comes on a linux forum complaining about 'why do I have to mount stuff? I never needed to do that in Windows" then that's when people start telling the newb to go away and give up.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Kroeger
I am all for someone taking the time and effort to read up on how their particular OS choice is organised etc, but with something as basic as Fonts and how they affect your enjoyment in using your computer, I do not understand why they do not come set up perfect out of the box so to speak!!!!

I am not evangelising XP but my fonts always display without problems, if Linux could get this sorted then I believe I would make the switch.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post (not trying to flame you though ). People assume that just because Linux has the capabilities of displaying these fonts that it should naturally also provide for a no-brainer, one-click solution. The people that develop the core functionality don't want the one-click solution, it simply wouldn't help them.

And until the folks developing Linux stop doing that (for everything, not just fonts), the system won't be user-friendly and accessible. There seems to be a major design disconnect here somewhere.

The people that package the core functionality into something that a new user can handle probably would like to design the one-click solution but there's only so much they can do. There's a tonne of work to do to build that final packaging and it's definitely the less exciting half of the whole job. So the reason it doesn't come set up perfect out of the box is that it's just something that no one has deemed important enough to do yet. Stuff like this just doesn't get done unless there's somebody motivated enough to do it. If that bothers you then feel free to move along or fix it yourself.

The average user cannot fix it themselves, and so 'moves along' and uses an OS that doesn't have these issues. Could a savvy programmer fix it? Maybe, but frankly most of them wouldn't be real psyched about digging through font handling routines for hours on end, and so it doesn't get done.

As for the argument comparing writing documentation on how to fix fonts vs. actually fixing them: the documentation will go out of date almost immediately and will probably only apply to a few distros in the first place. But, even it it is a little bit off, it will still serve to give people a bump in the right direction in the future so the effort is not wasted. The code for a one-click fix would also go out of date almost immediately and would actually be wasted effort unless someone constantly maintained it, far more effort. I'd rather have fairly helpful documentation that leaves me wiser after having figured out where it was defficient than broken, undocumented code that doesn't fix my problem.

There shouldn't be a problem in the first place. The system should be designed so that the one-click solution/documentation doesn't go out of date (at least not until the next major version change to the GUI system, and even then the solutions should be updated at the same time).

This is not an issue with just fonts. Setting up, configuring, and even just using Linux requires a fair amount of knowledge about how the OS (or at least an OS) works. Philosophically, I think anyone who uses a computer should have at least some of this knowledge (just like someone who owns a car should know some basic things about how it works and how to take care of it), but expecting it from everyone just to use the system is unrealistic. I don't need to know how electronic fuel injection works to drive my car; I shouldn't need to know how a filesystem mount or package/update system works to install a program. I shouldn't need to know how X Windows works -- or even that it exists -- to change my desktop resolution and other settings.

The average joe wants their computer to be a magical black box that "just works". Windows isn't perfect in this regard, but at least that seems to be what they're trying to do. I get the feeling sometimes that Linux developers actively try not to make things "just work" or set up standards, under the mantra of providing more flexibility (eg, no standard GUI, different ways to install programs in different distros, etc.)

Of course, that's not entirely fair, as some parts of the system have gotten much better in this regard. But until that becomes the primary design philosophy (at least for the GUI), Linux/UNIX is just not going to be mainstream. IMO, of course.

 

[nweaver]

define mainstream...I havn't seen hard data, but I heard windows is a minority (i.e. not mainstream) webserver....

 

[Nothinman]

There shouldn't be a problem in the first place. The system should be designed so that the one-click solution/documentation doesn't go out of date (at least not until the next major version change to the GUI system, and even then the solutions should be updated at the same time).

The last time I installed Ubuntu (or ran the live CD) the fonts looked find without any clicks. The main problem is getting ahold of nice, free fonts. Designing fonts is apparently not easy, so the most common solution is to steal the fonts from MS' website after the OS installation. There are some free fonts from BitStream that supposedly aren't too bad, but I don't really have the eye for that.

I shouldn't need to know how a filesystem mount or package/update system works to install a program. I shouldn't need to know how X Windows works -- or even that it exists -- to change my desktop resolution and other settings.

And for the most part you don't. By default CDs, USB drives, etc should be automounted on insertion and Ubuntu ships a xrandr tool to change the resolution on the fly, without touching the X config.

I get the feeling sometimes that Linux developers actively try not to make things "just work" or set up standards, under the mantra of providing more flexibility (eg, no standard GUI, different ways to install programs in different distros, etc.)

They are trying to make things 'just work', but from a different angle. Most of the stuff that 'just works' is core, the UI stuff is pretty young comparatively and will be worked out eventually. IMO Gnome is doing an excellent job of making a Linux UI that doesn't suck, but then I don't use full desktops on any of my machines. If you have specific problems why not file a bug report and try to help get things fixed?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

There shouldn't be a problem in the first place. The system should be designed so that the one-click solution/documentation doesn't go out of date (at least not until the next major version change to the GUI system, and even then the solutions should be updated at the same time).

The last time I installed Ubuntu (or ran the live CD) the fonts looked find without any clicks. The main problem is getting ahold of nice, free fonts. Designing fonts is apparently not easy, so the most common solution is to steal the fonts from MS' website after the OS installation. There are some free fonts from BitStream that supposedly aren't too bad, but I don't really have the eye for that.

...and Ubuntu ships a xrandr tool to change the resolution on the fly, without touching the X config.

I must say I haven't used Ubuntu, so if they're making strides in this direction, I'm glad to hear it. Maybe I'll DL a live CD and check it out.

If they managed to put all the useful desktop controls in one place -- and into something managed by a simple GUI -- that'd be a good start.

I shouldn't need to know how a filesystem mount or package/update system works to install a program. I shouldn't need to know how X Windows works -- or even that it exists -- to change my desktop resolution and other settings.

And for the most part you don't. By default CDs, USB drives, etc should be automounted on insertion...

But, I mean, when you insert a CD/DVD in Windows, a nice little window pops up asking you what to do (Play the DVD, listen to -- or rip -- the music files if it's an audio CD, if you want to open it to view the files if it's a data disc), and if it's a program installation CD, the autoplay starts the installer (or at least a menu with a big button that says "Click here to install program X", which launches a standardized installer). You plug in a USB printer or scanner or camera, and if the drivers are present, it automagically configures everything for you (and if they're not present, it asks you to either insert a driver CD or goes and searches Windows Update for drivers). Similar things happen in MacOS/OSX. There are GUI control panels for practically every setting in the system that a normal user might want to modify. Little touches like that make the system much easier to use, and every Linux desktop I've seen lacks that sort of polish in terms of user interaction.

And God help you if your CD doesn't automount for some reason in *nix. The average user wouldn't have a prayer. In Windows, you can open up 'My Computer' and all your drives are listed in there, and you can double-click the icon for the CD drive to open the disk. You can disable autoplay, but if all the hardware is functioning, there's no way to put a CD in the drive and not have it be accessible to the user.

I get the feeling sometimes that Linux developers actively try not to make things "just work" or set up standards, under the mantra of providing more flexibility (eg, no standard GUI, different ways to install programs in different distros, etc.)

They are trying to make things 'just work', but from a different angle. Most of the stuff that 'just works' is core, the UI stuff is pretty young comparatively and will be worked out eventually.

That's kind of my point. To make the OS mainstream, the GUI -- or at least ways of standardizing the GUI -- have to be considered as 'core'. The average user doesn't care about improvements to virtual memory management and other chunks of the kernel, they care about ease of use. If the goal is to make Linux mainstream, it seems like they're going about it the wrong way.

IMO Gnome is doing an excellent job of making a Linux UI that doesn't suck, but then I don't use full desktops on any of my machines. If you have specific problems why not file a bug report and try to help get things fixed?

It's not one thing I can point to and say "you need to fix this" (although there are probably a number of little things that could be addressed like that). "Your OS is not easy to use" isn't exactly a "bug" -- much of it is conscious tradeoffs away from standardization in order to improve flexibility and give users more options -- and the extent of standardization I'd really like to see (and that, IMO, the OS really needs to compete with Windows for desktop users) would likely be opposed by some Linux developers.

I guess the response would be "it's open-source; quit whining about it and help fix it". But my interests and expertise don't really lie in GUI design, nor would I have the time (or influence) to effect major changes.

 

[Nothinman]

If they managed to put all the useful desktop controls in one place -- and into something managed by a simple GUI -- that'd be a good start.

I don't know about 'all' of the controls since I don't use it day to day, but they are making progress.

But, I mean, when you insert a CD/DVD in Windows, a nice little window pops up asking you what to do

That window is one of the most annoying things to come out of Redmond. But if you really do like it, you can get a similar thing with the gnome-volume-manager, I had that enabled for 2 seconds before I remembered how annoying it is.

You plug in a USB printer or scanner or camera, and if the drivers are present, it automagically configures everything for you (and if they're not present, it asks you to either insert a driver CD or goes and searches Windows Update for drivers). Similar things happen in MacOS/OSX. There are GUI control panels for practically every setting in the system that a normal user might want to modify. Little touches like that make the system much easier to use, and every Linux desktop I've seen lacks that sort of polish in terms of user interaction.

Again, gnome-volume-manager and hald should do most of that. It's all part of Project Utopia, but Project Utopia is still pretty young so I doubt everything works like you want it to.

And God help you if your CD doesn't automount for some reason in *nix. The average user wouldn't have a prayer. In Windows, you can open up 'My Computer' and all your drives are listed in there, and you can double-click the icon for the CD drive to open the disk.

And when you double-click on it and it says "Cannot open h:\ : Invalid parameter" then what? In general Windows is much, much worse to deal with when things don't work perfectly as intended.

That's kind of my point. To make the OS mainstream, the GUI -- or at least ways of standardizing the GUI -- have to be considered as 'core'. The average user doesn't care about improvements to virtual memory management and other chunks of the kernel, they care about ease of use. If the goal is to make Linux mainstream, it seems like they're going about it the wrong way.

So? Who said Linux was supposed to be used on everyone's desktop? Personally I don't really care either way. I use it because I like it, if you don't like it, that's fine. And IMO Linux on the user's desktop would be better because it's more difficult to change things, Windows makes people feel that they're smarter than they are and they break things, install spyware, etc. If they had Linux installed a friend/family member who managed it for them things would be much simpler all around.

I guess the response would be "it's open-source; quit whining about it and help fix it". But my interests and expertise don't really lie in GUI design, nor would I have the time (or influence) to effect major changes.

The whole point of open source is that everyone has influence, if you propose a good idea people will back you. And yes, if you don't want to take the time to help out fixing things, you don't have any room to complain about them either.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

But, I mean, when you insert a CD/DVD in Windows, a nice little window pops up asking you what to do

That window is one of the most annoying things to come out of Redmond. But if you really do like it, you can get a similar thing with the gnome-volume-manager, I had that enabled for 2 seconds before I remembered how annoying it is.

You know, I thought it was annoying too -- which is why they have a checkbox when it pops up that says "don't ask me next time; just do what I tell you to do this time automatically". If you haven't a clue how a computer works, it's helpful.

You plug in a USB printer or scanner or camera, and if the drivers are present, it automagically configures everything for you (and if they're not present, it asks you to either insert a driver CD or goes and searches Windows Update for drivers). Similar things happen in MacOS/OSX. There are GUI control panels for practically every setting in the system that a normal user might want to modify. Little touches like that make the system much easier to use, and every Linux desktop I've seen lacks that sort of polish in terms of user interaction.

Again, gnome-volume-manager and hald should do most of that. It's all part of Project Utopia, but Project Utopia is still pretty young so I doubt everything works like you want it to.

From what I've seen, it's not nearly as smooth, and I feel this sort of stuff needs to be standardized as part of Linux itself (maybe not built into the kernel, but maintained along with it, rather than as a separate project).

And God help you if your CD doesn't automount for some reason in *nix. The average user wouldn't have a prayer. In Windows, you can open up 'My Computer' and all your drives are listed in there, and you can double-click the icon for the CD drive to open the disk.

And when you double-click on it and it says "Cannot open h:\ : Invalid parameter" then what?

In this particular case, invariably this is the result of hardware problems -- either the disk is scratched up and cannot be read, or the drive is not working. I've had issues in the past mounting CDs in *NIX with perfectly functional hardware. I can't say it's ever been a problem in Windows (at least since, say, the release of Windows 95).

In general Windows is much, much worse to deal with when things don't work perfectly as intended.

I would contend this is not always true, although I think Windows users are more likely to badly torque up their systems (and so the 'average' Windows sytem with problems probably has more severe issues than your 'average' Linux system with problems).

Plus, I would think 'easy to use 99% of the time and very hard to fix that other 1% of the time' is an improvement over 'difficult to use 90% of the time but relatively easy to fix that other 10% of the time' for most people (numbers blatantly made up for point illustration purposes ).

That's kind of my point. To make the OS mainstream, the GUI -- or at least ways of standardizing the GUI -- have to be considered as 'core'. The average user doesn't care about improvements to virtual memory management and other chunks of the kernel, they care about ease of use. If the goal is to make Linux mainstream, it seems like they're going about it the wrong way.

So? Who said Linux was supposed to be used on everyone's desktop?

Isn't that the point of this thread ("Why Wait for Eiger When Linux Is Ready Today?")?

And IMO Linux on the user's desktop would be better because it's more difficult to change things, Windows makes people feel that they're smarter than they are and they break things, install spyware, etc. If they had Linux installed a friend/family member who managed it for them things would be much simpler all around.

I'm sure it would be "simpler" if everyone ran with limited user priveleges in Windows and had someone with IT experience do every software installation or hardware change, too, but that's asking an awful lot. Systems should be simple and robust enough that you can't easily break things (and when it breaks, it's obvious what's broken), you can't install damaging spyware (or at least you're warned like crazy before you do), etc. without forcing every computer user to require a sysadmin to watch over them.

I guess the response would be "it's open-source; quit whining about it and help fix it". But my interests and expertise don't really lie in GUI design, nor would I have the time (or influence) to effect major changes.

The whole point of open source is that everyone has influence, if you propose a good idea people will back you. And yes, if you don't want to take the time to help out fixing things, you don't have any room to complain about them either.

From previous experiences, I get the feeling I'm way, way in the minority on this issue in the Linux community. Maybe times have changed.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
So? Who said Linux was supposed to be used on everyone's desktop?

People that don't use it on their desktops.

 

[Nothinman]

From what I've seen, it's not nearly as smooth, and I feel this sort of stuff needs to be standardized as part of Linux itself (maybe not built into the kernel, but maintained along with it, rather than as a separate project).

Of course it's not as smooth yet, it's extremely new and it is standardized as part of freedesktop.org.

In this particular case, invariably this is the result of hardware problems -- either the disk is scratched up and cannot be read, or the drive is not working. I've had issues in the past mounting CDs in *NIX with perfectly functional hardware. I can't say it's ever been a problem in Windows (at least since, say, the release of Windows 95).

I know, but also in that particular case 'invalid parameter' tells you nothing about the problem, it could be the cable, the drive, the disc, etc. The only time I've had a problem mounting a disc that was known good with known good hardware is when I broke something messing with my kernel.

I would contend this is not always true, although I think Windows users are more likely to badly torque up their systems (and so the 'average' Windows sytem with problems probably has more severe issues than your 'average' Linux system with problems).

We had a guy here building a Win2K server who couldn't remove NIC drivers. It wouldn't have been a problem if they actually worked, but they didn't and any attempt to remove them failed in various ways, even in safe mode. In Linux drivers are a single file and can just be deleted, there's no chance to be denied.

Isn't that the point of this thread ("Why Wait for Eiger When Linux Is Ready Today?")?

Sure and in many ways I do think i'ts ready. But if you're going to sit around and pick apart the UI, then it's probably not for you.

I'm sure it would be "simpler" if everyone ran with limited user priveleges in Windows and had someone with IT experience do every software installation or hardware change, too, but that's asking an awful lot.

It's only asking a lot because it's not possible, too many things require admin level priviledges on Windows.

Systems should be simple and robust enough that you can't easily break things (and when it breaks, it's obvious what's broken), you can't install damaging spyware (or at least you're warned like crazy before you do), etc. without forcing every computer user to require a sysadmin to watch over them.

Linux meets those requirements. Windows is amazingly complicated for no good reason and it's extremely hard to figure out what's broken most of the time. And how do you detetermine programatically what's 'damaging spyware'?

From previous experiences, I get the feeling I'm way, way in the minority on this issue in the Linux community. Maybe times have changed.

It depends on where you look. But there are lots of influential people working on projects like Utopia to fix the things you're complaining about, people like Robert Love and Nigel Cunningham are working extremely hard on making things easier and faster for Linux.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

From what I've seen, it's not nearly as smooth, and I feel this sort of stuff needs to be standardized as part of Linux itself (maybe not built into the kernel, but maintained along with it, rather than as a separate project).

Of course it's not as smooth yet, it's extremely new and it is standardized as part of freedesktop.org.

Yet these sorts of usability features have been standard for years in Windows and MacOS. It just doesn't seem to be a big priority in Linux.

I'm sure it would be "simpler" if everyone ran with limited user priveleges in Windows and had someone with IT experience do every software installation or hardware change, too, but that's asking an awful lot.

It's only asking a lot because it's not possible, too many things require admin level priviledges on Windows.

As far as running with limited user privileges, yes. This is something that Windows does not handle graciously. Believe me, I don't think Windows is flawless. But I'm not sure it's ever realistic to expect every PC user to have an experienced sysadmin hanging around to fix problems 24/7.

Systems should be simple and robust enough that you can't easily break things (and when it breaks, it's obvious what's broken), you can't install damaging spyware (or at least you're warned like crazy before you do), etc. without forcing every computer user to require a sysadmin to watch over them.

Linux meets those requirements. Windows is amazingly complicated for no good reason and it's extremely hard to figure out what's broken most of the time.

To me, almost all Linux/UNIX configuration seems (mostly) straightforward but still very complex and often nonstandard (I suppose any modern OS will be "complex", but there seems to be a lot of unnecessary complexity). Windows makes it much simpler to do most basic things, but when you want to do complicated stuff, often gets extremely complex and much less straightforward. I think there's room for improvement on both sides.

And how do you detetermine programatically what's 'damaging spyware'?

Well, as a short list, I don't think programs should be able to insert themselves in the system startup sequence, run scripts to control IE or other system functions, erase or modify files that they didn't create, embed themselves into the TCP/IP stack, register DLLs/drivers, open network connections, or modify system registry entries without explicit user permission. The OS was just not built with an eye towards security -- of course, few have been. Running as root on a Linux/UNIX system opens you up to many of the same sorts of vulnerabilities, but more people run Windows as an Administrator account than login as root for general computing on a *nix system or server. There are also fewer programs like this targeting *nix platforms, and the average user on those platforms is probably much more sophisticated in this regard (if you have set up Linux on your system, you are unlikely to be the sort that will open random email attachments, for instance).

From previous experiences, I get the feeling I'm way, way in the minority on this issue in the Linux community. Maybe times have changed.

It depends on where you look. But there are lots of influential people working on projects like Utopia to fix the things you're complaining about, people like Robert Love and Nigel Cunningham are working extremely hard on making things easier and faster for Linux.

I hope you're right, and that they're successful. Maybe I'll have to take another look at some of this stuff.

 

[erikistired]

because corporations already have money invested in training for windows users and windows admins and don't feel like retraining them for linux? microsoft heard the cries of schools and companies who can't afford or simply don't want to update some old machines but still want bug fix support so they are releasing eiger. if linux even remotely appealed to them they'd probably be running it, but my guess is most of them don't care about linux and will run eiger when it's released. you linux guys (i am an ex-linux guy, i simply can't give up my gaming) are starting to sound like the religious folk, everything is a conspiracy. hell even if it is, good play by microsoft.

 

[Nothinman]

Yet these sorts of usability features have been standard for years in Windows and MacOS. It just doesn't seem to be a big priority in Linux.

Hardly. Very few things from Win95 have carried through to XP and IMO they've taken huge steps backwards in most areas. And in genreal, no it's not a high priority because most of the people doing the coding don't want annoying popups asking whether they want to play the DVD or just mount it.

As far as running with limited user privileges, yes. This is something that Windows does not handle graciously. Believe me, I don't think Windows is flawless. But I'm not sure it's ever realistic to expect every PC user to have an experienced sysadmin hanging around to fix problems 24/7.

Most don't have admins, but most do have a family member or friend that is the local computer fixer guy.

without explicit user permission

That won't make a lick of difference, everyone will just hit OK.

Running as root on a Linux/UNIX system opens you up to many of the same sorts of vulnerabilities,

But on unix you don't need root for day to day things and even if you do, you an setup su/sudo so that you don't need a full root desktop for it.

because corporations already have money invested in training for windows users and windows admins and don't feel like retraining them for linux?

It would be pretty easy for most corporations to switch over as long as their software was supported, Novell has already proven this. As long as the right software is installed, printers setup, etc most users will be fine clicking on the same icons as before. It's the 'power users' that will need training.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Yet these sorts of usability features have been standard for years in Windows and MacOS. It just doesn't seem to be a big priority in Linux.

Hardly. Very few things from Win95 have carried through to XP and IMO they've taken huge steps backwards in most areas.

Are you referring to the kernel (I can't imagine you think WinXP/2K is a "huge step backwards" from 95/98/ME) or the GUI? Superficially, Win95/98/ME/2K/XP are all fairly similar to work with from the end-user's point of view. They're certainly all much closer to each other than Win95 was to Win3.1.

And in genreal, no it's not a high priority because most of the people doing the coding don't want annoying popups asking whether they want to play the DVD or just mount it.

There's a bit more to it than that... :roll:

As far as running with limited user privileges, yes. This is something that Windows does not handle graciously. Believe me, I don't think Windows is flawless. But I'm not sure it's ever realistic to expect every PC user to have an experienced sysadmin hanging around to fix problems 24/7.

Most don't have admins, but most do have a family member or friend that is the local computer fixer guy.

Yeah, I know. It's usually me. Most of the things I do/fix for my family/friends (updating drivers and antivirus, scanning for spyware, checking HD for errors) are the equivalent of filling the gas tank on your car and washing the windows. You shouldn't need a mechanic for that.

without explicit user permission

That won't make a lick of difference, everyone will just hit OK.

Well, the only way around that is to keep the user from changing anything in the system or doing anything that could possibly be dangerous. Makes sense in a controlled environment like a corporate office, where there is a paid admin staff to do things like this. Doesn't work so well for a home system. If you're going to let people modify the system, at some level you have to trust that they know what they're doing.

There's no real easy answer for this. Social engineering attacks are never going to be 100% preventable, because people will be careless. Best you can generally do is warn people repeatedly when it looks like they're going to do something really stupid, and provide tools for undoing as much of the damage as possible when they do screw up (features like System Restore, for instance).

Running as root on a Linux/UNIX system opens you up to many of the same sorts of vulnerabilities,

But on unix you don't need root for day to day things and even if you do, you an setup su/sudo so that you don't need a full root desktop for it.

As I'm well aware. Windows could improve considerably in this area.

 

[Nothinman]

Superficially, Win95/98/ME/2K/XP are all fairly similar to work with from the end-user's point of view. They're certainly all much closer to each other than Win95 was to Win3.1.

Only the extreme basics. The start menu was redone, the control panel defaults to that stupid task view, same thing for my computer, my network places (which also had a name change), the system tray now hide's icons from you, they went from encouraging you to put things on the desktop to defaulting to none and complaining about them, tons of options were moved and renamed with the most notable and stupidest one being taskmgr's Commit Charge -> PF Usage change.

And come longhorn it'll all change again.

Yeah, I know. It's usually me. Most of the things I do/fix for my family/friends (updating drivers and antivirus, scanning for spyware, checking HD for errors) are the equivalent of filling the gas tank on your car and washing the windows. You shouldn't need a mechanic for that.

I'm lucky that most of my family is either far enough away not to call me or they don't have computers. But a friend of mine ends up fixing them all the time and he usually ends up spending hours or days removing spyware, updating things, etc most of which would be avoided by using Linux.

If you're going to let people modify the system, at some level you have to trust that they know what they're doing.

But they don't and Windows gives them the false feeling that they do. Those same people who download and install random things without thinking wouldn't even dare installing a new head unit in their car because they know it can cause problems if done wrong. They know what's potentially harmful and call people who can do it right, that isn't true with Windows.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Superficially, Win95/98/ME/2K/XP are all fairly similar to work with from the end-user's point of view. They're certainly all much closer to each other than Win95 was to Win3.1.

Only the extreme basics. The start menu was redone, the control panel defaults to that stupid task view, same thing for my computer, my network places (which also had a name change),

I take it you're not a fan of the "stupid task view", as you put it.

Cosmetic and slight organizational changes. You can undo them in about three mouse clicks if you don't like the new look. I like the new organization for My Computer, but I'm less thrilled with the Control Panel task view (although this doesn't really impact day-to-day usage). I fail to see how keeping the same Explorer interface and tweaking a few layouts qualifies as having "very few things" in common with the previous version of the OS.

the system tray now hide's icons from you

Seems pretty minor to me, and you can turn it off if it really bothers you.

they went from encouraging you to put things on the desktop to defaulting to none and complaining about them

I don't really understand the Desktop Cleanup Wizard either. And yes, they default now to not putting as much stuff on the desktop, but I hardly see how this discourages you from putting stuff there...

tons of options were moved and renamed with the most notable and stupidest one being taskmgr's Commit Charge -> PF Usage change.

Which "tons" of options were moved and renamed?

If the "most notable" other change was the name of a display in a view of Task Manager (which most users will probably never even see), how is this a "huge step backwards"?

And come longhorn it'll all change again.

A little hard to say without even a beta of the GUI, don't you think?

Yeah, I know. It's usually me. Most of the things I do/fix for my family/friends (updating drivers and antivirus, scanning for spyware, checking HD for errors) are the equivalent of filling the gas tank on your car and washing the windows. You shouldn't need a mechanic for that.

I'm lucky that most of my family is either far enough away not to call me or they don't have computers. But a friend of mine ends up fixing them all the time and he usually ends up spending hours or days removing spyware, updating things, etc most of which would be avoided by using Linux.

But how much of that is because at the moment, there's no/very little spyware and few viruses targeted towards it? If Linux was as popular as Windows, I guarantee it would have some of the same issues with malware (although probably not as badly, if only because it wouldn't have Internet Explorer and Outlook to deal with). If your argument is that people will torque up Windows by installing all sorts of crap and doing things they don't know how to do properly, what's to stop them from doing the same with Linux?

And did Linux somehow become immune to needing driver and software updates? Automatic updates through Windows Update make OS and most driver updates, well, automatic.

If you're going to let people modify the system, at some level you have to trust that they know what they're doing.

But they don't and Windows gives them the false feeling that they do. Those same people who download and install random things without thinking wouldn't even dare installing a new head unit in their car because they know it can cause problems if done wrong. They know what's potentially harmful and call people who can do it right, that isn't true with Windows.

I fail to see how switching to Linux would fix this, unless you are contending that the greater complexity would scare people off of even trying to make changes. Or if you want to lock down their system so they can't damage it -- which makes it very difficult to install new hardware or make other low-level changes. For a box that's little more than an email/internet appliance, this might cut it, but you're definitely losing functionality in that case.

 

[Nothinman]

I take it you're not a fan of the "stupid task view", as you put it.

No, because I knew the old method and now I don't know where anything's at and I know I'm not alone, I've seen lots of people click on something and then pause as they try to figure out where MS moved an icon.

I fail to see how keeping the same Explorer interface and tweaking a few layouts qualifies as having "very few things" in common with the previous version of the OS.

Because it confuses people for no good reason, people get used to doing things not by remembering what they are but how they do them. In Win2K and earlier "Find" could be reached by hitting Start then F, in XP they changed it to Search but left the F shortcut in place, why? Because otherwise it would confuse people and making S and F both work gave a transition period. Sadly most of the changes didn't have such a transition in place.

Seems pretty minor to me, and you can turn it off if it really bothers you.

It's not minor because now people don't have a guage to determine when they have too much crap because XP hides it from you. Before it was simple to look at someone's machine and go "wow, your system tray takes up half of your taskbar, wtf are you doing?".

Which "tons" of options were moved and renamed?

I'm not going to come up with a comprehensive list, that would take way too much time.

If the "most notable" other change was the name of a display in a view of Task Manager (which most users will probably never even see), how is this a "huge step backwards"?

I think the huge number of "why is my pagefile usage so high?" threads around here would contradict the comment about most people never seeing the label. Sure there's a lot that will never see it or never think about what PF stands for, but the fact that it has more people than ever trying to disable their pagefile seems like a pretty big step backwards. If they can't come up with a term that accurately describes what the number means, why put it there at all?

A little hard to say without even a beta of the GUI, don't you think?

If they do even half of what they say they're doing, it'll be a huge amount of changes. I used one of the betas for like 10 minutes and it was enough for me to say that it sucks and I'm glad I won't be using it.

But how much of that is because at the moment, there's no/very little spyware and few viruses targeted towards it?

Probably not very much, it's a lot more difficult to infect a system effectively since all user's run with restricted accounts. There's no doubt damage can be done, but it won't be as extensive.

If your argument is that people will torque up Windows by installing all sorts of crap and doing things they don't know how to do properly, what's to stop them from doing the same with Linux?

Don't give them root. Chances are they'll click on something, it'll fail and they'll just call you anyway.

And did Linux somehow become immune to needing driver and software updates? Automatic updates through Windows Update make OS and most driver updates, well, automatic.

Not immune, but they're a lot less prevelant. Most driver's 'just work' and once they work they don't stop working for no good reason. And I can count the number of times on one hand that a software update has corrected a bug that affected me.

For a box that's little more than an email/internet appliance, this might cut it, but you're definitely losing functionality in that case.

And most people don't care about that lost functionality, most probably wouldn't even notice if you took it away from them right now. The only things that people might actually care about is not being able to install whatever screensaver their uncle sent them, but it's probably riddled with spyware anyway.