Better reasons to use Linux on the desktop?
In reading through "Top 10 Responses to Why I Should Use Linux? A Linux Evangelists' Reference," I couldn't help but think that Linux needs better evangelists for its desktop crusade.
Take this one:
"Linux is easier to use than Windows. Using the Terminal is not necessary, in most cases."
You don't start by proclaiming Linux easier to use than Windows, then follow that up with the assurance that you won't normally need to use the terminal/command line.
The fact that you might ever have to do so should be enough to scare off most would-be Linux desktop adopters. If the desktop requires a command line (and in my experience, it sometimes does), it's not ready for prime time. Period.
Or how about this one?
"Your porn collection is safe with Linux.
"Now there's a winning argument for the mainstream adopters of the desktop. I can just hear my grandmother sighing with relief at this assurance from her local Linux evangelist.
There are some very good reasons to use Linux on the desktop, but I can't help but feel that its protagonists continue to miss the mark in their evangelism. Normal people don't care about things like this. They just want the desktop to work and not make a spectacle of itself. They want to be able to install their preferred applications without thinking about the operating system.
For this reason, Linux in the cloud makes a lot more sense right now than Linux on the desktop. Now, that's something worth evangelizing.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
This relationship is inverted when I use the linux package manager, but not all software I need can be installed this way.
But if it does not, all this "porn collection is safe" argument is just steer manure.
A common argument made by MS advocates against Linux on the desktop is that the "non-techie" user will be lost in a sea of command line and software installation issues. I have not found this to be the case at all. Those with no predisposition to Windows seldom have trouble using Linux for their basic computing needs (web, email, word processing, photo manipulation, etc.). At least no more trouble than the have using Windows, and they don't need to worry about the bad stuff that plagues Windows.
The people that seem to have the most trouble with Linux are the users who have become somewhat "Windows savvy", and think that is synonymous with being "computer savvy". They get frustrated when things are done differently, or when their accumulated "expertise" is no longer relevant. Many who depend on the commercial software model for their livelihood often fall into this category, I'm afraid.
I have taught novice users to use Linux easily without ever having to attempt CLI, and I have seen self-proclaimed "power-users" throw hissy fits because they can't download and double-click installcrap.exe to put "harmless" dancing bears or "critical" utilities on their desktop. Maybe it's those users who aren't ready for prime time.
Don't forget the Tin-Foil Beanie moment. You have to be completely ignorant of computer security to believe that the FBI could have a back door into any O/S without someone finding it by now.
It's also, unfortunately, the mindset that's still holding Linux back on the desktop. Too many nerds who don't get that it's not good enough yet and, yes, expecting a home user to learn how to run and maintain an O/S _is_ asking too much.
LOL - I can see a TV ad for linux using this or a billboard.
With an estimated 10-20 million users (8+ Ubuntu, 8+ Fedora, etc.) and a very healthy developer community it has all it needs. I can see the distributions (which you refer to as "Linux") get better all the time and I've been a happy Linux user for a few years now. I couldn't care less that the rest of the world doesn't use Linux. We're talking about an operating system here, not a religion or a cult like. And we're not talking about a commercial organization here either. (I guess Apple OSX kinda combines all three here :-)) So no matter how many people buy or download "Linux" it will still be viable.
Beyond a certain number of users, a critical mass, Linux and the ecosystem around it can maintain itself and really shouldn't worry too much about the rest of the world. In the end, you use it because it helps you perform a certain task and you're free to try it. Isn't FOSS wonderful?
I mean, how can I switch over completely to Linux when I KNOW I won't be able to edit my new HD video camera with it?
There are some awesome apps in FOSS but right now there are still these deal-killer holes. With maybe 50 or 80 million users I think this would change. And then if these major gaps could be filled, the sky's the limit.
All the evangelism and all the time and development spend improving 'usability' of the OS is not going to fix this. I would say put that effort and time and money into filling the app gaps. The rest will take care of itself.
It's great Linux finally found it's claim to fame after about 17-18 years of trying.
"Your porn collection is safe with Linux."
I'll stick to MS or Apple over that myself.
I use MS for work mainly and Linux at home. By default I am protected because Linux is not as popular. I don't have to drop money to get that new application. Chances are...Linux has already had the same type application for some time. MS follows Linux's lead, minux catching viruses.
All applications don't work the same between OS's and some maybe easier, but conveience comes at a price when you want it.
Someone else here said "Windows XP is reliable and fast and secure for the most part. " and then turned right-around and said "Of course there are flaws with the Windows registry, and the threat of a virus attack is ever present, but it works very well and is familiar." A ridiculous statement as is MS. Also the speed of MS depends on OS version, system resources, and time-of-day!
Kinda sounds like MS is threatened?!...exact same stuff that MAC users were saying when MS pushed them to the curb years ago!
I don't mind MAC, but you aren't as flexible with open-source apps using a MAC, WHICH IS just that! (Keyword: Convenience)
That said I still help Windows using friends b/c Windows remains in their comfort zone. Several have taken notice of open-source projects like Linux and OpenOffice and I'm very proud to get them started with FOSS.
Linux is promoted with so many different angles it is common to find opinions that seem silly but everyone's needs/wants are different. I'm not going to waste my time debating which OS is best b/c they all have their place and three have a place in my life in different quantities. We purchased an Apple MacBook recently and it is A+. We still have a gaming partition on our computer that uses a much altered version of XP. Home for me on the 'net is still Mint Linux KDE. I don't see this ever changing.
Mint Linux KDE gives me all the important office apps I want, graphic arts, a few games, and all the multimedia software I could never afford back in my Windows user days. Digikam, Amarok, VLC, Mplayer, GIMP, CD rippers and DVD backup. Life's good. On the side Linux also powers my favorite gadgets - my D-Link DNS-323 NAS, my Nokia N810, my WRT54L router, my PVR, and so on.
If Google took Linux and invested 100 times more money into it as Canonical have then it still wouldn't match up to Windows XP Service Pack 1 for sheer ease of use. Of course there are flaws with the Windows registry, and the threat of a virus attack is ever present, but it works very well and is familiar.
Imagine if Microsoft open sourced Windows XP, that would be a great place to start.
As for Linux, I just think back to how 'usable' it was just five years ago. I wouldn't rule it out on such shaky assumptions. After all, Apple made BSD extremely user friendly for basic home users.
As far as Windows going to open source. That's going ot be driven by a ton of factors but customers will be a major one. Does IBM, Honeywell, the us government, NASA, etc. want their OS to be open source? If windows went open source I'd prolly become an Apple user.
http://digg.com/linux_unix/NASA_uses_Fedora_a_lot
Shuttle Discovery?s new software - from OI-32 to Windows XP
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/10/shuttle-discoverys-new-software-from-oi-32-to-windows-xp/
"Windows has been the preferred operating system for NASA, and this continues with the upgrade of the laptops from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, which makes its debut on Discovery with STS-120."
We need people who can better articulate the tangible advantages of FOSS in general in layman's terms, rather than hanging our collective hat on a single piece of FOSS code.
Linux has come a long way from the first time I used it in 2000. Linux can easily become the OS for desktops but it needs the Midas touch of a visionary and of course, lots of money.
People like you amuse me. You have no problem clicking through endless dialogs to perform a simple task but a simple command that goes straight to the functionality you are looking for scares the daylights out of you.
The CL is not archaic, it is not difficult, and it is not a hindrance. It is more productive.
I can't remember the last time I had to install anything on the command line including drivers, which most of them are built in to the kernel anyway, including my wireless drivers. The only exception on my machines is the nvidia video drivers, but that is one button click away.
- by pentest February 12, 2009 5:57 AM PST
- Matt,
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(36 Comments)People like you need to stop bashing the command line. It is infinitely more powerful then your average GUI app. It is also not difficult to use. There are some things that are better in a GUI, such as office apps and web browsing(yes, you can surf the web on the CL, which is invaluable if your graphical shell is busted), but if you need to search your file system or tweak a OS setting, the CL beats a GUI app every time.
Given that, Linux is easier than Windows for simple reasons. Three clicks and you have a fully functioning, completely setup computer. You don't have to waste time and cycles on anti-malware tools, it doesn't degrade over time, and it supports more hardware than Windows, admittedly, it is sometimes a little behind the curve on new hardware(2-3 months usually), but that means little to your average computer user. The lack of DRM and OS integrated spyware is a benefit that can not be overstated, even if you don't collect porn(I always wondered about "porn collectors"). No phoning home to ask permission to use your machine, nothing to stop you from exercising your legitimate free use rights, etc, etc,etc.
In other words, Linux acts like an OS should. It sits in the background waiting to be told what to do but otherwise stays out of your way.