Linux 'desktop' still too geeky for mainstream users?

There are companies like Intel, Canonical, Novell, etc., that are desperately trying to make Linux-based personal computers easier to use. Unfortunately, as Ubuntu fan Steven Rosenberg points out, there are often far too many decisions a lay user must make to make Linux just work for the average user.

Rosenberg was struggling to play music on his Ubuntu machine (you know, one of those obscure activities that only the geek elite do ;-), and struggled because of Canonical's efforts to balance ease of use with free-software purists' desire to have no proprietary codecs. The result is a mess:

But for a project/distro/movement that wants to preach not to the choir but instead to the unwashed, Windows-using masses, either let 'em play MP3s out of the box, make it easy to add that functionality (i.e. don't make 'em Google it, for heaven's sake) while at the same time educate them as to why MP3s, MOVs, Flash and all that other royalty-carrying, proprietary crap is bad, or just say right out front: "If you're geeky enough to figure out how to play multimedia, go ahead. But otherwise, re-install Windows and everything will be fine."

Amen. Using one's computer shouldn't be a religious experience. A computer is a tool, and it should just work. Mixing ideology with a utilitarian tool like the personal computer is an exercise in futility...for the developer and for the average end user.

This isn't to suggest that the Linux "desktop" can't work. It can, as the Linux Foundation's Moblin distribution proves: it's the most Mac-like Linux experience yet. It doesn't require me to resort to a command line to make Linux work for me. It recognizes that I have better things to do.

So, the Linux "desktop" can work. But to do so, I think we need companies involved, companies that are trying to scratch a very different itch than the one developers may be inclined to scratch themselves. That itch is usability for average end users. It's an experience that is high on ease of use and trades away choice. This is not a bad thing.

Indeed, it's the start of giving Linux a fighting chance against Windows and Mac OS X on the "desktop."

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

[mediocrates--2008]

I couldn't agree more, Matt. I'd been using Ubuntu since Feisty, and I love it. But I built a new computer several months back and finally gave up getting Ubuntu to play nice with my new video card and monitor.

I really don't care to spend any more time poking under the Ubuntu hood, reading forums, and downloading drivers, when I can just fire up Vista and get down to business. Yeah, I'm a little ashamed - I'd really rather be using Ubuntu... I just get tired of nursing it along.

[jyzespineda]

TRUE. ubuntu needs a lot of NURSING. that a basic fact. you cant get a lot out of nothing you need to work it out. but i yto some that feels geeky and activist please continue to support and build and promote this free stuff so that microsoft and other computer giants will stop from monopolizing everything. anyway its the innovations ant inventions that makes this world continue to exist....

[forkboy]

Very much a spot-on article.

Having built my own desktop PC in 2004, I was anxious to tackle a new challenge and in 2008 joined a local Linux group in hopes of converting my old and generally unused HP laptop into a Linux-based device. To be frank it was more of a pain than I had anticipated and eventually I withdrew from entire idea.

Certainly Ubuntu is a beautiful piece of open-source software, but the author is correct in that the vast majority of end-users simply want their computer to be a tool; a means to an end. Even if it means dealing with the sometimes infuriating behaviour of Vista, most users will put up with such problems if it means everything else works fine the vast majority of the time.

Until developers for Linux recognize that the great majority of computer users are not interested in what makes their OS tick, but in that it simply stays out of the way then Linux is doomed to remain something that only the "geeks" play with.

[zelrik]

It's kinda wrong. It took me 10 minutes to install Linux Mint (ubuntu + better packages). Without ANY configuration at all, I had my mp3,flash,video,wifi.... working out of the box. My computer is an ASUS U5F laptop. Ok I confess that Linux Mint is more pragmatic than Ubuntu because more proprietary packages are included by default but still, I used Ubuntu before and it's not very hard to install what you need.

That said, you can buy pre-installed versions of Ubuntu from System76 and Zareason (Which will support you better than Dell).

So it's not always hard as you guys tend to think, actually in most cases it is very simple.

[pentest]

There are legal reasons why MP3 and DVD aren't supported out of the box. However, every distro I know, can add it with ONE mouse click.

Apparently, people don't know that a retail copy of windows doesn't support DVD playback out of the box either. The OEM's add a decoder, and if you have a retail copy, you have to download and install it. Let me repeat that: RETAIL COPIES OF WINDOWS DO NOT SUPPORT DVD PLAYBACK.

Let's not talk about all the the windows apps that you need to download/buy and they all have their own updater, or talk about how most Windows users are technically illiterate and the default install is horrifically insecure,

I have never seen a copy of windows install nvidia graphics and MOBO drivers. Most wireless card drivers are built into the kernel as well.

Also, I wish that you people would stop saying Linux is Ubuntu, of the major distros, Ubuntu is the worst and not coincidentally the most Windows like.

What is funny is that Matt is not a Linux user and shows time and again that he knows absolutely nothing about it and what he thinks he knows is all wrong.

[slickuser]

Windoze does install drivers for nvidia and all the wireless cards. The generic graphics drivers that come
with Windoze offers only VESA support.

goto windowsupdate.microsoft.com and you will see all the drivers it pulls under hardware category during first
install.

[odubtaig]

Yeah, you keep saying Ubuntu is the worst distro but so far as I can see you're a chorus of 1.

[hozelda]

pentest, I agree with you for the most part, but I would not call Ubuntu the worst distro or close to it -- free choice means you can build a very bad distro if you want, and some people, in other's views, are probably "definitely working towards the goal of worst distro ever".

Linux can get better than where it is today, but Linux is better every day just about and will continue to get better over the upcoming weeks, months, and beyond.

I have a long list of things I want in a distro. I think Linux will get them way before Windows does. Never mind, that Windows' future is tied to the fate, greed, and missteps of a single company. Their monopolies and monopoly profits won't protect Microsoft/Windows forever, especially at the pace at which they are burning up their money and face. Their closed mentality is a heavy weight on the future of their products.

People that think the Windows experience or even the Mac experience approaches ideal simply show that things are easy when you are accustomed to them and not easy when you are not.

I find Linux easier to use (despite its flaws) because I use it much more than I use Windows (I almost have not used Windows XP in years).

I can accept any opinion that says Linux lags, but I find it difficult to accept an opinion stating that Linux lags by a lot as being anything buy biased.

Again, Linux can get better, but it is most certainly competitive today.

[DigitalAngelic]

Let me tell you that retail copies of Vista Home Premium and Vista ultimate certainly DO include DVD decoders. I buy all my OSes at retail, and DVD playback works perfectly fine.

[pentest]

No a chorus of millions. Ubuntu is third rate. Yeah, it is better than Windows, but what isn't.

"Windoze does install drivers for nvidia "

Retail copies do not have nvidia drivers installed. At least in opensuse it is a simple button click to get and install the driver.

People are too used to all the extras OEM's put on their machine. Retail versions of Windows is a pretty bare bones setup.

Then they aren't retail copies, If MS had to fork out the license fee for the decoders, they would charge even more.

I have retail copies of XP(original, SP1, SP2, and SP3) and Vista. Every single one of them chokes on DVD playback. Why? No decoder.

[odubtaig]

Where are these millions? I know there are millions who choose other distros but that doesn't make Ubuntu crap, just not best suited to those who choose otherwise.

Of course, you're also the pillock who claims Canonical never make any contributions. Funny, I read an interview in Linux Format with someone very prominent on the Debian team who's quite happy with all the security fixes that are fed back.

If I remember right, you favour OpenSUSE, a distro that was what can only be described as ********* to use on a single core, single CPU system for several revisions after novell bought out SuSE GmbH because the update manager was so abominably written it ate every CPU cycle it could get its hands on grinding everything to a halt.

I gave up on waiting for Novell to fix their svnserver install, broken from 9.3 (there's a bug report and everything) to 11.0 (and probably still broken). If I wanted to compile and configure my own version, I'd be running Gentoo.

So, while I'm sure a lot of people get good use out of OpenSUSE, for my purposes it's an abominable pile of *****.

Right now, I run Fedora on my home server because it's solid and, despite the difficulty of configuration, svnserver runs beautifully. However, it's a server optimised distro. Red Hat have stated on many occasions that they're not interested in the desktop so I'm not at all surprised when I hear numerous complaints about audio playback stuttering, pauses, general lack of interactivity.

Many server optimisations are incompatible with usability for the desktop.

So, I get people set up with Ubuntu and they're happy because it doesn't let background processes hog the CPU and interrupt their music, it requires minimal configuration and they can just get on with using it.

I know you don't like it because it's not designed for the power user but, my point it, it's not designed for the power user. It's designed for normal people who want to get on with using the computer, not spending half their time maintaining it. If you have that much time on your hands that you want to spend half your time configuring or messing about with a distro, then fine, go for another distro but I for one am glad that someone finally gets what it's going to take to make Linux usable for anyone who's not a steaming great nerd.

That's why I like Ubuntu, because outside of work related activities I just don't have the time to be configuring this stuff all the time, I need to be getting on with what's actually important. It's nice to have a distro that doesn't waste my time.

[cvaldes1831]

I abandoned Linux on the desktop in 2002 for three main reasons: excessive system administration load, poor device driver support, and lousy end-user documentation. I'm on my third Mac notebook (iBook G3, PowerBook G4, MacBook) and I've spent less time administering all three combined in those 7+ years than my first month on Linux. And I have a Unix background.

Trust me, I believe in Linux in certain areas (the Linux-based Tomato firmware is installed on my wifi router and long live TiVo). It's also a fine candidate for servers.

With my home computer, I am done wrestling balky video drivers, recompiling the kernel, diddling with X server config files, etc. I just want to plug in my HD camcorder, edit videos quickly, then shutdown and go play in the sun.

Note, that I don't have problems with free open source software. An operating system is a big complicated program that lets other big complicated programs co-exist peacefully on the same system. For Linux and desktop applications, it was just too much work (at least in 2002).

These days, I'd rather just bring my notebook computer to the Genius Bar if I'm having a problem with it (apart from a dying disk drive, I've never had any other occasion) and have someone else fix it.

[hcorey]

I couldn't agree with you more, although I remain a dedicated GNU/Linux user. The issue you bring up relates to the "total cost of ownership". If I want to purchase a peripheral, I can't simply hop over to my local hardware vendor and pick something out. I first have to hop on line to determine what is Linux-compatible. Often, the compatible devices (webcams, printers, scanners) tend to be older models that are difficult to locate. Additional time is then required to track down the correct model. Certainly, this is not a GNU/Linux problem, it is a vendor problem, but it becomes my problem. Another issue is support, in general. While the forums are absolutely wonderful, again it takes time, effort and fortitude to find a proper solution. The reward is that you have learned something from your efforts. The problem again is the cost in time, which translates into dollars. I believe that, calculated this way, the total cost of ownership for GNU/Linux is too high--it isn't worth the trouble for the average user. The solution might be an overhaul in how GNU/Linux is supported--novel types of paid support program, "buddy" plans, merging of forums, promotion of Linux-friendly vendors, cross-support, etc.

[odubtaig]

2002?

I'll grant you there's a lot of criticisms still to be levelled at Linux but 7 years is a long time in computing. If you're going to criticise Linux, criticise it for the way it is now.

[hozelda]

The three items you mentioned are addressed here http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10246722-16.html .

Wow, have you really not given Linux a chance since 2002? Just because Vista was a step down from XP, doesn't mean Linux today is worse than Linux was in 2002. It's not worse, far from it, and Linux!=Windows.

[hozelda]

hcorey, you speak as if managing Windows is a hassle-free effort or inexpensive in terms of time, time+money, or money.

[liquidmetalband]

I agree that Ubuntu often does ridiculous things, but still: it does with MP3 support.... I don't know what you're talking about....

[Silviu-Alx]

First of all I will apologize if my english is faulty . As for using a Linux distro - I just want to say that I have tried some of the major ones like Fedora and OpenSUSE but wasn't satisfied at all (mostly due to the difficulty in getting the wireless to work properly) I have been running Ubuntu for about a week now and I am pleased to say it is very intuitive an easy to use if you have an internet connection. Most of the codecs and drivers install automatically and the wireless fired up the first time without my intervention. I started using Linux because I love a challenge but onestly with the latest Ubuntu there aren't many challenges . It may be a good start to an easy to use FREE OS . And about those MP3's ... they work just fine.

[TheGoBetween]

Why does everyone keep treating Windows/Mac/Linux as a zero sum game? What works for me might not work for the author, which might not work well with the grandmother up the street or the video editor on the next block. I personally like that we have a choice as to how our computers run.

Our house is a mix of XP Pro, Vista, and PCLinuxOS, and we all seem to co-exist just fine. I myself have two machines that dual boot XP and PCLOS, and if there's something one side can do better than the other side I fire it up. If I want to do our taxes up comes XP. If I want to make backup copies of my digital media Linux works better for me. Every OS has strengths & weaknesses, and I think it's a good thing that we are able to offset those weaknesses.

I'm a fan of PCLOS mainly because it was the first distro I tried that installed cleanly AND recognized my hardware. Ubuntu and many of its derivatives (including Mint) never did find my integrated graphics driver but PCLOS did on the first try. That's not to say I think Ubuntu or Linux is junk...it just didn't fit my needs.

I do realize that I'm more technical and willing to tolerate things others aren't, but for the computing needs of 99% of the population any of the OS choices are fine - including Linux. Personal preference of the user should be the consideration.

[TheGoBetween]

Why does everyone keep treating Windows/Mac/Linux as a zero sum game? What works for me might not work for the author, which might not work well with the grandmother up the street or the video editor on the next block. I personally like that we have a choice as to how our computers run.

Our house is a mix of XP Pro, Vista, and PCLinuxOS, and we all seem to co-exist just fine. I myself have two machines that dual boot XP and PCLOS, and if there's something one side can do better than the other side I fire it up. If I want to do our taxes up comes XP. If I want to make backup copies of my digital media Linux works better for me. Every OS has strengths & weaknesses, and I think it's a good thing that we are able to offset those weaknesses.

I'm a fan of PCLOS mainly because it was the first distro I tried that installed cleanly AND recognized my hardware. Ubuntu and many of its derivatives (including Mint) never did find my integrated graphics driver but PCLOS did on the first try. That's not to say I think Ubuntu or Linux is junk...it just didn't fit my needs.

I do realize that I'm more technical and willing to tolerate things others aren't, but for the computing needs of 99% of the population any of the OS choices are fine.

[TheGoBetween]

(apology for the double post)

[BK216]

the closest "It Just Works" experience you'll get in Linux is with LINUX MINT

Although I am a Windows Fanatic, I am a big fan of Ubuntu, and I run the live images all the time just to check it out. But I've replaced Windows with Ubuntu and it was just too much extra work to get it working correctly and doing the tons of things I could do with Windows.

With Linux Mint however, the start off point is just about the same as any Windows installation, and installing apps is SIMPLE if you use the App Portal on their own Linuxmint.org website. I had actually replaced XP on my netbook with Mint, but after I gave Windows 7 a go, I haven't looked back since. I'll give Linux Mint 7 a chance tho (but Ubuntu is just too confusing)

[Police_States_of_America]

the problem with codecs isn't that they aren't preinstalled, its that they do not give you a one-click option to install them once you try to play a file. it's little stuff like this that could be fixed rather easily: linux executables not executing until you give them permission to do so (in a very unintuitive way), some programs failing to appear on the menu after install, devs not making packaging source code, ubuntu repositories not keeping up to date with latest versions (emulators for example), bad default programs which should be replaced (totem, rhythbox) and an ugly default design which can be fixed with simple tweaks.

all these things are things that the average everyday user would have a hell of a time figuring out and it is these things which are required to have a modern desktop. ubuntu needs to get its act together.

[feonil]

You have completely overlooked Lindows/Linspire (now Xandros) and especially the whole Click n Run environment ( at cnr.com). Building application installers to that spec allows for very easy installation.

I remember sticking in the Linspire CD and getting up and running with moderate web browser speed and the full OpenOffice apps in about half an hour on an old 486. It was a GUI setup process, similar to Windows installs.

[lalomartins]

Sorry, but this article is wrong in all possible accounts.

First, adding mp3 support is extremely easy. And, as one commenter points out, Windows doesn't come with DVD playback support...

Second: removing choice is just stupid. That's why you would want to use ?linux? to begin with. If you don't care about choice, if you're fine with your OS telling you what to do and how, just stick to windows.

I agree that making install and use simpler is a worthy goal. However, as it is today, ubuntu is already much, much easier to install and use than windows.

And since I'm here, to respond to comments that say ?linux doesn't play well with your hardware?: that's not true, it's your hardware that doesn't play well with linux :-) in most cases, manufacturers go out of their way to write their own windows drivers. So how is it fair to expect linux to work with whatever obscure hardware out there without manufacturer help?

[kit_plummer]

Moblin is a terd. Try and run a Java app on Moblin...then tell me how Mac-like it is. Sure, Moblin has a unique interface - but, really is it the answer? No effin' way. Not sure what the Asay-Moblin relationship is...but, this sounds/reads like homer-ism. : )

[protagonistic]

I have absolutely no idea what you are harping about. The first time I wanted to play an mp3 song Ubuntu informed me that I needed the proper codec to do this. It then offered to try and find it. I gave it my OK and it went out and downloaded and installed everything I needed. No muss and no fuss. It did the same for the driver for my graphics card.

Ubuntu V9.04 has been every bit as easy to install on my system as was Windows 7. It was probably easier because I did not have to go out and download and install all kinds of malware protection. Maybe you should do an article complaining about how hard it is to do all the necessary downloading and installing of extra software to make Windows useable.

[kast5089]

@protagonistic and others: read the article Matt linked to. The point was that Ubuntu's "one-click install" didn't work.

[protagonistic]

So how is this any different than when Windows fails to properly install a driver or codec? My point is that I have had that happen far more often than I have had Ubuntu fail to properly install something. The author seems to feel that you have to be a geek if it happens in Ubuntu but not when it happens in Windows. It seems to me he is barking up the wrong tree on this.

[Paul-Lockett]

It's a false comparison. These things only really become an issue when you install an OS on a system yourself, which is something that 99% of computer users who aren't geeks never do - they buy a desktop or laptop with an OS pre-installed and stick with it.

If it doesn't appear to be an issue with Windows or Macs, it's because the system is pre-installed. If you buy a PC from Dell with Ubuntu pre-installed, you'll find the codecs for mp3, DVD, etc. are pre-installed too.

This isn't a Linux issue, it's a pre-installation issue.

[evertsfnic]

Linux Mint is the best distro you can get, but the guy who write this has the true, linux is to to dificult i am a power user in windows, and linux yes i can install software and codecs for playing mp3 and mp4, but driver are dificult sometime becouse you have to use the command line, so linux is like the old time with windows, that you made everything by writting code. and that's not good.

[zelrik]

- "but driver are difficult SOMETIMES"

- "you have to use the command line" -> "you might need to install the right packages, and in some extreme cases you would need the command line...maybe"

Just fixing stuff...

[Dalkorian]

@evertsfnic - I can tell you're "a power user in windows" by the way you write. Wasn't your spell checker going insane by the time you clicked the submit button? Please slap your English teacher across the face for failing you so miserably before you graduate.

[pentest]

All software comes from writing code.

The command line in Linux is extremely powerful. Unlike Windows. That you compare the 2 shows total ignorance. Besides, it is rare that an basic user even needs to know bash exists.

I have one system that for some odd reason demands manual install of the nvidia graphics driver:

#sh name_of_driver_file.sh

Geez, that is really tough.

[kwstat]

Let's consider this. With my current Windows computer, after unpacking the box, I had to install:
MS Office
Firefox
Real Player
Apple Quicktime
Photoshop Elements
ogg codecs
ZoneAlarm firewall
Ad Aware
Acrobat Reader
Flash
etc.

Yesterday I upgraded to Linux Mint 7. After the install I needed to download and install.......nothing else.

Now, which of those is "too geeky"?

KW

[zelrik]

Linux Mint is superior to Windows in many ways indeed. One has to be careful though : there is like one guy developing Linux Mint, most of the support you can get it from the ubuntu community because those 2 distros are very similar. On the other hand if there is a problem specific to Linux you can end up being on your own. So for first timers, Linux Mint is better, well mainly faster to configure (because you dont configure it), but Ubuntu is backed up by a more powerful community in case of problems, so be careful to choose the right one.

[zelrik]

Correction to the above comment : I forgot to type the word 'Mint' somewhere in the middle of the paragraph

PS : I am using Linux Mint right now.

[BrianAbbott67]

It is nice that there happens to be a "distro" that comes with the most commonly needed applications, plugins, etc. But to use Windows you do NOT have to install any of those applications unless you use or want them.

Flash will install when you load a web page with IE, of course you are prompted and that is a good thing. I would hope that a Linux user would appreciate the value is the user being in control of the plug ins in a browser.

The other important and most noteworthy angle on your comments kwstat, would be that what if the support for "mint" stopped?

Oh, wait, what about this, how does one learn about Mint?

Do I Google (or Bing) Mint?

Or do I go to Techie forums?

Maybe I get on an IRC channel?

Or I could hang out on a college campus, I am sure I would learn about many distros there.

I hope my point is not lost in my sarcasm. But I agree completely that Windows, or any OS that is targeting the average consumer, should come with the basics or at least offer to install them during the deployment stage.

Oh wait, if Windows offered to install an additional seven or eight programs such as Acrobat Reader, and Flash, and so on, they the reviews would be worse because of the additional mouse clicks it would take to install it.

This makes me laugh.