Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: GoodwillMan on 25 May 2003, 21:51
-
I hope for some good feedback this is not ment to be a trollpost, but I found the one thing that Linux does that people dont like. Well one of them anyway.
First lets look at most popular operating system Microsoft Windows, it is used everywhere, most of its users dont even know what the word Operating System means. These users see questions as challenges to there eyes. Everytime a system asks them, they feel that if they give the wrong answer the Universe will collapse/they will goto jail/microsoft will sue them/ect.
Linux asks a mighty lot of questions, but still they are not hard, any person with a basic technical knoledge of computers can Install Mandrake or Red-Hat these days.
The command line is not putting people off, but the geekyness is. (asking questions, linux is very customisable, and it asks a lot of questions).
What is needed is at the start of a Linux is a "Are you a moron" question. Mandrake has one, but Mandrake still need it to be more featureless and uncustomisable. Actually the big question is asking what they want there system to do, and it will use that to decide what they need.
Asking for keybored types and stuff is not needed just have say a "Country" option that sets it automatically.
There are many other questions Red-Hat, Mandrake, SuSe ask that could be made moron friendly
Well who has other ideas?
-
Im realy realy sorry but I have to agree.
Linux must be standardized and simplified.
My first Linux install was Redhat 7.3
when what is now the simplest of questions came up and I was stumped
I was asked if I wanted to install a desktop, workstation or server. I knew I did not want a server, but I had no idea the difference between a desktop and workstation
I think we should see only one question for the entire install
Install or Customized Install?
Then wam bam and 30 minutes later your running Linux on KDE, or GNOME which ever the distro prefers.
There should be no other question except for root passwrd and user name
anything that needs to be changed could either be done in that custom install or after the fact from something similar to SuSE's Yast2 or KDE's Control Center (When will Control Center support GRUB configuration).
No questions
In fact it should be the other way around a realy dumbed down help center with an animated penguin instead of that MS dog
There would be a text field beside wich the penguin would say "Ask me a question about Linux!".
This would act as a keyword search to find BOTH Documentation and a GUI (stress GUI not shell) to configure what ever part of your system needs tweaking after install.
And as far as geeky goes, just wait until you graduate highschool, that word becomes more and more ambiguous. Besides every OS is Geeky. Frankly I think that XP is Pussy, and MS has too many adds with smiling men...... creeps me out :D
[ May 25, 2003: Message edited by: suselinux ]
-
Linux is not an OS for morons and Im glad. After working at a help desk and talking to the morons who use Microsoft products, Im glad that they dont use linux. Its a great thing to be able to ask any linux user a complicated question and know he will likely be able to solve it. It once took me 1 hour before I figured out that a woman's high speed internet wasnt working because she didnt pay the bill. Do I want her using linux? Hell no. Let linux have an audience just like how apple has an audience. Just as long as there is choice. I never want to hear that I have no choice.
-
If you want to keep your choice then make Linux more acceptable to the masses or it will be sqeezed out of the desktop.
-
Linux is not for Morons, but the people have to stop using Winblows. They need somthing else they can use. So either a for-morons version of Linux must be made, macs need to be made less expensive, or a new easy desktop OS needs to come out.
I think one area that they should make easier is partitioning. Don't try to ask a moron how to partition a disk, even the automatic partitioning they offer isn't enough. They should just bring up a pie chart showing their hard drive with the partitions labeled only by what OS is on them, and then ask if its ok to put linux, pointing to an empty slice, with buttons to make the Linux slice larger or smaller. And it has to be one big slice for Linux, nothing about spaw or boot or whatever.
;) V ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Doctor V:
Linux is not for Morons, but the people have to stop using Winblows. They need somthing else they can use. So either a for-morons version of Linux must be made, macs need to be made less expensive, or a new easy desktop OS needs to come out.
I think one area that they should make easier is partitioning. Don't try to ask a moron how to partition a disk, even the automatic partitioning they offer isn't enough. They should just bring up a pie chart showing their hard drive with the partitions labeled only by what OS is on them, and then ask if its ok to put linux, pointing to an empty slice, with buttons to make the Linux slice larger or smaller. And it has to be one big slice for Linux, nothing about spaw or boot or whatever.
;) V ;)
can you code in Python, that actually sounds like a great idea.
-
I dont want Linux to be an os for morons, I want it to be the OS for everyone.
-
Anyway about partitioning, i was thinking the same thing.
Lets look at the Windows installer for example, on the first bit, you press enter about 4 times with an F8 in between on most systems to install it.
-
Easy partitioning has already been done for Mandrake and SuSE Linux. The problem lies in the installation of packages. You cannot install a package for SuSE on Red Hat without worrying whether it will be compatible with other packages or not. Even apt-get does not solve this; it has to be all the same distribution. Even apt-get repositories are not completely compatible with each other (ex. fedora).
Another problem is that when you install a package, you don't know where to find it, especially if it comes from another distribution. The program does not always appear in the menu. This is without mentioning the different desktop environments (KDE menu, GNOME menu, Windowmaker menu, etc.)
Mac OS X (NEXTSTEP) already solved this problem by allowing the user to run the application from where he put it. All he has to do is click on one file, which is a .app directory containing all the libraries, which can be shared if the user places the .app in the application directory.
-
quote:
Linux must be standardized
Already is. RH, SuSE and Mandrake are all LSB certified.
I mean, essentially, Windows installations can be as complicated (which isn't very complicated at all). You used to have to do partitioning w/ fdisk, and you still go through all the Windows software and choose whether or not you want solitare.
You set ur time zone and country and all of that just as u do in linux installations. I agree, the keyboard and mouse and stuff needs to be auto-detected rather than chosen from the list. This is more or less for driver reasons.
X Configuration is very important, but most of your hardware is already set up, and it's basically what they do w/ their Desktop on a daily basis (choosing resolution and color depth).
Linux is easier to install many times over than it used to be.
Automatic partitioning tools could be improved upon.
Right now rpm is the easiest way to install, but an easier way (GUI) needs to be made to install packages and take care of dependencies. Other than that, everything is ok.
-
With all this talk of making Linux "idiot proof" etc. I think that should not be the goal. The aim should be to make a usable, logical, well-organised, integrated, complete (you get the message) environment that a newbie, a pro, an average user could use. And all this "it must look like windows" I don't like that either. In fact if I go to Linux and see an obvious windows clone (like KDE) I'll be disappointed. Mac is different (as seen on ads), BeOS was different, but that doesn't mean I won't like them or couldn't use them. A bit of copying *ok*, when the exercise is to create a clone *why bother*. Why use a clone of windows when you can just use the real thing?
And jeez, how sloppily some so-called "desktop" distributions are put together, and then you use the programs and find the GUI text is full of typos, poorly constructed sentences and misspellings. And the missing software. I'd like to set up a dial-up account oh yea go to bash shell root vi /etc/ppp.00da ... hmh? Why isn't it printing this text? Ahhh... Or how about changing the resolution... /etc/X11/xf86.. oops, the GUI doesn't start up anymore....
Then try installing some software for Linux. No I didn't say Red Hat or Debian, Linux. Oh yea, there's no standard installer, let's compile from source.... what a pain!! Y'no I think source installation might be the way forward but we need alternatives to GNU make, so that there is a definate procedure for compiling, and copying, and installing and integrating.
Sorry if I'm just bashing the Linux desktop here but I'm telling it like it is and I think it needs to be said. A newbie would put it in harsher language.. I'm just venting some frustration on using Linux here
:mad: :mad: :mad:
:cool:
-
RPM is not the easiest way. As mentioned above, OS X has the lead in software installation. There's NO WORRIES of dependency. OS X apps don't run at the UNIX level, they run much higher up, and include all required support files inside a private folder tree. You see an icon that really contains the entire app, never having to worry about whether it put a bunch of bullshit in /bin or /lib or anything like that. You can move the icon around, you can toss it in the trash to get rid of it. How is RPM better than that?
The thing I've always said is that to succeed, Linux is going to have to not just hide, but supplant all of its UNIXness. Just as OS X is five or six layers all atop Darwin, there needs to be someone develop a layered system atop Linux. Users should be fully shielded from ever having to see a console message or a terminal screen. The option should still exist to use it, but that's all it should be... an option for those of us that are competent enough to use it.
something has to be made that's noticably better than Windows, not just "as good but different"... it has to be better at the same things.
-
quote:
In fact it should be the other way around a realy dumbed down help center with an animated penguin instead of that MS dog
There would be a text field beside wich the penguin would say "Ask me a question about Linux!".
Hmmm... that sounds good. RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, if your reading, implement something like this in your distro.
-
I really think that all Linux needs IMHO, is a better installer!
I mean, installation is a Pain. That is it, if they fix that I'm sure people will look past everything else.
It is my firm belief that if linu gets a user base of newbs, the OS will flesh itself out acording to theri needs, The problem is that right now it's user base mainly consist of a bunch of geeks who don't realy care weather they are clicking a menu or configuring a .conf file in vi.
The system needs to be more modular. Components for software should be mainly restricted to the application, it's folder, and ONE system directory, not smeard acress the entire filesystem.
But that last bit I'm sure users will bite the bullet on as long as the install process is refined and standardized. Windoze suffered from file vomit and still does.
file-vomit n. - case in which an application install regurgitates large amounts of obscure files across a gamut of equaly obscure system directories makeing it difficult, if not imposible, to deinstall without specialized software.
-
Im thinking of writing some scripts and my own .uef package. It will stand for Unix Execting Package.
When you run the package, what will happen is the program files will be extracted to a tempory area. Config files will be put in a users home directory. This way users can run there own individual programs without intefereing with the rest of the system.
When you finish with the program, the tempory directory is deleted. The config files still remain on the desktop.
Then you could have a system that has GNOME/KDE/ECT using def files, and just have all the programs in one "Programs" folder which all users have accses to, and you could drag whole programs around like on a macintosh.
You could still have the Unix Filesystem underneath, just a nice inteface (simlar to what M$ Windows does, but totally different).
Instead of C/D/E/F it would have a few Desktop Folders, and/or a menu called Programs, another caller Personal Files, and a Shared Files folder.
Of cource you would still be able to accses it like a UNIX system if you wanted, it just has a nice chocolate coating.
DEF's could also just be installers for programs. The programs could then install to your Personal Files or Shared Files.
-
I dont really think that the installer for red hat needs improvement...it was easier to install than windows 95/98/me. The one thing that i think needs improvment is how you install programs. i get so confused when i read the readmes that the program ends up not compiling correctly...if i can even get that far. There needs to be an installer for a GUI, like win and mac, but for linux that takes care of all the hard work.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ArmTheHomeless:
I dont really think that the installer for red hat needs improvement...it was easier to install than windows 95/98/me. The one thing that i think needs improvment is how you install programs. i get so confused when i read the readmes that the program ends up not compiling correctly...if i can even get that far. There needs to be an installer for a GUI, like win and mac, but for linux that takes care of all the hard work.
thats what I, and x11, were saying.
-
quote:
Originally posted by X11: BTFH:
Im thinking of writing some scripts and my own .uef package. It will stand for Unix Execting Package.
When you run the package, what will happen is the program files will be extracted to a tempory area. Config files will be put in a users home directory. This way users can run there own individual programs without intefereing with the rest of the system.
When you finish with the program, the tempory directory is deleted. The config files still remain on the desktop.
Then you could have a system that has GNOME/KDE/ECT using def files, and just have all the programs in one "Programs" folder which all users have accses to, and you could drag whole programs around like on a macintosh.
You could still have the Unix Filesystem underneath, just a nice inteface (simlar to what M$ Windows does, but totally different).
Instead of C/D/E/F it would have a few Desktop Folders, and/or a menu called Programs, another caller Personal Files, and a Shared Files folder.
Of cource you would still be able to accses it like a UNIX system if you wanted, it just has a nice chocolate coating.
DEF's could also just be installers for programs. The programs could then install to your Personal Files or Shared Files.
Sorry, X11, but the temporary directory solution won't work well for the average user, for several reasons:
1. Starting applications would be very long, especially on slower computers. And this would defeat the point of installing Linux.
2. It would be very unpractical for big programs.
3. It would not solve the dependency problem, because you would have to install some packages in the system anyway, or else you would have to run many other programs at the same time.
4. It would add even more complexity to the file system; programs would have to search for libraries in temporary directories IN ADDITION to /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/share, /usr/local, /opt, etc.
5. As I said above, a much better solution has already been implemented in Mac OS X, as well as in RiscOS.
[ May 27, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
I really think that all Linux needs IMHO, is a better installer!
I mean, installation is a Pain. That is it, if they fix that I'm sure people will look past everything else.
bah... the redhat and mandrake installations are nothing compared to WinXP installation. I had to install WinXP at my school (Alongside linux luckily) and you must still partition using windows primitive partitioning tool (Same one as in winNT i think?) Figure out whether you want FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, or both. I think RedHats installer is already ahead of windows.
-
I don't mean the OS installer, I mean a universal installer WITHIN the OS.
Compiling from source is a pain, RPM's don't allways work, dependancies suck, and you never know when a package is gonna work on your distro or not.
Linux needs to modularize the installation process of applications so that you can move them around, and deinstall them simply.
THat's what I'm talkin about.
-
quote:
Originally posted by PANiC:
With all this talk of making Linux "idiot proof" etc. I think that should not be the goal. The aim should be to make a usable, logical, well-organised, integrated, complete (you get the message) environment that a newbie, a pro, an average user could use. And all this "it must look like windows" I don't like that either. In fact if I go to Linux and see an obvious windows clone (like KDE) I'll be disappointed. Mac is different (as seen on ads), BeOS was different, but that doesn't mean I won't like them or couldn't use them. A bit of copying *ok*, when the exercise is to create a clone *why bother*. Why use a clone of windows when you can just use the real thing?
And jeez, how sloppily some so-called "desktop" distributions are put together, and then you use the programs and find the GUI text is full of typos, poorly constructed sentences and misspellings. And the missing software. I'd like to set up a dial-up account oh yea go to bash shell root vi /etc/ppp.00da ... hmh? Why isn't it printing this text? Ahhh... Or how about changing the resolution... /etc/X11/xf86.. oops, the GUI doesn't start up anymore....
Then try installing some software for Linux. No I didn't say Red Hat or Debian, Linux. Oh yea, there's no standard installer, let's compile from source.... what a pain!! Y'no I think source installation might be the way forward but we need alternatives to GNU make, so that there is a definate procedure for compiling, and copying, and installing and integrating.
Sorry if I'm just bashing the Linux desktop here but I'm telling it like it is and I think it needs to be said. A newbie would put it in harsher language.. I'm just venting some frustration on using Linux here
:mad: :mad: :mad:
:cool:
You people anger me. When is the last time you installed Linux and what distro did you use? because I just installed redhat 9 two days ago and if I want to change the resolution I go to Redhat menu->System Settings->Display. As for standard installer? RPM *is* the standard Linux installation system, according to the Linux Standards Base. There are plenty of RPM repositories, there are dependency add ons such as URPMI and Apt4Rpm which make everything you said about compiling software absolutely useless. If the vendor of the application does not release RPMs it is *not* the Linux distro's fault! You should talk to the vendor, not Redhat or Mandrake or whatever. I don't want my KDE to look like Windows, and it DOESN'T. I USE SLICKER. If you want it to look like something else, just rearrange your panel and choose a different style engine. You can make it look like anything you want, as can distro makers, so if they want to offer a new fresh look, all they must do is default the settings to their style and panel settings. I don't mean to be mean but I hate it when people come in and tell me Linux is hard to install and installing software is hard BECAUSE IT'S NOT. If you've found a problem relating to your installation of Redhat/Mandrake/Slackware etc just send a bug report to the distro maker! Because it works for the rest of us!
Not only are you bashing Linux distributions, but you are bashing Linux distributions without even looking at them. You people and your stereotyped views about Linux doesn't help Linux get adopted by home users did you know that?