Why Linux will win and Micro$oft will lose

[KevinO]

There is a big difference between using an operating system and
installing or configuring one.

Most Windoze users haven't a clue how to do either one.

Give a preconfigured Linux box to someone who has never had a computer
before and the ease of use
is as good or better than Windoze. ( A recent report rated KDE 2 better
than MacOS and WinXP for ease of use.)

I personally have setup two Mandrake boxes for computer newbies. One to
a friend of mine and the other
to my girlfriend's daughter. In each case I helped them get their ppp
setup. They have had very little
difficulty in web browsing, using email, etc.. One of them had some
experience with windows, the other
had never used a computer at all.

We must be careful when we talk about what the 'average user' wants
to/can do. The average user
just wants to turn it on and use it. In this case, a Linux box isn't any
more difficult to use than anything else. (Until it comes time to deal
with a proprietary file format/protocal. But there are office suites
for Linux that help with that also).

This is something to remember as we contemplate installfests and newbie
meetings.

-- 
Kevin O'Connor
 
"cg.mk.snow" wrote:
> 
> First of all, I would like to say, I like dabbling in Linux. It is a good
> O.S. with alot of great stuff. The changes that have been made in the past
> few years have been great. However, in order to boot Microsoft off of its
> high chair Linux is going to have to be accepted by a majority of computer
> users. Before the "Average" and "New" computer users can make Linux work
> several things will have to happen.
> 
> 1) Need to get rid off all the offshoots. For hackers, a variety of
> different styles and versions of an o.s. are great. However for someone who
> uses their computer to get email and surf the web 20 different types of the
> same thing only confuse and bore him. This is one of the big stumbling
> blocks for Linux. The first question most people ask about Linux is "What is
> the best type of Linux to use, red hat suse, caldera, ...". Sorry Linux,
> that really should not be the first big decision. At an absolute maximum,
> there should be about 3 types of Linux. One for the average user where
> everything happens automatically and only loads the basic multimedia type
> programs. The second for hackers who enjoy programming, and like to dabble
> in .conf files. The third for Server situations.
> 
> 2) Not everyone wants to be a programmer. There are several signatures I
> have seen that imply the world of computers will be perfected when everyone
> programs for fun. They also imply the average person would want to go into a
> .conf file and have to add some term or variable. I would hate to break it
> to everyone, but the average computer user does not care to do much more
> than open email or a web browser and download mp3's, talk to friends,  or
> download backgrounds. Right now in order to properly configure Linux, the
> user has to be familiar with how a programming language works. I personally
> have not been able to get anything to work on my machine without typing in
> info on a file that had an "if", "for" "else", or some other programming
> language type function.
> 
> 3) Should not need to know what an HOW-TO is. I personally think this is the
>  absolute biggest stumbling block for Linux. The average computer user
> should not have to read through 10 HOW-TO's that reference 10 more HOW-TO's
> to get something simple like the internet going. No "average" computer user
> should even have to know what a HOW-TO is. If the program or task  the user
> is doing cannot do everything it is suppose to by itself then there should
> be a well written, logically organized, indexed help section. BTW, Man pages
> are just as bad as HOW-TO's. If my mother decided to buy and install Linux,
> she should not have to read a PPP HOW-TO  in order to get the dial up
> connection going. In fact, she should not even know that PPP exists. The
> most she should have to do is click a button that says something like "set
> up internet" and answer simple questions like " Are you using a dial up
> modem or DSL".  Hate to break it to everyone, but before Linux boots
> Microsoft of their high chair, The HOW-TO's have got to go.
> 
> 4) Learn how to name programs. I should not have to do a web search to find
> out what a program does every time some cryptic letter scheme is brought up.
> For example, the discussion about setenv. Please tell me there could not
> have been a more descriptive name for that. Just looking at the letters does
> absolutely nothing for me. In order to under stand this I am sure I will
> have to read for several hours on the internet. (In all honesty I am unsure
> what it is now.). If my wife read an email that told here how to use setenv,
> her eyes would glaze over, she would get a headache, and I wouldn't get any
> bootie that night. I hope we all agree this is unacceptable.
> 
> If any of the things I said, made you mad and makes you want to flame me,
> congratulations, you are the reason Linux has not outpaced Microsoft. If you
> are too stubborn to realize that the average user does not want to be as
> smart about an o.s. as you, Linux will never work. Most users do not want to
> read a multitude of Books and online documentation, they want to get online
> and rip some MP3's. I really hope Linux does take off. One day, I hope to be
> knowledgable enough to maybe make some programs on my own. Geez, maybe even
> say something intelligent about Linux. The problem is, in order to make
> Linux big, people like my wife or mother, who have no desire to dabble, need
> to be able to use Linux and not have to reference alot of additional
> documentation to do it.
>