Does Linux deserve the image of being too geeky?

[lifrancis]

When MS decided to introduce Vista (the Hummer of an OS, more hardware resources in order to run at the same speed as the XP), I made up my mind to gradually withdraw from Microsoft. The alternatives are Apple OS or Linux. Being a "practical" engineer (another word for being "cheap"), I decided to give Linux a try. So I downloaded Ubuntu and setup my laptop for dual booting. I was surprised at how easy and fast Ubuntu is. Most of my daily requirement were met without any problem, web surfing, email, report writing, spreadsheets, are all there. What happened to the impression that Linux is for geeks?

Then I tried to setup Skype. No problem at all, but where is my webcam for video calls? I realised that there is no driver for my Logitech webcam. So, I googled it and found http://qce-ga.sourceforge.net/
Instead of a straight download and install, I have to download the source code and compile. Is that geeky or what? Anyway, I found that they do not support the model I have. So, no webcam for me.

As an engineering consultant, I have to review a lot of CAD drawings. Therefore a DWG viewer is essential for me. From Linux Online, I found something called Lx Viewer. It is supposed to do exactly what I am looking for, viewing DWG and DXF files. Great! I downloaded it and found that I have a bunch of C++ codes that I need to compile.

Until Linux grows up and treat users as real people and not a bunch of computer hobbyists, it will always be on the sideline and never be able to replace MS or Apple, no matter how bad they are.

[Harryc]

Here's an article that addresses (quite well I think) a good portion of your rant. It's entitled simply "Linux is Not Windows".
Enjoy!

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

[lifrancis]

Thanks, Harry, for the article. I agree with the article. It actually answers very well the question that I posed in the title of this thread. The article states that "Linux started out "By geeks, for geeks." And even today, the majority of established Linux users are self-confessed geeks."

As an engineer, being a geek is part of my job description. So I will keep on playing with my Linux. But my dream of eventually replacing Windows with Linux will remain a dream for the time being.

[Harryc]

Even today, the majority of established Linux users are self-confessed geeks.".

Bingo, and they're proud of it. In fact if you asked my (a Linux user of some 10 years) opinion, I would honestly tell you that I hope that Linux never even comes close to replacing windows. You see, if it replaces it, that means it is at least equal to it...corporate structure included. What would Linux be like if Bill Gates owned it? Remember, in your first sentence you wrote "I made up my mind to gradually withdraw from Microsoft.".

[jdhurst]

I try not to classify operating systems and not to pick one based on public reputation. I pick my OS based on my needs. I run applications upon which I build my livelihood that only run in Windows. Further, I like Windows and it works well and reliably for me (no crashes in 10 years). So that is my pick.

Other people will run applications or have uses that require a different OS and that is fine as well.
... JDH

[tim S]

My take on the whole Linus thing is that hardware and software manufacturers rarely take Linux seriously as a viable OS. That of course means that they rarely, if ever, write Linux specific drivers, which in turn means dedicated individuals are forced to write them themselves. In turn that means there are usually some issues with some computers, or some facet of the hardware/software operation. It also means that the writing of these drivers leaves some things unaccounted for, other things unfinished and still other things that need to be compiled by the user.
The bottom line is that the basic Linux OS has come on in leaps and bounds compared to where it was a few years ago. But until all manufacturers embrace it, as they seem to with Windows and Mac, there will always be some installation difficulties somewhere along the line.
Tim S

[rkawakami]

For me, quite a novice with Linux as I've only played with Ubuntu a couple of times, if I had to bring someone like my parents (who have never used a computer before) out of the Dark Ages and into the 21st Century, I would not hesitate to give them a Linux box. For these users, who only need the basic computing tasks as surfing the web (Firefox), a typewriter replacement (OpenOffice) and email (Gmail, Yahoo, et. al.), having a free OS and the applications that can perform these operations, also for free, can't be all that bad.

Sure, a geek would have to provide some level of IT support (that's me), but it would be no different than if I would have given them an XP system. Linux may not be ready for some high-level applications (engineering programs, vertical market software, etc.) because the "seats" are simply not there to support development, but for everyday uses even non-geeks can take advantage of what's available.

[untitled_no4]

I don't think that Linux deserves the image of being too geeky, sorry. Most of us were once new Linux users and had to get used to it, but I think that once you pass that hurdle and learn the basics what you end up will be as geeky as you want it to be.

It's always unfortunate when a piece of hardware you have doesn't work instantly, but it's not something that is reserved for Linux. A few months ago I bought a new HP network all-in-one and installation on my laptop with Linux (Kubuntu, Mandriva, Debian) was so smooth, it took about a couple of minutes. The other laptop with Vista wouldn't have it at all. I had to go online and find a solution, which involved downloading new drivers (50mb, I think it was) and then the installation itself took another 20 minutes.

I think the main thing here is that when you use the same operating system for long time you learn its quirks and just take them as part of the process. I remember my XP days, whenever I had to reinstall Windows, I had all the drivers of the T43 on a CD and installed all them on auto-pilot. Now it's the same for me with Linux.

I don't consider myself a Linux fanatic and I'm not trying to belittle your experience, but I think that sometimes Linux is being judged too harshly.

Oh, and I don't think it will ever replace MS or Apple, but then again I don't think it should, I only hope it will capture a big enough market share for hardware and software manufacturers to take it more seriously so that someone switching to Linux in a few years time won't have the same experience you do now.

[lifrancis]

For the 2 examples I gave, I just do not understand why the developers want distribute the software in source codes. They obviously have compiled the codes and tested the result. So why not distribute the compiled version. And the original source codes can be made available, on request.

To distribute the source codes and expect the users to compile, that is just too geeky.

[bajaman61]

For the 2 examples I gave, I just do not understand why the developers want distribute the software in source codes. They obviously have compiled the codes and tested the result. So why not distribute the compiled version. And the original source codes can be made available, on request.

To distribute the source codes and expect the users to compile, that is just too geeky.

I have to add that though a user of both Operating Systems, on some linux forums you get a dose of irrational anti-MicroSoft, anti-Bill Gates, anti-profit silliness. MicroSoft successfully sells product in an industry it itself advanced and to some extent created. That's a reason to respect the company, not deride its products with barely hidden jealousy.

But to answer your question: I think the source code is distributed for those applications which are works in progress. Usually code that is not yet ready for prime time is in this limbo state, probably in the hope that somebody will come along and advance it with part of the work done already.

I wouldn't withdraw from MicroSoft because of a less than happy encounter with Vista; the reviews on Win 7 are good and Redmond listens to its customers if it wants to continue.

There are real proprietary/legal issues that sometimes prevent Ubuntu and other linux opsys's from including certain drivers with their product. I think "ndiswrapper" that helps with WIFI is one such example. So it could be that simply by keeping their distros legal they are necessarily limited in what their OSs can offer.

As a general rule Synaptic Package Manager (a Ubuntu application) will automatically include dependent files needed to install your desired application and have it work. For those considering a try of a LINUX op sys, if you cannot find the usable program on that "get and install" application, then you know that you will be searching for plugins, drivers, etc. Don't let that dissuade you.

You just have to look and see if your application needs are met under a linux regime. Just as you would do under any other. It is a free operating system, and in addition to what you have noted, it can provide many programs beyond the routine / basic ones you mentioned.

[tim S]

I also think that to move Linux into the main stream applications should be able to tell the user what files are required to make it work, if necessary.
An example of this is in Kubuntu 9.04 (CD install). Both Amrok and Dragon Players when activated for the first time, pop up a screen letting you know the required codecs etc, and then downloading them for you.
The hoops one has to go through to play a simple DVD (libdvdcss2 etc) along with a CUPS printer intall, setting up a program in Device Notifier, using umount in terminal to eject a CD/DVD, are but a few.
Remember the idea here (maybe) is to to entice a Windows or a Mac user to at least give Linux a whirl and since they've only ever used a GUI, it's all a bit daunting.
It reminds me of the old DOS or Windows 3.1 days when there were, few if any, mainstream users. Trying to get online, such as it was, setting up a printer, allocating himem, stacks, modifing autoexec.bat and config.sys files, all with 4meg of memory and a 640meg HD. It was a real adventure back then!
Tim S

[Bookworm]

> I have to add that though a user of both Operating Systems, on some linux forums you get a dose of
> irrational anti-MicroSoft, anti-Bill Gates, anti-profit silliness.

If it wasn't for the profit motive, we wouldn't even have computers. I am getting *sick* of all this communist anti-profit hate propaganda. It's even showing up on the news, not just alternative operating system forums. Long live capitalism!

Normally, you get what you pay for. (There are exceptions. Let the buyer use his so called brain.) Microsoft is cheap. Macs may be better quality, but also more expensive. (At least on eBay - I haven't compared prices on new ThinkPads vs. PowerBooks, because I'm too cheap too buy new...and I know how to deal with unsupported "old" stuff.)

Linux is free. Remember that if you have any complaints. Considering the price, Linux is surprisingly good.

[gongo2k1]

I've been 100% Linux now for 3.5 years and never looked back.
At work I (of course) have to use Windows but it doesn't really bother me all that much.
Linux has come a LONG way since I first tried it out 10 years ago.

Linux as a desktop OS still has a ways to go, but then again, no one learned Windows XP over-night either. I think we sometimes forget that the world had already grown accustomed to Windows 95, OSR2, 98, SE, ME, 2000, and then XP over time. Now after most of the world has been using Windows for over a decade it all seems "so easy" but it wasn't always this way. It took me over a year to switch from 3.11 to 95, and I didn't migrate from 2000 to XP until 2004!

Linux definitely has come of age, however, as a server OS. While the world of Linux is busy trying to make it into a desktop, I think people have largely over-looked its true strength as a server platform. I guess most of the folks interested in Linux servers already have contracts with Red Hat or Novell? It'll still be a while yet before we begin to push out Solaris and HP-UX in the database world though, but for web application servers and file servers and even some thin client servers/VM servers, Linux is a perfectly good option. I don't imagine we'll be seeing Linux oust the likes of AIX in the HPC world since everything is so tightly integrated with the CPU architecture to squeeze every last bit of performance out of those chips.

People who cry about figuring out dependencies in package managers aren't realizing that it's no different in the Windows world. Your package manager interface is the "Add/Remove Programs" and most of the time some version of InstallShield. The actual packages are MSI or CAB instead of DEB/RPM. Have you ever tried to run something only to realize that it requires DirectX or .NET framework? Those are your dependencies right there! Anyone who had to migrate apps in the Win9x era will also remember the joys of having to hunt down the right VB runtime DLLs. All of this is exactly analogous to a current (mature) Linux distro with a solid package manager, we're just so used to seeing it in Windows that we don't realize it's happening.

With regards to OpenOffice vs MS Office, it's really not so black-and-white. Although the open source community is often anti-MS, in this case the wide-spread use of MS Word has lead to a relatively sound adoption of the MS Word .DOC as the defacto standard (you Word Perfect users can continue to stick your collective heads in the sand). Adobe has also lead the way in standardizing documents in PDF and image manipulation with Photoshop (sorry Corel, you lose again) but people don't seem to be so angry about that either. Ideally Microsoft could port Office to Linux (not really such a conflict of interest as they begrudgingly maintain the Mac OS offering to Apple users) and then this problem would be solved. Honestly, I really hope MS sees the light on this one and throws us Linux users a bone here, I'm sick of using Wine/Crossover to run Office and I've already given up hope that OpenOffice will ever be a real competitor.

Everything has a price and what I've saved in dollars I've paid in time learning Linux. In the process I've gained valuable knowledge in my field as an IT professional, so it's time well-spent to dedicate my hard-earned cash elsewhere. I'm also a hobby coder and have written some open source stuff and shared with the world, so I'm not just a mooch. At this point I think gaming is pretty much the only reason I would switch back to Windows, but I don't really game as much anymore these days so it's not an issue.

To each his own.

[untitled_no4]

I also think that to move Linux into the main stream applications should be able to tell the user what files are required to make it work, if necessary.
An example of this is in Kubuntu 9.04 (CD install). Both Amrok and Dragon Players when activated for the first time, pop up a screen letting you know the required codecs etc, and then downloading them for you.
The hoops one has to go through to play a simple DVD (libdvdcss2 etc) along with a CUPS printer intall, setting up a program in Device Notifier, using umount in terminal to eject a CD/DVD, are but a few.
Tim S

I run Kubuntu 9.04 and my experience is so different to yours. Well, I never tried playing a DVD on the laptop (shall try today, just to see if it works), but as for the rest of your list, I never had any issues. For instance:

using umount in terminal to eject a CD/DVD

When I insert a CD or attach a USB device, it shows up in the device notifier, and when I hover on it an Eject icon shows up, which unmounts and ejects CDs when I click on it. Is it not the case for you?

[tim S]

It is true that some of my gripes were sorted out with 9.04, but bluetooth re-acquisition on boot is still a problem. Setting up a new default program in Device Notifier, for example VLC player instead of Dragon, is a royal pain.
In Hardy, bluetooth works 100% but DVD ejection sometimes requires the umount command.
Tim S

[Kopsis]

For the 2 examples I gave, I just do not understand why the developers want distribute the software in source codes. They obviously have compiled the codes and tested the result. So why not distribute the compiled version. And the original source codes can be made available, on request.

To distribute the source codes and expect the users to compile, that is just too geeky.

How is typing three commands (./configure; make; make install) geeky? It's actually easier and more user friendly (instructions can be absolutely clear and precise) than clicking through multiple pages of cryptic installer dialogs.

Why distribute software that way? Because contrary to popular belief, Ubuntu is not the only Linux distribution. There are literally dozens of flavors of Linux. Not to mention Solaris, BSD, and Mac OS X. A well written application can compile and run on all of them. But trying to maintain binaries for all of them is a logistical nightmare. The author would have to be releasing new binaries practically every day.

Many of the executable files distributed with Ubuntu aren't built by the authors. They're compiled by Ubuntu staff or Debian volunteers from the author's source code. RedHat/Fedora people do the same, as do maintainers of all the other distros. The question should not be "why doesn't the author have a binary for a given distro", but "why doesn't that distro package the author's app?" Maybe it's a simple matter of not enough user's have taken the time to request it.

[lifrancis]

How is typing three commands (./configure; make; make install) geeky? It's actually easier and more user friendly (instructions can be absolutely clear and precise) than clicking through multiple pages of cryptic installer dialogs.

What is the point in having GUI? It is a 20 years step backward to start using command lines again.

[jdhurst]

Like I said a bit earlier, people should use the OS that fits their needs and not worry about what the person beside them happens to use.

However, it is this kind of Linux thinking "How is typing three commands (./configure; make; make install) geeky?" that continues to hold Linux back.

Anyone. Anyone at all ... Can look in a folder and conclude that setup.exe or install.exe is likely to install what they want. No one. No one at all ... would conclude in the absence of specific experience that one would enter 3 commands to install something.

And when I had to configure, make and install VMware tools in Ubuntu, I had to add to and change half the underpinnings of Ubuntu simply to get it to install. Not fun at all.

... JDH

[Volker]

Can look in a folder and conclude that setup.exe or install.exe is likely to install what they want.

This is precisely the reason why most windows installs are virus-ridden spambot zombies. Average users are trained to download and run executables from the internet. What could possibly go wrong?

[jdhurst]

<snip>
This is precisely the reason why most windows installs are virus-ridden spambot zombies. Average users are trained to download and run executables from the internet. What could possibly go wrong?

That's a different thing. The answer today (Vista, Linux, whatever) from software writers of making things too difficult instead of protecting the machines in the first instance is wrong.

I suspect that most businesses (including my own clients) put Windows machines in restricted (normal) mode on domains, and protect them with Corporate AntiVirus suites. I know I have relatively few problems with client machines. ... JDH

[qviri]

.

[trent9008]

I think Linux deserves the disclaimer "by geeks, for geeks" as explained in the "Linux is NOT Windows" article. But I don't think it is too geeky for non-geeks to use, especially distros like Ubuntu.

The original post fails to make the observation (obvious once you think about it) that the things the OP found difficult to set up were geeky things to begin with. I mean, honestly, how many non-geeks do you know who use a webcam for teleconferencing? And how many non-geeks regularly need to open files created in AutoCAD? All the non-geeks in my circle manage quite well with an office suite, an IM client, a Web browser, and possibly an e-mail client 364 days out of the year. And most newbie distros do those four things perfectly fine. Ubuntu will even import settings from an existing Windows installation. Is Linux for geeks? Indubitably. Is Linux only for geeks? I certainly don't think so.