Thinkpads Forum

Why aren't people jumping all-over a Linux Base O/S ?
It is fast, works great and installs in 20 minutes.

Most people use Windows-based applications, for some of which Linux alternatives are nonexistent or unsatisfactory.

Moved to the Linux forum.

dr_st wrote:Most people use Windows-based applications, for some of which Linux alternatives are nonexistent or unsatisfactory.

I'd contest that. I'd say that most people are familiar with Windows, and are nervous about trying something different. Most people (nowadays, at least) need a browser, an e-mail client, a music/movie player, and an office suite -- and Linux can easily provide all of that.

ThinkRob wrote:I'd say that most people are familiar with Windows, and are nervous about trying something different

I also think so, most people are just comfortable with Windows (or are too lazy to try something different...)

Joe the Plumber doesn't even know that one can install a different OS, so he's stuck with the factory-installed one.

And Microsoft worked very hard (some say by abusing its monopoly ) to ensure that its products are installed by default...

Volker wrote:Joe the Plumber doesn't even know that one can install a different OS, so he's stuck with the factory-installed one.

I don't want to sound like a smarta@@, but Joe the Plumber doesn't even probably know the word "install" (in an IT sense)...

I am right there with ya.I installed Ubuntu 10.04.I have been running Lucid for a couple weeks now and It's better then windows.I am a convert for life.Everyone should give Ubuntu a try.I have other Linux OS and feel Ubuntu is most user friendly.Why buy an OEM copy of 7 and only use it on a single machine,when Ubuntu is free and can be installed as much as u want.

Linux can be totally awesome, until you want to play a specific video game, or until you have to create content in collaboration with someone who for whatever reason only knows and uses Microsoft Office.

Setting it up can be a breeze or a pain, just like Windows. Of course they each have their own culprits.

"Most people (nowadays, at least) need a browser, an e-mail client, a music/movie player, and an office suite -- and Linux can easily provide all of that" by ThinkRob


The underline is exactly my point, what else do you really need for at least 80% of the people. Good point Rob as well as all the others.

Volker wrote:Joe the Plumber doesn't even know that one can install a different OS, so he's stuck with the factory-installed one.

And Microsoft worked very hard (some say by abusing its monopoly ) to ensure that its products are installed by default...

This is quite honestly the biggest reason joe-consumer doesn't know, or care about running something different. It came that way from Best Buy or wherever and that's the way it will be.

Then there's the games. Wanna run Starcraft II or Halo or Crysis in Linux? Yeah, no.

Then Microsoft Office. Which could be easily fixed if Mircrosoft would write a version of Office for linux and they could still charge for it. Problem solved.

As I help many novices enter into basic computer use and have done so for over 15 years (I am no Linux or computing master, just an average level power user & able to do my own repairs and mods at non-professional speeds), my observation is this:

1) Most PC users, including young adult users, understand and can work their cell phone and can gab about nothing (no insult intended here) far better than they can operate a computer of any kind.

2) many video game obsessed youth know just enough tech to get their games running and they seem only interested in PCs & game consoles insofar as gaming is concerned. I ask people who know me not to ask me to help them with their PC if they let their kids use them for gaming, to use professional techs instead. My position is game consoles are toys, not the family PC. Why? I would have little free time if I helped out with the damage kids & teens do to family computers in their gaming. Why? I cannot teach them anything. They are simply not interested. after women's lib, moms & dads turned their children into rank consumers. Public schools helped & then blame it all on parents. It is rare for me to encounter a kid who is receptive to learning enough so he does not crash the PC or how to do the most basic preventive maintenance or measures. Most see PCs as just a toy. Besides, what does the L word (Learning) have to do with being a mindless middleclass consumer?

3) Even today, most PC users want to interface with a PC as they interface with their car or a toaster. Heck, most microwave oven features and most fancy HD TV features are lost on the average person. Few get beyond power on\off and channel surfing. The problem isn't ABILITY or INTELLIGENCE like most anti-social early Linux users loudly proclaimed. The problem is lack of interest in self-education or plain learning, a disinterest that US public schools have programed increasingly for 40 years. Gross undermining of normal human development begins with textbooks and teaching where the poorly educated teacher lords over students like some information god and can grade (assess) their own students. Teachers today know more about tenure and union rights than they do any body of knowledge or skill set. The marvel is not that we have so few thinking, curious, learning, & functional intelligence persons. The marvel is that we have as many as we do who survive their schools and colleges! Some cry about overseas job transfers. The real shame is corporate and government lab employers must turn to importing highly skilled laborors such as engineers, research technologists, scientists, etc.

4) Big Reason. The giant Microsoft Monopoly forced- by sheer market dominance- a vast number of people and businesses to have serious investments in Windows Programs. People are understandably reluctant to ditch their investment & time in these programs & data collections.

5) a second lessor but still big reason is this --Few people know anyone from whom to seek Linux assistance. There is a hot job market for computer professionals who possess practical Linux knowledge & skills. The average Joe knows people s\he can ask about a basic problem they have with a program, anyone from their supervisor, work mates, neighbor, even a local computer shop tech. Most computer techs still do not use PCs much. Many are not very literate or have interest in things literate. Many back room repair techs are parts changers not far advanced over the average shade tree car mechanic, many of whom have a wider set of basic skills than the typical store computer tech. Many are not much help beyond the Windows installation and the basics of a few major programs. Very few know much or anything about Linux.

6) The Microsoft Computing Cartel spreads misinformation about Linux & the Big Windows pals like Adobe, Dragon, Canon, & PC makers who are threatened by Microsoft when caught supporting Linux users.

I highly support the WINE project. At this point, WINE advancement will mean the end of the Windows monopoly and the ease with which MS and MS cartel software corps bleed consumers pocketbooks dry.

AMEN BROTHER!

For the love of god.

http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=91356

My stance on this as quoted from the above thread.

Temetka wrote:Microsoft did what no other company in the history of computing has managed to do. They brought computing to the masses. The tactics used don't matter as it is merely a footnote in the annals of history.

What matters is this. Computing is global. You think a mish mash of GUI's and front-ends could have reached over a billion homes? I don't. I seriously doubt that if Microsoft were removed from the equation that Apple or *NIX would be a viable replacement. Apple is far too expensive and *NIX is still far to hard to learn for Joe the consumer.

Go ahead walk into Sears, or Best Buy or whatever and buy a VAIO with Linux. Oh wait, you can't. I am not a Microsoft fanboy by any stretch of the means. I've been computing since I was old enough to read. I ran my own BBS back in the late 80's through the mid 90's. I was part of CheeseNet and FioNet. I know the history. I can still tell you what speed and compression a modem is using just by hearing it handshake.

People love to hate Microsoft for the one thing they did do right. They were very, very successful at selling their product. Sure they squeezed the little guy now and then or "borrowed" a technology or 3 to get the job done, but the end result cannot be argued. Computers are everywhere. Even in third world countries there are computers. Schools, companies, governments, homes, railways, coffee houses. You cant spit without seeing one.

Jobs was not altruistic enough nor did he have the vision to accomplish this. Linus? He didn't want to pay for a UNIX license and he didn't want to run Windows. So he rolled his own. Awesome? Yes. Was his vision to unite the world? No. He was cheap.

Bill on the other hand took this thing and made it easy to use (for the most part), cheap, and in many cases simply gave the *****Expletives removed by Moderator***** thing away to get it spread.

Do I hate Microsoft for their success? Far from it. I admire them. They did what no one else has managed to do. They are on top and people hate them for it. Not me. I may not be happy with some of the decisions they have made, particularly in the Enterprise market, but someone had to make the decision. Let's not forget that IBM didn't even conceive of the possibility of home users with a computer. It just didn't make sense to them. Computers were a business tool, for doing big serious business-like things. They did not belong in the home.

You can rant and rave about Bill Gates being rich. The man deserves every penny. He built his company by hand, put in ridiculous amounts of hours. I'm sure he's had more than one visit to the doctor because of work related stress. Don't you ever tell me that man did not bust his *****Expletives removed by Moderator*****. You build a multi-billion dollar global company and tell me you aren't burning the candle at both ends. Yeah, I thought so.

I am thankful to Microsoft for bringing home computing out of the purview of the garage tinkerer. Sure the home brew club was awesome and great and they made a lot of advancement with their tinkering. However tinkering does not build a global communications network. Money and standardization does.

I could go on and on, but frankly to besmear the company that has united the globe with something everyone can recognize and use is, well, shortsighted. It was and will remain a near impossible undertaking. One that is constantly in flux as the human race evolves into more intellectual beings backed by their high technology and the ability to share information across the globe in a manner of seconds.

I work from home supporting a multi-state company running a multitude of platforms. We have little bit of OS X, Windows and Linux sprinkled throughout our environment. I handle tech support, server maintenance, database administration, php scripting, bsah scripting and I do all of this from within Linux with a Windows XP VM to run our time clock software and net phone software.

I have a bachelors in network security and information security. I have had a CCIE, MCSE, A+ (test was free, so why not?), even a Novell cert for their now defunct netowrking schemas from the mid 90's. I've been using computers since the early 1980's and can hack out code in many different programming languages. I am also educated and will continue with my education until I die. I live to learn.

What does all this mean? It means that I feel I can tell you why Joe the Mechanic doesn't run Linux. Or why you average back room tech doesn't need to know linux. The answer is simple. Windows works for the mast majority of people and it is available at a price point that no other company can match, or they would.

Ubuntu has been making super human strides in this area and as a result millions of people are atleast aware there is an alternative to Windows even if they are not motivated enough (for whatever reason) to install it. This trend will only continue. Linux will get better and better over time. So will Windows and so will OS X.

Some people install linux then say it is ugly, and isn't as pretty as OS X or Windows 7. To this I can whole heartedly agree. Linux is far more appealing to the eye then it was a decade ago, but it still has a long way to go. Yet Apple and Microsoft have good looking UI's in far less time than Linux has been around. Why is this you ask?

Money. Most linux developers and graphic people aren't paid, or are paid very little. They do what they do because they love to do it. It's the same reason I program. That being said if I hire 50 graphics people and 100 programmers I bet you I could come up with a GUI that looks far better than most Linux distro's and could compete in the eye candy arena with OS X and Windows Vista / 7. Most Linux companies like RedHat, SuSE, Ubuntu and others simply don't have the capital necessary to hire the talent required. making a .TIFF file is easy. Making a consistent UI that flows from one app to the other and makes sense takes a team of talented people with a project manager or two thrown in to ward of feature creep and the ever expanding project scope.

Give it time my friend and Linux will show up to the ball in a nice looking Armani suit. Until that day comes all it can afford is a Mens Wharehouse knock-off.

Moving on to market share.

Free or close to free will eventually eclipse the cost of Windows or OS X as it stands today. Now I use that line "as it stands today" for a very good reason. Microsoft and Apple are very aware of Linux and it's growing market share and mind share in the consumer theater. They will lower their prices because they will be forced to. In time we will have 3 major platforms from which to choose. They will be interoperable thanks to technologies from companies like Parallels and VM Ware. You'll be able to seamlessly run Pigdin on OS X while video chatting using Ekiga to collaborate on that Powerpoint project.

It won't happen tomorrow. Nor will it happen next year. However I would wager that in 5 years Linux will be a major player in the eye of the consumer. This will mean that more and more companies will ship linux drivers on their discs just like they ship Windows and OS X drivers today.

You can take that to the bank.

I recently saw an article on this.

"Ultimately, Linux is doomed on the desktop because of a critical lack of content. And that lack of content owes its existence to two key factors: the fragmentation of the Linux platform, and the fierce ideology of the open-source community at large."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/2010101 ... reamisdead

Linux can be totally awesome, until you want to play a specific video game, or until you have to create content in collaboration with someone who for whatever reason only knows and uses Microsoft Office.

Unfortunately Microsoft Office is the de facto standard. Open Office is good for what it is but I found there were some features missing in it, and the compatibility with Microsoft Office files was so so.

ThinkRob wrote:I'd contest that. I'd say that most people are familiar with Windows, and are nervous about trying something different. Most people (nowadays, at least) need a browser, an e-mail client, a music/movie player, and an office suite -- and Linux can easily provide all of that.

I personally found getting Flash Player to work on Linux extremely challenging. It took me many hours to get it to work while on Windows it would take me one minute, and it works better. People may have other interests besides computers and may want a computer that just works with minimal effort. Apart from getting an OS with endless customization what is the reward for the average user who just wants to browse the internet read emails and play music of learning Linux?

sir_synthsalot wrote: Unfortunately Microsoft Office is the de facto standard. Open Office is good for what it is but I found there were some features missing in it, and the compatibility with Microsoft Office files was so so.

Most people never have and never will use the features that Office provides but OO doesn't (and vice versa). Of course, since you can always just run Microsoft Office on Linux, there's no problem if you *do* need one of those features.

I personally found getting Flash Player to work on Linux extremely challenging. It took me many hours to get it to work while on Windows it would take me one minute, and it works better. People may have other interests besides computers and may want a computer that just works with minimal effort. Apart from getting an OS with endless customization what is the reward for the average user who just wants to browse the internet read emails and play music of learning Linux?

The reward: no more paying for software (or breaking the law if you don't), no more viruses, more stability, and no more having to fork over a ton of money for software upgrades every year or two.

As far as Flash and MP3s is concerned, you're right -- support isn't included out of the box thanks to US "Intellectual Property" law. It's pretty easy to install them though, it takes all of three clicks. As a matter of fact, that actually means that it takes fewer clicks than install Flash and other codecs under Windows!

Yeah, not sure how installing Flash is so tough. All I had to do was add the Adobe repo (download a file, then 1 click), then enter

I don't know. It was a few years ago. It installed, but it just didn't work.

sir_synthsalot wrote:I don't know. It was a few years ago. It installed, but it just didn't work.

Ah. Adobe's greatly improved their plugin since then.

Don't get me wrong, it's still one of the least secure, buggiest pieces of Linux software in common use -- but they've at least made it better than it was c. 2007.

Of course, since you can always just run Microsoft Office on Linux, there's no problem if you *do* need one of those features.

I might have to give this a try.

sir_synthsalot wrote: I might have to give this a try.

CrossOver is probably the easiest way to do this as they offer commercial support, but Wine can handle it just fine as well.

Interesting enough, our organization is considering using crossover so we can run Linux on the desktop and have the windows programs available to us as well. Personally I am also considering purchasing a license for myself as well.

Temetka wrote:Interesting enough, our organization is considering using crossover so we can run Linux on the desktop and have the windows programs available to us as well. Personally I am also considering purchasing a license for myself as well.

CrossOver is really excellent for some apps. It's not a panacea, and you might have to use virtualization to help with your migration, but for things like MS Office, CrossOver is the way to go IMHO. Codeweavers (the company behind CrossOver) also contributes back to the Wine project and employs several of its developers -- even more reason to support them.

What's the advantage of CrossOver v.s. VirtualBox? Support? Or?

I think the problem with Linux is the way things work compared to Windows. People are used to the 'Windows way.' When you try Linux after that, you need to adapt/adjust to different ways of doing things. One example, is graphics drivers. In Windows, you download your file, probably unzip it or whatever, and then install. You watch a bunch of screens and maybe have to click something here and there and you're done. In Linux, if it's the proprietary driver, you're in for quite an ordeal in comparison. If you use the open source driver, it's easier but you can't use all features.

There's other nuances as well. Some hardware doesn't have the best compatibility. Certain wireless devices need 'special' configurations. You need 'proper' codecs for some video files although some distros are able to have everything configured. But, other distributions follow a strict guideline of having 'non-free' software so you have to do more things manually. This is not very common in Windows. MS had made certain deals with vendors and companies although some stuff is offlimits unless you pay for it.

The main point is that the user needs to do a lot of reading in order to use Linux. Many computer users can barely handle MS Windows!

thinkpad1 wrote:If you use the open source driver, it's easier but you can't use all features.

That's pretty much the case with nVidia. ATi, ever since they became part of AMD is a different story. AMD has a tradition of working closely inside the Linux kernel (just like Intel, BTW), so they believe in open-source instead of hiding their secrets in a proprietary driver. It took them a few years to become an integral part of the kernel, and maybe the process is still not 100% done, but it's much better than before.

thinkpad1 wrote:The main point is that the user needs to do a lot of reading in order to use Linux. Many computer users can barely handle MS Windows!

Windows is better for "working out of the box" for the novice user. Although to really get the benefit of it, one needs a better understanding, and then it's not very different from Linux in that regard. Like you said, they are different - each has their own way. And there will always be things that are simpler/better with Windows, and such that are this way in Linux.

ThinkRob wrote:The reward: no more paying for software (or breaking the law if you don't), no more viruses, more stability, and no more having to fork over a ton of money for software upgrades every year or two.

That's a good point (the price), however since computers already come with Windows that's a choice most users don't make.

thinkpad1 wrote:What's the advantage of CrossOver v.s. VirtualBox? Support? Or?

They're entirely different things. VirtualBox is a VM solution -- it'll let you run an OS in a virtualized environment. CrossOver (and Wine) is an implementation of the Windows API that doesn't use Windows -- it lets you run Windows applications on top of *nix.

I think the problem with Linux is the way things work compared to Windows. People are used to the 'Windows way.' When you try Linux after that, you need to adapt/adjust to different ways of doing things. One example, is graphics drivers. In Windows, you download your file, probably unzip it or whatever, and then install. You watch a bunch of screens and maybe have to click something here and there and you're done. In Linux, if it's the proprietary driver, you're in for quite an ordeal in comparison. If you use the open source driver, it's easier but you can't use all features.

With Ubuntu, if it's the proprietary driver, you open the "Hardware Drivers" application and click the "Activate" button. That's it.

It's pretty rare in my experience for the open source drivers to be lacking functionality, and when it does happen it's almost always NVIDIA/AMD drivers.

You need 'proper' codecs for some video files although some distros are able to have everything configured. But, other distributions follow a strict guideline of having 'non-free' software so you have to do more things manually. This is not very common in Windows. MS had made certain deals with vendors and companies although some stuff is offlimits unless you pay for it.

Actually, the codec situation is (again, IMHO) vastly better with modern Linux distros.

Windows lacks codecs for a number of things (although Microsoft has gotten better at including them). Instead, you have to rely on random third party "codec packs" -- i.e. downloading and trusting software from random online sources. Most people forget about this or avoid it (because something they installed dumped the necessary DirectShow filters in the necessary locations), but it can be an issue on a fresh install.

Most modern distros support on-demand codec installation. Try to play something that you don't have a codec for? No problem -- a window pops up telling you that you need to download additional software. You click "search", it finds the necessary codecs and installs them for you. Done. The software comes from the distro's repositories, so you don't have to worry about the possibility of contracting malware, and it continues to receive support and updates just like everything else on your system.

The main point is that the user needs to do a lot of reading in order to use Linux. Many computer users can barely handle MS Windows!

You'd be surprised. I've migrated several people to Linux over the years, and recently I've found that modern distros are actually significantly easier for users to dive into than Windows. Now true, there's something of a selection bias here -- users don't typically try Linux unless they want to try Linux -- but I don't think Linux is anywhere near as hard as it used to be. In my (limited) experience, the biggest challenge in migrating a new user is convincing them to have the courage to simply try tasks on their own. Turns out that they really can find there way around a system just fine once you reassure them that it's not gonna break and that they're computer-savvy enough to deal with it.

ThinkRob wrote:
Actually, the codec situation is (again, IMHO) vastly better with modern Linux distros.

Windows lacks codecs for a number of things (although Microsoft has gotten better at including them). Instead, you have to rely on random third party "codec packs" -- i.e. downloading and trusting software from random online sources. Most people forget about this or avoid it (because something they installed dumped the necessary DirectShow filters in the necessary locations), but it can be an issue on a fresh install.

Most modern distros support on-demand codec installation. Try to play something that you don't have a codec for? No problem -- a window pops up telling you that you need to download additional software. You click "search", it finds the necessary codecs and installs them for you. Done. The software comes from the distro's repositories, so you don't have to worry about the possibility of contracting malware, and it continues to receive support and updates just like everything else on your system.

You'd be surprised. I've migrated several people to Linux over the years, and recently I've found that modern distros are actually significantly easier for users to dive into than Windows. Now true, there's something of a selection bias here -- users don't typically try Linux unless they want to try Linux -- but I don't think Linux is anywhere near as hard as it used to be. In my (limited) experience, the biggest challenge in migrating a new user is convincing them to have the courage to simply try tasks on their own. Turns out that they really can find there way around a system just fine once you reassure them that it's not gonna break and that they're computer-savvy enough to deal with it.

No question that codec support has gotten MUCH better over the past few years--I think we really do have Ubuntu to thank in large part for that--so far as I know, they pioneered the one-click auto/search+install codec systems (at least in the mainstream). Hardware support has also improved dramatically--though conscientious consideration in hardware selection does wonders, too--running SuSE 9 on an older Dell Inspiron was a total pain, but it was probably at least a much due to the Dell as the software. (We get very spoiled with the good compatibility of most Thinkpads).

With that said, it is still a reach to call modern distros easier than Windows--at least since Win7. On appropriate hardware, Win7 is strikingly easy/straightforward with its auto-detection/support of new hardware, built-in codecs, easily searchable menus, etc. Comparing to XP, I'd agree--but to be fair there, you'd have to compare to Fedora 10 or Ubuntu 6.10 or similar--still pretty good, but with significantly more bumps in the road. I just got done installing Fedora 14 (clean install) on my T60 this afternoon; the base install was straightforward/easy/quck (~10min), but then I did spend the next 45 minutes or so updating/adding repos/implementing tweaks for ideal hardware support (Trackpoint software controls, OSD for the volume buttons, MP3/DVD/AAC codecs, updating the kernel so ACPI sleep would work...). None of it was hard, but I'd still have to give the edge to Win7. Add to that that I've got a reasonable amount of Linux experience, whereas a newbie would first have to learn what /etc , sudo, YUM/aptitude, restricted codecs, etc mean...Granted, Ubuntu is easier for a newbie than Fedora, but even so, I'd argue that Windows 7 takes less special knowledge/skills to get up/running so that MP3s, Youtube, etc work--nevermind resolving hardware conflicts. Nevertheless, I'm a massive fan of Linux, and do my best to push friends/family in that direction, without being too much of a proselytiser.

sysiphus wrote:Nevertheless, I'm a massive fan of Linux, and do my best to push friends/family in that direction, without being too much of a proselytiser.

Good on ya'. Support from the community, as well the continued efforts of people who work to improve the software, is what makes OSS mighty.

That is the key: free online support from forums, mostly. It's not as prominent or organized for MS Windows, I think.

I think it's being generous to suggest it's an easy switchover to go from using Windows 100% of the time to suddenly using Linux most of the time. I have Linux on my machines (I only have a laptop at my disposal right now, though!) and just need it on the R51 now. But, for the noob user or even someone who's experienced, there's still many cases in which something comes up that requires googling/reading to find the answer. You do that in Windows, too, of course, but for basic tasks like installing or optimizing video drivers, the Linux process often requires significant reading. There's also a lot of times in which the best solution involves using the command line. One rarely needs or uses CLI in Windows as far as I know. It's a bit of an adjustment for the basic computer user, imho. If you're already adept at command line, then you are one step ahead of most users, probably.

But, Windows has many more PAID employees and there's incentives to have things already done for you (the Linux fan will say it's dumbed down! ) and to have them working. So, there's a difference in approach, perhaps? One way of saying it?