I'm a linux newb. I started with RH 7.3, tried mandrake, and finally came back to RH 9. Each time I went to make the big switch, I found some snag that kept me going back to my windoze box. Linux is on the fast track to being more "user friendly" as far as I can see. I am a gui guy, I enjoy gui interfaces. I've been doing dos for ages and am having fun (albeit sometimes frustrating fun) learning the curve of linux. I've heard people mutter about Bluecurve in RH and taking away your freedom etc... but the beauty of linux is " you can change it" you can't do that with windoze. Having said that, let me make a few points as to what I think needs to be addressed in a fairly expeditious manner.

Installation: If linux want's to become more mainstream, there must be a bullet-proof, idiot-proof installation.

Open Office: Get it completely compatible with M$ Office. A lot of the writer formats don't work, calc doesn't always have working macros, no database program. Yes, I realize that O.O. is free vs. the hundred's you'd shell out for bill's baby. However, anyone who's smart enough to use linux is also smart enough to get his hands on M$ Office somewhere.

Fonts & graphics: make it pretty, load TType fonts if possible. i tried bringing them over from my xp machine based upon a tutorial found on google. Suddenly RH wouldn't boot and I had to reinstall. (I said I was a newb.)

Do we need crossover office or wine? I'd much rather have a linux alternative that works as seamlessly and flawlessly as M$ Office. than try and run it on linux. I tried the free trial of crossover, it worked at about 85%. Not bad, but I'd rather have it in linux.

In ending.... I have an xp box and a RH box. I come here to play with linux. When I need to get my serious work done, I still end up back with xp.

Just some thoughts from a newb.

The problem is that the matter can't be solved by changing every distribution, or even just one, because then the people who like it the old way and get pissed about it and soon there would be a poll called "Switch Linux back to the way it used to be" so if people don't like it now, then they're going to have to get someone to make them a new version... just go with Mandrake for now because it happens to be the easiest to learn from.

Thats true. After all whats the point of turning Linux into windows so that people find it easier to use? I think though that you can 'add' features, as opposed to replacing them. Linux can stay the way it is, but some users could definatly do with tools to make it easier to use. Even mandrake users.

I think as a previous poster mentioned, were talking about desktops here as opposed to the actual linux kernel.

[edit]
I think the responsibility lies largely also with the software. ./configure shouldn't tell you that you need to search the web for an hour downloading various bits and bobs you need to get it working. These should be included. ./configure can decide whether or not you need them.
[/edit]

That's quite true. Software providers should get off their butts and put necessary files IN the program instead of forcing people to hunt down things and try to get them to work, until you throw something at the monitor and get a migrane. A program I got pissed at trying to install was Visual Boy Advance. I had everything it needed but then it said something about not being able to locate a "lex" command and it's INSTALL file never mentioned anything about THAT...

There are a couple of misconceptions here. For one thing, the structural philosophy of linux is different from that of windows. People object to learning the command line in linux (I do too but it has to be done.) Peolple object to the long commands that can occur in linux. Here's a secret for you. The command line is one of the things that make linux stable. Long, involved commands are there in windows, too. M$ just doesn't tell you about them. M$ makes all the decisions ahead of time so you can't get at the innards of the machine. It's a hard job and they often blow it. That's why you get blue screens and freezes. That's why one app crashing can often bring down the whole system. In linux, instead of having 6 or 8 tools that do everything, more or less. there are dozens of tools (maybe hundreds) that each do one thing well. But you have to tell them what to do.

The more fool proof you try to make linux, the more like windows you're going to make it. The improvements are slowly coming, in the form of better installers and better drivers. The are a few distros that make things as easy as they can. Don't try to improve linux so much that it becomes windows 3000.

Note: if you don't like compiling or dependency issues, get debian. It does a good linux job of getting rid of dependencies.

The best reason for running linux has nothing to do with software. With 'trusted computing' Bill Gates has taken the first steps towards owning your machines. Next, he wants to own your souls.

I really don't think your mother is going to install linux, nor windows. I know a bunch of people who need someone to install even photoshop for them. When they have problems with their bombs - I mean, computers - they pay lots of money and complain that windows sucks and that's it. "Windows suck. Windows just give me problem. But what can I do! Is the only choice I have!". I showed'em Linux (SuperKaramba themes and all the "high tech" graphical stuff linux can give to you). "Oh! So beautiful! But Linux is to difficult. Nobody can handle this stuff" THEY CAN'T EVEN HANDLE WINDOWS 98!!! "When my computer stucks because the temperature was too high" They say: "You see? Linux doesn't work at all! Linux sucks even more than windows" But when their windows boxes give'em that god damned Blue Screen of Death they don't anything. Common winblows users are used to freezings and rebooting the machine every 5 minutes. But when linux freezes for some hardware issue (like RAM memory problems) they say linux is worse than windows. Can't get it.

I've said this already but I'll clarify again...

Originally posted by unholy
Yes the desktops are fine. Installation is the only thing that needs improvement if the likes of my mothere is going to use it.

By this I mean that the desktops need to incorporate better installation managment. I'm not speaking of the installation of linux itself, I'm talking about the software installation. Whether this lies with purely the software writers, or also with the desktop environment I don't know. But I see software installation as the only gripe people have when trying to get them away from windows.
(and by the way, installing suse to dual boot with windows is as easy as installing MS Office on W98 ).

If software installation is the cruncher, try debian or libranet. The apt system checks and handles all dependencies for you. The disadvantage is that you're limited to what's available (a lot); the advantage is no ulcers.

Note: In you want the necessary files included in the program, look for a static rpm.

As far as I know, the installation format is controlled by the distro. The desktop (kde, gnome,etc) is something else.

Boy it would be nice to go to nvidia or any driver site,
download the driver and install it in less than 2 minutes
like I do on XP Pro.

But noooooo, on Linux I have to read an install file,
recompile the kernal and hope that I dont fubar my machine.
This is after several hours of trying to figure out how to
update my Linux video driver.

<<< The more fool proof you try to make linux, the more like windows you're going to make it. >>>

I am not altogether sure that that is true. Debian, once properly configured, is as near foolproof as any OS can be re:Installing and/or updating software/system. I am waiting for a company to market Debian PCs with auto-update configured by default plus a 'wizard' which would download and install software and resolve dependencies in the process by the simple expedient of clicking on the .deb file and choosing either download or run ala Windows. Shouldn't be that hard to do. Consumer should also have choice of running with Debian's stable release or the latest and greatest, if slightly unstable (by Linux's standards. Still more stable and reliable than most offerings offered for sale as a 'finished product' under Windows). I think such a company would have an excellent chance of blowing Lindows, Lycoris and their ilk out of the water.

We're already getting near minimum critical mass for Linux users. You can't ignore it now. ...and I also think I may have heard something about Microsoft starting work on a Linux or something, though I am probably tripping on it. The fax machine thing is the only thing that will need to be configured, the rest you just pick your flavor and install it. Everybody and their brother seems to throw in Mozilla and Sun StarOffice, or OpenOffice. I do agree about the drivers though. I would like to see more drivers for my hardware that were written by Intel, Linksys, Netgear, HP, or whoever made my hardware (or slapped their logo on it. ).

Lookie here!

http://www.mslinux.org/

...and they're an ORG!

It's still badly overpriced, though.

If you do a Google search for Microsoft Linux, you will also quickly find that they are fealing our impact.

http://www.mslinux.org/

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
...AHAHAHAHAHAH

15 minutes later...
... cough ... heh, hahahahahah

Well, once M$ conquers Cuba, cigars will be cheaper. Maybe.

Simple... Windows is for sale for 130 bucks a copy.
Maybe we can invent some sort of OS that requires no user intervention all all. All you would have to do is think what you would like the OS to do?!

Sheesh this was an easy fix.

Regards...

"Thank You, you have outlined my same feelings exactly. I too have 15 years of computer experience, mainly with M$ products, and I don't have the huge amounts of time to spend trying to learn to do things the same things on Linux that I can do on Windows XP in a fraction of the time. Sure you can run into problems on any system, but the question is how often and how many bumps in the road must you hit before you get to where you want to go and get on with your life. regardless of if we are talking about Home use or in a Business enviroment (Even more importantly in a business enviroment) Time is money, you need to get things working fast and easy. At home, I would rather spend time with my family then 8 hours with Linux trying to figure out whats wrong, why its not working for me."

Dude,

Why hurt yourself trying to learn linux. You are about to retire in 10 years! On the same note, if you were a good venture capitalist you would be a millionaire if you learned Linux 15 years ago when you first started working with computers. I hate when people complain about linux, (1) in a linux forum and (2) because they don't want to spend the time understanding how things work. Learn it, leave it, or make your own OS PAUL!!