Very little in itself. What it really needs is less lazy people who want their computer to work without needing any knowledge on their part.

If you're willing to put the time and effort in to learn it, Linux does everything you want. If you're not, stick with Windows - everybody will be a lot happier that way.

IMHO, the reason for the increase in Linux use as a desktop isn't just down to Gnome, KDE et al making a more friendly desktop. It's also because computer skills are steadily increasing, and people stop being happy with an OS that's aimed at the clueless and look around for alternatives.

If that's really the case, to what do you subscribe the reason that the newbie-friendly distros like Linspire/Lindows, Xandros and Lycoris/Redmond Linux have taken off the way they have?

I think there are many Windows users - some who know what goes on under the hood as well as many more who don't and have no interest, either - who just want a computer they can switch on and do whatever task needs to be done.

I don't call that lazy. Most computer users are appliance users, not nerds or geeks, or any other sort of expert.

That's just my two cents worth, and I've been known to be wrong in the past. And i'm sure I will be wrong again in the future :D

Not sure where you're going with this point. Firstly, if a linux distro is Windows-like, then of course it'll appeal to people who want a windows-like OS. That's exactly what I said. What am I supposed to be explaining?

Secondly, I have to disagree with the "taken off". Have you seen this site's Distro vote for the year?
Linspire gets 0.17%, Xandros 1.16%, and Lycoris/Redmond doesn't even appear. That's not really much of a take-off. . .

I'll agree that "lazy" is perhaps not the best word if taken out of context, but I thought the rest of my post provided enough context. Obviously not.

I'm in no way condemning people who want to just have a computer that works with no knowledge. Heck, they're the majority! If that's what they want, fine. Good for them.

But Linux as an OS appeals to people who want to get 'under the hood' and be able to change stuff and do stuff. Windows appeals to those who don't. "Lazy" users was as good a description as any.

Linux isn't meant for people who want an OS that just works and that's it. It's meant for hackers, in the true sense of the word.

Trying to turn Linux into an OS for people who aren't interested is a waste of time - they already have an OS that does exactly what they want that they're comfortable using. To make Linux usable for them is to make it something it's not.

I say again. Linux doesn't need anything function-wise to replace Windows. All it needs are users willing to learn how to use it. If they don't want to, fine. That's what Windows is for. If you want Linux to spread, don't focus on changing Linux. Change the everyday computer users.

Words we should all live by :)

Could it perhaps be that the people who take part in these polls aren't the "target audience" for the easy-to-use versions of Linux? The appliance users?

I think that saying Linux appeals to those who want to get under the hood is fine (and I partially subscribe to that view myself) but it can (not saying it does!) sound a bit elitist where the great opportunity of making available user-friendly distributions of many different flavours that are understandable and useable to non-geeks is something that ought to be promoted to the appliance user level of computer owner.

Dunno if that comes across a bit better lol :D

I think linux is already there as a desktop for the majority of home users to use.
A lot of people spend most of their time surfing the net or doing general administration work at home.
Greater Business and government support to linux would increase peoples education about it. Do they teach it at schools? Is it promoted to small firms? etc.
Yes there are somethings i cannot do in Linux for work (i.e. Accounts) but I have pretty much ditched Windows at home all together.
All i see is Linux getting better month by month.

Linux already has replaced windows in this house. If it's preinstalled it's no different to windows for the user as they can't install windows or look after it anyway. The only limitations with linux now are the manufacturer's support and software support. Things like wine and crossover and winelib are helping to make it easy for software makers to port the apps across if they choose to, or at least make the app wine-friendly...

These types of threads always, without exception, live in General. So that's where you'll find this.

I find it amusing everyone talks about how much easier linux is to instal then windows. but guess what it is a null point. People use windows because thats whats on their system when they get it and they are happy with it. if the person is competent enough to install Windows then it really doesn't matter if linux distro (insert here) is easier ebcause that person can surely handle it just fine and not really care. So IMO its a moot point There is a reason people are still running 98 and even 95 Windows OS and its not because of games.

Different Linux distros have vastly varying difficulty levels.

I just completed a Slackware install and it's really tough. You need to read each and every step carefully before applying changes.

Now Debian was middling. Neither really tough nor easy.

Fedora Core (in my experience) was the easiest and the only Linux distro that I installed with graphical install.

Nah, Slack's easy. LFS, however. . .
:)

It's not easy in the traditional sense. It's a bit of no-fuss, no-mess kind of setup. You can really screw up your system if you don't read some of the options carefully (not that you cannot in other distros, but Slackware is a little more involved).

And I have no idea how to start configuring all my hardware which I took so much for granted in Debian (which autodetected my network cards, allowed me to easily configure sound and so on).

Now in Slackware, I must figure out how to do all these.

I don't think Linux distributions should even *try* to replace MS Windows at all. Linux is different. Leave it like that. For those who want MS Windows, use MS Windows.

Making Linux more user-friendly wouldn't mean less concentration on the performance side? I mean, the ones who are now busy writing software with a high level of quality regarding functionality shouldn't lose the focus. IMO, if you start imaginating and writing all sort of graphical gadgets just to convert a M$ fan then you're wasting time.
The ones using Win at the moment are happy with it, so let them be. The starter of this thread personally admitted that he's comfortable with the cli. So are most of us. What's the problem then? A representative percentage of the ones who're trying to "migrate" to Linux are doing it for fun (their own or just to show off) and shortly give up.
Does any of you really want a "click 'n click 'n voila" OS? Where would be all the fun? We all would get nostalgic. And look what happened(s) with the OS that does it that way. Way less performance over eye-pleasant interaction.
Also, if you only had to click a few times to get things set up our mind would stop wondering about this and that and would stop producing quality output. It would be a false impression that everything goes fine only because you don't have to edit files and issue pseudo-cryptic commands at the command prompt.
I'd say keep Linux the way it is. It has no point (it might be even dangerous) to force things now. Linux will look like Win$ (but run much better, of course) when its time will come. Untill then we should be happy with what we have.

Enjoy a quality OS.

I for one would. I use my computer(s) purely as tools, and I think apart from a small proportion of wannabe geeks, that is true in most cases.

For those who are geeks as well as those who would like to be, fine. Use the command line all the time. Edit files painstakingly. Have to reinstall when you got it wrong.

Me - I would like to switch the machine on, get the job done, and go and do something more important. And I've worked in engineering design and commissioning for years, and in IT support. :D

That's exactly what I want to do with linux as well, and I do, as does the rest of the family. I use linux because it lets me do this reliably without crashes or high risk of infection.