To be honest, i dont really see linux becoming a mainstream operating system untill some kinda of generic installer becomes implemented.
i know this would require all linux systems to be based on a certain system (eg. debian or redhat) but it would really do a lot of good.
people dont like dificult thing's as many people have said, so if ALL linux distributions used a certain installer, like Microsoft use .exe, then i think it would really start to take off.
i know that a lot of distro's use RPM files now to install, i myself use suse 10.0, and am very grateful for the rpm files because i hate installing from tar.gz.

i'm a noob and i get confused on the system easilly, but i do KNOW that a lot of people would use the system if everything installed well and worked.
almost every tar.gz i've installed with the "./configure" system, has failed, a few have worked, but most havent.
almost every RPM has work, with the exception of RPM files aimed at other distro's like RedHat, these generally dont work for me.
so why not make rpm's that will install on any linux system, without messing up because you dont use redhat 7.1

i know this would mean a lot of merging together of information between the distribution companies, but surely it would be worth it, obviously, the companies themselves wouldnt have to merge together, and it would mean a great increase in linux usage.

another thing i dont really get, is why some program's are made that are only compatible with KDE, and some only compatible with GNOME.
to me, this just seem's like a "my desktop gui is better than your's" scenario, why should people be punished and praised just for the desktop they use, for instance, someone using GNOME cant use Kopete because of their desktop, and i know there are programs that only work in gnome.
this seems stupid to me, because it only goes to make people new to the linux scene like me, aggrivated that they have to traul through google and forums, just to find some way of getting a suitable program.
i'm sure it would be possible, with a little bit of work, to make a program that works in both KDE and GNOME, or probably better still, for KDE and GNOME to work together so program's work in both environments.

it just seem's stupid that the distro's want to make linux accesible to everyone, but then shoot themselves in the feet by putting up barriers like these.

Well said. Many people show resistance if you try to persuade them of something, no matter how good and "free" it is. They have to be ready for this change in mind to be able to say "what I've used up til now is not that good". When trying to persuade them you might be understood also as "What you're using, what you have is crap!" or even "Why do you use such a crap, are you stupid?" and that can generate masssive resistance and be counterproductive.
The best way is, I think, to let them see what you do with Linux and what funny little tricks you can do with it and let themself discover if they think they want to give it a try or not.
If you could persuade someone with evangelism you will probably end up with someone being frustrated because she/he is not able or willing to put the right amount of time and effort in learning Linux or yourself being frustrated because you will get lots of questions and help calls from these people.

Not necessarily a generic installer (.exe is just a file type, many different installers used). Rather have installers which all do similar things. In Windows, they usually all install into the 'Program Files' directory, all have settings in the Registry, etc.

Since most modern Linux distros use automatic install 'n configure (and check dependancies) tools like apt-get from debian or the Synaptic Package Manager in Ubuntu, installing and package management is already possible and easy. However, the different packaging and installation solutions should decide on common file tree structure conventions (e.g. install all user programs in /usr/[programs name], documents in /usr/[programs name]/docs).

This isn't because of the distro's, rather the different frameworks that KDE and GNOME use. But there is a project up to try and resolve this - freedesktop.org

"freedesktop.org is building a base platform for desktop software on Linux and UNIX". KDE and GNOME are busy trying to interoperate, so this shouldn't be a big problem in the future.

conversion
 

Computers, for whatever reason, are EXTREMELY personal extensions of people, kind of like religion and politics. It seems to work better when you USE linux blatantly but don't TALK about it blatantly. Then people have a tendency to think you're onto something. If they're adventurous, they'll want it too.

Although MS deserves trashing for many reasons, the fact is they stole 'THE BOOK ' on user interfaces, then spent billions studying and generally perfecting comfortable interfaces. Why reinvent the wheel? Point out the many features of GNOME and KDE that are similar to what your prospective 'converts' are comfortable with.

I just show how happy I am with my choices. Of course, for that to work ... I have to look happy.

Realize that I can only change myself, if I can even manage to do that!

Someone talks about his computer being destroyed with viruses again. I only need to say viruses don't exist in what I use on my computer and that someone already gets interested ;). But then I'm still not going to bombard him/her with information about it. It depends what (s)he asks and how much interest (s)he shows.
I can give some little hints, that's all.

But in the end, the most important thing is to be happy and take it easy.

It could well be that what they have right now is perfectly satisfactory to them ... it works, it does the job, and 'the job' is the real point, not the computer nor the OS that is used to run it.

No matter how "supeerior" you may feel that a particular OS is, it's still a big change, and that's disruptive, period. Disruptive means costly. Disruptive means the risk of inability to conduct business!

If you're encountering resistance, listen to them carefully. There's a very good chance that they might be right. If you give the impression that you have not taken the time to listen, to learn and understand their point of view .. if you give the impression that yours is a foregone conclusion, then what you have to say will be (quite properly, I think) dismissed. And if you continue to press the point, well, you might be "dismissed" too! :eek:

I have found that the best way to present any alternative is to work from the top down, not the bottom up. Start with the business task, then ask what five applications would perform the task best. Then, look at what operating-system environment is best suited, and also which one would involve the least disruption from the company's status quo. You cannot make Linux "look good" by being a "fan" of Linux.

For some people I would say Windows is better for them. Like people who are weak in computers, and are always struggling. You don't exactly want to put those people in front of a linux box. Disasters tend to happen, or simply nothing seems to happen cause they are just too confused.

Linux is meant for some people, while Windows is meant for others. Its all about choosing what's best for you.

So don't always be so fast to try and convert people, cause you might make things worst, by tossing a comp-newb in front of a linux box.

Ciao

Bare-in-mind that I have used linux on and off for over 5 years (redhat/fedora, debian and suse) I can do what I need using the command line, compile from source, and ran my own webserver for a few years.

Ok, now I've probably got your trust as some-what computer literate.

I will say that linux has improved a lot since the late 1990's. If a user wants to never go near the command line, they *might* actually be able to go it nowdays, with menu boxes and drop down bars that edit all the config files. But the apps are as buggy as ever.

I've 6 different machines that I've run various distros on, and one thing is always the same, any application that you need to use on a daily basis, crashes, and I mean a lot.

I used to use kaffeine to play divx's and every 10/15 files it would crash, with a little kde crash notification. XMMS does the same. ALSA likes to lock my sound card until I reboot, even basic cd burning is a pain. My main windows box has crashed maybe 2 twice in as many months, and both were from counter strike source causing it to lockup. Windows media player (the player that everyone seems to hate) plays all my mp3s in surround sound, and rarely crashes, I honestly mean rarely.

My point is, should a computer not simply be a tool? A means to an end. If windows works use it, if linux works use it instead.

Why confuse your friends and family (the parent poster mentions that he got his father to install linux, what a joke. My father is a postman, why should he even care about linux? he's read the papers, he talks to me (a masters student in AI) so hes heard of this 'linux thing'). If I put him infront of a linux box, and he needed to install an application and dependancies cause serious issues, what would he do? what happens if a restart wont do the trick?

Microsoft did not 'trick' people into using windows. People need computers to just work. I totally agree with Sundialsvcs's comment, *nix is used where its needed, and windows where its needed.

I will admit that I also went through this phase of trying to show others the light and get them all to use this new and secure operating system. It hard to take a step back sometimes, realise linux is fun that you can learn a lot but also that it is in no way ready for the desktop, the day it becomes ready you'll buy your next computer with the windows or linux option (and dont even mention those walmart lindows PCs, research has already shown that a large percentage simple end up with illegal XP installs (the customer saves a few bucks on licencing, and walmart get rid of lots of cheap gear)).

If anyone wants to discuss their experiance of getting others to use linux with any degree of success, please reply, I'm prepared to admit any thing I got wrong. I just feel that as someone who tried linux as an alternative to so-called MS bugware and found linux more buggy, that once to get past the new toy factor, linux is not an alternative yet.

Anyone who has spent a lot of money buying anti this and anti that programs for windows: anyone who is tired of having their hard drive reformatted, over and over, is very ready for Linux no matter how hard it is to comprehend.

I am not ashamed to say I use Any os that I can get my hands on, and still dabbles with Xp, linux OS X, freebsd, never tried solaris, but I may... Computers are no religious things. Look at what happens when people become zealots...

Hit them with a full body tackle when they aren't looking then twist their arm behind their back until they say Tux.
Sound silly? It is not any more subtle to hit them with a barrage of "reasons".
They are ready to install Linux when they snatch the distro CD from your hand.

And now for something completely different:
:confused: :rolleyes: :D

This is a very traditional, but somewhat old source for linux advocacy:

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Advocacy.html

Its worth looking.

My view is that you can try to build things that run on linux, so that you solve people's problems. If you come up with good and quick things that make life easier, people will have one or more reasons to migrate.
I have just concluded a first draft of a script that downloads and merges a ~300pg pdf document from the brazilian govt. which is made publicly available through a really bad javascript gui. My script does all the dirty work and ends up with one pdf, preventing you from using a crappy and slow gui. I'll make it available, BUT, to use it, one must have a linux computer. Its just an example of building the need for linux. Got the idea?

Digiot and cousin: good points.

You could try offering them a 'cash premium' for using Linux.

Works every single time!!!
:D

Linux Archive

It's harder to get my friends to use Linux.
aaaaaaahhhhhhhh~~~~
Because most of the great games is Windowsed. :(

Here's how I do it :
I give them a chance to try linux on my PC (I have a special home dir on a separate partition for them, they have their own username and pass) but they don't have access to anything that can damage my system. I get them curious, and then give them a distro of their choice (I have a few myself, and they usually want to try Ubutnu). But I don't force them and I don't tell them windows sucks. This can reeealy mess up your efforts. After all, OS is a thing of choice for many...

When they have problems, I send them scripts via mail (I'm not too good at scripting, but I can write a decent every now and then) to fix it, with comments that explain what's going on. They probably don't read it, but one day they might :)

I remember, when I was about 15, I was suggested linux, but I didn't want to try it. I wouldn't even hear about it. Then, I felt I wanted to try something new (besides, I started learning C at that point, and the book was *nix oriented) so I switched. I never went back to windows again.