I'm just curious on people's thoughts on the state of computing in general, and Linux in particular. As I've read about people's experiences here with Linux, it seems like a lot of work for the average guy to go through. Not that I'm down on Linux...On the contrary, I'm about to try my first install and am trilled to death! But that's cuz I'm always excited to learn something new.

But what about the Average Joe. Maybe I should be thinking about it being prepackaged and on the store shelves for the consumer market. Then all the technical installs quirks and the jargon wouldn't be so much an issue. I'm just wondering if there will be a time when Average Joe can choose a Linux system without having to know anything about how it works. In other words, he plugs it in and it just works.

Observations?

hi
what i think it depends on what distribution Average joe chooses,
he can start early with easy ones say knoppix,xandros with dual booting windows(so that he does not get much frustated,,and cary on imp. work while bringing linux up)

then he can go to hardcore linux distributions such as REDHAT,slackware,SUSE, debian etc etc

regards

Hi Folks,

Yes the mainstream can be ready for it.

I've started with a pre-configured Linux system, and all went fine. In that way I had the chance to learn the environment, and to get deeper in it.

But as said, it also depends on the linux environment you're installing.

Currently I swapped version, and installed Red Hat.
And OK, that's not a version for newbies, as it needs a very good knowledge of the environment. But I managed to find my way it. It took me some sleepless nights trying to get all the hardware stuff working, but it works now.

But the most important for all systems is the hardware. So if you install it on some exotic unknown low-cost hardware, then you'll get trouble.

I'm running it now on an Acer Aspire 1705 LapTop which gae me a perfect installation. The only problem I had, was my wireless PCMCIA card, that was a very cheap model (about $25), but one night of searching and testing got it up and running also.

So if you start Linux, don't start with the heavy stuff as Red Hat, but there are enough other versions who work also very fine and they are sometimes a bit slimmer but also a bit easier to install.

Good luck with your entry in the Linux Community.

Moved: This thread is more suitable in General, since it's not a Linux-techincal question, and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

I am not thrilled with the idea of trying to make Linux the operating system of choice for the Average Joe. Some obviously think it is a wise idea, but at least for the time being I think it's better to preserve its huge portability and expand areas of use where it is only starting to catch on - like in mainframe environments to name an example. It will take time to make Linux even remotely similar to Windows to set up and use - and is that really what we want? I have a friend of mine who never was into computers, but chose to study technical (computer) linguistics anyway. He got himself a brand new computer and I helped him set up a dual boot between Linux and Windows 2000, which was the preinstalled OS. To my great surprise he favoured Linux because to him it was more natural and logical. So I don't think making Linux more like Windows (or MacOS or whatever) is the way to make it suitable for the desktop. The core UNIX tradition is more than a good foundation to build on, and develop.

Oh, and for the corporate desktop - where Average Joe is a user but no administrator - Linux is already excellent and far outpaces Windows in terms of manageability and ease of administration. Just using Gnome or KDE for everyday office (or home) use is a breeze if everything is set up correctly.

Even experienced Windows administrators can get really grumpy and complain about Linux just because most of their knowledge is worth zip when they are facing a Linux system. IMHO that's their problem mostly, but ours too. Theirs because it really is up to them to embrace something new and possibly even scary, and ours because we need to help and accomodate new users. Documentations, walkthroughs and friendly howtos is a good start.


Håkan

personally I think the average user and Linux aren't ready for each other yet. If.. and this is a critical need for it to work.. more computer manufacturers (HP, Compaq, Dell.. ones people know and trust.. for some reason they trust these) started having it pre-installed and configured.

Think about the average user, most are still running from their origional install. The computer barely works, is slow as all hell, horribly fragmented, dozens of spyware/adware crap running, error boxes that pop up about bridge.dll not being found..etc but they are still using that origional install. (you know this is true, I can't count how many times I run across this.)

Then it may make more mainstream use but you know the area that is still going to kill it?.. software installation. There is no standard amung distros, it's confusing as hell for anyone migrating or learning who does know computers let alone for ones who don't. For these people (average user) Windows installers (which are easy as can be) are a daunting task and they even manage to screw these up somehow. Forget them trying to apt something where it need to upgrade a dependencie and something else suddenly breaks, or rpms.. what about making grandma who only knows email and internet and wants to try to upgrade her browser, you going to make her compile it?

The average user has difficulties telling you what version of Windows they have and they would now be expected to know what distro they're running and what kernel. Not a chance, people get confused when they read a system requirement about needed Windows 95 or above.

Again, NOT ready.

good point, but if people are still running on the original install and only checking email, what are the chances of the computer lasting longer with them using XP home as administrator or a linux box as a user? of course one huge problem with xp home is you log in as admin out of the box, how many people bother to change that?

linux for the people would need something like windows auto update, and an easier software install...probably no more.

1 more point to consider is that poeple dont know what operating system is actually on the computer...so i cant believe it would matter too much, plus they would buy it becuase it is cheaper. money talks

Linux is every bit as ready for common usages as Windows is.
Linux is not impossible to install.
Linux is not Windows and Windows is not Linux.
IMO

Not just yet. But it's fast heading there.
Not impossible maybe. But on some systems it can still be a headache.
Rather obvious.

PS: Do we really need another Linux vs Windows thread here, folk?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Harishankar
[B]Not just yet. But it's fast heading there.

no, xcept games i do not think we have anything which linux can't do and windows do......(it will be the hard way around on linux,but it will be done)

regards

You basically said my feelings. Mainstream linux is not. The install part is the killer. People will feel even less in control of their boxes then they are now. Because they simply won't have a damn clue how to install stuff.

its not easy. It is hard enough telling people how to just naviagte to wehrever the installer is and double click it. Now trying to explain doing that through a console based system.

Also hardware compatiblity IMO is not up to snuff as windows. That can be another issue. Also things like undertsanding the file system etc can be difficult.

I feel there is too large of a barrier to call Linux mainstream-ready.

And if you want mainstream then I feel the Linux community needs to change their attitude as well.

I said it many times before and I will say it again: The linux community is scary and is seen as an underground hacking community trying to impose their will onto others by releasing virus's and hacinkg sites that support MS. (This is based off of what the press says and peopels responses that I have read in editiorals)

People are scared of the community. Others just don't get it. Why do they need to change at all if they are happy with what they have. See what I am saying.

it is an odd situation. Then you have the rift in the lnux community. Half say make it easier for the normal person more windows like the other says its fine as it is and like the way thigns are now. And then I read posts that are just annoying rabid MS hating posts who hate MS just because (I will never believe the corporate ethic arguemnt so unless that person never bought a big brand name object before especially a sony product) and that also distrubs a lot of people.

its a very complicated issue. And I am sure much of what I say here will be repeated or shown by example later on in this topic.

I bet I will see at least one reply along the lines of "M$ and Windoze BlOw Dow With TheM!"

hey there
just what i said u need to choose the distro according to u r knowledge
have u tried installing xandros??????

u give it a try, the easiest installation i have ever seen ,easier that windows in thinks and fast tooo

regards

yes



Aussie Edit: Please try to post something constructive.

Four years ago, the answer to the question would be an emphatic NO!

But today I can setup Linux on virtually any hardware without any trouble. The thing is, driver support has increased a great deal, there are virtually any number of support sites (like LQ) that provide answers to most questions and to top it all, KDE is a great bridge between Windows users and Linux users. KDE virtually provides graphical tools for every administrative task, normal use and multimedia. I could setup APACHE with the HTTP tool without a single scratch of my head and it works great too.

The thing is with KDE, Windows users will be drawn to Linux. They may not even see a major difference between Windows and Linux with KDE (until they explore a bit). I have set up my KDE to look just like Windows 2000 so that my family members can be comfortable using Linux.

I use the console (terminal) window less and less. That is my experience. Linux is almost there as a mainstream OS. Still needs a bit of work in some areas though.

I now use FC1 and it's great...

The issue of OS installation is still comming up. We're talking the average user here, they don't know or care to learn anything about a computer and they don't install OSs. They will happily use what they are given (pre installed when they bought and turned on the computer) as long as it works. Windows, Linux..whatever, it happens to be Windows becasue that's what's installed on everything and people trust MS. As I said, Linux will need to be pre-installed and people would begin to use it. (though a monkey could install Xandros or Linspire(lindows?)


stabile007 made some good points, people typically have a negative reaction whenever someone mentions Linux. This again is from the press, MS, the community and even Sun Microsystems admitted to hating Linux.

Second point Stabile made is that the average user has trouble with 'My Documents' or 'Program Files'. If it's not on the desktop they can't find it. (We've all seen these average user desktops, no point to having a background, you can't see it, installers, files, shortcuts..etc.) There is no way in hell they will be able to navigate the Linux file structure.

The key would be to have Linux pre-installed and configured and find a standard software install that spans across distros that is painfully easy but isn't necessary or interfere with the way things are currently done. In other words, don't change Linux to do this, find a way to add this if thy wanted it without changing anything that makes Linux..well, Linux.

And get Companies like Adobe on board.. then Linux would be ready.