Every few days or so, it seems that some lunatic "tired of Windows" (i.e., has been using Windows for years) tries out a Linux distro or two, then decides 1. Linux isn't ready for "normal" users because it doesn't do things the "Windows way" and 2. Nobody in Linux has ever heard arguments about this before so the community must be "enlightened" as to what will make Linux gain wider acceptance amongst Windows veterans (a.k.a. "Joe Sixpack," "Grandma," "the average user").

What I find most amusing about these rants--whether they're on a Mozilla developer's blog, a Linux forum, or some "news" article--is that they are usually written by people who are anything but "the average user." Most "average" users I know don't:

1. install software or software updates, let alone obscure software that doesn't exist in standard repositories
2. play computer games
3. know how to maintain or install a Windows computer or any computer, for that matter
4. understand what an operating system is
5. use advanced features in Microsoft Office

I'm probably going to open up another can of worms, but I'm going to talk about my actual using experience--I'm not talking about installation and set-up (though, now that I know more about Linux, having used it for a few months, it's not that big a deal any more); I'm talking about use.

When I use Linux, I love that I've customized little keyboard shortcuts for my favorite applications. For example, control-alt-r opens Rhythmbox, control-alt-s opens Synaptic Package Manager, control-alt-o opens Opera, control-alt-t opens a terminal console. I tried to do this in Windows (there seems to be a place you can do this in XP by right-clicking quicklaunchers and going to properties, but when I actually try to use the keyboard shortcut, it doesn't work).

Even though I love iTunes, in Gnome, I was able to easily customize my keyboard to navigate through my song library without having to click on anything, so I can browse the web and check email while navigating songs. Also, the title of the song and the artist name will appear in the minimized window of Rhythmbox. That said, I do love iTunes, and it's the only reason I keep XP around. iTunes is just all-around good--it looks nice, it rips CDs, it organizes, it does smart playlists, it can burn playlists as MP3 CDs or regular audio CDs, it easily shares music with other iTunes open on a network... I could go on and on. I've ditched my iPod, but I still love iTunes. Rhythmbox has its own great features... I'm kind of torn right now on whether I like the library system or the location system. On the one hand, the library system is better because I don't have to refresh my library every time I open iTunes. Since my library is quite large, the refreshing slows down the startup and usability of Rhythmbox considerably. On the other hand, if I accidentally delete some songs from the iTunes library (not the actual song files themselves, but their library entries), I have no record that they're there--if they're in my music folder, they should be in the library, shouldn't they?

Well, I'm torn on that one.

I hate the Windows icons. I tried using Windowblinds for a while, but the nagware was unbearable, and I'm too much of a cheapskate to pay for Windowblinds. And gnome-look and kde-look have some excellent stuff, especially for a Mac-phile. There are all sorts of great aqua themes. I do a weird kind of aqua/Tux/Think Linux blend for my themes, splashes, and wallpapers. Customizing the look of Linux is the most fun part of using Linux. Even though I have some fun using my wife's Powerbook, Mac OS X's lack of easy customization is a downer, for sure. And Windows isn't a whole lot better in that respect.

In both Windows and KDE, I've noticed apps hanging sometimes. Gnome doesn't really seem to have that problem. I have noticed, though, that when I'm typing in gedit, sometimes the letters have a slight delay before appearing.

Overall, though, I can't say my day-to-day computing experience is that different--and I think I'm fairly impartial, as I use XP at work and Ubuntu at home. Every day I'm using both systems. Every day I use Firefox and Thunderbird on both systems. At least a couple of times a week, I listen to music on both systems.

I really don't understand why people get so frustrated with Linux apart from installing it. I mean, I click on the Firefox icon, and it opens Firefox. I use Firefox. Honestly, this is what real average users do. They aren't messing around with complicated graphics programs or financial software. They aren't using visual basic or whatever. They type an email. They go to a website. They maybe type a document in a word processor. Maybe they look at a picture or listen to some music. That's it.

I've found all of these activities to be a cinch in Linux.

But the part about installing it... well, it's just like installing Windows--very easy when done for you, difficult to do yourself.

Okay. I'm done ranting...

Actually, installing Linux is EASIER in some ways. It comes with more built-in driver support than Windows does and that's a fact. Installing Knoppix, MEPIS, Xandros, Ubuntu, or even Fedora can be quite a cinch, since their installers are as good at explaining every step as the Windows installer is. And most of them have an auto-partition option, something the Windows installer does NOT have!

And don't get me started about needing to press a function key and provide a driver disk.

aysiu--Many points well made. I want to add just a quick point that for most Linux distros, the cost is $0. Virus protection/firewall protection/etc cost in Linux $0. Software investment cost $0. I can only thank the developers of all the Distributions a huge thank you for providing an outstanding means for me to function professionally and personally.

Additionally, I can become part of a community of people and have a great time learning something I never would have become involved in if my Windows system had not been infected with spyware and crashed.

Yes, excellent points. I don't want to say Linux is always easy to install for everyone on every computer. For me, it was easy. Honestly, for most distros, I just popped in the CD, answered a few questions, and everything worked. Ubuntu had the screen resolution off, but that was an easy fix.

I won't vouch for an easy install for everyone, though--just as I wouldn't for an easy Windows install (sometimes Windows is easy to install; other times, it isn't).

And, yes, the free software is great. Gnomebaker is something I'd have to pay for in Windows, believe it or not (Nero/Easy CD Creator).

aysiu--I agree with you on installs. I'm no computer geek--just a sales/marketing guy. I have successfully installed Fedora Core 3,4; SuSE 9.3 Pro; Slackware; Ubuntu/Kubuntu; Mepis. As you indicated, a few screen resolution issues but for the most part follow the instructions and read first and things have gone fairly smoothly. I've finally settled on SuSE 9.3 Pro for my life and Fedora Core 4 is so nice, which I'm using more and more.

However, I too am not a programmer and I'm sure don't even touch the abilities of these systems. But it all works, email, graphics, web pages, office suite (wp/spreadsheets), calendar, planning, multimedia. I can do it all. I do enjoy Real Rhapsody and Hallmark Card Studio 2005 in Windows however.

Also, XP took me over two hours to install and install just the basic programs, whereas Mepis does it in less than 20min. and comes with all the software pre-installed.

Likewise. I've had two memorable experiences of installing Windows in the past year and a half. One was trying to reinstall Windows on a Dell laptop infested with spyware. The other was trying to upgrade a computer at my parents' house from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. In both cases, I ran into many of the same problems that some of the more frustrated new Linux users (i.e., no one in this thread so far) encounter.

When Dell shipped our laptop, we got three CDs: Windows XP, Drivers & Utilities, and InterVideo WinDVD.

When I tried to reinstall Windows, I couldn't find the last two, only the Windows XP CD. Needless to say, it was a painful installation. No sound card driver. No video card driver. No codecs for playing DVDs. Also, I had to dig around to find our copy of MS Office, too. Basically, it was a nigh-useless operating system, apart from using MS Paint and Firefox.

Eventually I did find those other two CDs, but Linux usually doesn't come with those CDs because the manufacturer doesn't usually give you Linux preinstalled.

The other recent Windows installation was worse.

I was at my parents' for Christmas, and they had an old Windows 98 computer. I wanted to upgrade it to at least 2000 (I prefer XP, actually). I also wanted to make it one partition again because my dad had chopped it up into about five different drives (C:, D:, E:, F:, G. So I thought repartitioning would be part of the Windows 2000 installation process, but it wasn't, for some reason. I also thought if I could boot into DOS maybe I could do an fdisk. No go on that. In fact, I didn't even know how to boot into DOS, and if you use DOS from a "run" command, you can't fdisk, either. So, my dad had to dig up some partitioning software that was not intuitive at all. In fact, it was like some kind of fix-disk software; it wasn't even made for partitioning, really. Then, the Windows 2000 CD (my dad pirates--it's true) didn't have an activation key. So I had to bother my dad to try to dig it up. Eventually got that. Then, the sound didn't work, and the screen resolution was huge. I tried to find a driver for the video card, but I couldn't find one for hours--either in our home or on the internet.

Eventually, after about five hours (no kidding), we got Windows 2000 working on that PC.

All I can say is that I'm tired of people complaining that Linux is too difficult to install.

The point of the thread, really, though, is that once installed, Linux isn't that difficult to use. It's usually a point-and-click environment, which most users are used to.

AMEN to that
just finished reinstalling win 2000 pro for my wifes computer
it didn't recognise and of the pci slots so after initial install i had to open the box up and change all the pci cards around so i could finish and install drivers -- (real easy !)
never did get it setup so things work as regular user had to settle for all Adminitstator all the time
no other choice.
there was a folder named "All Users" that was not available to any regular users by default ! but changing that didn't fix all the problems. When i was done i had had to reoot the machine like 1500 times.

Majoring in Computer Engineering and having worked as a Computer Technician, I would say that I am a few steps beyond the average user. However, as a technician I noticed that what I considered to be things that the "average user" would know were totally wrong. As aysiu says, the "average user" really does only browse the web, chat, e-mail, and create documents. These are things that Linux (and virtually any OS for that matter) can do easily.

It is true that most of the frustration that people have when switching Linux is the installation, or the fact that a particular application does not work. Or that it does not have a port of a certain Windows app. Eventually I come to realize that that person doesn't want Linux, they want Windows without whatever problem they were having with it (viruses, spyware, etc.). The average computer user has been coerced into believing that they need to be hand-holded through anything other than the most basic of computer operations. Many are either too afraid of screwing up or (more likely) too impatient to configure or repair anything themselves. When it comes to computers, they expect everything to "just work", no matter the OS, and are shocked to find that installing Linux to their specifications (ie. "like Windows") is going to take a little work.

However, I don't (completely) blame the average user. I have no idea how to repair my car, and when I go to purchase a new one, I too expect it to "just work". However if someone GAVE me a car, saying that if I take the time to replace a few parts I could have a really nice vehicle, I personally would be willing to make the initial sacrifices. Simply put, the average user is ignorant about their computer (just as I am ignorant about my car), and refuse to change that, which I believe is the real reason why they get frustrated with Linux. Microsoft has made it so that people need not know anything about what they are buying: Windows comes prepackaged on the computer, Microsoft provides (some kind of) support, and they can take it to the local technician if they have to. People are comfortable with Windows, whether they love it or hate it.

I apologize for my (first) rant, and hope that I did not offend anyone.

Meh. Rant away!

Dudes (and dudettes) - win vs lin and lin vs win threads all go in the General forum. Where you will find this thread.

geez it took me 35 minutes to install XP Pro and 30 minutes to install Slackware but 2 hours to install Fedora.

Great thing about Linux though is I dont have to worry about socket errors arising from spyware, programs encountering problems and needing to close, making sure the first thing I do is have all my updates, etc etc, but I have had programs freeze up on me. MEPIS kept freezing on me till I unistalled it and installed Slackware.

Well, aysiu I do agree on your thoughts, specially when you describe what an "average user" do with a computer: very simple tasks. The funny thing is that they even don't know how to set up a computer for those tasks (dial-up configuration, installing "appropriately" a program downloaded from the Internet, etc) so they end up calling somebody to help them. It's amazing how gullible these people are about computers and Internet. I guess that's one reason why Windows has such popularity, they don't even care what a operating system does, "plug and play" that's what they want, the easy way...
Time to share an experience, my brother bought recently a Toshiba Satellite laptop, of course it has preinstalled Windows XP Home Edition, but what really troubles me is that it had an sticker that said something like "This computer is designed to work properly with Windows XP", when I hint my brother for the possibility of installing Linux, that's what he pointed at..... I don't think that is correct not say fair, anyway I will install Linux in a near future (just waiting that it gets infected with virus and spy ware) ...

aysiu, that was a very good article.

I wonder what is the reasons that prevents Linux users to see the obvious?

I am not a "average user", on the contrary a seasoned computer consultant since more that 15 years and a damn good one too if I may say so. (in the top 2%!).

Configuration issues takes time from the real work! Do you not understand that most consultans have enogh to do with dozen of heavy enterprise products like Exchange 2003, Microsoft CRM, SQL Server, Indigo, .NET etc etc, (or the eqvivalent in Unix)? Do you think I want to waist my time keybord map every new stupid program that pops up?

Stop talking of Liunx users vs "ordinary users". Most Unix "hackers" I know know nothing about real enterprise software but spend endless time with configuration files finetuning their systems of which they are very proud, regarding themself "professionals".

Do you think a world class concert pianist wants to know how to tune the piano? Even a run-of-the mill windows powersuser (of which there are millions) makes more money for his company than the average Linux hacker.

Please, spare me..