Completely agreed. It's really very sad how gullible some are, and to realize that all the "specially made for Windows" is just marketing garbage. Anybody who does not see monopoly-like behavior here must be blind.

I have to agree about the average user bit!

I had always used windows, and as pointed out, I'm totally a hacker when it comes to messing arond with computers, but I've found it a good way of learning. About two years ago I switched to linux, mainly beacuse my computer was old and really struggled to run XP, and linux was free. Took me ages to make the change properly. Now at work I use applications that run on xp but everything else is restricted. (i don't work for IT). Now when I go to help a friend out with a problem in XP I find it very hard to remember how to do things, on linux (mandriva 2006) I'm completly comftable. What I'm getting at is windows is no more intuative, its jsut we all know how to use it, as now we people here know how to use linux, it's easy and just as intuative.

That said one thing I think makes linux harder is the names given to applications, they are very hard to work out what they do. I.e. vi, kate, both text editors, would never of guessed by the name. Notepad, I'd have a stab in th dark. K3B nero... hummm popularity contest. Media player, amarok, xmms, winamp... again I think i would guess what wthe windows apps were for just by the name. Internet explorer, konqueror ... the list goes on, but once you know what they do, there just as good, somethimes better some times not so good.

Thats all for now.

sorry forgot to mention the best example, paintshop and the gimp!

If I didn't know better what the gimp was I'd assume it had something to do with a guy in a black leather mask and chains.... I've said too much....

What's that got to do with the difference between Windows and Linux?

Names of programs are entirely the choice of whoever produces that program, nothing to do with Windows or Linux.

I agree with you and the OP mostly, except for this one point. When attempting to play encrypted DVDs, MP3 music and/or WMV (and other proprietary) format video, Linux may become a huge headache for the "average" user.

I don't know how other distros work, but for Fedora Core, you have to refer to an online FAQ site or form (or maybe read the release notes!) to install the necessary components to play MP3 music. The same goes for WMV. Windows XP (and 2000 too, IIRC) has these features built in.

That's no big deal for those who know what they're doing, but if we talk about the "average user" acceptance into the Linux world, it's something that needs to be addressed. Just my opinion.

A seasoned computer consultant who is in the top 2% has time to resurect old posts with a troll reply but not to "waist" time configuring his computer admits he does not know anyone involved in developing the Linux kernel, developing drivers, or working on software projects.
I find your opinion very impressive.

I too get tired of the "Linux is not ready for the desktop" posts. But you have to admit, in some ways it is very true; Linux could not be used properly by the kind of person who goes to PC world and buys boxed software thinking this is the main way of getting software to use (which is a LOT of computer users), because there is little to no boxed software for linux available in PC world-like shops. Also, if they do find boxed software for linux, chances are it's not going to be as easy as putting the CD in the drive, clicking through an installer and then using the software.

Tell me what you like, but Linux is mostly only used by people who are fairly competent with computers and there's a reason for this. Yes, I know that some people's wives and children here are using Linux, but that's because you did all the hard work of setting things up for them.

There's a fine line between articles billed as "My bad experience with Linux" and articles which generalize said experience to "Linux is not suitable for the average user". I don't mind reading the first type of article, because there is something to learn and understand, but I try to avoid the second, for reasons already posted by others.

So, having read through the "rant" and responses in this thread, I'm thinking to myself: Who should we blame and/or belittle? Is it
(A) the "average users" for their ignorance/intransigence,
(B) the supposedly well-intentioned authors of "Linux is not ready for the desktop" articles, or
(C) Microsoft and their cronies for anti-competitive and deceptive practices?

I submit the answer is (D) none of the above. In brief:
(A) There are many reasons, other than cost and performance, for "choosing" Windows over other systems; these include a number of psychological factors. As a poor analogy, I would be wasting my breath telling a keen NHL fan that the English Premier League is better viewing, and there'd be no point in blaming or belittling him either.
(B) and (C) just aren't going to change what they're doing, no matter how loudly we complain. So long as their activities are (arguably) ethical/legal, then it is not for us to say that they mustn't advocate for Windows over Linux, even though such advocacy is usually poorly justified.

So who's to blame? As unpopular as this will sound: us, the Linux-using community. Even though we may be doing a pretty good job spreading the word and helping out newbies (and I still consider myself one, by the way), we need to keep on doing this and do it better. This is the only aspect truly within our control. Perhaps this is an overly pacifist and introspective philosophy, but ultimately, if you care about effort producing results, it is the only sensible approach.

And honestly enough, I don't care. I apologize if I sound rude and harsh, but I really don't. If you are this type of user, then Linux is not for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Our goal is not to get everybody to use Linux. I'm not the Billy Graham of operating systems and I don't want to think like an evangelist. It's an operating system. Some things just are not for certain people. I don't like certain breeds of dog. I'm not going to recommend a Poodle to everybody even though they may be my favorite type of dog because I realize that they simply are not right for everybody. Manual transmissions are better for cars in the long term but I'm not going to recommend them to everybody because I realize that some people who do not have cars as their main hobby and are not interested in how they work will have trouble with them.Why can't we all just respect the fact that we all have different tastes and likes? Why can't we just respect the fact that we all find different things easier to use than others?

Very, very well said.

I find it interesting that many people here seem to assume that it's our mission to spread Linux to the mass market. I personally don't think it is. Suffice it to say that there's always a group of people who find Linux to be useful; those who use it, work on it, and improve it. That's where the bazaar-style software development prevails.

Eric S. Raymond has some very good points:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/ta...ml#nt_contrast

We should compile all the technical reasons in a real "get the facts" page comparing Windows vs Unix/Linux.

Thanks for the quote. For those interested, the information provided by the link is part of Eric's book called "The Art of UNIX Programming" (ISBN 0-13-142901-9).

yeah, that pretty much summarizes my opinion on that as well...

Quite bold words from someone who has never posted anything here before... "Top two percent." Wow. Of what? Of the "millions of run-of-the-mill Windows power-users?"

...
I confess to be less than impressed with your credentials.

The essential points that seem to be made here are valid:

• Linux is regarded by some as "difficult to install."
• But, Windows is sometimes very difficult to install too, and...
• Most importantly, Windows normally comes pre-installed. So, many Windows users have never had to install an operating system on anything.

I will be very quick to confess that Linux was a mind-blowing experience for me, and I've been working with computers professionally for about twenty years. I thought that I knew a lot of different things, and in fact I do, but the process of figuring out how to set up Linux just the way I wanted it on a new machine was extremely daunting... at first I grabbed a distro, updated its packages, and was afraid to touch anything. (I did that for a year, until the updates subscription ran out and they wanted more than $100 to renew it. Instead, I said to myself, "it's time you learn this.") And so I compromised: I took a spare machine and decided to blow it up. Did so several times.

But you know, that's not how I feel about my car. When it comes right down to it, I want to get into my car and drive it and I don't want it to break down and I don't want to fix it if it does. And maybe lots of people feel the same way about their computers.

One thing that I can also see from this and from similar threads is that, all things considered, the distro-makers and the hardware engineers and Microsoft Corporation are, generally, doing a very good job. Lots and lots of people who don't know beans about how their computers work, and don't want to, are nonetheless able to use their computers to do whatever it is that they do. Maybe, instead of hammering one OS against the other, we should acknowledge that the whole process is quite complex and that an awful lot of people out there have mastered the art of making it all look easy.