Believe me if i could have my users running on a PS3 that they cannot screw up i would.
Thin clients, Wyse terminals and Citrix. Now you have found something that I believe in...

Hear hear.

Actually, when we say "dummies," we are not talking about idiots. the point is to make Linux more acceptable and have broader user base.

This cannot be done by geeks.

Ok, then where is a specification what exactly "dummy" can and cannot do? "Dummies" are often mentioned in computer/OS-related discussions for shifting discussion in more favorable direction. However no one ever published minimum user skill requirements for using computer (which would make things a lot easeir for OS developers).

See this, for example.

Hehehe and this is very good LOL

Oh, come on, those differences are largely trivial. In unix, binaries go in /somewhere/bin, libraries go in /somewhere/lib, man pages go in /somewhere/man, runtime state goes under /var, user directories in /home, etc. Contrast this to every program putting it's files in its own little directory, $PATH and $MANPATH etc would have to contain an entry for every installed program, which would be absurd to maintain.

Not when your physical characteristics change regularly, or when the sheer number of devices defy alphabetical enumeration. Do you think people with huge clusters and 1,000 drives want to use drive letters? A:, B:, ... Z:, AA:, .... ZZ:, AAA:, yeah great idea. Or even just if your devices are different on different machines, why should my data be on F: on one box and G: on another just because that box has a different number of partitions? Stupid.

The whole point is to detatch the (high level) concept of "The Filesystem" from dependency on any particular (low level) physical configuration. Take LVM for example, it implements the same concept at a lower level.

Who cares if "Linux" is aimed at the public? If some companies wants to develop a distro and aim it at the general public, that's fine, but that doesn't mean every other distro has to follow suit (that's why we have different distros in the first place, just find one you like...), and it doesn't mean they can arbitrarily change the fundamental nature of the operating system (otherwise, it's not unix and the've created some other OS, which is fine, some people can use that and people who are happy with "unix" can use unix).

Not before using, but during certainly, otherwise how do you learn anything? You compare computers with appliances like TVs and cars, but a computer is not merely an appliance, an appliance has a specific function or set of functions, but a computer is limited only by one's imagination (and physics ). A computer can help a person to be hugely more production, easily 10 times or more, a car won't get you around 10 times faster, no matter what car you drive. Extracting the full benefit takes a bit of effort. If you never learn anything about computers, and you just click a button here and there, it's like driving a Ferrari in first gear. Sure, you can get around, but with a bit more effort, you could be flying. Do you really want to spend your whole life in first gear? Where do you want to crawl to today, eh?

Btw, watcher69b, The Unix Haters Handbook (look it up) was published in 1994. You haven't really complained about or suggested anything that wasn't complained about or suggested 14 years ago, and hasn't been re-complained about and re-suggested inumerable times every year since. Guess what? It's not going to change any time soon. Suck it up. Unix is unix, like it, don't like it, use it, don't use it. Your choice. If you really don't like it, why not put that B.S. in Computer Science to use and write your own kernel?

edit:
Erv, Cuetzpallin, thanks for the rinkworks links, hilarious

I understand that I have not voiced anything new. But intelligence would dictate that if numerous people have complained/suggested the same thing(s) that maybe just maybe it should be addressed by the community.

My hope is to see Linux as the desktop standard in 5-10 years time. But your old way of thinking that Linux is not Windows needs to be addressed.
No Linux is not Windows; nor will it ever be. But what about hybrid operating system? A system that incorporates the ease and comfort of Windows with the stability and power of Linux into one phenomenal OS.

However I am not a programmer by any stretch of the imagination. So I am forced to voice what I would like to see (it’s an American trait) and hope that someone out there can help me. Again my point in posting this was to inspire someone with the programming talent to make Linux more competitive at the desktop level.


P.S. the Stig agrees with me...

The problem is the community doesn't work for anyone (and thats how it should be) You are either part of it or you aren't getting something for free doesn't mean your part of it, contributing to it, helping others fix there problems and so forth makes you part of it.

Giving a list of demands will most likely not work because there are problems with your list, remember Linux is more UNIX then anything else (accept maybe BSD) so those roots will always be there, the list of things you want changed can't be changed because they go against the POSIX and UNIX ways, You also have to keep in mind that UNIX like OS's were built from the ground up to be secure, and in the end that is it one of the goals of this community to make a usable, SECURE, STABLE OS thats is free to use by all.

Changing how UNIX sees files is not the best idea since everything in a UNIX environment is a file, using an extension type to define if the file is exicutible is infinetly stupid in the UNIX world.

What works in the Windows universe will not work in the UNIX universe. If you like Windows they use that, no one is holding a gun to your head over here.

Linux will be the "Desktop Standard" in time, it is better to carefully construct your tools then outsourcing them to companies that can make them cheaper and faster then you can, (there cheaper for a reason) having said this Rome was not built in a day nor will the Linux Desktop be, As far as I am concerned, we own the embedded systems market, the Super computer market, it is only time before the server market and the desktop market belongs to the commitity as well. But until that time use it as it is, and don't cry about features that aren't there, are you a man or a little school boy? sometimes you have to be tougher then you really are, take hits and try to do things with what is currently there not cry about X or Y feature. Because you have the best tools for the job doesn't mean you will actually do the best job, it's all about your will to do what you want, in the end all data is 1's and 0's it's up to you how you use them.

No--we already have that.
The typical Linux distro already has the same basic User Interface features, AND is easier and faster to set up. There are two basic things that hinder migration:

1. Inertia: People don't change without a good reason.

2. Specific applications: Many Linux users keep Windows around for 1 or 2 things--even if used rarely. MANY Windows users would never consider switching if some key app is not totally functional in Linux. trying to tell them that something else was "almost as good" would get you nowhere.

What you are yearning for will happen only with time. Alternatively, the evolution might be eclipsed by some other technological or political event---e.g. What happens when the US government decides that certain companies have too much power?

I think if those featrues weren't implemented during all this time, then no one really needed them that much. You can wait until ReactOS is finished, though.

There are something like 5 different /somewhere/bin and /somewhere/lib folders in just about every major distribution. Then you have some programs installing binaries and/or libraries into places like /usr/local or other variations on that. Games which sometimes create their own folders or install themselves in something like /usr/local/games... I've installed scientific software which went in the root directory, and I've had plenty of graphics, decorations, and other small programs go into the craziest places like creating hidden folders in the user's home folder or of course making folders inside of other programs' folders.

Maybe these are still "trivial" differences, but the fact remains that there are about 20 or so places where any given program can be installed to and on average each program puts pieces of itself in at least 3 or 4 of those places.

This is why windows allows for labels to name the drives whatever. Most people don't have entire partitions dedicated to one particular type of storage... however, if they do they can label it (and in fact you can mount it to the file system linux-style if you like). In the end, it's remarkably pretty much the same results... just one starts with the idea of breaking things up physically and the other starts with the idea of abstracting the physical. Is one way better? It depends on what you're using it for obviously. Is one more logical? Who knows.

Not I.

This is certainly a valid point of view so who am I to argue with it. This is obviously only A point of view, however, and not the only one out there. A "computer" is any number of different things from some that only have a couple functions to some that have quite a few. What a person uses a personal computer for is obviously up to that person. Some people don't want Ferrari's (which can still be driven without being able to name off all the parts in the ignition cycle) and some don't want to increase productivity with a computer. Many people aren't interested in learning the inner workings of their operating system for something that is only used for news, communications, and leisure. Obviously there are multiple options out there, and Linux certainly isn't the best option for all users. Personally, I think people are barking up the wrong tree if they are looking for a replacement for something like OS X or Windows to come out of the open source community.

Bark, bark, bark......
Linux replaced Windows for me many years ago.
Many computer users (perhaps even a majority) could switch to Linux right now. It is already fundamentally better than Windows, and the missing applications would follow very quickly.

Asus EEEs are selling like hotcakes---would you care to guess how many buyers bother replacing Linux with Windows on those machines? HP has jumped on the bandwagon and we can guess who else might soon.

It's not the Unix/Linux community's problem, so why should they address it? Once again, the solution is simple, if you don't like it, don't use it. If you don't like motorbikes, then drive a car.

Linux has been standard on my desktop for 8 years or so and many other people's for longer than that.

No, it doesn't. Your implication is that there should only be 1 operating system, which is ridiculous.
You further imply that Windows is a suitable model for an operating system. It isn't. The terms "operating system" and "fundamentally insecure" should not be in the same language.

I find Windows neither easy nor comfortable. What's easy or comfortable about having no applications? Install Windows, what can you do? Play minesweeper? Great, where are the programs? In Unix/Linux, the applications are part of the system. What's easy and comfortable about insecurity and instability? Again, the implication is that a single OS suits everyone.

For most of us, Linux surpassed Windows at every level except crapness years ago.

Blah blah blah. The package manager tells you where the files are.

If you're installing 3rd party programs that put files in odd places, what does that have to Linux or the standard filesystem layout? It's got nothing to do with the OS if some random developer decides to dump his files in your /. Go and complain to them.

Wow, what an astounding innovation.

So Windows has implemented a crass version of unix filesystem mounting? Yawn.

Yes. Lots of people.

Most people would probably consider having a single paradigm (abstracted filesystem) more logical and elegant than two (drive letters and drive labels). I certainly do.

Quite, and they should choose an OS based on their needs and what they expect from a computer. One of the principles of unix is to assume the user knows what the're doing. That's why, for example, the 'rm' command doesn't bombard you with questions asking if you're really, really, super sure you want to delete this file? It just does it. "Unix" requires effort, and agreed, not everyone will be interested in expending that effort, in which case perhaps this isn't the OS for them.

Windows has already been replaced for a lot of people (in fact, there are plenty of unix people who have never used Windows) and OS X is based on free software (FreeBSD).

Windows doesn't allow using labels instead of drive letters.

And another thing Linux is based on Unix which means that it is suitable for servers. Think about that - an OS aimed at running stable and secure servers is able to also run on a desktop without massive changes to the OS - the same Debian netinstall CD, or Ubuntu disk can be used on your desktop machine and your server machine. Now imagine trying to run a server using XP or Vista - there is a reason, beyond money, that Microsoft have separate OSes for desktops and servers and, indeed, types of desktop and server.