• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sell me Linux

Don't worry, one day (probably 20 minutes after practical Cold Fusion is confirmed :p ) Linux will the go to OS for people who do not want to spend hours on their computer and for those who do.

I honestly think that Linux is getting more user-friendly and easier to use out-of-the-box and without any specialised knowledge. It's not perfect yet, but I think we are approaching "Peak Linux", where the effort to accomplish any random task on Windows will be no easier than accomplishing a similar task on Linux.
I think we're there as far as random tasks the casual user (browsing, e-mail etc.) needs. I've set up Lubuntu (LXDE desktop on Ubuntu base) on a couple of formerly XP machines owned by "little old ladies", and they are quite happy and comfortable with it; and I am happy because they aren't calling me every week or two to help them fix some problem Windows let them get into (usually malware) :)
 
I think we're there as far as random tasks the casual user (browsing, e-mail etc.) needs. I've set up Lubuntu (LXDE desktop on Ubuntu base) on a couple of formerly XP machines owned by "little old ladies", and they are quite happy and comfortable with it; and I am happy because they aren't calling me every week or two to help them fix some problem Windows let them get into (usually malware) :)

Is anyone selling machines preconfigured in such a way, suitable for "little old laides". That seems to be a key obstable to declaring "we're there", you still need that special friend to get you started at the very least.
 
Lots of people are selling and buying 'Chromebooks.' These are laptop computers running the so-called Chrome OS which is based on Linux.
 
And many more are selling more generic machines running Linux, ranging from "boutique" vendors like System 76 to even some of the big-box outfits like Dell.

Here, for example, is a Dell that comes with Ubuntu LTS 12.04 preinstalled:

http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/xps-13-linux/pd
 
Last edited:
Google can call it whatever it wants as far as I'm concerned. The end result is that fewer people realize they are already familiar with at least one variation of Linux. Of course, Android, which many people have on their phones and tablets is also based on Linux - and again you get people making comments like, 'I would never use Linux - it's too complicated' and actually using an Android device to post those comments! :D

With both Android and Chrome OS the typical user never interacts directly with the O.S. - only the graphical user interface. Chrome OS does have a shell though, and you can get full access to the underlying Linux file system by using the root password: "chronos" usually.
 
Why is it "so called"?

What do you believe it ought to be called?

It's really the "Linux OS" (or possibly "GNU/Linux OS") with a "Chrome UI".

Microsoft Windows is both the OS and primary/default UI, so many people think the UI is OS, and carry that thinking to the Linux world. Google is perpetuating this by calling their UI replacement the "Chrome OS".

As an aside, I can’t remember the last time I had to look at the 'guts' of a linux system to make anything work. The biggest problem I've had is that the compatible programs often don't use the same name a the MS Windows equivalent, so it's hard to find in the repository without a google search. Some are trivial: Tor is tor, Steam is steam. Some are simple: LibreOffice replaces MS Office. Some are absolutely esoteric: MS Windows Networking is a Samba (MS calls it 'Server Message Block' networking, which they shorten to SMB, which is is pronounced 'samb' or 'sumb', which linuxers make 'samba')? Fortunately, the distro I use (openSUSE) has a good search ability in it's software installer, and many developers include the 'just like * on Windows' in the application distribution.

As to reasons why to use Linux, my favorite is the 'start menu'. I know, MS wants everybody to just forget it ever existed. That's because, on Windows, it's an unholy mess, every program simply dropping itself at the bottom of an ever growing list of unorganized "all Programs", with each installer creating it's own sub-menus with their own naming scheme, and the only automatic organization is by the name of whatever is created at the top level by the installer, which might be the program name, might be the company name, and might be the program type. And if you attempt to reorganize it yourself after the install, you end up with leftover bits when you uninstall that lead nowhere.

In the KDE UI, it's automatically organized by program type (Education, Development, Games, Graphics, Internet, Office, etc.), then by application function (Web Browser, Chat, News Reader, netPhone, etc.) If only one such app is installed, it's right there; if you have more than one, they have a second sumbenu. So, the menu itself always points you to where you need to go to find the program you want. You do always have to go into one submenu, and rarely two, but the only place I've only seen a third submenu is for system configuration (control panel). Some programs show up in multiple locations (steam (the game store) is listed under "Games->Steam" and "Internet->Data Exchange->Steam"), but only if they actually have multiple functions, and that generally makes them easier to find.

Another, minor improvement is the act of shutting down. In my last job, one of my daily tasks was to ensure that all the computers were shut down. It would be nearly impossible to count the number of times that I walked into someone's office only to see the "Do you really want to shut down?" prompt sitting at the center of the screen. Yes, I like to have a confirmation dialog when I'm about to do something potentially massive like shutting down, or exiting an app without saving changes. But, on linux, that dialog has a countdown (user configurable) such that, if you don't cancel it, it will go ahead and shut down like you already told it to 30 seconds later (user configurable). So many MS Windows systems sat there, asking "really, boss?", fully powered on, simply because the user didn't say "yes, you stupid machine, I really wanted you to do exactly what I just told you to do!". As I left up to 5 hours after some people, that was a lot of wasted on-time. A minor, almost trivial thing, that Microsoft never bothered to implement.
 
The previous poster mentioned some benefits of the currently most popular Linux Desktop Environment - KDE. But I don't think anybody has said how powerful KDE is and the astonishing variety of ways in which it enables the user to store their data and the speed with which they can then retrieve that data (particularly if they often like to launch an app by opening the associated file). I feel disempowered when I have to use a computer without KDE4 and I'm looking forward to KDE5 being finished enough to install.


As I would fit into the little old lady demographic (except that I'm as atypical as all the other little old ladies) I thought my opinion might be worth something so:

I briefly tried KDE "Activities" but at the time it was too demanding of CPU cycles.

However some things I can't do without:

Virtual Desktops. These can be created and deleted as various jobs or hobbies require. They can all look individual and behave in an individual way.

Widgets. As just an instance of the many things they can do - stick a Folder View widget (or two) on the appropriate Virtual Desktop and set it (or them) up with the folders and files associated with the job (or links to them) and everything you want is just a click or two away as long as you need ready access to it. And, though I like to use key combinations wherever possible to launch frequently used apps, where there are key conflicts I like the QuickLaunch widget for quick access to the rest of my most used apps.

There are enough desktop configurability options to suit those with artistic ambitions or a drive to make their KDE look different from any of the millions of other KDE GUIs.


Warnings:

You have to put in a bit of time learning how to get the most out of KDE and, unlike me, you mightn't find that sort of thing fun.

You should discourage KDE from offering to index your data for you if you feel competent to do your own storage and retrieval. In that case, I'd advise you to avoid the KDE Personal Information Manager and use Thunderbird and its calendar (or the Lightning calendar extension) instead.
 
Last edited:
Why is it "so called"?

What do you believe it ought to be called?


It's really the "Linux OS" (or possibly "GNU/Linux OS") with a "Chrome UI".

Microsoft Windows is both the OS and primary/default UI, so many people think the UI is OS, and carry that thinking to the Linux world. Google is perpetuating this by calling their UI replacement the "Chrome OS".

<snip>


"So called" Android? "So called" Ubuntu? "So called" iOS?

There's nothing unusual or unethical about basing the kernel of an OS development on other open source code. It isn't like Google is trying to pull a fast one on anybody, or claim sole credit. Anyone with enough computer savvy to understand the difference already knows it, and it's meaningless for those that don't.

There are dozens of ROM and kernel alternatives for Android devices alone. Some of those are based on stock vendor offerings, some are written from scratch. I've flashed more than a few different ones on more than a few different devices, but that doesn't mean I believe that they sprang full-blown from the brows of their respective authors.

Mrs. qg doesn't know any better, but she couldn't care less. She would be utterly confused if I tried to explain it all to her, and it certainly wouldn't matter to her if it was called "Android", or "Android Linux" or "Bob's Your Uncle Phone OS".

She isn't going to give Google any extra props because the OS on Chromebooks is called "Chrome" by Google. She isn't going to care one way or the other.

That's your average user.
 
Last edited:
Google can call it whatever it wants as far as I'm concerned. The end result is that fewer people realize they are already familiar with at least one variation of Linux. Of course, Android, which many people have on their phones and tablets is also based on Linux - and again you get people making comments like, 'I would never use Linux - it's too complicated' and actually using an Android device to post those comments! :D

Back when Android first came out, I was chatting with a friend of mine. First, I showed her my Android phone, which she was pretty impressed with. Later, she was telling me how sad she was that her school was shutting down their Ubuntu lab, which she and the students all loved. Even later, I said something about Linux, and she told me she hated Linux. I expressed confusion, and it turned out that she had no idea that Ubuntu or Android were examples of Linux! :eek:

Turns out a lot of people think Linux is inherently hard, and therefore, if something isn't inherently hard, it must not be Linux. :boggled:

With both Android and Chrome OS the typical user never interacts directly with the O.S. - only the graphical user interface.

What does this even mean? Nobody really interacts directly with the OS. You may interact with a graphical shell or a text-based shell; both are at least one layer removed from the OS itself, though.

I admit that I love the power and flexibility of a well-designed command line, but a well-designed GUI can be useful or even indispensible as well. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, and I don't really think one is superior to the other, and I especially don't think one is more of a "real" interface than the other.
 
What does this even mean? Nobody really interacts directly with the OS. You may interact with a graphical shell or a text-based shell; both are at least one layer removed from the OS itself, though.

What I was trying to say is that for the average phone/tablet user who only launches apps, no knowledge of the underlying O.S. is necessary.

For a user who only ever launches applications, it would be quite easy (and maybe someone has done it) to make a graphical UI that looks like Windows but runs on a Linux O.S.

Of course, if the user wants to copy files and such it would be harder to make the system look like Windows - and once the user needs to configure something ('Control Panel' in Windows speak) then it would become pretty much impossible.

Contrast the graphical user interface with the text-based one: I think anyone using a text-based shell must have some basic knowledge about the operation of the O.S. to perform even the simplest of tasks.
 
Don't worry, one day (probably 20 minutes after practical Cold Fusion is confirmed :p ) Linux will the go to OS for people who do not want to spend hours on their computer and for those who do.

I honestly think that Linux is getting more user-friendly and easier to use out-of-the-box and without any specialised knowledge. It's not perfect yet, but I think we are approaching "Peak Linux", where the effort to accomplish any random task on Windows will be no easier than accomplishing a similar task on Linux.

Perhaps. But is that because Linux is getting more comprehensible, or because Windows is getting more incomprehensible?
 
Perhaps. But is that because Linux is getting more comprehensible, or because Windows is getting more incomprehensible?


I don't think Windows is any less comprehensible than in the past as far as new, first time users are concerned, which would be the appropriate comparison to someone using a Linux version for the first time.

I have noticed that some individuals have more difficulty dealing with minor changes than others as far as new Windows versions are concerned.
 
For a user who only ever launches applications, it would be quite easy (and maybe someone has done it) to make a graphical UI that looks like Windows but runs on a Linux O.S.

Of course, if the user wants to copy files and such it would be harder to make the system look like Windows - and once the user needs to configure something ('Control Panel' in Windows speak) then it would become pretty much impossible.

Contrast the graphical user interface with the text-based one: I think anyone using a text-based shell must have some basic knowledge about the operation of the O.S. to perform even the simplest of tasks.

If not for patent and trade mark infringement this would already have been done. It would not be hard* at all to make a UI that mimics the behaviour of MS Windows for Linux.

The user of a GUI must also have some basic knowledge of the operation of the O.S. to perform even simple tasks. To find your applications you must know to click on the Start button and navigate the menu with the mouse. To cut, copy or paste something, one must know to right-click or find the correct icon or keyboard shortcut.

* for given values of "hard"
 
I don't think Windows is any less comprehensible than in the past as far as new, first time users are concerned, which would be the appropriate comparison to someone using a Linux version for the first time.

I have noticed that some individuals have more difficulty dealing with minor changes than others as far as new Windows versions are concerned.
Kidding aside, I'm not sure I agree. I've used Windows since 3.1 , during which time it has grown much larger and more complex.

My understanding of it remains adequate for me to do what I want to do, but only just. There's a lot more that I don't know now.

A simple example would be the file system. Under W3.1, the DOS system, with which I was familiar, was retained. My stuff was in C:\Stuff.
Now it's in C:\users\Soapy_sam\desktop\Mystuff. I think. Or scattered across libraries, or virtual folders. I often lose files because Windows, or Windows applications, have saved it in some arcane corner. I find it after searching for a few minutes, but that rather diminishes the value of a processor that's 2000 times (or whatever) faster than the 286 I used way back when.

Sure, it's nice to have bells & whistles on the main PC, but for the old e-book, a cut down version of Windows XP would be rather nice.
 
Another, minor improvement is the act of shutting down. In my last job, one of my daily tasks was to ensure that all the computers were shut down. It would be nearly impossible to count the number of times that I walked into someone's office only to see the "Do you really want to shut down?" prompt sitting at the center of the screen. Yes, I like to have a confirmation dialog when I'm about to do something potentially massive like shutting down, or exiting an app without saving changes. But, on linux, that dialog has a countdown (user configurable) such that, if you don't cancel it, it will go ahead and shut down like you already told it to 30 seconds later (user configurable). So many MS Windows systems sat there, asking "really, boss?", fully powered on, simply because the user didn't say "yes, you stupid machine, I really wanted you to do exactly what I just told you to do!". As I left up to 5 hours after some people, that was a lot of wasted on-time. A minor, almost trivial thing, that Microsoft never bothered to implement.

shutdown /s /f /t 30 /m \\computername
 

Back
Top Bottom