Posted on 04/09/2014 7:48:00 AM PDT by ShadowAce
It’s been my experience that, despite any progress, Ubuntu and distros like it have made in gaining new users, those in the tech media continue to get it wrong. In this article, I’ll examine how the tech media continues to spread misinformation about Linux on the desktop, why it happens and what we as users can do about it.
Years ago, merely installing and configuring Linux for the desktop could be extremely difficult. And while recent technologies such as UEFI have added some extra hurdles for distribution developers, the end user is able to install Linux relatively easily nowadays.
Realizing this, one must ask themselves -- why are so many tech writers claiming Linux is too difficult for the average user? The first stop in this view is that you need a geek to install a distribution like Ubuntu. Here’s a reality check -- most people don’t install their own operating system. And yet every time I read an article about how “hard" Linux is to use, this is the first complaint on the author’s list.
What’s actually happening is that many folks are trying to install Linux onto systems in a dual-boot environment. This alone adds a new challenge when dealing with the bootloader, as Windows doesn’t always cooperate as it should.
Another challenge Windows users face when trying to install Linux is that some components aren’t supported that well under Linux. Technologies such as certain wireless chips and GPU switching are still touchy on the Linux desktop. So when a Windows user discovers these challenges on a new Linux installation, they immediately assume it must be Linux that is at fault. In reality, this couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Linux has far greater desktop hardware compatibility than most people realize. But the problem many people run into is trying to install Linux onto a computer with a "Made for Windows" sticker on it.
Under most circumstances, installing Linux onto a Windows based PC shouldn’t be too eventful. But there are times where certain components aren’t as Linux compatible as others. What might surprise most people is that this isn’t a Linux shortcoming, rather, this is a limitation of what the individual PC was built for -- Windows.
Since most hardware works out of the box, I think Linux newbies tend to take hardware incompatibility for granted. See, when installing Windows you can always download a missing driver easily enough. With Linux, usually you’re relying on the distribution to handle the hardware compatibility. So if something isn’t working, you’re generally left trying to find a work-a-round.
When a technology writer review's a Linux distribution, they have the belief that their PC’s hardware should work out of the box, no excuses. Unfortunately with some notebook hardware, sound or video can be flaky...the same with wireless networking. As mentioned above, this is rare, but it happens. And it’s at this point, the writer will report back that a distro isn’t compatible and therefore, isn’t ready for the masses. They miss the point that if had they used a "Made for Linux" notebook (they do exist), their experience would be completely different.
Another common complaint I hear from technology writers is that there isn’t any good software for Linux. Personally, I think this is a matter of perspective. While I would agree that there are some areas where legacy software titles are missing on Linux, there are some great applications available. Software like Skype, Firefox, LibreOffice and so on are all available for most Linux distributions. As a matter of fact, the software most people use is readily available on Linux.
Regardless, the absence of being able to use some Windows software titles (without WINE) seems to be enough to turn off tech gurus completely. Apparently lacking Adobe titles is enough to sour the experience for some folks. Now to be fair, yes, I agree that it’d be nice to be able to render cool effects or edit photos using Adobe titles. I can even understand the benefits of relying on Microsoft Office in some instances. But the idea that the lack of this software makes using Linux intolerable seems a bit over the top.
With more applications becoming available as web based titles each day, I think the above issue will eventually resolve itself. In the meantime, I’m generally satisfied with what’s available for the Linux desktop with regard to software.
Now that we’ve addressed the areas that technology writers and gurus think Linux is failing, let’s look at some solutions to address these issues.
Installation -- If at all possible, try out Linux on a machine designed to run it. Obviously this isn’t always possible, but judging hardware compatibility by trying out a distro on incompatible hardware hardly seems fair. At the very least, consider researching hardware compatibility lists before jumping to conclusions.
Software -- Unless you’re tied to specific legacy software for work purposes, there isn’t really anything you’re not able to do with the Linux desktop. Using tools like "AlternativeTo" can provide good open source software alternatives to most legacy software applications that keep one tied to a Windows mindset.
Will these solutions work for all those naysayers in the tech media? Probably not, because the real problem isn’t Linux or a preference for other operating systems. The bigger issue comes down to drive-by reviews. These are reviews where someone creates the idea that they know what they’re talking about, when in fact they don’t actually run Linux on the desktop, full time.
My suggestion to those who read or watch media where "drive-by reviews" take place is to call them out on these practices. Unless the review or opinion is given by someone who "lives and breathes" the Linux desktop, realize that you're only getting part of the story. Until we stop giving credit to people who don’t even run Linux full time, nothing is going to change and FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) will continue to flourish.
On the flip side, I hope that those who pump out these drive-by reviews will look at my suggestions, reach out to companies who provide a Linux installed computer out of the box and actually take Linux on the desktop a whole lot more seriously. Until this happens, it’s going to be up to us to read Linux reviews with a heavily critical eye.
OK—I can accept that point. But how many beginning users will be using the command line and not the GUI?
Wrong!
It's the absolute truth.
And it is Linux which is at fault. It is advertised as being able to run on Windows, and then idiots like the author whine that Microsoft should have foreseen DIY programmers might write stuff in the future that might not work as expected. Maybe Microsoft and the chip makers simply retired their OUIJA boards early.
What a silly comment to make! Stuff people are writing don't work in Windows.
D'OH!
Good point — they may not be beginning users
in the absolute sense, but required to use the system due to some circumstance on-the-job, too.Hey, Dave, you need to SSH in to the client's server and find out what's wrong with their configuration.
Uhhh--no.
Hardware drivers are not written by Microsoft. They are written by the hardware vendors. In the vast majority of cases, they write to the largest customer base--Windows. This is not a surprise, nor is the author complaining about it. He is just stating the fact that the driver may not be readily available for Linux.
In either case, it is NOT the OS' fault for a lack of drivers.
I’ll second ShadowAce’s recommendation for PCLinuxOS. I’ve resurrected half a dozen old Windoze desktops (several dating back to the late 1990s) and never had any hardware incompatibilities. It has simply worked out of the box on every computer I’ve installed it on, old or new.
When I began using Linux three years ago, I was just a typical Windoze user, with very little computer knowledge. So if I could do it, anyone can.
"The normal Menu button is missing!"
"The new fonts are ugly!"
"What happened to the background image?"
"I liked the old desktop layout better."
"My App/Game/Photo/Vid program no longer works!"
OK, so either stay with your current version of 'doze, add it back on yourself manually, or switch to Linux. And you think that paying over 120 dollars each time you "upgrade" to the next version of widows is actually something you absolutely HAVE to do?
On top of that, people then go out and pay more money for the newest version of MS Office, Photoshop, DVD utilities and burning software, and uncountable AntiVirus programs.
I will repeat that: they willingly PAY for all that.
However, an OS which comes in many, many flavours, is almost infinitely configurable, comes with many applications such as those previously mentioned already installed and if the default apps are not all there or to your liking, they are readily available online, but is not "Windows" but "Linux" -and totally FREE...
This is enough to make people complain that Linux is unuseable?
Words fail.
I’m running Mint on a laptop and even my wife can use it.
Plus, it is based upon Debian Stable, so a solid distro with a good support userbase.
Ubuntu was extremely easy to install - easier than Win by far
Linux has been unusable (aka “not ready for the desktop”) for at least the last twenty years I’ve been using it on my desktop.
I had to touch windows 2012 recently, and of course I had to reboot. Never had to do a web search to figure out how to reboot a linux box.
“...there are times where certain components aren’t as Linux compatible as others. What might surprise most people is that this isn’t a Linux shortcoming, rather, this is a limitation of what the individual PC was built for — Windows.”
The writer lost me here.
You do realize that some hardware has firmware written entirely to Windows, right? They do not conform to standards.
Some people just need more hand-holding than others. Not too long ago, a friend started complaining that their (Windows) machine had a problem. Seems it would no longer shut down when the Ctrl-Alt-Del sequence, also known as the three-finger-salute, was pressed. After a couple of weeks about hearing about it, I finally agreed to go over to the house and take a look at it.
Came into the house, the machine was powered on with a blank screen since no recent user activity so I hit a button to verify that it was functional and had him log in. That done, I initiated shutdown. A little menu window popped up with the options for that task displayed:
...
Logout
Shutdown
Reboot
...
Reboot in 10, 9, 8...
I quietly shut My eyes and shook My head for a moment, then interrupted the process so I could call him over to take a look at the machine. Then I showed him how the up- and down- arrow keys would change the selection from the "Reboot" setting it was then on to "Shutdown" instead. After I selected the "Shutdown" option for him, I hit the Enter key and the machine proceeded to quietly shut down.
"You're welcome." I told him briefly, then left.
Perhaps Linux is indeed too difficult for some people to use. Windows comes preinstalled with the machine. Linux pretty much never does, unless you specifically ask for it. Either way there is a bit of a learning curve needed. I guess some people prefer to deal with the preinstalled ones rather than some other ones.
I’d second shadowace’s response. All three should be good for beginners. I’ve recently been playing with Mint in a VM. The ‘live’ CDs are great to see if everything in your computer is compatible. Boot up on the CD, then try different things like playing an MP3, connecting to the internet, and other stuff like that. If everything works, you should be good to go. If your wireless card doesn’t work, (this is a lot less common than it used to be), you might want to google a bit to make sure it can be made to work fairly easily.
I am by no means an expert user - not even a talented amateur, but earlier this morning, I resized my partitions on the fly.
I am using Fedora 16 (Verne). I need to update, but this version has been my favorite and I’ve been slow to change.
Honestly, if I can do it, nearly anyone can/could. I taught myself Linux when my new laptop several years ago came with Windows Vista and it was the worst thing ever.
Mint is a decent distro, I agree. Tried it out not too long ago but it took up a bit too much space on the default drive though so decided to look at it again at some future date. PClinuxOS looks visually more appealing I think, but I tend to stay away from the RedHat/Fedora -based distros so decided against it. Others might find it more appealing, however.
I used Linux for a few years and for most people it is terrible as a desktop computer. But one distro I always liked was Puppy Linux. It's very small and efficient and extremely easy to get up and running. If you just want to surf the web and other simple stuff it's great.
The Holy Grail from a user perspective is that he/she shouldn't know or care what the underlying OS is. We have a long way to go before that is reached but it's reachable.
Plain old “info” might get somebody started, and the other tool that is useful is “apropos” also known as “whatis.” It narrows down and gives precise man page names.
That doesn’t make it Windows’ fault. That’s an artifact of market power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.