Hmmm. I think I'm going to agree with David more on this.
We will never make an O.S. that does everything for everyone.
We will never make an O.S. that everyone who sits down in front of will like.
We can't.
I feel there's a certain amount of "the grass is greener" complex
going on here, for what it's worth.
I've never seen this presumably mythical Windows/Apple computer that
"Just Works" all the time that everyone's grandma could use.
And I don't think or feel that I have *more* problems with Linux than
I had/have with Windows; I have *different* problems. And when people
come to me with their Macs, I have *different* problems on there, too.
I've yet to see a computer without bugs and problems, though the Apple
PR machine had me convinced that they really are super-stable over
there until I actually saw people using Macs regularly; the fact is
they have the same glitchy, crashy bugs as the rest of us.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:26 PM, David Ernst <david.ernst@davidernst.net> wrote:
> Wow, we're in really different places about this. I've always been
> cynical about the "Year of Linux On The Desktop" thing... In general,
> OSX and Windows still seem well ahead of any Linux setup I've seen on
> a traditional PC, and even if it really was just as good, I think it'd
> be hard to get people to change.
It's hard to change, regardless of from what or to what. This includes
changing from Windows X to Windows Y.
When my mother-in-law called to complain because someone had
"upgraded" her computer and now it didn't work, it turned out to be
someone had installed Windows XP on her P3 computer with 256 MB of RAM
(because, hey, XP is better than 98, right?). Everything slowed to a
crawl, and things weren't the way they used to be in Windows 98; big
surprise.
So, let's face it: Windows and Apple computers also have to be rigged
up and set up for some users, and then those users will never update
or perform maintenance themselves; a lot of people won't even glance
at the instructions that come with a printer, they'll immediately call
the person who originally hooked up their computer, or anyone else
they think "knows about that sort of thing".
Thus the Geek Squad.
The reason we got called this time, was that the person who last
rigged it up for them rigged it up annoyingly, making it slower and
more painful, while telling them he was improving things. Rather than
complain to him (the guy who'd originally set them up), or confront
him about the idea that a slower XP computer is not, in fact, better
for them than a reasonably fast 98 machine, they came to the next
person they knew who "knows about that sort of thing", and asked my
opinion.
Now, I am not the sort of person who pushes Linux on people, as a
habit. Choice of O.S. can be as personal and subjective a topic as
religion and politics, and I do not want to be left as the guy who
suggested the thing they ended up hating.
I'm happy to advocate Ubuntu by example, I might suggest people give
it a try if they show interest in it or disgust in the alternative,
but otherwise I don't push people to switch or tell them my choice is
better than theirs. Though, if I *give* someone an old computer (an
occasional side-effect of working with them so much) I have no qualms
about making that O.S. choice for them; I *only* give out computers
with Ubuntu.
However:
* No matter what we did, unless we got Windows 98 back up and running
it was going to be a big change for her. And have you ever tried to
get all the drivers and such working right on a Windows 98 computer
without all the original install media? (even *with* all the media,
it's not necessarily straight forward and/or pleasant)
* All she wanted was her Firefox and Thunderbird to come up within a
reasonable amount of time after she clicked the icon.
* Viruses, anyone?
* Frankly, I had gotten tired of dealing with Windows problems on my
off time; if you want to call me for help and expect worthwhile
advice, use my Operating System.
So we gave her a new computer running Ubuntu.
And hey, that was her "Year of the Linux Desktop".
> I just... don't have any of the problems you describe. I've run
> Ubuntu on my main workstation for years. Ethernet trouble? I can't
> remember the last time I even thought about linux visa-vis ethernet.
> It just always works. X.org literally never crashes on me. I agree
> that flash is not perfect, but I'm just an average flash user, and I'm
> hardly ever bothered. Samba printing wasn't super-easy to get set up,
> but ever since then, it's just worked.
and
> When Ubuntu 10.4 was released, I downloaded the Netbook Remix. I
> booted from an external flash drive, it's been running on that boot
> ever since. EVERYTHING works, from the wifi finder/connector up
> through Skype Video with the built-in webcam. The battery lasts hours
> and it sleeps and wakes up just the way you'd hope it would. I could
> go on and on, but basically, I'm giddy about it, and as I type I'm
> blowing away WinXP to go pure Ubuntu on it. Unless something shows up
> to disappoint me, I wouldn't hesitate to give it to a "grandmother".
This has been my most common installation experience lately, and it's
working so consistently that more and more often it's what I *expect*.
Every Ubuntu release is easier to install and supports more hardware
out of the box. Almost none of the machines I install Ubuntu on these
days have hardware issues, or they're easily fixed by using the
hardware drivers dialog while I'm plugged into the Internet.
Now I'm definitely not saying I never see regression—I can't close the
lid on my hp tc4200 tablet without it freaking out, a bug that was
fixed for one or two versions a couple of years ago, and one model
Dell at work freezes when told by Linux to reboot, a bug in Hardy that
wasn't there in Gutsy(yeah, they're due for an upgrade this summer,
but they haven't been running Hardy for two years; I opted to install
Hardy over Intrepid when Jaunty was almost out)—but I certainly don't
see regression as the rule, it's most definitely been the exception
for me.
> So, am I saying the Year of the Desktop is here? Not really.
Heck, my "Year of the Linux Desktop" was 2005. That's when I decided
to make Linux my primary desktop O.S. (not that I'll ever stop using
other O.S.es entirely; my job involves helping people use their
technology, not telling them to use my technology).
My wife waited until probably 2007 or so before jumping in
whole-heartedly herself; that was the year the last Windows partition
died in our home (and that one had been kept around solely for
gaming).
For my mother-in-law, the "Year of the Linux Desktop" was 2008; she
even got herself a Linux Netbook that year so she could take notes on
the go.
So, do I believe there's going to be a single point at which Linux
SUDDENLY because the obvious best choice for everyone? A single year
in the next few in which Linux rockets up in popularity so much that
Linus Torvalds gets Time's Man of the Year? Naw...well, Linus might
make Man of the Year, but I doubt it'll be because of a *sudden*
uptake.
But, is the Year of the Linux Desktop here?
Yes, for many people it *is* 2010.
And, for even more it'll be 2011.
Then, for even more it'll be 2012.
And that doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me.
> David
Simón
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
