[luau] MSWindows

[MonMotha]

Eric Hattemer wrote:
>>Actually, I think you hit the nail on the head with those last two
>>paragraphs.  Linux isn't inherently harder to use for "Average Joe" (who
>>doesn't isntall his own OS or most of his software anyway), it's just
>>*different*, and that scares Joe.
>>
>>--MonMotha
> 
> 
> I don't think this is true at all.  I have never needed help for ANYTHING in
> windows.  On the other hand, anything I attempt in linux usually takes
> several days, I ask for help, then it fails anyway.

You're one of the intermediate users.  There are plenty of those too.  I 
usually find that there are three basic categories of users:

*Beginner/Too cautious for their own good: Won't do anything that's not 
on their cheat sheet (like installing an OS or software, or using 
uncommon features in their programs) without calling up a more "techie" 
friend to help them.  These are the people I was speaking of.  There's a 
lot of these.

*Intermediate/Willing to try and occassionaly messes up: These are the 
people who will install their own software, but don't have the know-how 
or will to troubleshoot something when it goes wrong.  These people will 
only bother their "techie" friends when something breaks or if they come 
across a feature that's intriguing and they want to know more.  This 
group is probably one of the hardest to support as they are willing to 
do things on their own (and this is a GOOD THING), but don't "walk the 
walk" if you will.

*Advanced/Knows how to fix things: This group is where your average 
hard-core linux user falls.  They're willing to do just about anythign 
on their own, and if something doesn't work they either know what to do 
to fix it or where to go.  However, these people aren't gods.  They may 
need to ask another advanced user who is more familiar with a certain 
subsystem for more information or help on occasion.

There are subcategories of course.  But notice I leave off a "knows 
everything" level.  Even Linus Torvalds doesn't know everything that's 
going on on a Linux system.  There are parts of your redhat box that 
Alan Cox has no idea what to do if they utterly fall apart.  But these 
guys of course know who to call.

> 
> "The problem is, people think they are smart enough to
> install and configure their own computer.  When they realize this isn't
> true, they question why doesn't the software engineers design easier to
> use software, as if that was the problem to begin with. "

See Intermediate level above.

> 
> The thing is, I'm not a stupid user or anything.  I have never had real
> problems installing programs in windows.  If ever I did, the product was not
> worthwhile anyway.  Only about 1:5 times when I try to compile something in
> linux does it come out correctly.  Then even with RPMs, they often complain
> about obscure library dependencies.  An RPM says it needs libsoq.so.12, then
> I look for soq in the rpms, and nothing similar exists.  In windows, its
> double click the install file, next, next, next, finish.  There is nothing
> easier.  It is obvious that most of the time linux is quite a bit harder to
> get things installed on.  Windows doesn't require that the user remember
> anything.  Do you really think most of the world moved away from the command
> line by pure chance?  No, it allows you to manipulate files and etc. without
> learning or remembering any commands.
> 

Get a better packaging system, one that can fulfill dependencies for you 
automatically.  Windows programs have library dependencies too (of 
course), but they generally include them all on the CD.  Linux programs 
try to avoid redundant downloading, so they don't do that.  Debian's 
apt-get program will take the package you ask for, and automagically 
download and install it and all it's dependencies.  Gentoo's BSD ports 
system does the same but it also compiles it from source.  Honesly I 
don't know how RPM became the standard for Linux packages.  It was a 
great first step, but there have been vast improvements upon it.

Lately, many RPM based distributions have taken to a debian like 
approach.  I believe Mandrake has urpmi and you can actually make 
apt-get work with RPM on redhat systems.  This should eliminate the 
"dependency hell" commonly complained about by RPM users.

> Now the linux community can sit around and think that everyone but
> themselves are stupid and learn the command line interface, but if they
> really want anyone else to learn linux, the way to do it is to make it
> easier, not to try to convince everyone to work harder.  An install shield
> type of program, more gui menus, and other such things would help
> considerably.  Command line interfaces are for system administrators and
> programmers.  They are good for people who are really into their systems.
> However, they are not for average people who just want to install and
> uninstall programs.  Look at MacOSX.  The command prompt is there for people
> who really like to type in commands, but the GUI is done so well that the
> average mac user doesn't even know or need to know that the terminal is
> available.  Now maybe you're one of those people who says, "Linux is fine
> the way it is, and putting menus and making it easier would just make it for
> stupid people.  I'm glad that my friends and I are the only people smart
> enough to use linux, because other people would get in the way," but if
> you're the type who says, "I wish other people used linux.  That would make
> society better," then you can't expect people to say, "Hey, if I could learn
> to use vi and type in commands, my life would be much better."
> 

Actually, people are working on this.  KDE and GNOME are a far cry from 
what my X11 desktop looked like on Slackware 3.6 (aka Slackware98). 
There are GUIs (both X and console based) for things such as software 
installation, but with a good package manager, the GUI isn't needed. 
Why click next 10 times when you can just type "apt-get install foo"? 
Configuration is also progressing rapidly.  There have got to be tens, 
possibly hundreds of tools for helping you configure your system.  If 
anything, the problem is there's too many of them!

<rant>While we're on the subject of the multiple desktops and such.  No, 
"Linux" doesn't need to "get it's act together" and make a unified 
desktop.  Same goes for the multiple distributions.  Just think of them 
as a completely different OS.  Similar to NT and Win9x.  They were both 
based on some of the same code, but back at Win95 and NT4, there were 
LOTS of incompatibilities.  And don't go saying what WinXP has fixed 
them.  WinXP is just NT.  If you try to run a piece of software that's 
heavily dependent on Win9x on XP, you'll find that out.</rant>

> -Eric Hattemer

--MonMotha