Zog's Blog

I turned to the bosom of Linux after a particularly bad bout of Microsoft frustration. Unfortunately, it was such a tangled cluster$%&@ of updates and versions, without even basic help files to aid a newb, that only a person who has put several months into figuring it out would get anywhere. Plus, installing anything without internet access was a laughable excursion into stupidity. I'm pretty tech savvy (well, once a long time ago, at least. QBasic, ftw), but trying to figure out the prompt scripts was excruciating. The platform of security locks was just was teeth gnashing as MS and it didn't run any faster than windows.

I wanted nothing more than to drink wine rather than use in on my computer.

I finally concluded that Linux was greatly overrated and basically sucked donkey balls.

*Edit: I think, with both operating systems, the issue revolves around the fact that the more brilliant the designing engineers are, the more hopeless incompetent they are at explain how their system works to anyone but other designing nerds.

Hello I'm a average Linux users, I always find the baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww it does not work for me SO THE ENTIRE THING STINKS a bit irritating.

For example, many Linux distributions for Netbooks are intended to run from a USB drive, installing themselves to the computer's RAM. That's neat and all -- and significantly speeds up performance -- but the fact is that most of us would rather have the OS safely within the computer, not on some peripheral device we might lose, break or spill coffee on.

Just ignore the entire run from CD things then, its not like there rare or something. Try Debian or so (having 7 days of uptime on it).

Linux is a for the average user a hazmat zone, and I would like to thank the media for spreading the story of "a super cheap easy to use OS". I also dislike the fact that some people just magically think because the can ride a bicycle they just can jump on a motorbike and speed off.

But who am I to say that.

Xoindotnler continues reading his book about Windows Server 2008.

How are we defining "average user"? I've been doing tech support work at a windows-mostly shop for a few months and the "average user" has trouble with XP.

I would guess average user has a bit of a range from people who use nothing but email, word and solitaire to people who do basic photo/movie editing, gaming etc. But don't really know how to code or do much that doesn't have an installer.

How are we defining "average user"? I've been doing tech support work at a windows-mostly shop for a few months and the "average user" has trouble with XP.

What AJ says is true. I'm a network engineer that rose through the ranks of help desk, etc. I have also been using SCO/FreeBSD/Linux for the past 15 years. I can't honestly say that I have ever experienced anyone telling me to edit source when I've run into an issue. If you want an end-user experience, pick up an end-user distribution of Linux. Ubuntu is ok though the netbook version is a little too dumbed down. I use Suse enterprise desktop at work. A lot of people seem to like Debian.

Now, here's the important piece of the puzzle. You have to do a little research before deciding on what distribution to try out. If you're using a netbook, make sure a specific flavor works ok on that netbook. (would you buy a game without making sure your hardware meets the minimum specs?) The main issue is usually network adapters, so look into that. As for software, use the package management system that's default. Understand your goal before you start working towards it. Most people will live happily in Gnome with Open Office and Firefox. What else does the "average user" really use? The problem is the technical user who decides to try Linux and instead of saying, "is this something I would even try using windows?" They start trying to get all fancy. Fancy breaks and rawr linux is too complicated.

How are we defining "average user"? I've been doing tech support work at a windows-mostly shop for a few months and the "average user" has trouble with XP.

'Average user' probably doesn't apply to anyone who plays CN. It would apply to someone like my brother, though. He called me up a few days ago to ask for help. When I asked about his desktop, he thought I meant his literal desktop. When I asked which browser he was using (it was a text-size issue that he called about) he said 'Yahoo'.

To be fair to my brother (and my sister, come to think of it) until about ten years ago neither of them had used a computer for anything except, possibly, work-related applications. And then they were using what were little more than dumb terminals running proprietary, highly-specialized software.

And yes....all the people who call you up with problems that really aren't problems? Average users.

Well I guess what I was driving at was that I don't think being too complicated by itself is going to slow down adoption of user-friendlier Linux distros. If you don't know what a browser is (which is a shocking percentage of people I deal with on a daily basis) then Ubuntu or XP isn't going to make a big difference. Just drop a shortcut that says "interwebs" on the desktop. The problem for those users is if they're accustomed to XP it'll be a real pain to get them to move even if functionally almost nothing changes. Plus people say Linux is hard (which is true if you're doing more complicated things they mostly won't need).

Man modest technical competence has made me an arrogant ass.

At some point in my Net+ class the teacher had us try and use Linux on a virtual machine. I cannot tell you how many times I broke it trying to do simple things.

I would think I'm closer to the average user than the people who have "problems" that aren't problems. I can basically function on the computer, and perform most basic tasks in Windows, but if you ask me to do more involved stuff you had best have a manual handy. Which is bad, since I'm apparently the one everyone in my family goes to for help. The best "problem" I've encountered was my grandmother being unable to comprehend that shutting down the computer was turning it off.

I'd spend a few bucks on a new SSD and install XP or Win 7 on the netbook.

The netbook I have I spent less than 100 on a few years back and only to take places for watching my fantasy football leagues. It has linux on it, and for surfing ESPN, it's fine, but not a whole lot else.

I despise linux, and I'm pretty far from the "average" computer user, having started at a helpdesk 16 years ago, and gone on architecting global Exchange rollouts. I just don't want to spend the time doing stuff in Linux that takes 10% of the time to accomplish on Windows. That's me though, it's even worse for your parents, sisters and friends who don't work in IT for a living.

At some point in my Net+ class the teacher had us try and use Linux on a virtual machine. I cannot tell you how many times I broke it trying to do simple things.

That's funny. In my NET+ class, when we got to Linux nobody in the class was able to get it to work on their machines, so the instructor just skipped it.

Frankly, I'm kinda surprised computer stores don't sell desktops preconfigured with Linux. It's easy enough to buy OS-free desktops nowadays, you'd think they'd be able to make some money off of the Linux install (just charge less for it than you do for Windows, and it's 100% profit for the store).

My work ensures that i have to operate in the Microsoft world. Every now and then i do get struck by the muse and install Linux at home. Usually Fedora. However after a week or two when i get antsy about not being able to play a particular game on the linux box regardless of what Wine can offer, i re-install Windoze on it.

If they started coming out with computer games etc. that would run natively on unix/linux you would find more people running the OS. Of course, it would have to be a platform independent offering otherwise you would get stuck with the typical "not for your distro" situation.

Software/game execution ought to be hardware dependent, not OS, atleast not within the same family of OS. I guess opensource does have its own limitations in terms of lack of standardization.

Frankly, I'm kinda surprised computer stores don't sell desktops preconfigured with Linux. It's easy enough to buy OS-free desktops nowadays, you'd think they'd be able to make some money off of the Linux install (just charge less for it than you do for Windows, and it's 100% profit for the store).

Actually, they do. System integrators like HP and others do offer PCs with Linux preinstalled, usually Ubuntu or Debian. This has the added benefit of making the base purchase cheaper for the buyer, who then promptly installs a torrent client and downloads the latest Windoze. Or goes to his neighborhood college geek and gets a DVD burnt with the OS for the price of a blunt.

I just don't want to spend the time doing stuff in Linux that takes 10% of the time to accomplish on Windows.

...like, what?

That's me though, it's even worse for your parents, sisters and friends who don't work in IT for a living.

My experience is the exact opposite, and I think I made that statement in my previous post. Lay people are MORE likely to be fine using a Linux desktop, as they have no interest in getting fancy. They want an office suite, a browser and minesweeper.

Well a typical office worker basically needs only open office, thunderbird and firefox. Actually come tho think of it, a linux deployment is ideal, if you create a limited account for the user, all he can do is those three shortcuts on this desktop. Make for an ideal Office worker PC. Of course add the shortcut for the company business package as well.