Why Linux is the Rodney Dangerfield of the software world

[speedy]

This thread hopefully will be a somewhat SERIOUS attempt to discuss the good and bad points of Linux limited to the consumer market and I hope for it not to go off into its merits as a alternate server software option. I think we should discuss why Linux isn't taken seriously by Joe Average as an alternative to Windows for his desktop.

My views:

First off how can anyone take any software seriously originally created in Finland?

In my view, of all the flavors of Linux one can pick up off the retail shelves and face it, that's how Joe Average will get it if he decides to try it, they suffer from clumsy and badly written install programs. First impressions count. So if Joe Average has trouble installing the OS, he may try once or twice then throw the carton across the room, then take it back for a refund at his earliest opportuntity.

The second hurdle is since most everyone wants Internet access the fact that Linux demands a "real" modem as opposed to the Winmodem most everyone already has that comes as a rude awakening once (if) Joe Average gets the OS installed. Face it, people won't go out and buy a new modem just to try a new OS even if it may be better.

The third obstacle is very few software houses support it. Corel the one big exception and they got creamed. That mostly leaves open source software. Sure some is good, a lot is crap. So Linux as yet really don't support the wide spectrum of Windows software people already have, how do you get them to switch?

Summary, Linux gets no respect, because it simply don't deserve it. Yet anyway. It simply isn't ready for prime time and a handful of "power users" do not turn the tide as to what operating systems people install. The KISS principle applies. Keep it simple stupid! Linux can't shake the image it is for power users, nerds and geeks. That folks is a death sentence until Linux gets a lot more user friendly.

[d4n13l]

speedy, I am glad that you took the offer up. But I cant say as I am overly impressed with the title you gave it! LOL. Dare I say a hint of M$ bias there?

Anyways...
Linux isnt yet taken seriously by Joe Average because, well, because it is not ready yet. I recognise this.
Linux can be a nightmare for a general user. Windows on the other hand was designed to be easy on the average guy. The fact that I use Linux and in my opinion beats Windoze in every respect that I care for, is merely my opinion of it. I am a programmer, most programmers revel in Linux. Big deal. What about Joe average though? Can Linux offer him anything in the future? Yes, as Linux gains more interest, its rate of development increases also. Linux CAN be made easy, it is now FAR more easier than it has ever been. So, the notion that it may be a viable alternative for windows is a question worth talking about. But lets not get caught up in its current hype. Forget all the "Linux is here" stories and keep that XP running the show for sometime yet. Linux in no way cuts it as an OS for the average home user with AOL. Yet. What it does offer (for free) is mainly for uber geeks, developers, hobbyists, small networks and workstations. Linux grows everyday, we even see M$ apps running under it.
But...
Newsflash!
Windoze far exceeds Linux in ease of use and integration.

Linux is in serious need of some integration if it is ever to unseat M$. M$ has its ass well and truly seated for sometime yet.
The point is though, what will the future hold in store. Linux is the public's OS, it is NOT owned by a company and so many "laws" of the corporate world vanish. Also the constant "must have" upgrades vanish because Linux aint trying to earn a buck, or billion. Linux is free, and should be judged as such. Not judged as an OS for the general public in a market where its "rivals" cost a *considerable* amount of money. Taking into account its new desktop new rival XP. And yes, XP is a good OS. A very good OS for the average guy I may add.
Linux is very young as a general desktop OS, it still has many shortcomings when compared to an M$ OS. Even more so that now XP is out. XP integrates a LOT more than Linux does, at the moment and is far easier for Joe Average to use. "At the moment", is a moot point though: The point of discussion is, WILL it? When you consider what Linux has to offer, then yes. Linux can be anything YOU want it to be!
One thing to remember though. Linux AINT free. Thats right. To make it work for you, *you* have to put in the hours and get some mean ass books to read also; dont expect a free lunch. Its learning curve is far harder than that of windows, but a learning curve that ultimatley gives you a higher reward. But that is a moot point. Joe Average doesnt have many hours to learn his spiffy new free OS. He wants a free lunch and eat it to(!). LOL. But, as I said; Linux is very immature as a desktop OS: It is too much to expect it to be a serious contender to XP. However, its learning curve is getting less as its desktop form develops. In the future, the learning curve will hopefully be a lot easier. It is logic that it will get easier. Then its learning curve will *still* go further than that of windows, but, it will be easier for the general user to initialy handle. They can hop of that curve whenever they feel learning 'pipes' is going to far for them. The choice is there for them.

Install. Complicated or not for Mr Average?
I think the install process of Linux (with a distro like Mandrake) is nearing that of windows. The latest Mandrake that I installed had a GUI equal to that of windows installations and the "hardest" part was partitioning. With Linux you have to choose what software you want to run, this can be as simple as a 3 option question, or as complicated of choosing from hundreds of apps - The choice is yours. They even make a simple 3 button option to make this easy for newbies (Server|Development|Normal in the case of mandrake 7) The fact that many people are even starting to say that Linux is as easy as windows to install ,or EVEN comparing it to windoze is amazing - Not so long ago Linux was a total pain in the ass to install, but now IMHO, it is easy. It is even possible to install a Linux system *without* a good Linux book, but getting a decent book on Linux is highly recommended all the same. Linux is evolving at an exponential rate because of its philosophies, in that all its source is made available. In other words, it can ONLY get better. The more interest it generates, the better it becomes.

The point about winmodems is valid ATM, but does not mean that much if we are talking about the future - UNLESS, we begin to see WinBroadband hardware. Anyways, people can always install Linux as a secondary OS to get used to it. They can buy a decent hardware *real* modem if they so wish. In fact, the "Winmodem paradox" stunned me on my first install, one of the reasons why I multiboot my main system! But, so what IF you do buy a *real* modem? Bum deal? Not likely - You will be better of with a real modem as they are more reliable and Winmodems are general cheapo HCF (and so on) affairs that just chew up more CPU cycles. You actually would be better off with a real modem. Winmodems show us a good example of corporations can unfairly influence people. Why be a sucker to this? If Linux ever unseats M$ as king of the desktop, we will no longer have issues such as companies throwing around their corporate might. Choice is good, proprietry OS's ultimately close down the publics choice. It is just business for them, but there MAY be a way for *us* (us as in *OUR* OS, the publics OS) to change that

The software.
True, Linux has its fair share of lemons, but then how much Windoze freeware have you dumped in the past? There is a gleeming example of what Linux can offer and it has the strange name of GIMP. A photoshop-like image editor. Though I ask you, would you rather pay for photoshop (and AGAIN for furture releases) OR have it for free without resorting to warez sites or the like? Anyway, since this is all about the future, lets leave that. If Linux *can* produce things like GIMP, things can only get better. Besides, the software will follow, proprietry or otherwise IF Linux makes headway in to the desktop market. After all, Linux is only a free modular kernel: You do not have forced upon you the software of the OS vendor.
It is also myth that Linux has not got any *good* apps for it.
Well, feast your mince pies around these shots:
www.linux-mandrake.com/en/fscreenshots.php3
Not bad for an OS with a reputation for having poor multimedia support coupled with lousy GUIs.

Summary.
Linux should get respect because of *what* it is: I find the very notion that there is a FREE alternative OS that is hugely powerful by comparison is very worthy of respect. The fact remains though; Linux is just not mature enough to take on Windows in its current state. It is not a competitor to M$ that is trying to make serious bucks, but a free OS for the public to use and even improve if they want to. The day that thousands of developers start sending M$ improvments (for free) to its OS is the day hell freezes over. To view Linux as "a Windoze" is pointless at the moment and stating known facts only enlightens the naive.
Linux is the people's champion.
Speedy, I have only heard bad points about Linux from you so far. I will beleive that you are saving them for your next post?


PS
Finland.
Well, I dont know. Santa comes from Finland and he sure does kick ass things!

[speedy]

Darn, up to the install section I can't really find anything to disagree about in what you said. My main points pretty much parallels your view. Good OS yes but rough spots, need to work with it, not yet ready for prime time, nice toy if you're a hacker, cracker, dork, power users, geek, etc..

On my first go at Linux (RedHat) several years ago I made the mistake of selecting install all. You know the result of that. LOL! Which really brings us back to the point I was making. For the casual user the install process is dreadful or was, maybe it got better. It sure needed work when I tried it.

One of these days I might pop my network card in a Linux box and see if it can handle my wireless broadband Internet access.

We agree GIMP is kewl! I liked it so much I found a Windows port of it and use it under XP right alongside XP.

Just curious are there any DECENT video editing packing for Linux? Something that can stand up to Premier, Vegas Video, even VirtualDub or everyone's favorite Tmpge?

[homerpez]

For me, Windows is much simpler to use, runs the programs I need, and doesn't need a PhD to know how to install and configure. It's really as simple as that.

Also, the benefits of Linux, when compared to any of Windowses, are not that profound enough to switch your whole line of operation. It's just the same as a Mac user suddenly deciding to go PC (which they should, BTW), it's totally foreign and you have to get all new software for the thing.

[d4n13l]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
In my view, of all the flavors of Linux one can pick up off the retail shelves and face it, that's how Joe Average will get it if he decides to try it, they suffer from clumsy and badly written install programs. First impressions count. So if Joe Average has trouble installing the OS, he may try once or twice then throw the carton across the room, then take it back for a refund at his earliest opportuntity.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Just to clear up the myth that Linux has a complicated install.
Seeing as speedy mentioned the retail distros, ie from a store and come in a box, the boxed retail versions are the easiest to install. They also come with a beginners guide on installing it, not that it is really needed in the case of Mandrake. With a distro like Mandrake, as long as your video card is supported then the install is as easy as 1-2-3. Point click click and thats that. (BTW, if your video card isnt supported then that is not an installation issue, that is a compatibility issue.) A year ago, perhaps not as easy (although mandrake 7 was), but now? Mandrake Linux comes with very good GUI installation - I always use Mandrake as an example because they are renound for producing easy installs and Mandrake is a newbie friendly distro.

-Install of Mandrake 7-
-Insert your install disk - It is a bootable disk.
-Press enter to start install.
-You get a nice GUI.
-Choose type of install, eg. newbie, expert, etc
-You just point and click on such things as your time zone, country and keyboard layout etc.
-Partition the HD. Childs play GUI again.
Partitioning your HD is childs play. It is all GUI. There is even an "auto allocate" option for it to all be done for you.
-Choose system type, eg. Normal|Server|Development
Now, depending on what type of install, Eg. Easy, or expert etc, you will be able to choose the software you want to run. If in expert mode, it becomes hard to know what to choose for a newbie(duh), BUT in Easy install, the choice is like that you get in windows. You choose the main types of software Eg. "Graphic tools" etc.
You can also choose the GUIs you want to use if you want.
-Point click start install.
-Software gets installed.
-You then get to set the root password and set user names.(and groups if you want)
-Configure X windows. (Easy as changing the res in windoze.)
-Reboot into a spiffy new Linux OS.
-Log on and choose GUI. GNOME or KDE are the most Windows like - Even having XP themes now.

Some of those steps may be out of order, I havent installed Linux for a while. I may have missed one or two details, but you get the picture, it is nearly, if not as easy as Windows.
The harder part is configuring your new OS, which you really need a book for. Something like O'Rielly's Running Linux.

Lets just leave the Linux myths at the outside of this thread. I have shown the install of it, you will have to prove Mandrake 8.1 is hard to install for those who can manage to install windows if you dont agree.

[d4n13l]

LOL
Speedy, we agree!
But do you think that an open source OS can unseat M$ on the desktop, in the future? What can M$ do to stop it? Wont it be great if the public had a free OS of its own in the future? I see Linux as it stands is the foundations of such an OS, just that the damn problem with it is that it is not mature enough yet.
I dont know of any video editing apps that can rival the Windows versions but there are many projects under development as we speak. As you can see from those Mandrake snaps, Linux multimedia development is flying along. I just cant even guess what a year will bring for Linux, perhaps I dream to much though.
I know what you mean about a full install, I did that on my first time too (Red Hat also). I ended up with an overloaded system that was running as many deamons as I had hairs on my head. I must have had a million apps installed, I wondered why I would ever need 50 or so text editors. LOL

But trust me on Mandrakes easy install process. If you want to try it, buy a copy of Mandrake 8.1 from those resellers for like £2.50 or whatever and try it (no need to buy a boxed version out of the shops). Mandrake 7, IMHO, is as easy as 9x so Mandrake 8 cant be any worse.

Wait a minute... you got a Windoze port of GIMP? Oh well, I suppose if Linux can do Windoze apps then it is only fair to share. Thats open source for you.

[speedy]

Just imagine all the people shaking their heads. Speedy and d4n13l agree on major points. LOL! Yea sure, as you once said we probably agree on more things than we disagree over.

I'm afraid Linux open source may go the way of that Netscape "open" browser project that was suppose to do the same thing more or less. Be open source. Too many hands in that pie. I haven't had a Netscape browser on my desktop in a couple years. Opera anyone? Wait a minute, why pay for a browser?

As far as any open source application unseating Microsoft yes sure it CAN happen, a better question is WILL it happen. My guess; no. Microsoft won't just sit still and let it happen. Sure people would flock to "free" software. Why not? Then what, well then the hacker crowd may target Linux. Just one or two nasty surprises and poof all the goodwill towards Linux could disappear overnight. Imagine Sefy hating Linux as much as Windows. LOL!

Maybe hackers love Linux now, but they got to do their thing too. They just can't stop looking for an exposing loopholes.

A lot of Microsoft bashers love to beat up on Windows and say it is a security risk. Maybe so. Mainly because almost everyone uses it so the hacker crowd attacks it. Again, Joe Average don't know. I'll give odds 10% of the people in the forum don't know what open sockets are, what netbios is, the dangers of file sharing, how a trojan can be planted in your PC and be remotely controlled without you even knowing, what a port scan or all kinds of scarry things. At least with one dominant OS such things get noticed and fixed fairly quick. Having all kinds of flavors of Linux, perhaps all kinds of security breaches happen and nobody picks them up for weeks or months. Not a very comforting thought.

The other hurdle is the common view of Linux being 'too complex' to use/learn. Heck even I almost freaked the first time I booted Linux and saw all that crap scrolling up the screen at light speed along with cryptic messages, then you got to log on and off. Again Joe Average isn't used to doing that. Just check out those public Microsoft groups with all the dumb questions of how to run XP without setting up groups, logon, passwords, etc.. As you said, the video driver thing. Adding hardware. Even how you install applications. All a little different. No, not hard if you're using to using computers. Again I'm talking Joe Average. I see Linux maybe getting a foothold once someone is smart enough to make a Windows clone. Kind of defeats the purpose.

[d4n13l]

Speedy,
Good points, debatable, but valid.
I am not worried though, if Linux ever does become number one I will be clinging to my beloved FreeBSD as a gateway to the net, LOL. Now THAT is a console warriors favorite OS.

Opera. That is what I am using now. Let me tell you, the latest version (6) is kick ass, you gotta try it at least. You now have the option to have "windows in windows" or "windows on desktop" ...and it flies. It is by far the fastest browser that I have ever used (besides Lynx ), I cant beleive how good it actually is now. The only gripe about it, is its advert. Though I think I can put a stop to that if you know what I mean. BTW, IE is hardly "free" either is it?

As to Linux, I think it will always be with us. I cant see it getting any smaller than what it is now, put it that way. Linux currently has many more merits as a server than it does as a desktop, but the desktop is still young. Besides, to be honest, I dont really care if it doesnt make the best OS for Mr Average, I can live with that. But the mere fact that some users have a choice with respects to the OS they use is not a bad thing. Every OS has its place, there is no such thing as the "best" OS, that is like apples to oranges. Different OS's will suit different people's needs and M$ now have a good OS that will satisfy the home user no end. Sure, those that are more educated among us may look at things such as open sockets (which I beleive only applies to XP Home anyways) as a reason to stay away - but the *average* guy that thinks sockets are things that you get electricty out of? Doubtful.
The reason that Linux is such a good platform for developers is reason alone for it not to dissappear. I cant believe its development rate though, it is incredable. One miniute your 2 year old AGP card isnt even supported and all you have is a console running.
Then you blink.
The next minute you see dual monitor set ups running complete with anti aliasing, an assortment of multimedia apps and to top it all... M$ Word! Easy install, Plug and Play and all. Hell, even I was impressed by those latest Mandrake 8.1 shots.


As to Linux's security; it is a catch 22. Any sysadmin will tell you that the system is only as secure as its configurated to be. The problem with Linux there is, a newbie will probably run it "out of the box" with a million services running while online, break in city to a half knowledgable "hax0r d00d" - Most experienced Linux users will run it as tight as a gin. It is issues like this that make it very immature as a general user OS, but I think these are only issues that can be resolved with time. As to the security of the OS itself, I think Linux will stand up well to constant attack. It is just as secure as NT in server environments, its downfalls are mainly the daemon's, SMTP would be a classic example. SMTP isnt Linux but it has many problems in the past regarding security. Most "Linux" hacks come through buffer overflow exploits on the software it runs, these exploits get patched ASAP because things like that effect the server market and security is a very important part of making a good server OS.
My view of Linux desktop, is that it needs time, LOTS of it. The integration isnt there. The ease of use isnt there. There is a brick wall for an inital learning curve. I think in 2 or 3 years time it will be interesting to see where Linux gets itself on the desktop. You can bet your bottom dollar that it will always be on the HD of every geek, h4x0r d00d and all the other small but meaningful computer user groups that make things happen. With home networks becoming increasingly popular and the fact that you really do have to buy a liscense for everybox, Linux could make some ground up in that respect, say as a home server and internet gateway. Oh yeah, and there is the fact that it makes a free kick ass embedded system/server/workstation OS. You have to pay Linux it's dues and judge it on the basis that it is free.
Viva Linux.

PS
Netbios. ROTFLMAO. I used to love that "feature" of 9x, mind you, I was on the 'other' end in DOS. I used to change my girlfriends desktop about whenever she was online at the same time as me. Happy days.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2002-01-07 07:38:49 ]</font>

[homerpez]

Posting as an "Average Joe" (mainly because I would never dream of acually installing and using Linux), there's a couple more reason's I'm a bit soured to it.

1) Compatability. This is something I noticed about BeOS too, that was genuinely painful. You have to have JUST the right hardware in your system to even install the thing. The "wonderful" thing about something like Windows XP, is that normally you run the installation, and you're pretty much up-and-running, even when it doesn't detect your EXACT video card, it can still give you a reasonable SVGA display to work on while you fix. Try and tell "Average Joe" that he needs to buy a new video and network card to install a strange, new, OS.

2) Pet peeve of mine, regarding Linux. It has to be the most expensive "free" program I've seen. I thought it was supposed to be free? I have not found it free anywhere, for download or otherwise. The only way "Average Joe" can find it is to go to a computer show or store, and look for a bundle. Once you get the bundle, there's no support whatsoever if you have problems (I'll leave the whole MS support debate for another thread, cause I'm no fan of that either).

Basically, it's never going to appeal to "Average Joe", since it probably will never be easier to use, nor fully compatible with the "norm". Too many cooks in the kitchen, and not everyone likes calamari.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: homerpez on 2002-01-07 09:58:08 ]</font>

[d4n13l]

Hey, they are valid points.
One point though, Linux *is* free.
Open source basically amounts to free, more in free speech than in free beer however. You will have to read up on things like the GPL to understand why.
I "buy" Linux from web 'resellers', not the packaged versions you get in oversized boxes from computer stores, but on CDRs sent through the post. I also got Mandrake 7 for free from a PC magazine once (I havent got a free XP yet! LOL ). The most I "pay" for Linux is £2.50, in the case of the last Red Hat release I purchased. That £2.50 only covered the resellers costs, none of it went to Linus T. Remember, Linux is just a modular kernel - It doesnt even have a GUI!
The Xwindows system provides it with a GUI.

One of the major differences from a Windows install and a Linux install, is installing drivers yourself. With a Linux install, it now does it all for you (that is assuming that Xfree86 - which is coincidentally nothing to do with 'Linux' anyway - supports your video card). With a Windoze install, you must install the drivers AFTER you have installed the OS wheras the Linux install does it all for you. The problem lies in what Linux (and other projects like Xfree86) supports "out of the box", as most hardware vendors dont bother to write Linux drivers (Which pretty much rats me off!). Mind you, more and more hardware vendors are beginning to support Linux now. The good thing about Linux is that people have the chance to write drivers themselves and submit them, this really only applies to developers though. The funny thing is, that some Winmodems CAN work under Linux - some people have managed to write drivers for them.
The best support you get from Linux is either from the vendor that you purchased the distro from or forums like this and the many other FAQ sites. The DIY aspect of Linux is inescapable in its current desktop form though, you are right.

[d4n13l]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: d4n13l on 2002-01-09 11:32:35 ]</font>

[d4n13l]

www.rodney.com/home/home.asp
ROTFLMAO... this is 24 carat www fluff! You have got to see the flash intro.
After reading his bio and seeing his nickname, Rodney "No respect" Dangerfield, I dont think it makes a good analogy for Linux! LOL
I only wish I had broadband to see the video archives...