[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Julian Hall wrote: > jon.davey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> I would just like to add here that I am a very average ability computer >> user and probably have more difficulty than most would in understanding and >> using Linux and that my opinion counts for very little really...but >> unfortunatly this, at the moment is how I feel about Linux. Sorry to have to >> do that here. >> > Hi Jon, > > I don't think you should be apologising for your ability level, in fact > I think it is people with less than 'expert' level ability which Linux > needs to have as a target audience since they outnumber 'experts' by a > massive margin. On that basis I disagree that your opinion counts for > 'very little' and would suggest it counts for a lot. > > Granted Linux has become much less painful to install in recent times > however, especially with specialist software and hardware, Linux has a > way to go before the 'average user' will find it as easy to use as > Windows. The average user doesn't want to have to download a binary > package and then compile it, then find the kernel needs to be patched, > or there are dependency issues - and they certainly don't want to have > to delve into a command line environment to do it[1]. They want one > program they double-click and it all installs itself. The battle Linux > has with this requirement is that the user knows Windows delivers that > and the same peripheral would have taken them ten minutes to install - > and that includes opening the box and physical installation if it's an > internal card. Like it or not, and I suspect many long-tern Linux users > won't, Windows' ease of installation is the yard-stick by which the vast > majority of average computer users judge the competition[2]. People > want to buy hardware, pop it in the box - or plug it in - run an > installer from CD or a download, and then use the new kit. Until users > can do that with Linux installer the situation will not IMHO change. > > If the average user just wants Office functions such as a word > processor, spreadsheet etc. then Linux is fine. If you want to surf the > web, email, irc, etc. then Linux is fine. Where Linux falls down is > when users want to do more than just the standard - as you've identified > Jon. > > Kind regards, > > Julian > > [1] Assuming they know the commands to even navigate around in the CLI > much less what commands to use to actually do anything. > [2] TBH that's an extension of society today. Nobody wants to have to > learn how to do anything - if they did technical support callcentres > wouldn't exist, or if they did they would only ever get calls about > usernames and passwords, or if the product developed a major fault. > However the solution is not 'they'll have to learn' - especially when > there are 100s of millions of them - the solution is to accept the > refusal to learn and figure out a way they will accept. > > Jon, I share many of your views and use both Linux and Windows XP. Linux is as you say fine until you wish to use programmes such as Quicken,TaxCalc and Fairshares which do not come in Linux versions. John -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html