The newbie distro -- a myth?

Machiavelli · 2005-10-13 22:16:09

I had been checking out Linspire for months. Today, a family member of mine decided he wanted to check out Linux, and asked me to install it on his box. I didn't want the learning curve to be to steep, so Linspire automagically came to mind. After all, isn't it the best looking and easiest distro on the Linux scene?

There is nothing easy about Linspire! After a teasing install that hints of extreme usability, portability, speed and compability, we meet what must've been the slowest Linux desktop I have ever seen. Also, I knew beforehand that CNR was a service that had to be paid for, but I guess I secretely hoped for more than about five free test apps.

Not only that, but the Linspire install does not initialize a swap partition? I thought this could be fixed manually, so I redid the install and repartitioned, but that swap partition I created was read by the Linspire installer as a "reiser3 partition" . I managed to activate it with "swapon /dev/hda1", but witnessed no real difference in performance.

Boot times were unacceptable for a system that wants to come across as user friendly and a powerful substitute to Windows. And when it comes to the default desktop, I saw none of the beauty I had heard so much about there. I use the Linspire Clear style on my KDE here on Arch, but the Linspire team hasn't even been able to make it remotely appealing, ruining it with enormous fonts and a disgusting kicker panel where there is so little space for the task bar that about one character of each window name is shown.

The only thing somewhat interesting must be the CNR system that seems to be working well for people who are willing to pay money for software that is normally free (in both senses of the word). The idea of actually charging money for package hosting is in itself very disturbing. Even though approximately 10 dollars a year seems to be no big deal, it is still charging 10 dollars for a fancy graphical way of installing software, that in reality is no simpler than commandline pacman, apt-get, emerge or yum.

Which leads us to our conclusion: GNU/Linux is no more "difficult" to it's users than Windows is to it's. But we are talking about two completely different operating systems here. You can't expect to go from one to another without some kind of reschooling. The real difference is under the hood, and does not lie with the makeup. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to get a feeling about what really goes on under the hood of GNU/Linux. All you need is a little experience. And poor Windows clones won't help in getting anyone that experience.

Am I wrong? Are there any real newbie distros out there? What's your opinion?

Gullible Jones · 2005-10-13 23:04:45

My not-so-humble opinion is that NOBODY should use Linspire, no matter how green they are. Linspire is 100% pure unadulterated crap.

Easy? I dunno... Mandrake I've heard is easy to use and works well. Ubuntu, maybe, though I've heard it has bug problems. YOPER for an i686-optimized distro perhaps, though some of the performance measures they take (e.g. prelink) are garbage.

Vector, Zenwalk, and Frugalware all look nice, though they would require some use of the command line.

Cam · 2005-10-14 00:03:09

Any distro can be newbie-friendly. if you know a bit about linux then you can set themup with anything, just make sure you set it up with everything they are going to need and if there aren't any GUI apps for something, chuck together a little bash script and use something like Xdialog/zenity/Kdialog to make it look all pretty and GUI

Euphoric Nightmare · 2005-10-14 04:32:37

I don't think that Linux is user unfriendly. Not everything is pretty and graphical. But its much easier to find documentation on a linux system. You can learn one command -- man.

I swear I'm going to force my girlfriend to use Arch, Windows has made her a spoiled idiot when it comes to computers. She's like the type of person that will call into a helpdesk, and then you hear jokes about it.

Windows is no easier than Linux, its just that people are used to windows.

DarkPath · 2005-10-14 05:09:31

Euphoric Nightmare wrote:

Windows is no easier than Linux, its just that people are used to windows.

I'd have to disagree there. This is from personal experience, so maybe you've had some different experiences. Installing Linux vs. installing Windows... Windows wins almost hands down for ease-of-use. After Windows is installed, everything is working... there's no big configuration spree, no menus to edit or X server to configure... everything just works. If I want a usb stick, I don't have to make an fstab entry to give it a place to mount to so I can access the files. Windows also has nearly everything integrated into itself so there's no need to hunt down some 3rd party software to do something as simple as use a wireless card. Another thing, Windows comes with drivers for all the hardware I can connect... no need to make an .asoundrc file for my soundcard. I also don't really worry about permissions at all on Windows.

HOWEVER, Linux is much better in some areas. If you want customization, there's NO better place to be that I know of. Linux can be simple or complex... it's really up to how much the user knows about computers. If the user only knows how to get on some instant messaging software, browse the web, and write up a Word document then that user can be basically just as at home on Linux as they are on Windows. If the user knows more about computers though, Linux opens a world of possibilities for what they can do. Filesystems galore, hardware driver configurations, text editing config files to get what they want... it's all there. Also, as for permissions... while it's not an issue in Windows it makes for a security nightmare in there as well. I feel much safer using Linux than I do with Windows... but a part of that right now is merely security through obscurity... few people want to write a virus for Linux.

So when it all boils down to it, a properly configured Linux machine can do, for the most part, anything a Windows machine can do and in some cases do even better. However, the configuration of the two are miles apart... Windows just works but I've always had to at least edit SOMETHING on every distro of Linux I've tried. Personally, though... that's kinda why I like Linux. ;-)

Machiavelli · 2005-10-14 08:34:32

I'd have to disagree there. This is from personal experience, so maybe you've had some different experiences. Installing Linux vs. installing Windows... Windows wins almost hands down for ease-of-use. After Windows is installed, everything is working... there's no big configuration spree, no menus to edit or X server to configure... everything just works. If I want a usb stick, I don't have to make an fstab entry to give it a place to mount to so I can access the files.

The reason you think this is the "easy" way, is because it is the Windows way. But they're two different operating systems and they work differently. If you know how to use GNU/Linux, editing /etc/fstab is no way considered even slightly bothersome. It's simply another operating systems way of handling mounting devices. I think the ease of using package managers and the great support available makes up for minor luxuries that easily could be simulated by a variety of applications, such as jiffymount and gnome-volume-manager.

It's not about configurability or ease-of-use, in my opinion. It is about two different operating systems, that each have unique chemistry.

BartL · 2005-10-14 08:53:02

Talking about "newbie-friendlyness", check out some screenshots of symphony OS
They really try to make the GUI (mezzo) as easy and newbie-friendly as possible.
I don't really think this makes the GUI usefull for more experienced users, but I guess this interface might even be easier for newbies than the Windows counterpart.

dtw · 2005-10-14 09:07:13

It is sad that so people are quick to use Windows as THE benchmark for user-friendliness - the benefits of a world wide monopoly I guess

murkus · 2005-10-14 11:28:55

Has anybody actually tried the mezzo? It sounds interesting.

.murkus

zezaz · 2005-10-14 11:31:51

As found in many .signatures, we all know that...

Linux *IS* user friendly, it's just picky about it's friends!

deficite · 2005-10-14 16:09:38

murkus wrote:

Has anybody actually tried the mezzo? It sounds interesting.
.murkus

That is one of the most disgusting environments I've ever seen. Kind of reminds me of Solaris, with the whole browser UI and everything.

DarkPath · 2005-10-14 16:42:22

Machiavelli wrote:

The reason you think this is the "easy" way, is because it is the Windows way. But they're two different operating systems and they work differently. If you know how to use GNU/Linux, editing /etc/fstab is no way considered even slightly bothersome. It's simply another operating systems way of handling mounting devices. I think the ease of using package managers and the great support available makes up for minor luxuries that easily could be simulated by a variety of applications, such as jiffymount and gnome-volume-manager.
It's not about configurability or ease-of-use, in my opinion. It is about two different operating systems, that each have unique chemistry.

Very good point. I am coming from years of using Windows so I am biased toward its "ease", I suppose. Since I can't unlearn everything I know how to do in Windows, I can't really give an easy comparison between what it would be like to a new user. However (and I may be wrong on this... what do you think?), I will say that if someone went from Linux to Windows they would probably have an easier time getting everything working rather than someone going from Windows to Linux. I know I've had a hard time for some things, but so far it's still turning out alright and it's getting better every time I use Linux.

dibblethewrecker wrote:

It is sad that so people are quick to use Windows as THE benchmark for user-friendliness - the benefits of a world wide monopoly I guess :-)

Hah, I suppose you're right. Really, from sitting down with Mac OSX for a few hours, it seemed more user-friendly than Windows. It's hard to judge Linux's user-friendliness because there are so many distros out there. If you take a look at Ubuntu or Mandriva then they are rather user-friendly, but Slackware and the like aren't quite so great for newbies to get into. They can be great learning tools, but I'd wager that someone with little to no Linux experience would have a hard time getting around Slack. I could be wrong on this too though, I'm open to anyones opinion on it. :-D

Dusty · 2005-10-14 18:42:41

DarkPath wrote:

but I'd wager that someone with little to no Linux experience would have a hard time getting around Slack. I could be wrong on this too though, I'm open to anyones opinion on it. :-D

You'd probably be right, since slack (and Arch) were designed for experienced users -- people like us.

Having said that, there's nothing unuserfriendly about Arch once its set up. My parents love it, as does my sister (well, they all hate computers in general, but they all prefer Arch over Windows).

Dusty

keevn7 · 2005-10-14 19:25:40

DarkPath: Actually, back when I tested Ubuntu there was no need for me to configure anything. And since it uses gnome-volume-manager by default, if I plugged in a USB stick it would mount it without me having to touch /etc/fstab. Same deal now, because I use ivman in Arch. However, even Windows has stuff to configure. For example, I hate aliased fonts so I have to turn those off. Installation of software once it is up and running is another factor. If I had to reinstall Arch, I could do it in an hour. However, Windows took me four hours to install once due to software conflicts between drivers and a whole mess of other crap aside from just installing the programs I wanted to use.

In the Linux world, software conflicts do not exist. You could modprobe the ATi and nVIDIA drivers and run X without a problem. However, in Windows the ATi and nVIDIA drivers conflict like crazy. However, that is another story.

Deciare · 2005-10-14 22:09:42

DarkPath wrote:

Installing Linux vs. installing Windows... Windows wins almost hands down for ease-of-use. After Windows is installed, everything is working... there's no big configuration spree, no menus to edit or X server to configure... everything just works.

On the other hand, the Windows installer doesn't give you an option to configure anything, so if you want everything (network, favourite apps, drivers, etc.) working perfectly from the get go without having to endure numerous reboots, the Windows installation process is quite insufficient.

DarkPath wrote:

Another thing, Windows comes with drivers for all the hardware I can connect...

... Provided that you're satisfied with the incomplete functionality and/or lower quality offered by generic catch-all device drivers. It's also funny to see some vendor-supplied drivers that actually perform worse than Windows' generic catch-all device drivers.

Linux is no better in that regard, but at least it has an alibi: very little hardware is officially supported under Linux. As the work of reverse engineers who take stabs in the dark, Linux hardware support is something impressive.

DarkPath wrote:

However, the configuration of the two are miles apart...

Oh yes, definitely. On Linux, all it takes to fix a severely broken system configuration is to untar a backup of /etc. On Windows... Well, I have personally reinstalled Windows 2000 seven times in one evening to nail an obscure and extremely persistent display error--that turned out to have nothing to do with configuration! :shock:

Machiavelli · 2005-10-14 23:17:25

Dusty wrote:

Having said that, there's nothing unuserfriendly about Arch once its set up. My parents love it, as does my sister (well, they all hate computers in general, but they all prefer Arch over Windows).

I noticed this as well. The way I see it, Linux "userfriendlyness" should not be about impersonating the Windows environment, but rather about supplying a set of tools to make it easier to learn the mechanics of GNU/Linux. In this regard, Arch Linux + KDE is all you need. While being able to handle browsing, mailing, instant messaging, scheduling and similar tasks without any further software installs, my brother is starting to learn some of the things he needs to know to run a GNU/Linux OS without running into problems (this includes /etc/fstab, /etc/rc.conf and /etc/X11/xorg.conf settings, as well as pacman, modprobe, mount and various bash commands). He seems happy about the choice I made for him, and enjoys a virus-free and stable workspace.

Don't underestimate the newbie.

shadowhand · 2005-10-14 23:27:13

Imho, the myth of "Linux being hard to use" comes from people not understanding that "the blue E" isn't the Internet, just as Firefox isn't. There's a language barrier between people that understand computer terms and people that don't. Linux requires a knowledge of these terms, as well as other terms that refer to Linux specific things (think XOrg, mount, source, tarball, root).

I think a lot of people are scared of Linux because it doesn't hold their hand. They can't grasp the idea that instead of taking their computer to BestBuy because it doesn't work, they search on Google and find out how to fix it.

Imho, "user friendliness" is a combination of making the language easy to understand, intuitive UI design (GUI or CLI), and logic. Windows lacks a good UI design, but most people don't realize it because their computers have always been Windows PCs. Windows does have logic for the most part, which is somewhere that Linux (sometimes) lacks. Linux does not and has not ever tried to make the language easy to understand simply because it's roots are in UNIX. That's not a bad thing, but it will confuse people who are used to Windows terms.

Once again, I think maybe I should advocate my "Computer License", much like a "Driver's License".

Machiavelli · 2005-10-14 23:40:40

I totally agree. A great portal to the Linux world would be an OS that effectively translates cryptic Linux instructions to user-readable messages, with explanations on how to take care of whatever situation has arisen.

But still, it's important not to cover the OS in it to the point where theese "simplifications" gets in the way of real system administration. So, it's a walk on the tightrope.

Deciare · 2005-10-15 02:29:56

Indeed. It's extremely helpful to use terms more comprehensible to newcomers than "mount" or "regular expression". There aren't any obvious, direct real-world analogies for such concepts, though, so it's understandably difficult to explain things like just why a disk needs to be mounted--multiple times for multiple partitions even though they're the same physical device--in order to be accessed.

The more we try to explain these concepts in a way that is analogous to real-world actions, the more we muddle a new user's idea of what is actually going on.

Inconsistency is introduced by attempting to simplify a task by changing the way its elements are presented. Take desktop search, for example. Contacts, emails, images, documents, music, Web history, chat logs--everything searchable and accessilbe from a single interface. Well and good, but by that logic, it doesn't make sense to have to actually view each of those things in a different program. It makes even less sense to have to edit them in yet another program.

Ultimate simplificity evolves out of systems whose backends are actually implemented exactly the way the frontend presents them to the user. But if a system were to be designed that way, then its users would be stuck with whatever task flow paradigm the programmers had in mind. Unless someone were to write an alternative frontend that represents backend elements differently. Which again introduces inconsistency. Oh dear...

Machiavelli · 2005-10-15 13:08:15

Seems like you've given a lot of thought to this.

One thing that I think should be developed further in a modern GNU/Linux OS - and this is one of the things I believe could be improved without hindering the user - is the use of the system tray, and also further implementation of services into the system tray. The user would be able to monitor these tools, and possibly manipulate them (restart, configure, stop...) if they had root access. While actually not stopping the user from "manually" manipulating the services through the init scripts, these system tray icons would provide an accessible frontend for the new Linux user.

That's an example of how something could be simplified without being "babyfied". A tool that works just like the init scripts, but in no way replaces them.

Gullible Jones · 2005-10-15 17:25:20

Objection: root access should *not* be via the GUI. Desktop distributions needn't act like single-user OSes. you know!

shadowhand · 2005-10-15 18:31:38

Ideally, a user-friendly Linux distro would not expose the user to commands such as mount or sudo, but instead, would automount things (as Windows does) and would have a GUI tool (like gksudo) for administration tasks.

I also think providing a GUI in every stage of use would make people feel more comfortable. Bootsplash (or Gensplash), a login manager, and a fully featured desktop enviroment along with distro-specific configuration tools would make the whole thing rather painless.

Gullible Jones · 2005-10-15 19:47:39

So something like KDE, where the control center has administrative tools? Yes, I could see that working, though with X being network-transparent, I still don't like the idea of GUI-based administrative tools.

Also, remember that Linux is a multi-user OS. Even a desktop-oriented distro should be capable of running well in a multi-user environment.

I should also mention that it's good to show users some of the principles of UNIX security. After all, the best weapon one can wield against malicious software attacks is knowledge of how to prevent them from reaching your machine.

Deciare · 2005-10-15 20:09:20

Automounting is a good example of automation that doesn't change the way the user thinks the system works. Well, as long as they don't try to write CDs or listen to CD audio with the discs mounted... I haven't used any kind of automounting mechanism in a long time, so I wouldn't know if problems still exist with doing so.

Anyway, let's assume for the sake of argument that CD writing and CD audio don't play nice with automounting. How much automation would be desirable in that case? Would it be the responsibility of the CD writing program to check whether a disc is mounted and try to unmount it automatically prior to writing? Would it be the responsibility of the automounter to somehow detect that a CD write is starting and automatically unmount it? What if there's a file manager window open in the background showing the contents of /mnt/cd, which would cause unmounting operations to fail? If you have a mixed data/audio disc, how does the computer know whether you want to get to the game on the data track or the music on the audio track?

These are little distinctions that some OS'es don't have to worry about because their backends don't care whether a disc is mounted when it's being written or played--or the unmounting takes place at a low enough level that they don't seem to care.

There appears to be a lot of debate in the OSS community as to what daemon running at what level should be responsible for which operations exposed to whom. If the goal is simply to "reduce perceived inconsistency", the obvious answer is "at the lowest level possible, revealed only to the people who look for it". I don't see that happening with the contemporary mindset in which kernels should be as lightweight as possible, libraries that do roughly the same thing should be numerous (to increase functionanility while sticking only to necessities (as long as you're running programs that all depend on the same set of libraries)), and there should be enough ways to do the same thing to satisfy every esoteric personal taste.

The question we keep coming back to is this: do we want choice, or do we not care how it's done as long as it's done?

Gullible Jones · 2005-10-15 20:18:13

dbus works fine. No reason to use something on the kernel level.

(Of course, if GNU/HURD gets into widespread use, we might get to see a server that handles automounting... Point and laugh, sure, but for some reason I like the idea of HURD. Yea, even if the second part of the acronym (HIRD - "HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth") sounds stupid as all hell.)

Arch Linux

#1 2005-10-13 22:16:09

The newbie distro -- a myth?

#2 2005-10-13 23:04:45

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#3 2005-10-14 00:03:09

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#4 2005-10-14 04:32:37

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#5 2005-10-14 05:09:31

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#6 2005-10-14 08:34:32

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#7 2005-10-14 08:53:02

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#8 2005-10-14 09:07:13

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#9 2005-10-14 11:28:55

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#10 2005-10-14 11:31:51

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#11 2005-10-14 16:09:38

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#12 2005-10-14 16:42:22

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#13 2005-10-14 18:42:41

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#14 2005-10-14 19:25:40

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#15 2005-10-14 22:09:42

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#16 2005-10-14 23:17:25

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#17 2005-10-14 23:27:13

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#18 2005-10-14 23:40:40

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#19 2005-10-15 02:29:56

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#20 2005-10-15 13:08:15

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#21 2005-10-15 17:25:20

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#22 2005-10-15 18:31:38

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#23 2005-10-15 19:47:39

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#24 2005-10-15 20:09:20

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

#25 2005-10-15 20:18:13

Re: The newbie distro -- a myth?

Board footer