Let me solidify Soybeans claims-
Linux was <not> designed to be user friendly. As the quote goes:
"Linux is not a code base. Or a distro. Or a kernel. It's an attitude. And it's not about Open Source. It's about a bunch of people who still think vi is a Good config UI."
And it's <right> It's not about the user, it's never about the user. It's about the programmer. Now, it's fair to say that With Ubuntu at least that goal has changed, but honestly? I could barely tell the difference between Ubuntu and Slackware's KFCE. They both had that same "polished terd" feel. Of course this is from a user experience point of view; and really it's a testament to Linux's flexibility that so many different distro's exist and so many graphical environments. But the <choices> are not what make an operating system, it's the choices that <aren't> given that are important. For example, when you install windows, it' doesn't ask you what resolution to run at. it doesn't prompt you for anything but the disk to install. And yet every Linux installation I've done has troubled me with choices about where the swap goes, and what file system to use. seriously, *censored*. can they NOT choose a default and just have an "advanced" mode that asks these questions? Grandma is not going to know the strengths and weaknesses of ReiserFS versus ext4 and she's going to reason logically that if the installer has to <ask> it's an important question. Now, that being said, the Ubuntu installer is sparse in questioning compared to slackware. Slackware is pretty much a cross-examination. The problem with options is this:
the user doesn't necessarily percieve them as "options" but rather as an admittance of failure; it's like the program is saying "I have no idea what I'm doing, sure as *censored* hope you have an idea". And this is a major UI flaw across every platform. if a program can determine for itself what version of windows it's running, why the *censored* do they ask? "do you want to install the windows 2000 or Windows XP Version" when you're running XP is a rather stupid question. sure, add an <option> to force the use of windows 2000 installer options for for goodness sake it's not an <option> if there is no default value, the it's required input, and not <optional>.
Another peeve of mine (windows based, but still, while I'm on the subject) is some program installers.
They have this innate need to ask me what language to use. *censored* kind of a stupid question is that, "hmm, well, I see you're running the English Version of windows, I better make sure you don't want to install me using Cantonese" seriously, retarded. Don't ASK the user what language they speak when the bloody locale API can tell you. that's irresponsible, lazy, and downright stupid. "but it defaults to english!" they say. It defaults to english if you're running a <SPANISH> version of windows, too. lots' of thought went into that, didn't it.
Anyway, (as shown above) I'm not picking on Linux, but honestly? consider for a moment that Ubuntu is designed as a "beginner" operating system, to serve those who are still learning the mouse. We have to realize that not everybody wants to <learn> these things. they want to learn the bare minimum to get their work done, and when getting work done in Ubuntu requires the user to install kernel modules and compile things and resolve library conflicts. The fact that "it's not windows" is only going to drive the user so far. Bill Gates is rich for a reason and windows is dominant for a reason, and it's not because they use "strong-arm" tactics or whatever other communist based concepts Linux users are yelling about these days. Stop complaining about the competition and start fixing your distro's!
The windows installer is designed well. people with relatively little experience can install windows with no problem. The reason? It doesn't trouble the user. If something goes wrong, it says so, but if everything is going fine it makes default choices and these choices work fine for 90% of the population, which saves 90% of the population from googling the difference between FAT32 and NTFS to weigh the important decision of what file system to use.
I prefer to use the computer, not spend my time searching usenet or entering sudo apt-get commands to acquire drivers that I later discover via the foreign readme file to actually be built for the wrong sub-model of my hardware, therefore requiring intense googling to find the right one. This would be fine but when the windows experience is a single google and a download it leaves a *censored* of a lot to be desired. Especially when the instructions create more questions then they resolve.
"Ahh, I have this hardware device, hmm, I know, I'll search for drivers"
the inevitable result is almost always a thread where somebody asked the very same question, and while in about 60% of cases the ubiquitous answer is something like "OMFG RTFM NOOB" by a user named "masterhaxxor712" or something equally indicative that they run Windows ME and spend their time playing Counter-Strike, occasionally one can stumble on a useful thread, which outlines the simple process of installation.
1. you download the zip, you extract it somewhere.
2. extract the tarball source that corresponds to your kernel version
3. stop <some random service>
4. compile the driver with the following command <random make command>
This as I said raises more questions for somebody not familar with Linux.
1.How do you extract a zip? (of course there are GUI tools for that now, but that is a rather recent addition).
2. *censored* is a tarball, how do I know what version of the kernel I have?
3. how do you stop a service?
4. Of course, this inevitably and always results in missing libraries, which you faithfully download, and you successfully install the driver, only to find that your desktop environment no longer works since it linked to a different version of of the library required by the driver which differs only by a single minute revision. Of course you cannot simply install the old lib since you'll break the driver, so *censored* do you do?
The beauty of that last point is one of the "strongest" arguments for many Linux evangelists is that it lets you escape "DLL *censored*" but all your doing is replacing DLL *censored* with LIB *censored* and let me tell you, DLL's actually get along. you cna have side by side installs, if you do it right. Linux has no such concept and the fact that it doesn't support having multiple versions of Binary components installed is almost as disgusting as the prospect of having grandmothers and 7 year olds compile freaking kernel modules.
Poll