Re: Linux on the desktop viewed as from Joe Winuser

> > All untrue. What keeps folks from Linux on Desktop is bash. Simple is
> > that. You can't write an app that runs on all known desktop environments
> > with start menu items, desktop icons or quick launchs for you would have
> > to take into account:
> > KDE2, KDE3, Gnome1, Gnome2, XFCE, Fluxbox, Enlightenment, Windowmaker,
> > blah blah blah. 
> 
> Firstly, AFAIK, XFCE, Fluxbox, Enlightenment and Windowmaker are all just
> window managers, rather than desktop environments. As such, they don't
> provide a "start menu" as such. Secondly, none of these are standard options
> for the user-friendly distros that migrants (refugees?) from Windows will
> use.

That's tech talk nobody really wants to care about. I know it, you know it,
dumb user doesn't wanna hear it. 

> 
> So that leaves KDE and GNOME to consider for this group. Now IIRC, both are
> moving towards using standard .desktop files to describe how to start
> applications and add menu entries. It is up to the packagers of applications
> to make use of this facility. Lots of well-packaged RPMs already do this
> (e.g. most of those from RH and freshrpms).

Yep, "moving towards" and "up to the packagers" - the road ahead is long and
winding and I'm not really sure everybody's gonna walk it.

> 
> > You can open a term with bash in all of these, but this is the point where
> > Joe Winuser get scared: command line.
> > This makes people think DOS. Which makes them think "obsolete"
> 
> I don't know about "obsolete" (MacOS X and Windows NT/2K/XP all have command
> line interfaces), but "scary black window" is one term I have heard from
> non-technical users.

That's what I'm talking about. MacOSX users are happy people, I wouldn't dare
recommend Linux to those, but that *a completely different story and does not
belong here*.
When I do some tech stuff on Windows' (sorry excuse for a) command line (which
learned tab completion only two years ago :D ), I hear *lots*: "wow, I've
never seen *this*".

> 
> > Next thing. Windows user wants to surf to some website with flash content
> > or embedded video. Windows user was clever enough not to use IE but Opera
> > and found Opera is available for Linux, too. Wants to keep it since there
> > aint no IE at all.
> > So it comes to downloading and installing Opera. 
> > Installing. Umm. double click? Nah, won't work. So what to do with this
> > rpm thing?
> 
> Under RH, you should be able to use Nautilus to browse to the RPM and
> double-click to install it. I'm pretty sure it doesn't do recursive
> dependency resolution yet, but it's getting there.

I seriously doubt it's that easy. if RH doesn't provide that program as an rpm
you'll have to get 3rd party and this is were the fun begins when there's 6
six different rpm per distro for foolib-static, foolib-dynamic, RH8, RH9 and
RH with Alan Cox Bistr-O-Matic patches (all of which mean nothing to any
newbie or dumb user)

> 
> > Command line. Yuck. Too complex. Reading manuals? For installing a
> > program? What a waste of time.
> 
> For home desktops, probably - sadly! But enterprise desktops are another
> matter; a professional (i.e. helpful) sysadmin will make sure all his or her
> users have all the applications they require to do their Real Work, and will
> be responsive to requests for new applications.

Ok, point here. Probably even the situation for home users would be less tense
if a techie at work talked them thru this and that once so they can try at
home and phone more clever friends when stuck - just like "back then", but
with 20 years M$ it won't be easy to reinvent the learning process. let's hope
for the best.

> 
> > Even if Joe Winuser reads the manual, he will come up with questions like
> > "why can't I chose the destination dir?" and the linux geek will tell him
> > that's possible if he COMPILES the SOURCE CODE and PREFIXES the
> > destination dir in the CONFIGURE SCRIPT from the COMMAND LINE. Joe Winuser
> > is scared.
> 
> a) most non-technical users don't modify any of the default install options.

they'll attempt as soon as they figure they need to to watch the latest Doom3
trailer. I remeber fumbling with autoexec.bat and config.sys with 6 different
memory configurations just for the sake of framerate in Wing Commander. (by
the way: best way to promote Linux: port more games and make them perform
better.)

> b) for the intermediate- and power-users, the correct answer is "you don't
>    need to; it'll work perfectly as it is, and you can use your standard
>    distro package management tools to uninstall, or find out where
>    everything is". Again, sysadmins should be managing apps for enterprise
>    users anyway.

but what about home users? i remember the hassle when I wanted to continue my
eMule p2p downloads with aMule - took me TWO WEEKS of constant checking of CVS
trees and compiling wxGTK with fancy options and debugging, not to mention
debugging itself with gdb... this made a friend of mine which tried Mandrake
for laughs switch back to WinXP at godspeed - and I can't even hold it against
him.

> 
> > Let's say Joe got a distro with a graphical package maintenance and really
> > only had to select the package and say "install" and doesn't give a rats
> > ass about dest dir.
> > Now Opera is there, fine. But how to start it? Dunno what it's like with
> > other dists but here on Slackware it won't generate Gnome Menu entries.
> 
> Looks like Opera's packaging and/or Slackware aren't designed for
> non-technical users. Try another distro that is.

Ok, I had that comming and must admit it's true. SW ain't for wussies. Point.

> 
> > Choices: "Run Application" and bash. I said enough about bash didn't I?
> > So there's Run Application, big deal: a dialog box with a text field. What
> > to enter there? "Opera"<return>. Result: "The target file://Opera could
> > not be opened". Hmm, so something must have gone wrong with the
> > installation, right? No, it's only caps, but does Joe know (*wanna* know)?
> > Guess.
> 
> Irrelevant, if the application is packaged properly and installs a .desktop
> file. Windows users have by-and-large rejected
> "unzip-and-scatter-files-over-your-disc" installation, and so should we
> (other than as a lowest-common-denominator for technical users). If an
> application is packaged poorly, an enterprise sysadmin should create
> user-friendly packages for his or her users and make a RFE to the vendor or
> reject the application.

keep in mind there always isn't a sysadmin, and home support ->$$$ (at which
point the linux newbie will yell at you for you told him linux was free btw.
ok, that's not linux' fault.)

> 
> > So let's say Joe figures Linux is case sensitive and manages to run Opera.
> > 
> > Next thing is Flash. 
> > So we need Flash. Go to download site. Read instructions. Terminal, bash,
> > untar, become root, copy some stuff to some obnoxious place nobody ever
> > heard about before.
> 
> There are RPMs for Flash that Do The Right Thing too.

See above about "rpm".

> 
> > And so on.
> > 
> > All this takes me a handful of mouseclicks in Windowsdone in under 5
> > minutes while I wasted 2 hours so far reading "fucking manuals" and
> > getting larted in irc chats, and you really ask what keeps Linux/desktop
> > going to the masses?
> 
> General-purpose computers (as opposed to fixed-purpose "Information
> Toasters" or centrally-administered workstations) for non-technical users
> are a dumb idea. I hope they die soon, in favour of the two alternatives I
> just mentioned.

Tell the marketroids. Those fellows go out every new day telling the customer
this is actually the case: that the computer is omnipotent. (which it is: it
f****s up your life in no time *completely* ;) ) And that's just they way I
want it, I don't want: one computer for video, one computer for games, one for
office and one for internet. That's the idea behind a general-purpose
architecture like x86 and I wouldn't wanna have it any other way (ok, without
A20 gate).

> 
> General-purpose computers, whether they're running Linux, Windows, or even
> MacOS, are only really suitable for hobbyists and technical users. Forcing
> non-technical users to use them is cruel and unusual punishment. Look upon
> them as the early motor cars. Look at today's cars and public transport and
> see how little technical knowledge they require of their users. The closest
> equivalents to those are "information toasters" and centrally-administered
> workstations respectively. The good news is, that Linux (or BSD) makes a
> good basis for technical users to develop such devices for their users (for
> proof, see the TiVo PVR and Sharp Zaurus PDA - running Linux and sold on the
> high street, but the non-technical user wouldn't even guess at that fact!)

True for the PDA thing, maybe Linux' future lies even there, who knows.

About the general purpose computer: another friend of mine has a Apple G3 with
MacOSX, he couldn't care less about the tech details behind the desktop and
still is capable of doing internet, office, DTP, divx, DVD and everything else
I do, but he never ever touched a shell (in fact he once wanted to show me
since I wanted to see the BSD part but the shell didn't work. he told me he
tried that before and noticed that but he doesn't care since he doesn't see
need for it).
How's that?

Oh, and about all my subtle praising of MacOSX - I can see those opening the
grand jaw orifice to hurl the "why dontcha get yourself a Mac if you think
you're gonna be so happy with it"-question at my weary head: as soon as I have
enough spare cash, I *will*, believe me.

Dex