Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install? [LWN.net]

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 19:12 UTC (Fri) by paulpach (guest, #20903) [Link] (18 responses)

Windows has abstracted most things so that people don't *have* to know about computers to use them. This is bad, but is a subject for another article entirely.

Yes, this is very bad.

Maybe we should give licenses and people would have to pass a test to get a license to use a computer. If a person is caught using a computer withought a license, then they should be given a fine.

While we are at it, we should also require knowledge of how the engine, cooling system, breaks, transmition, and several parts of the car work to be able to drive to work.

Seriously. it is a good thing if people don't have to learn to much to use a tool. This is an area where Microsoft clearly has an advantage over linux. It is a success for Microsoft if people don't know what internet is and yet they are able to read their email with their software. I wish GNU/Linux distributions were more like that.

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 19:48 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (1 responses)

Following that logic:

Where is the lock for the door on the computer? Which insurance company would Joe Blow go to, and what kinds of questions would that company ask about that lock?

Also, (at least in the U.S.,) where do I keep the virtual firearms to use on trespassers? How do I identify them? Will they have a mask on, and leave dirty fingerprints all over my desktop?

Here's how I feel: This industry is at this time like the railroad industry, still, and people are being asked to get from place to place on simplified, personal hand-cars (or maybe those diesel-powered yellow railroad shuttle cars used to pull engines around.) There's a simple "forward/backward" lever, but if the thing gets caught in a dead-end switch, Joe Blow is stuck there until somebody comes to fix it.

I think the biggest problem with Windows is that those simple gimmicks just don't *work* all the time.

Maybe Gates (or a later Linux distribution) will get it within 10 years. By then, all the relevant patents will be up, and everyone will be able to make them, like hi-fi stereo today.

Like Hi-Fi Stereo today?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 22:04 UTC (Fri) by Prototerm (guest, #20227) [Link]

and everyone will be able to make them, like hi-fi stereo today.

Interestingly enough, there is a concerted effort today to remove analog sound inputs and outputs from things like your home theater equipment, and replace them with digital ones that can be DRM'd. Little Brother (RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, et. al) will only do the same sort of thing with computer technology, replacing old restrictions with new.

Free Software, like other Freedoms, is an ongoing, endless struggle. Just remember, to them, you're just another faceless Coppertop Matrix Profit Battery. Try to unplug from their system, and you'll get flushed down the loo!

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 20:16 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (4 responses)

We do require people to pass a test demonstrating that they know how the ignition, transmission, steering wheel, turn signals, accelerator, and brakes of a car work to be able to drive it, and give people licenses if they pass.

People don't need to understand how these things function in order to drive, but they do need to know what they are and how to use them with a non-trivial amount of skill.

The car analogy is actually a good one: there's a whole lot of stuff that you don't have to know about how a car manages to do the things you tell it to do, but you do need to understand the abstract functions that it provides. When you press the brakes, the car slows down as if you were putting your foot against the wheels; of course, it's got a much more complicated set of connections inside, but the driver has a feel for what the function of the brake is. They ought to have a similar level of understanding of what email is.

If they don't have that level of understanding, they won't be able to know how to use the interface, and will therefore by afraid to do anything they haven't tried before, and likely to do things they don't mean to. This only increases the user's feeling that they don't understand computers, and that computers are unpredictable and frightening.

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 22:09 UTC (Fri) by paulpach (guest, #20903) [Link] (2 responses)

I agree people need some level of understanding. The problem is that often
the level required is too high in most GNU/Linux distributions. The idea
is to minimize that level.

Also, note it is not up to the car to teach you how to drive. The car
makers make an effort to minimize the level of understanding. They at no
point try to force the user into learning anything.

Computers are not there to teach users about computers. They are there to
make tasks easier. Sure they can give help to trouble shoot problems, or
for more advanced tasks, but common tasks should be as simple as possible.

This principle is even applied to programming. You want to make your
component in a "black box" fashion. The idea is to minimize the level of
understanding the user of your component has to have.

It's bad because I do not want a child flying a plane.

Posted Apr 24, 2004 11:14 UTC (Sat) by penfold (guest, #21150) [Link] (1 responses)

I have an issue with what I think you are saying is the level of understanding required by a user. (For either cars or computers) Basically, I think users NEED a higher level of understanding than what is accepted today to be a user.

I think the car analogy breaks down on this point. First the mere operation of the "run of the mill" car has a pretty limited set of options. Accelerate, decelerate, forward, reverse, left and right. I had learned these concepts by the time I was five, and put them into practice on a daily basis with my bicycle. By that time, I had watched my mother driving her car, and with the exception of not being able to reach the pedals, and not having learned the finer points of a manual transmission, one can argue that I had all the "understanding" required to operate a vehicle. (Think of the scene from "Look Who's Talking" when Mikey thougt he was driving.) However, I doubt anyone would believe I was qualified to be on the streets at 17, but less at that age.

I also had the the chance at a young age to know someone that owned one of those little planes on the landing strip on a local golf course who took me up one day. During that first flight he let me take the wheel, which looked a lot like a steering wheel from Kight Rider.

Being long familar with the concepts of a car, and more than a little excited, I eagerly grabbed the yoke for about 15 seconds. In that time I learned that air travel was as intimatetly linked with the concepts of up and down as a bicycle is linked to all the concepts of motion in a bicycle or car.

When the plane immeadately began climbing as soon as my short arms took the controls, I admit I was in a panic and begged the pilot to take control back. Meanwhile, the pilot was merely amused and asked several times, "Are you sure?"

The point being, of course, is that both a car and a plane are tools that make traveling easier/faster, but are by no means simple. In a society that allows a someone the belief they know enough to "drive" but not know the rules of the road "or life in this example" is just asking for trouble. Further, more than just a general knowlege of operation, there are more requirements to being considered a "qualified" user.

In a corporate environment, all requirements should be streamlined to the specific purpose that user performs. If a user is only required to enter shipping data into one text-based program, they are about as "trained" to operate a computer as I was "trained" to fly at the ripe old age of five.

By that, I mean that there are people that knows way more than I do who *allow* me to do something. The problem lies in the fact that everyone expects because they can "fly" a computer under strict supervision (regardless upon their perception of supervision) they believe they can "fly" a computer at home.

I predict there will come a day when everyone takes computers as seriously as they are about the security of their own home. The general understanding of operation is not all that is required to be a user. There are times when you have to put gas in the car, change the oil, rotate the tires, *NOT* give the keys to any schmo in a red vest, and when the gas tank explodes a' la the Pinto, hold the manufacture at fault.

Microsoft's policy is that everyone is a computer idiot and just trusts them. Their products will happily fly someone into a mountain while at the same time require no more understanding than the difference of "click" an "double click".

The general user response to those problems is to reboot and try again. The car or plane analogy has no equal to that! A user can make the problem go away without even knowing what the issue is that causes the problem. Show me the user of a Honda that will simply buy tires every 30 days because "it just happens."

So, what I am trying to say is that yes, *some* level of understanding is required. But quite a bit more than just pushing on a pedal and twisting the wheel.

M$ is successful because it depends on the user experience of M$ products and their confidence of the user's sysadmin(s). However, there is a LOT of work that needs to be done in this area. Linux may need to lower it, but M$ needs to raise it, at least a little.

As a result, evey idiot can get on a M$ computer and be problem. Linux/open source/GNU at least requires you know *something* more than how to click on a viral email message.

It's bad because I do not want a child flying a plane.

Posted Apr 25, 2004 2:11 UTC (Sun) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

First the mere operation of the "run of the mill" car has a pretty limited set of options.

Wrong. The controls on a car are relatively straightforward, but a car is analogue and obeys the laws of physics, and there can be a lot of other objects around to interact with. Given that you're throwing a tonne or two of hard steel (glass and plastic) around, that can be more important than the "technical" stuff like how to find 'em instead of grind 'em with that stick thingy ("wand of power" [do a find]) on the floor.

For example, the first thing your average city slicker will do when they find a dirt road is go around a corner too fast or tramp on the loud pedal and break the back wheels loose - hellooo, fence!

On the other hand, a country bumpkin will be slow, confused, unlikely to use the yellow flashy things much and then totally shocked the first time someone cuts in front of them when they visit the Big Smoke.

A lack of understanding of momentum will send the novitiate sliding into a busy intersection or cringing under a hail of horns and abuse as they putter/kangaroo-hop away from a stop sign. More often, they'll do annoying little things like stop instead of letting their momentum carry them safely across facing traffic.

Dunno how it works where you are, but here in Oz, you pass a basic road-rules exam to get your Learner's Permit, then drive under instruction with black-on-gold 'L' plates until you pass a driving test and are granted a provisional licence for a few years (speed limited, red-on-white 'P' plate and some places you can't go). At the end of that you automatically get a licence.

I reckon you ought to pass a practical test before that happens, to demonstrate that you've learned how a vehicle actually works, then be re-tested every five years, put back on 'P' plates for six months if you fail and lose your licence if you fail three 'P' graduations running (or on top of the other penalties if you are caught doing something dumb like drunk driving). The test for getting onto 'P' plates ought to be stiffer if you've had them for a while.

The only controls at the moment (other than outright loss for drunk driving or the like) are demerit points, which you accrue for stuff like speeding and going through stop signs. At 12 points, you lose your licence for three months - at the end of which you get it back without any testing, which I also reckon falls short of the mark.

Aussies can't get a car licence until they're 17, which IMESHO is silly because you can fly a 'plane as soons as you demonstrate that you can, and a 'plane can do a lot more damage than a car.

In the Open Source world, you're generally judged on how useful you are rather than by arbitrary measures like age or gender, or rituals like having sat through (and not absorbed much from) classes. I'd like to see that extended into The Real World(tm) a bit more.

Someone's thought of this already.

Posted Apr 23, 2004 23:13 UTC (Fri) by nowster (subscriber, #67) [Link]

It's the European Computer Driving Licence Foundation.

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 20:18 UTC (Fri) by kasperd (guest, #11842) [Link] (3 responses)

If a person is caught using a computer withought a license, then they should be given a fine.

I think that is going a bit too far. I think it should only apply to administrators of the computers, not the users. And maybe only networked computers.

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 20:28 UTC (Fri) by jmshh (guest, #8257) [Link]

Where is the difference? Almost all home users are their own administrators and have a (dialup) network connection.

You can actually get one!

Posted Apr 23, 2004 23:00 UTC (Fri) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link]

Not that I believe you should require a licence to use a computer, but if you want one ..... ecdl.com

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 25, 2004 3:16 UTC (Sun) by robotralph (guest, #2570) [Link]

good point the administraters should be fined?? so every microsoft user should be fined as each user is the administrater.

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 2:28 UTC (Sat) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (3 responses)

The problem is not ease of use (which Windows certainly has got). It's the ease of breakage, intended or otherwise. Linux is no panacea in this regard; it just happens that it's easier to see what's been done and to fix it when it happens due to user error.

Windows is dangerous, not because it is easy to use, but because that ease of use is combined with easy ways to break things subtly. Maybe you install a piece of software that includes spyware which tries to disable your anti-virus software. Maybe you delete a file you don't recognise, and then discover that it's critical to your system (although that's being made harder to do by accident in modern versions of Windows). Maybe you connect to the internet for your weekly update process, and get hit by the latest worm.

Note that none of these problems are Windows-dependent. Instead, they are a combination of users who don't understand, don't have to learn because for what they normally do they don't need to, and a system that makes it possible to cause problems without malice. We have decided with cars that the best way to handle this issue is to force people to learn; that way, you know what can cause problems and what doesn't. With computers, we may want to try and make them such that for if user doesn't need to learn about them to do their job, they don't need to learn about them to avoid problems.

This means that if what you want to do is read e-mail and browse the web, you aren't at risk of getting the latest worm or trojan installed. If you want to hack about with the system, you're expected to learn enough to know what causes damage and what doesn't. I'm not expert enough to know how to do this, but it's the only route I can see that allows for large numbers of owner-administrators without insisting that they all learn the details of administration.

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 3:53 UTC (Sat) by raytd (guest, #4823) [Link]

The problem is not ease of use (which Windows certainly has got)

The hell you say! The experience I've had both installing and using Linux in the last 2 years has been orders of magnitude better than that of using or installing Microsoft products. The last time I was forced to re-install Windows 98 (sorry, I have stupid games with lame ass publishers), I had to reboot no less than 4 times before I could install any interesting third party software. That's utterly absurd!

Ease of use is mostly habitual. The more you use a brain-dead interface the more you'll accept it as being correct.

Dangerous? Hooooh, yes! (-:

Posted Apr 25, 2004 2:15 UTC (Sun) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

Windows is dangerous, not because it is easy to use, but because that ease of use is combined with easy ways to break things subtly.

Amen, brother, amen... except that I'd say "obscurely, bizarrely and seldom unpredictably."

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 25, 2004 11:00 UTC (Sun) by thomask (guest, #17985) [Link]

bear in mind that it's not just newbies who can do bad stuff and break their computers in windows. i have been using computers for the last seven years, and am able to program in maybe 10 different languages on windoze, mac os and linux.

a few months ago, i was playing around with the windows 2000 services control panel (i might add that this is available to the administrative user of the computer without warnings, passwords etc). i disabled some services i thought i didn't need because i reckoned i could speed up my computer (it ran at 155 mhz, after all).

i managed to break networking, completely. i never managed to fix it without re-installing the whole os.

thanks, microsoft. thanks a lot.

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 7:33 UTC (Sat) by danielpf (guest, #4723) [Link] (1 responses)

> Seriously. it is a good thing if people don't have to learn to much
> to use a tool. This is an area where Microsoft clearly has an
> advantage over linux. It is a success for Microsoft if people don't
> know what internet is and yet they are able to read their email with
> their software. I wish GNU/Linux distributions were more like that.

The mistaken generalisation here is in "the people". The people represent
in fact a wide spectrum of individuals with widely different expectations
and knowledge about computers. It is true that a large part of the
population has no wish to learn about the computer internals, and
usage simplification is noted as good. However an influential minority,
the technophile say, *wants* to understand the internals, and to increases
its computer use efficiency.

This minority is essential as the GNU/Linux phenomenon illustrates.

And there Windows is vey bad for technophile. Windows (and I think
it is deliberate) prevents rationally oriented people to increase
their knowledge about their computer, increasing their frustration
against Microsoft. Typically after having "solved" a problem a Linux user
auments its knowledge about the system, while a Microsoft user remains
as ignorant as before.

IMO this is one of the main reasons why technophiles hate Microsoft.

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 26, 2004 19:12 UTC (Mon) by oloryn (guest, #7408) [Link]

And there Windows is vey bad for technophile. Windows (and I think it is deliberate) prevents rationally oriented people to increase their knowledge about their computer, increasing their frustration against Microsoft. Typically after having "solved" a problem a Linux user augments its knowledge about the system, while a Microsoft user remains as ignorant as before.

What I've noticed lately is that error messages in Windows are getting more and more vague. They are almost to the point where they might as well replace all error messages with a pop-up that says "Something bad happened". I suppose the idea is to avoid confusing the user with technical terminology, but it can make you feel like you're in some of horrid Abbot and Costello routine ("Oh, Lou, somehin' bad happened!" "What?" "Oh, I can't tell you that, but it's really really bad!")

The problem with this comes with the technician who is called in to fix the problem, as the vague message gives no information that would allow the technician to figure out what is going wrong. Instead of being able to analyse and think the problem through, the technician is reduced to diagnosis by wild guess.

How is that bad?

Posted Apr 25, 2004 13:00 UTC (Sun) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

There is a difference between knowing how to use a machine, and knowing how a machine works.

Before we let people drive cars, we do infact insist they should know how to use it. They should know what buttons do what, which ones to press, what consequences it has if you press the wrong buttons, and even how to deal with some common mal-functions of the machine. (atleast in Norway basics like checking oil-level and changing fuses or ligth-bubs is required.) We also require that they buy an insurance covering damage they migth do to third-person by using the machine wrongly.

We don't require that they know in detail *how* the various parts of the car work, it's sufficient that they know how to use it responsibly.

Similarily for computers, it would not be unreasonable to expect people who connect their computer to the common shared-media that the Internet is to know basics about how to use it. If you don't know what a program is, what a file is, are unaware of the existence of spam. Don't know that computers need to be updated and never heard of such a thing as a virus or dialer. Then you are infact incapable of using the computer in a responsible way. Atleast aslong as you're not given a secured sandbox-computer configured and maintained by someone who *does* know these things.

If you fail to use your computer responsibly, innocent third parties come to harm. A virus-infected machine that sends out 50.000 copies of the virus a day causes harm. A machine that gets a zombie and participates in a DDos causes harm. A machine working as a spam-relay causes harm. Not direct bodily harm as with autos, but harm nontheless. Even if those 50000 viruses only causes 2 seconds of lost time for someone on the average, that's still around 30 work-hours. So even a low estimate would say you owe $500 - $1000 for every day your machine does this. The only reason you typically get away with it is that you're doing 2 cent of damage each to thousands of people, the cumulative harm is still large though.

I'm not nessecarily in favour of a "internet driving test". But it *is* required that people become aware that there are responsible, and irresponsible ways of using a computer, and irresponsible use causes real harm.

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 19:51 UTC (Fri) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] (4 responses)

I didn't read the article but I know the answer (unless you're installing on a Dell or some other Linux-hostile laptop): Linux, by far. Mandrake, SUSE, Lindows, Xandros, and the easiest of all, Knoppix, are a breeze to install compared to Windows. The best way to install Windows is with VmWare or Win4Lin -- at least the reboots are virtual.

And for those who think, ya but the computers today come with Windows already and no installation is necessary, I say: HA! Having "setup" my "pre-configured" servers, desktops and should-be-turn-key laptops and those of the executives I work[ed] with, Windows, pre-installed, is a #&*^#^ to get going the first time. If you are getting a new Windows computer (hey, it happens) for an important non-techie (family member, paycheck signer, etc) be sure to get past all the registration malarky, activation nightmare and "Windows Installer..." prompts before unleashing it on them.

Off-topic, but triggered by my recollection of the painful activation sequences for Windows, Office, oxygen supply (beta tester), I realized that Microsoft has its smartest most innovative people devising ways to make their software NOT work (vis a vis activation). Hence, they, and the closed-source model they champion, are doomed. Just a matter of time.

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 2:21 UTC (Sat) by fjf33 (guest, #5768) [Link]

Let me tell you something; the first thing I do when I get a new commputer, I format the hard drive and reinstall it. Pre-installed windows comes with so much CRAP it is incredible. An anti-virus that expires after six months. How many people have computers with AV software that has signatures from 2 years ago? And allt hat extra software that no one in their right mind would use. Just re-format and install it again.

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 18:12 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (2 responses)

I have a Dell 8600, and I've never seen a laptop easier to install Linux on... My 8100 was also completely without trouble...

The only problem was until recently the Intel Centrino wireless networking card, but that's working perfectly now...

Which Dell laptop was it that you found Linux-hostile?

Dennis

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 25, 2004 0:53 UTC (Sun) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] (1 responses)

I have a Dell Inspiron 5150 (which had a a P4 3.06GHz processor until I had Dell service the unit and replace the motherboard, whereafter I have a 2.66 GHz processor -- and Dell doesn't care!). I run Xandros 2.0 Deluxe (bought) and Windows XP Pro; I switch by swapping hard drives.

The unfriendly part: Dell TruelyMangled Wireless w/ Broadcom chipset. If not for Linuxant (or SourceForge's similar project which I haven't tried) providing a wrapper for the binary only Windows driver I'd have to stick a PCMCIA card in my laptop to use 802.11x. That's pretty unfriendly for this T-Mobile HotSpot subscriber.

Truth be known the setup works poorly even in Windows with unexplained drop outs and frequent requests to verify you really really want to connect to an insecure connection (if I didn't I would have disable WiFi, right? :)...if not for GNU screen on my servers I'd go mad.

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 25, 2004 10:57 UTC (Sun) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

Yeah ok, I thought you mostly meant getting Linux working at all on the laptop...

To be honest I had a problem in the beginning with my Dell 8600, but that was hardly their fault, as (AFAIK) it was the nVidia driver that couldn't really grok the 16:9 display...

The Centrino problem I also can't really blame Dell for, as it's their only choice if they want a true Centrino... Luckily Intel AT LAST has chosen to give us a proper driver (And real FOSS even! :D )

>I have a Dell Inspiron 5150 (which had a a P4 3.06GHz processor until I had Dell service the unit and replace the motherboard, whereafter I have a 2.66 GHz processor -- and Dell doesn't care!).

It's SO lousy of Dell to give you so bad support, what was their answer when you (hopefully) went crazy on their support?

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 20:46 UTC (Fri) by blayne (guest, #19468) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm not a complete Linux geek. But I find Linux to be a lot easier to install than Windows. Disclaimer: I switched to Linux before XP so I never installed it, and XP is rumored to be better in many ways than previous Windows.

I'd go so far as to say Xandros Linux (www.xandros.com) is a bit easier to install and configure than it was to register and configure a PREINSTALLED version of Windows on a new machine. And don't even think of actually reading and understanding the Windows EULA. That'd take at least two hours, if you're a lawyer.

Bruce Layne
Lexington, Kentucky

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 23, 2004 21:31 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

I'm not a complete Linux geek. But I find Linux to be a lot easier to install than Windows.

This depends to a very large extent on your hardware.

I recently installed Fedora Core 1 on a couple of systems. On the first everything went fine, so a hypothetical new user who had this sort of experience would probably say something like "Linux is a breeze to install!"

However... it didn't recongnize the sound card on the other system, so I had to google around and configure stuff by hand to get the sound card working. It took about 4 hours from start to finish. Needless to say, this same hypothetical new user would say something more along the lines of "Linux sucks!" if this is the sort of installation experience they had.

This is the main reason that articles that rate a distro's installation on a scale from 1 to n are fairly worthless, unless you happen to have the same (or similar) hardware to what they used on the test system.

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 13:52 UTC (Sat) by nicolas.thomas (guest, #13395) [Link]

I found the following article http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/24/1050777342086.html
including a comparison of EULA versus GPL very clear.
It's a several minutes (not hours even for non layers) wich worth it !

On the subject something usually forgoten is installing a Windows OS gives you file manager, a browser, basic sounds full stop (cost under 100$) with a Linux distribution you have all that plus compilers, text editors, fancy games, tons of documentation, libraries, bulk of servers (web,ftp,mail,database) and thousand of other pacakges (from 1500 RH to over 8000 Debian) from free to a portion of the commercial "real" equivalent.

Does anyone here get help (other than explaining you: you are stupid) from Microsoft support ??

In a sense Microsoft succeed in "formating" the users, it was a great challenge and they do well at the expense of monopoly of course.

Of course they have easy to use GUIs they define what easy means.

Here we go again

Posted Apr 23, 2004 21:48 UTC (Fri) by Prototerm (guest, #20227) [Link] (2 responses)

Now all the Linux hard-liners will come out of the woodwork, insisting that only programmers and system administrators should be allowed to use a computer, and that only after years of education and experience in a big university (just like them), and after passing a competancy exam.

If an ordinary person cannot install and configure a computer, it is a failure of the OS design, and not the stupidity of the user that's at fault.

As for installation, I've found that Linux and Windows nowadays are equally easy to install. Configuring non-default settings, on the other hand, is where most flavors of Linux still need a bit of work. SuSe 9.0 (with Yast) comes close, but doesn't quite measure up to Windows. Linux will get there, as long as we ignore those hard-liners!

Here we go again

Posted Apr 23, 2004 23:20 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

The average user is not capable of installing and configuring Windows XP. This is done by the vendor who sells the user the computer. It's not reasonable to expect Linux to pass a hurdle than Windows does not pass.

Now, the types of changes that a typical user makes to his or her configuration are typically easier on Windows, and Linux does need to improve in this area.

Here we go again

Posted Jun 3, 2004 19:58 UTC (Thu) by fuzzy (guest, #22057) [Link]

"...insisting that only programmers and system administrators should be allowed to use a computer..."

I'm what many folks call a 'Linux hard-liner' and I personally wouldn't say that. In fact, I think Linux is _better_ for new users because it lets you see so much more 'under the hood' where M$ wants to hide everything. I think a new user + a new computer (should) = a fun learning experience. M$ apparently doesn't think so, and worse, doesn't believe its customers are up to it. How insulting!

"If an ordinary person cannot install and configure a computer, it is a failure of the OS design, and not the stupidity of the user that's at fault."

Exactly. C'mon, fellow *N?X developers/admins, we can do better. We can make front ends that are simple and work correctly, and leave their back ends open for more curious users to see.

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 8:26 UTC (Sat) by LintuxCx (guest, #14448) [Link] (3 responses)

Why does the tester compare Windows 2000 and Mandrake 9.2? If he used Red Hat 6.1 and Windows XP, everybody would be angry about unfair competition because Red Hat 6.1 is old and useless, it seems that nobody cares when the opposite happens? (RedHat 6.1 and Win2K both released late '99 IIRC)

I'm not trying to troll, I just wonder how fair this test is.

(Sidenote: If the answer is "Windows 2000" is the only/last sane Windows version ever released, I agree. :-)

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 24, 2004 11:15 UTC (Sat) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] (1 responses)

The author says that he didn't have a copy of XP around to hand.

As far as I can see, the installer hasn't changed much, anyway.

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 27, 2004 8:15 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

LOL! He didn't have a copy of eXPrivacy around.. and it's not like he
could just go d/l one, either. He (rightly, IMO) used the latest copy of
each that he had access to. After all, it's not HIS fault the "latest and
greatest" version of MS' proprietaryware isn't freely available for
download (at least legally).

Duncan

Windows vs Linux - Which is easier to install?

Posted Apr 25, 2004 2:01 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

In my experience, WinXP is a lot easier to handle than Win2k. On my (oldish) box WinXP is much more stable, and gives less trouble all around. Installation of both is equally bad, in any case.

user friendliness: minimising learning

Posted Apr 26, 2004 9:46 UTC (Mon) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] (2 responses)

If we define user friendliness as a process which minimises what you need to learn in order to carry out a defined job this casts an interesting perspective on the issue of competence and the extent to which experience of technology usage leads to mastery or a levelling off of the learning curve.

One technique is to accompany a simple interface with multiple levels of information which the user can dive into to the desired level. When you move your mouse over a control, a single sentence of explanation might pop up. It would be useful to have further levels of context sensitive explanation available on request (e.g. a help button beside the control).

Ultimately full documentation is only ever accessible by reading the source code and having the ability to modify it - this is something where the need for depth of knowledge will always favour free software over closed.

user friendliness: minimising learning

Posted Apr 26, 2004 21:03 UTC (Mon) by nobrowser (guest, #21196) [Link] (1 responses)

If we define user friendliness as a process which minimises what you need to learn

That's precisely the hidden assumption made by the author and most posters in this thread that I reject.

What do you have your life for? Staring into a TV tube, or rolling on sandy beaches? No. Learning.

user friendliness: minimising learning

Posted Apr 27, 2004 9:27 UTC (Tue) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

I was intentionally pointing out this significant deficiency of this particular definition, or implication of "user friendliness". However, no-one in their right mind would make a job more difficult than it need be. Yes it is true that for some the glass tube in front of them is no more than a tool to get a particular job done as quickly as possible. For most intelligent people however, it is something that enough time is spent in front of, such that they really do not want their interaction with it to be designed to minimise their learning and maximise their ignorance. This requires a longer-term perspective in user-interface design. If the jobs you are going this year don't result in you acquiring the knowledge needed to avoid reduncancy next year, was the user interface really that well suited to the task in hand ?

Those who wish to promote a culture of lifelong learning therefore need to take this debate - and the positive benefits of the system user spending a little more time in exploring and discovering the environs of their immediate workplace - to a much wider audience.