- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tell me why linux wouldn't work for a large majority of residential users
Posted on 8/15/14 at 9:46 am to Hopeful Doc
Posted on 8/15/14 at 9:46 am to Hopeful Doc
quote:At first I liked Gnome 3, but after a couple of months the novelty wore off and I realized it wasn't as efficient as it used to be, so I switched to XFCE and was happy. After a couple years of that, I just decided to give GNOME another shot this past week, and I've been pretty happy with it so far. It feels a lot more polished, the extensions are better, and it generally does the job of staying the hell out of my way so I can get stuff done.
Back before GNOME turned really terrible, i think it would've had better success. The current launcher is just not very good, comparatively, in my humble opinion.
0
Posted on 8/15/14 at 9:47 am to Casty McBoozer
Its not designed to be a desktop OS. Even the best Linux distro is no where near as good as Mac OSX or Windows for desktop work. To hard for the average user to get apps working...
Posted on 8/15/14 at 9:50 am to FreddieMac
quote:
Its not designed to be a desktop OS. Even the best Linux distro is no where near as good as Mac OSX or Windows for desktop work. To hard for the average user to get apps working...
Have you tried Linux since 2002?
Posted on 8/15/14 at 9:59 am to Korkstand
quote:
Hasn't been for over a decade.
The more I think about it this particular wall I beat my head on probably was around 6-7 years ago, so it's certainly not current information, but the difficulty of finding the information I needed back then vs. the ease of finding Windows related support at the same time was noteworthy enough I thought I should bring it up. I'm glad to hear that it's improved, because I'm sure I'll be using Linux for my web servers for decades to come. Fortunately Linux web servers are pretty set it and forget so I don't have to research problems that often.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 10:07 am to FreddieMac
quote:
Its not designed to be a desktop OS. Even the best Linux distro is no where near as good as Mac OSX or Windows for desktop work. To hard for the average user to get apps working...
wut?
you know what all Mac OS are based off of right?
Posted on 8/15/14 at 10:31 am to Casty McBoozer
quote:
I'm assuming most people just use web, email, printing? Some .doc creation/editing and spreadsheets?
What does your average user at home need that linux couldn't easily handle?
I deal with a metric shite-ton of "average users" every day, people that have used computers in an office environment for over a decade. These people still get amazed when I can so quickly set their default printer.
When I did call center work for an ISP we had some software for our dialup users (back in the day) and we even went so far as to put a giant STOP sign in the tutorial that said "this is NOT your actual username nor password, you will need to call our helpdesk to get that information before you proceed any further" (or something along those lines).
Every damned day I would field calls from multiple people who typed the example username/password in then wondered why they couldn't get online (error 691 for you DUN old-schoolers ;) ).
These are the "average user". They have other priorities than to learn terminal codes or compiling. They want it as intuitively simple as possible.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 10:38 am to Bard
the people you just described would almost never have a need to use what you refer to as "terminal codes"
Posted on 8/15/14 at 10:45 am to gmrkr5
quote:
the people you just described would almost never have a need to use what you refer to as "terminal codes"
Tell them that. They hear "Linux" and any that have enough tech knowledge to at least recognize the name get a look of awe and fear on their faces.
The average user's mindset is:
Windows - the norm
Mac - fancy but easier
Linux - omgfrickingWHAT!?!
You might as well tell them they will be required to do algebra. In Chinese Mandarin. In their eyes, it's the same level of complexity.
There would need to be a massive advertising push for Linux to get accepted enough to at least be tried by the average user.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 10:51 am to Bard
quote:
They have other priorities than to learn terminal codes or compiling.
The "terminal codes" are rarely necessary, but you see them so often because they are very powerful, and are a very concise way to represent a solution on a web page (compare to a series of screenshots walking you through a GUI).
And compiling? In my 8 years of using Linux almost exclusively, I have never had to compile anything. I've done it for fun and education, but never had to do it in order to get something done. In fact, as mentioned already, package managers make installing software on Linux much easier than on Windows. On the rare occasion that I want something that isn't in any repository, I do it the Windows way, and download a .deb, and even that is more streamlined than most Windows installers.
Seems like most people talking down on Linux are just talking out of their arse, repeating what they've heard from others who are talking out of their asses, too.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 10:53 am to Bard
quote:
There would need to be a massive advertising push for Linux to get accepted enough to at least be tried by the average user.
You know what would be a great start? If everyone would stop spreading misinformation about how "scary" it is on message boards.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 11:35 am to Bard
quote:
There would need to be a massive advertising push for Linux to get accepted enough to at least be tried by the average user.
You're never going to rehab "Linux" in the eyes of the consumer, but all you need to do is call it something else. If you gave a chromebook to the average user they wouldn't have a clue they were using a Linux based OS. Especially with the shitshow that Windows 8 has been with consumers, I think an opening is there.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 11:56 am to TigerinATL
quote:
You're never going to rehab "Linux" in the eyes of the consumer, but all you need to do is call it something else.
Im not quite sure what Linux needs "rehabing" from. Typically you have to do something wrong to need to rehab from it.
One could argue that Linux based OS have more of a market share than Microsoft if you included all variants (Linux, Chrome OS, Android, OSX, iOS)
This post was edited on 8/15/14 at 11:57 am
Posted on 8/15/14 at 12:13 pm to gmrkr5
quote:Those are actually based on BSD, but...
OSX, iOS
quote:Windows "rehabbed" pretty hard after ME and Vista, so not sure what would make someone think the name "Linux" is doomed forever.
You're never going to rehab "Linux" in the eyes of the consumer, but all you need to do is call it something else.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 12:19 pm to gmrkr5
quote:
Typically you have to do something wrong to need to rehab from it.
It's roots in not being a consumer focused OS is all you need. If the "average" user has ever heard of Unix/Linux there's probably a 99% chance they associate it with enterprise and NASA level computing.
quote:
Chrome OS, Android, OSX, iOS
This is exactly how you get Linux to consumers. Don't try to make Linux itself a consumer brand, just have a consumer focused company slap their name and skin on it and have them pitch it to the masses.
quote:
not sure what would make someone think the name "Linux" is doomed forever.
Because it takes money to rehab a brand and there is no money in consumer Linux. RedHat sells Red Hat Linux because it's aimed at businesses, but Ubuntu sells Ubuntu because it's aiming lower. I went to the Ubuntu site and didn't see the word Linux anywhere to be found on the home page or desktop page. LINK /
This post was edited on 8/15/14 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 8/15/14 at 1:01 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Those are actually based on BSD, but...
Semantics...
I guess I should have said "Unix based" then
Posted on 8/15/14 at 1:19 pm to TigerinATL
quote:Sounds like a great association to me, nothing that requires rehab.
If the "average" user has ever heard of Unix/Linux there's probably a 99% chance they associate it with enterprise and NASA level computing.
quote:That's how it's always been done. Every distro has had a brand name, and the "Linux" is often dropped. Even in the early days when it was aimed strictly at "geeks", Slackware, Debian, Red Hat, etc. The fact that they were Linux was a given to those in the know, and the fact that they were Linux was irrelevant to those who were not. This continues today, as you point out with Ubuntu.
This is exactly how you get Linux to consumers. Don't try to make Linux itself a consumer brand, just have a consumer focused company slap their name and skin on it and have them pitch it to the masses.
I just don't understand where you're coming from, as if Linux has a bad name with consumers. It hardly has a name at all with consumers. It seems like there's a small minority of people who know what it is, and who think of it as some complicated OS.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 1:37 pm to Korkstand
You are seeing the word rehab and thinking "bad", but think "different" instead. Linux is not a consumer focused operating system, it's an enterprise level operating system that is being maintained by hardcore computer hobbyists. There is nothing consumer focused about that. There was no reason the average user couldn't use a BlackBerry, but until the iPhone came along, there was no "consumer" Smartphone.
And it usually takes a lot of money to build a brand, money that isn't there to turn Linux the name into a consumer brand. But there is money to turn Linux the core os into the underpinnings of successful commercial brands that have already been mentioned. Unix/Linux is already in everyone's pocket and living room. But getting to the desktop will probably take something like a Chromebox.
quote:
as if Linux has a bad name with consumers. It hardly has a name at all with consumers
And it usually takes a lot of money to build a brand, money that isn't there to turn Linux the name into a consumer brand. But there is money to turn Linux the core os into the underpinnings of successful commercial brands that have already been mentioned. Unix/Linux is already in everyone's pocket and living room. But getting to the desktop will probably take something like a Chromebox.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 1:44 pm to TigerinATL
that was one confusingly worded post
Posted on 8/15/14 at 2:23 pm to gmrkr5
quote:matters not
you know what all Mac OS are based off of right?
An OS built for specific hardware will always be more robust than an OS that has to account for a wide range of hardware.
Posted on 8/15/14 at 2:43 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
matters not
An OS built for specific hardware will always be more robust than an OS that has to account for a wide range of hardware.
still a Unix based OS
matters so
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News