Posted on 09/10/2014 4:18:30 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Over the years, we've heard from countless Microsoft Windows fans as to why they believe using Linux was nearly impossible. These folks would cite everything – from poor hardware compatibility to a lack of popular software. And I suppose at one time, some aspects of this were true.
But in 2014 when people still claim that using newbie friendly distributions like Ubuntu are too difficult, this nonsense needs to be put to rest once and for all. This article is but a small step in what I hope will be a wake up call for naysayers.
One of the biggest complaints I hear far too often is that installing a distribution like Ubuntu is too difficult. I'd like to point out that context is everything. For someone who is not tech-savvy, yes, installing an operating system is indeed a bit overwhelming.
Where is the existing stuff on the hard drive? Is the computer going to work after I install this? Questions like these can pile up for anyone not used to installing their own operating system – it's a big step for the inexperienced.
But here's an interesting perspective when grouping Linux distributions into this mix: Most people don't install their own operating system. Think about this, when you buy a new computer it comes with an operating system already provided. And with the drop in PC prices over the years, it's extremely rare anyone is faced with the dilemma of installing, much less upgrading to a new operating system. Most folks simply purchase a new computer when it comes time to upgrade.
Another point to consider is that most people upgrade their computer when there is a specific reason to. Sure, there are those who upgrade because they're gamers or because their system has become too slow for their current needs. But many people upgrade their computers because they no longer function correctly. Even worse, often this happens because of malware or other software related issues. Think about it – this is just sad and unfortunate.
Now this brings us to Linux. For non-technical types, a desktop Linux distribution usually comes into their lives in one of the following ways. A Linux enthusiast introduces them to it as a Windows alternative. Or the other most common way folks come to discover Linux is strictly by stumbling upon it online from a forum or somewhere on the Web.
In both cases, the newcomer is usually left to their own devices when it comes to installing and maintaining Linux on their desktop. Where things get fuzzy is when you hear from Windows power users who try out Linux, usually out of curiosity. Because it fails to behave in the same way as Windows, the idea of "Linux is too hard to use" finds itself into the various forums on the Web.
The final issue is the adoption of Windows 8 compatible UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) computers. Recently Ubuntu 64bit has made the process of installing somewhat easier. Sadly though, secure boot bugs still crop up enough to turn off some potential Linux converts. Another option is to simply disable secure boot, but again, it's another step we're expecting folks to just "discover" based on various tutorials on the Web. Remember, with their old OS they simply turned on their computer and it worked.
The takeaway? Installing ANY operating system isn't for someone who isn't a geek – period. Blaming Linux distributions for this perceived difficulty just isn't fair.
Not too many years ago, my mom bought a PC with Windows 7 installed. She had a bluetooth dongle, scanner and a printer she wanted to use. Each of these devices was designed when XP was still the latest version of Windows, so they were a bit dated. Still, all of these peripherals worked great and she had no reason to upgrade...until she tried to use them under Windows 7.
Out of the box, there was zero compatibility with ANY of these devices. The only thing that worked out of the box was the mouse and the keyboard. After looking into the matter further, it turned out that Windows 7 drivers were not available for any of these devices – literally. Yet when I hooked them up to my Linux based laptop, all of the devices worked out of the box.
Expanding on this point even further, I grow tired of hearing how Linux hardware compatibility isn't as good as with Windows. This is so false I want to scream it from the rooftops! It's factually, without any question, a lie.
What's actually happening when you hear about someone experiencing hardware challenges is that they personally had a problem with something being detected on a notebook. Most common offenders are select wifi chipsets (thanks to the ever changing revisions despite running the same model number), or after trying to install to a non-Intel based graphics card in their notebook computer. Because this individual had a lousy installation onto their specific notebook hardware, this means that Linux is horrible and unusable by all who gaze onto it. Nonsense folks, here's what's actually happening.
Look closely at the sticker on the computer you're installing Linux onto. It probably reads Windows or Designed for Windows. This isn't being stated to take a swipe at Microsoft, rather, to point out that the machine you're staring at was designed to run the OS it came with. So while it's rare that NVIDIA or ATI graphics won't run great out of the box on most Linux distros, it's hardly impossible.
Now here's where Linux users have an advantage. There are fairly easy to follow guides explaining work-a-rounds that can be used during installation and after to make sure you never see a black screen ever again. What this means is – yes, the video card is indeed compatible. But with some mobile graphics, sometimes it requires a little work to get Linux running on this machine.
On desktop PCs, I've never, ever had a video or sound card issue. If I wasn't hearing any sound, it was because the wrong sound device was set to default in the GUI. As for graphics card issues, I've never experienced anything other than success on a clean installation of Linux. Only exception to this is accidentally installing a bad proprietary video driver after a successful Linux install.
Speaking for myself, I avoid any "surprises" by purchasing computers with Linux pre-installed. Any quick search will present you with a number of great companies providing very nice computers with Linux pre-installed. For the non-technical person or someone who would rather avoid any surprises, this is the best approach.
The takeaway? Linux has far greater peripheral compatibility out of the box than Windows. Installing Linux onto made-for-Windows computers however (while usually successful), can be met with some challenges best solved with minor work-a-rounds. When in doubt, buy Linux pre-installed for a flawless user experience on the desktop.
If there is one myth that really bugs me, it's the belief that there's not any decent software titles for Linux. To be fair, yes, there will be legacy applications that some users might need. Good news is, some of these titles are already available across popular computing platforms. These would be titles such as Skype, Dropbox, Firefox, LibreOffice, Google Chrome, Adobe Acrobat Reader, and NVIDIA/AMD driver control software.
Obvious titles that might be missing for Linux would be MS Office and maybe, for some users, Photoshop. Generally speaking though, the software available for Linux users is fantastic. Browsing, email, office suite, file syncing and more are all available with a few clicks of the mouse.
Usually what happens is when a legacy title such as MS Office or Photoshop isn't available, that platform is then demonized as having "a lack of good software titles available" which is obviously overstating the fact. For most people, the software available in today's Linux software repositories is ample. I live and work within a Linux environment full-time, I can't think of a single thing I'm missing from my software library.
The takeaway? Just because you're missing a legacy software title doesn't mean that Linux on the desktop is somehow holding its users back with a lack of software titles. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are hundreds of great software titles to choose from on today's Linux distributions. Anything not available by default, is usually available in the software repositories.
In this article, I debunked the "Linux is too difficult" myth, along with related myths surrounding hardware and software. Understanding this, one may find themselves asking: why isn't Linux more common?
Well the short answer is that the numbers being spouted out by various tech publications are using skewed data. Because Linux is in countless devices, helps to run Android, plus it's not sold as a desktop operating system, it makes tracking almost impossible. And yet, the same old "researched" numbers appear over and over, despite any accuracy in these numbers being completely impossible. This number is usually under 2 percent. In reality, Linux on the desktop is exploding internationally. China and India – two of the biggest growth markets – are mysteriously missing from the conversation, despite both countries seeing huge Linux growth on the desktop.
We (sometimes) believe the data we're provided by our common news sources. And because of this, I think we have a cult of personality with Apple and Microsoft. We, as consumers, are never told that there is a third option and because of this lack of demand, brick and mortar stores don't carry Linux computers.
In 2008, Best Buy and Canonical began selling Ubuntu boxed sets. They were sold at $20 USD, were difficult to find in the store and had no education offered whatsoever. See, I happen to own one of these boxed sets and let me be the first to say, the marketing effort was non-existent.
The packaging company, ValuSoft, did a great job in making the box easy to read, with a flap that opens up and offers great information. The problem was, this boxed set was sold on a ground level shelf BEHIND a Microsoft Windows end-cap. So it was hidden, and no one in the store even realized what it was when I purchased it. That's right – the employees were not trained whatsoever on the product.
Until someone actually works to educate computer users about what desktop Linux is and why they care, simply putting a boxed set onto a store shelf isn't going to make any difference at all. Linux on the desktop requires hands-on demonstrations at county fairs, kiosks and in big box stores. Obviously the proprietary software "cabal" isn't going to allow this to happen anytime soon, so we find ourselves looking to one company to get people using Linux – Google.
Hate it or love it, Google has people using the Linux kernel under their own software underpinnings with great success. Their Chromebooks are top sellers and the new desktop machines rolling off the assembly line also look like they could become best sellers.
The painful downside to this of course is that all of the great software that makes desktop Linux so amazing is completely missing from the Chrome experience. Popular titles like LibreOffice, Firefox, or GIMP won't be found on these machines. Luckily for geeks out there, this is something that can be remedied with a little work. However for the masses, the ChromeOS will forever be the closest many folks will ever get to a true Linux desktop.
To be honest, the only way I see the market share of visibility gaining traction in the physical marketplace is for existing PC repair techs to take up Linux support and begin recommending it to their clients. I know of a few who have already begun doing this and each of them has tripled their income for their efforts. Will this be a trend that not only boosts adoption, but also helps to dispel Linux myths? Only time will tell, but I remain bullishly optimistic.
Ping
bkm
Unfortunately, the “There are no good software titles for Linux” is less of a myth than this article suggests. While the other points made are fairly legit, and indeed Linux will work with a wider range of hardware (particularly older stuff) than the latest Windows iterations will, there is still a lag in “good” software for power users, to wit:
MS Office is not a minor sidenote. Lots of people use it, especially for professional situations. While LibreOffice is fine for writing that Christmas newsletter, or typing your English paper, it’s mediocre for writing and formatting documents that other people have to view. For better or worse, MS is still one of the bigger dogs on the block, so their implementation of document formatting still matters. MS is also lazy about conforming to standards, so even though LibreOffice does things “by the book”, they still won’t display or print right when opened in MS Office, and that’s a problem. Further, while the LibreOffice applications are at least somewhat compatible with their MS Office counterparts, there is no good replacement for MS Project as of yet.
On the leisure side, even with the introduction of Steam for Linux, gaming (the other big category for “good” software) still lags behind the offerings for the MS world. Fortunately, the presence of Steam indicates that this will not be the case forever. Linux does a better job of staying out of the way of the software it runs, so games for *nix-like environments are a good bet for the future.
My home computer has been Linux based for the past 10 years. In the next several weeks I will probably be starting a build of a new/replacement for the 9 year old Dell. I’m currently using. As in, assemble the components and install onto bare iron. It will be the latest Linux Mint distro ( KDE ). Just think, a system never touched by windows. ... ;-)
yeah—my last two laptops have been ordered without an OS, and have never been touched by Windows either.
Geek Squad thought I was crazy when I said I wasn’t going to ask them to put an OS on the hdd after the old one failed. I got a clean hdd and installed Ubuntu myself. It was so easy and so fast, nothing like Windows.
Bookmark.
Really? Seriously? There is absolutely no doubt that software makers, especially game makers ignore the Linux market. To pretend that you cannot think of "anything" is to not see any trees in the forest. The lack of good software, like the latest games, for Linux is maybe the biggest glaring problem holding the OS back.
I use Ubuntu, it is my only OS.
To be honest, the only way I see the market share of visibility gaining traction in the physical marketplace is for existing PC repair techs to take up Linux support and begin recommending it to their clients.
Either a groan or sigh would be useful here. I don't think repair shop is the front line for new OS proselytizing. It wouldn't hurt but thinking that it should be the main way to get Linux out there is, honestly, weird.
Linux affection-ado’s must learn to embrace their preferences but please don’t expect the world to adopt their culture.
However, don't offer up lies disguised as excuses for not doing so. Merely saying you prefer Windows is acceptable.
Might anyone know if there is Linux software similar to Replay Media Catcher to capture almost any internet video or audio?
There are Firefox extensions that can do that, but I started using Pale Moon and haven’t seen one that works.
“Really? Seriously? There is absolutely no doubt that software makers, especially game makers ignore the Linux market.”
I guess it depends on which software makers you’re talking about.
One of the reasons I switched to Linux was because I was tired of proprietary software companies dictating what I could and could not do. I certainly don’t miss that. Open source equivalents do sometimes lack certain features of their proprietary counterparts, but they often include additional features of their own to make up for that.
For instance, while Linux may not have the variety of proprietary software that Windows does, every respectable distribution comes with comprehensive, easily extensible software repositories that don’t require you to sign up for a user account. You also get a package management system.
Lack of proprietary software isn’t holding Linux back. In fact, there’s nothing to hold back: it has already won. Linux powers Android, the world’s most popular smartphone OS. It runs on most of the world’s top supercomputers and many servers. It’s used in embedded devices ranging from Wi-Fi routers to automated vacuums like the Neato XV-25.
A better question might be what is holding Windows and OS X back from achieving such comprehensive market dominance. Aside from the desktop market, Linux has won.
The best use of Linux has always been and continues to be on the server. Install Ubuntu 14.04 and a minimal window manager and you will have a system to browse the web and organize files pretty well (and fast) but not much else. For many people adding Windows to that inside a VM might make sense because it can be snapshotted to stay virus free.
Wow!
Your successful linux examples are a primitive kernel running a JVM and two headless servers. Windows does a whole lot more than that but lately MS has reversed course and simplified (or dumbed down) both the kernel and their GUI.
I always thought X Windows or Linux AT(After Thought) was the real show stopper.
But for anyone interested in the subject, here's an excellent analysis discussing the REAL several hundred NON-MYTHs as to why Linux is unsuitable for the average home user and it's very like to remain that way:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux.is.not.ready.for.the.desktop.current.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.