Frankly, I'd argue that if Linux isn't ready for Joe User then neither is Windows. I grow weary of hearing the memes about Windows "it just works" and "it's easy to use".
Most issues that people cite as making Linux harder to use than Windows are usually tied to setting up the computer (getting drivers installed and printers set up, for example). In this arena, Windows only "just works" because they got it preinstalled. If these same users had to do a vanilla Windows install (i.e. from a retail box, not the Dell-ified ones they get with their PCs), they would find that "hard", too.
I've had to set up Dell boxes with Windows and then scramble online to get the drivers (even drivers for the network card!). If Windows had the level of support expected of Linux, you'd never need a driver disc with a printer or scanner. It would all be there. The truth is that Linux has built in support for more hardware than any other system on the market.
Another one is that they say that they shouldn't have to go to the command line and edit /etc/some-file.conf to get their printer running. Fair enough. But let's keep the playing field equal here. Do you think that the registry settings are easier? That being told "run regedt32 find key {002300323432-A34jq23942} and change BZORK to true" is better than editing a conf file? I remember sitting in a Chinese restaurant waiting for an order, picking up a paper and glancing at the tech column. Some user (an average joe, from all indications) had written that Outlook Express had conked out on them. The solution? Edit some obscure registry setting. Is that less opaque? I don't think so.
The biggest reason people feel that Windows is easier to use is inertia. They've been using Windows their entire computer lives. They kinda know their way around in it and can survive. By "Linux is hard to use" most of them really mean that "Linux isn't like Windows!". But if Linux were just like Windows, there would be no need for Linux, now would there?
Sure there would. Half of what's wrong with Windows isn't Windows, it's Microsoft and the degree of control they can exert over your computing experience. If there were a public, free, GPL'ed binary-compatible version of Windows, I'd install it today. Half my Windows problems would be solved.
Well said.
I build PCs. I've built and configured literally HUNDREDS of them. I've been doing it since MS-DOS 3.3. I've installed nearly every PC O/S there is, at one time or another. (MS-DOS, PC-DOS, OS/2, SCO-UNIX, differen distros of Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, NetWare... those are the ones I can think of at the moment)
I've installed on everything from an NEC V20 (8088 compatible) monochrome desktop with a 10MB MFM hard drive to Xeon Multi-Processor rackmount servers with hardware RAID-5 arrays.
I'm not talking out my butt. Windows is easier to install across a broader range of hardware than any Linux distribution I have ever tried.
So far, I have installed:
I would have fallen head over heels for Kubuntu on my notebook, except for the stinking wireless.
Do you think that the registry settings are easier? That being told "run regedt32 find key {002300323432-A34jq23942} and change BZORK to true" is better than editing a conf file?
That's apples to oranges. I honestly can't remember the last time I had to edit the registry to get a hardware driver to work correctly. And, other than 1) serious software malfunctions or 2) intentional hacks, I don't have to diddle in the registry at all.
On the other hand, modifying config files is often the standard way of doing things in Linux.
And recompiling the kernel and/or driver source to make something work is just unacceptable to the majority of computer users. Whatever you may personally think of that statement, it's true.