Replies

A well written article that uses alot of words to communicate a simple concept:

What are the Use Cases for Linux?

People generally have an idea of what they want/need to do with a computer. What they need to see is how a solution fits into what they want/need to do.

I'll give you an example. My wife's parents use a computer to do two basic things: (1) Check their email; (2) Browse the Internet to check prices on things. They don't care about an underlying OS. They care about how to use the web browser, and which buttons to click to start their email client, read email and compose/send email. That's it.

So when it came time to upgrade their computer from Windows XP, I didn't much give Windows 7 or Windows 8 a second thought for them. Rather, they got Linux Mint.

Same familiar icon for their web browser (Firefox) and the same method of accessing their email (web based via Firefox.)

Occasionally they want to print one of their emails (Lord only knows why with the crap they get ..) so the same familiar Firefox browser interface lets them print to their printer.

Beyond these functions, they have no use for a computer. If they'd have wanted to watch NetFlix or Hulu for example they could of course do that through a browser interface assuming their sound card in a 6 year old PC was compatible with Linux Mint (it was not.)

IMO, the Linux community really needs to speak in terms of Use Cases where Linux fits in people's every day lives.

Beyond the identification of the Use Cases, the next logical step is to address the complexity of implementing those use cases by a typical home pc user.

Here's what I mean by that: My in-laws are one use case with simple needs. Complexity of use for them is at or near 0. The Mint interface was close enough to XP that they easily adapted to it.

Contrast that to building a home theater PC using pretty much any flavor of Linux by an average home user. Here the level of complexity in installing and configuring a high number of packages is required and that assumes all the different packages required are compatible "out of the box" with each other and with the hardware in the PC being used for this purpose.

While Linux has made huge strides in component compatibility, the average home user isn't going to adopt it until it's at least as good plug-and-play as Microsoft Windows or Apple (the standard bearer for plug and play.)

Yes, I'm aware of all the different builds that are out there which are packaged up specifically for a home theater pc in my example above, the problem is the average home user doesn't want to research all the different (and sometimes confusing) builds that are out there to find the "right one" for them. That just exacerbates the problem. Truth is, the average home user just wants to shove a dvd in their computer, have an OS detect everything they have, and "just work" at the end of the install.

Microsoft and Apple fit that bill nicely only because the average home user can go to Best Buy (for example) and buy a DVD to shove in their computer. I've yet to see Linux mass-marketed the same way as either Microsoft and Apple which markets their products based on ease of use and Use Cases for everyone.

Just my .02. Nice article, thanks for posting.