Short Rant: The Problem With Linux
Here’s the problem with Linux.
Within the past two years or so, there have been GIANT LEAPS in usability on Linux platforms. The latest version of Ubuntu is an awesome testament to that fact. The last time I tried to configure a Linux machine - I think it was an installation of Suse - I managed to break it within a few hours after it was installed. I’ve also managed to kill Kubuntu before. I haven’t broken Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty) yet. This is a sign from the Gods.
So what’s the problem?
The problem is when a new user, like me, needs to get something done, obviously they turn to “experienced” Linux users, and the first thing those users say is, “open a terminal and type…”
This is very discouraging for those of us using the new installations and wondering why there isn’t a way to do it through the normal interface. The thing is - there ARE ways to do it through the normal interface now, but the people who have been using Linux forever only know how to do it through the terminal and find it easier that way - even though it isn’t easier for the rest of us who are graphics-oriented.
I’m not saying those of you who are using the terminal are wrong or bad people. And I know that a lot of people coming to you guys with questions have not “RTFM’ed”. But just be aware that help documents have improved, and that they and other system configurations no longer need to be accessed from the terminal.
And to new Linux users out there - pick up a modern installation and try to RTFM. And stop asking experienced users “how” to do things. It’s one thing to ask, “Is it possible to do this?” or, “What’s it called when you do this?” so you know how where to look in your manuals, but if you ask an experienced Linux user “how” to actually do it, you’re going to be in for a world of hurt. Just so you know.
Tags: No Tags
Will It Work said,
September 26, 2007 @ 1:39 pm · Quote
I know it’s a bad habit that I have. If someone asks me, I generally assume that either a: they are looking for a quick and dirty method, and just want it done, or b: can’t find the needed resources to do it themselves.
Personally, if you want a GUI, use Mac OS. Seriously. With a very few exceptions (playing games) there’s no need for the interface in a Linux or Unix environment except to add prettiness. But admittedly, I’m biased, which is why I don’t use Ubuntu. There’s a distro of Linux out there for almsot everyone, and I think that from a newbie-usability standpoint, it’s a good thing. However, and graphical interface is, at its core, a crutch. Perhaps an attractive, facilitating, well integrated crutch, but a crutch none-the-less. For a one-time user, or for specifically graphic media it makes sense, but, and this is my opinion, any serious practicioner of any specialty needs to be able to see the working parts. It’s like asking a car technician to repair your car without reading the manuals and opening the hood. In the same way, you cannot really understand what Linux does unless you open the consoles, read the logs, and see what it’s doing.
Calophi said,
September 26, 2007 @ 1:52 pm · Quote
RE: Will It Work
The problem with Mac OS is that a) the machines are expensive, and b) it is very difficult to get it to run on non-mac equipment. It simply isn’t a viable option for many users.
The need for interface is very important to many users. For you, it isn’t necessary, but for other people, they want a USABLE alternative to Windows that they do not have to pay for so they can browse the web and do their wordprocessing and listen to music. That’s the problem - if Linux wants to reach normal users it needs a pretty and understandable interface. Period. To tell people who aren’t technologically oriented that interfaces are a crutch is actually pretty rude and obnoxious. You can’t tell people, “If you’re using Linux you should be able to do everything from the terminal,” just like you can’t tell people, “If you drive a car you should be able to repair the engine yourself.” It’s bad for business.
Linux isn’t just for tech people anymore - it’s expanding out into the field of the Normies and the original Linux users really need to deal with that. They have got to stop expecting everyone who uses Linux to want to become a computer specialist and start learning the new interfaces if they really want to help new people learn about this new alternative to paying money for a decent computer experience.
Eric Windisch said,
April 24, 2008 @ 1:12 am · Quote
As you know, I’m a long-time Linux user. What you might not know is that I’ve said this same thing for some time. Unfortunately, its not that easy to solve.
The first problem is that Linux has a lot of wizards, but not a lot of power-users. Wizards are the sort that Linux attracted from the get-go, and are those that will always use the command line. For help with the graphical interfaces, you will need help from the relatively few ‘power users’ that can accomplish tasks without delving into the command-line. I do see that there is an increase in power-users… I see a lot of people giving terrible advice on forums — this is a good sign that there is an increasing number of users that know just enough to be dangerous, but not so knowledgeable as to be incapable of understanding and relating to newbies. I think power users, as dangerous as they can be, do serve a purpose in assisting newbies in a way that more advanced users simply cannot.
The second problem is that the security separations in Linux mean that it is more difficult for the creation of power users. If a user is forbidden from altering his network settings, he will never learn how to do this and will never become a power user. This is a great thing, security-wise, but it can have long-reaching effects for the creation and nurturing of the power-user. Interestingly, Richard Stallman, one of the visionaries behind “GNU/Linux” would like nothing better than to live in a world without any security at all, maybe he has a point… though, I think that if Microsoft Windows has taught us anything, it is that security cannot be ignored.
Thirdly, there is a lack of consistency with graphical tools. There are multiple sets of graphical tools depending in your desktop environment, distribution vendor, and the versions of the above. Worse, a lot of these tools are buggy, such as network-manager, which I’ve found to be completely useless and have had to disable on all my machines in order to have consistently functional Wifi. In comparison, the command-line tools are generally rooted in 30+ year-old Unix and BSD toolchains and are defined by the UNIX and Posix standards. It is difficult for any power user to be intimately familiar with all the variations of graphical tools available, and to estimate what tools the user may have available to them. Instead, it is much more reliable to depend on the command-line tools that are guaranteed to work on all systems, with all configurations.
I think that Ubuntu is coming a long way in resolving these problems, and that nothing but good can come from having distributions settle on standards such as LSB (Linux Standards Base), and ditching their proprietary management applications (like YaST) for generic ones (Gnome System Tools).
Personally, I haven’t touched a Linux desktop in about 8 months now, instead using MacOS. I’ve got my share of annoyances with MacOS, but usability-wise I’m about equally satisfied with it and Linux. My biggest annoyances in MacOS are with performance and reliability — my OS X applications are slow and crashing all the time. Under Linux, I’ve found much better performance, and in terms of reliability the applications crash just as frequently but at least the system recovers a lot faster and cleaner.