Re: Will there ever be a time when linux is a rival to Windows?

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:55:38 +0000, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:


Well, it's an approach, but for people scared of computers I think locking
things down a bit so they can't break it is more reassuring. And, on a
practical level, it's more likely to keep things in working order for
everyone elses benefit.

Yeah, placing restrictions is more practical with newbies, but I
learned more by getting stuck in and destroying my system - learning by
mistakes. It works in some instances, but can be disastrous in others and
you can come away from it having learnt nothing. My approach, modified
by your experience, would be to start them off with some limitations, but
then let them graduate to more complex and testing areas with fewer and
fewer restrictions,

Depends on who's supporting them. There's usually an easy fix.

Sure, if they've managed to change the colour scheme or the like; if
they've managed to install nasty pernicious spyware infected rubbish off
the net then there likely isn't an easy fix.

Perhaps running a short security class as a primer for them would work?
As for spyware, there's programs for dealing with this. But
there's a problem. You need your anti-spyware app, your anti-virus app,
your firewall, and your regular updates. AND you've got all this crap
running in the background just to keep your PC safe-ish. On top of that,
Vista's going to be really resource hungry. I spot an opportunity.

That said, if someone's committed to using Windows, I just tell them that
there's these things they need to do - write it down if necessary - and
they usuallly respond. Some of the administration is automated, the
rest of it's pretty easy to pick up.

I don't think the solution is to give them a safety net, because they're
just going to get a warped idea about how the system works.
Using a limitted account for starters is hardly a warped idea, I (and I
imagine most people here) use unpriveleged account for most day to day
purposes.

Yes. But at some stage I think it's better to unleash them on the system
proper, once they have a good grasp of the fundamentals.

Are you the bloke who built that computer on Lost?

That's how to build a secure system - locked bunker, remote island, warning
of impending apocalypse, no Windows; and have they got spyware? No. :-)

Not entirely sure about the secure bit. <SPOILER> If Walt can access the
network while he's with 'them', then I reckon there's trouble ahead. Then
again, there's always trouble on that show. </SPOILER>

My point is in response to your point that 'crap laden compromised Window
boxes are the source...'. Quite clear, really.
OK, but the boxes are crap laden because their users aren't up to the job
of keeping them clean. Most of the time they're running Windows, but there
must be enough badly set up unix boxes out there to make all these SSH
dictionary attacks worth someone's while. Bottom line the problem is
ignorant users left in charge of something they can't cope with, and more
importantly, can't be bothered to learn how to cope with.

I relate to your dissatisfaction on this, but I still think there's more
we could do to address this, at least in the Linux world.

Yes, I agree: it would help if people knew about some of the basics. We
seem to disagree on emphasis - I'm more inclined to put the blame on
ourselves for not teaching people well enough, rather than thinking that
people are just ignorant.
If they don't know stuff they're ignorant, no matter who's fault it is. IME
a lot of people /want/ to be ignorant - not being ignorant about computers
makes you look like a geek, and we have to remeber that most people don't
take that as a compliment.

Problem is that most people aren't as heavily into computers as we are.
We seem to be interested in the nuts and bolts as much as using computers
for 'non-computer' stuff. Nothing wrong in that. But, because we're so
interested in these topics, it falls to us and people like us to get out
there and address these issues. We are geeks and proud! These 'other
people' and see their PCs as tools to do things quicker, easier and more
conveniently. Linux is better, but still needs a lot of work in terms of
getting out to people.

Take for example stories about piracy in the media. The Linux powers that
be should be getting in there and promoting the OS as a workable solution
- that people can get access to a wealth of software without getting
fleeced and without breaking the law. If the boot was on the other foot,
MS would be in there like a shot. Meanwhile, in the Linux world we just
seem to talk amongst ourselves.

Have more faith in people. In addition, in my experience, people are
very bothered about security. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of
anyone who isn't.

I suppose our experiences differ then. I tend to find that people expect
PCs to 'just work' and resist any suggestion that they need to put effort
into learning things. If people gave a toss about security they wouldn't do
so damn badly at it.

I think we're both right on this one. Most people want PCs to just work,
but I find that if they're told what they need to do, they'll respond.
There's been numerous surveys showing peoples concerns about online
commerce, for example. These were mainly unrealistic and, in the main,
people have responded by being more aware of online scams. That's perhaps
helped to make online shopping start to really rival the high street.

I disagree. The emphasis should be on us getting the information to
people. If we're all as smart as the 'RTFM' brigade would have us
believe, then how come we aren't smart enough to get the message out in
an easily accessible way?
I think it's because people aren't prepared to listen.

I reckon it's because people don't know we're here. If you're right,
anyway, then the better approach is for us to look at how we're doing
things and how we're going to make changes. We could do better!

Microsoft wins on this score because they're proactive in getting patches
and such like to people. OK, the quality may be lacking, but we can
learn from their successes as well as their failures. Some distros are
getting there, though it seems to be a gradual process.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if you're thinking about the
technical differences between Windows Update and the Linux equivalents I
think the Linux ones are about even - they mostly work pretty much the same
way. On at least Ubuntu and Fedora[2] tray icons warn when there are
updates and offer to install them when you click on them, just like
Windows. Of course, the Linux systems have the edge in that they update the
whole system rather than just the OS.

I was also thinking about Fedora and Ubuntu in saying that some distros
are getting there. Spooky. We should be on Lost! Both distros are good
in my book. For me, concentrating on the OS, Linux systems have the edge
full stop. It's the peripheral stuff where MS comes out on top - third
party drivers and services (that MS is only really winning on because of
its predominance).

TVs are complicated pieces of equipment. Chip and Pin is a complicated
technology. Sky boxes aren't complicated? Could you make one?
No, but I'm pretty sure I could use one without reading the manual.

That's partly because the user interface is so good and partly because the
technology has been around for so long that the user interfaces have been
thoroughly worked on. Computers are catching up.

The
difference (as Martin's already explained at some length) is in the
flexibility. The guts of my TV are quite complicated, but the front panel
has a power switch and five buttons; the buttons are independant of each
other, and mostly don't change function depending on the state of the
TV[3]. A computer is hugely more complicated to use, if not in it's
internal construction.

There's many functions available with TV. There's remote controls,
Teletext, etc. Computers CAN be more complicated to use, but they can
also be fairly easy to use with the right interface. We can easily serve
both camps - those who are geekishly into the processes as well as the use
of computers, and those who just want to use their computers for everyday
tasks.

The same goes for most other technologies. Relatively speaking, we're in
the early days of computers as mass-consumer devices, and one of the
things we've learnt is that the more technologies mature, the more usable
they become.
The same is happening with computers. We can still do complex things
with them, but the real test for me is when that coexists with
ease-of-use.

To an extent, but I think there's a degree of irreducable complexity; if
you're going to have a system which can:
- Play Doom
- Order books from amazon,
- Word process,
- Play music,
- Model climate change,
- Work like a telephone,
- etc. etc.

then you're going to have to express which of the myriad possibilities you
want it do, and there's no way to make that really simple. It is possible
to build (for example) web browsing boxes little more complicated than a
TV, but only by taking out all the flexibility. A TV is easy to use because
it shows TV - that's all it does.

You can still have a decent GUI to accommodate this flexibility.
Developers and computers are advanced enough now to be able to bring that
about.

We don't, however, reach the people who don't ask.

Yeah, and that's part of the frustration. Like I said, we've got the
better OS. We've got the community in place (even though it's a bit
disjointed). It's just that we appear to be lacking a cohesive team
that's proactive in reaching out to users new and old.
I'm not sure why cohesive is any better than disjointed. I've been involved
in the York LUG for some time and I think we'd only be held back by any
attempt to hold a coherent line with everyone/anyone else.

'RTFM' ain't good enough.
I don't think most newbies encounter 'RTFM' as a response, except those
that are behaving unreasonably. The difference isn't usually in how much
they know, but whether there first question is more "I've tried x, y & z
and I still haven't got it, can anyone help?" or "Linux sucks - I want to
do x and it doesn't work, why not?"

I just think the 'RTFM' brigade are a real hurdle in making
technology accessible - and, yes, this is a gripe of mine. I've got
issues, man!

We've got the advantage here, in that we can approach both in
much the same way. It's frustrating for people to take the effort to try
Linux only to find that it doesn't do things they've come to expect from
computers. Like open source, we should be more than willing to pass
on our knowledge to people who've tried and people who don't know how
to. Linux is the better OS IMHO. Part of making it better is ensuring
that it's user-interface is better also...for all users.

Ewan

[1] Seriously - hands up anyone with a ssh server open to the net who
doesn't see dictionary attacks in their logs?

[2] Fedora certainly used to anyway, I imagine it still does.

[3] With the obvious exception that the five buttons don't do much when the
power switch is off :-)

[4] That computer in Lost is a classic. If only we could get a rumour
going that it's a Winbox
.