Why do people say that Linux is not user-friendly?

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose being an aspie programmer you are not doing group projects and thus not using git, subversion or any of the other version control packages. And you know your stuff, so you are not doing much research.



So that rules out a kernel issue I suppose, and you likely completely removed the power saving software. Sounds like a heck of a bug alright. Maybe something in the screen refresh? Maybe it was only drawing alternate pixels?

Really? It was my understanding that Sidux is intended for advanced users, and can often be quite unstable. Debian Testing on the other hand is much more user-friendly, especially if you manage to avoid hardware compatibility issues.


When I first installed Linux, I had several hardware compatibility issues. Those are basically gone now. In a distro like Ubuntu or Mint, more or less everything should work "out of the box." Most things can be made to work in other distros (I've run Debian before) but it is more of a hassle.

Dunno where I've given anyone an "RTFM" response.


OK. So what is not working that you want help with? Wireless? Mint comes with all the proprietary drivers by default. I don't know of any wireless cards that require any special configuration in Mint.

You claimed Linux was not user-friendly because users have to install things. I don't see how this is different from Windows (which comes by default as a completely useless barebones system), except for the fact that it is easier in Debian-based distros (especially Ubuntu/Mint) than it is in Windows. Just open up Synaptic for almost any program you need or want.

I don't know, but I have some vision problems anyway and the dim screen just made it too unpleasant / difficult to use. Every time I buy a new computer I install the latest version of Ubuntu on it hoping it will work - without spending a lot of time trying to sort hardware related issues out. Thus far I haven't had much luck. I gather most people are more lucky. Pot luck what computer one buys. Unfortunately most don't come with a "Linux / Ubuntu Compatible" sticker. Maybe that is something manufacturers should consider doing - or would that piss off Microsoft with whom deals are usually done with bundled Windows?

So, would all my windows apps work out of the box?

I've installed several versions of linux. Each one better than the last. But I've fallen for the "this time it will be just fine" too many times.

Um... probably not? It's completely unreasonable to expect that they would. If I install Windows, will all my Linux apps work out of the box? If I switch to OpenSolaris, will my Mac OS X applications run? Can I run FreeBSD programs in DOS?

I mean, you can try Wine, it has improved significantly and can run a lot of things without trouble. And for most Windows programs there is an open-source alternative for Linux. I can't really give a better answer unless I know what specific programs are essential to you.

I just wrote an article about this on my blog not long ago.

I used to be supremely in love with Linux, but after having it tear itself up on my server machine for no apparent reason and leaving me with no web/e-mail/database server, I had to move to Windows and so far haven't regretted it.

The biggest issue for me is config files. I'm very much a visually-oriented person, so I would much rather have check-boxes, text fields and option buttons instead of clawing through text config files. Another issue is that the config files are often in a different format than others, and their location isn't always where you expect them. It's really bad when it's a huge config file and there are dozens or hundreds of lines of commented-out text...makes it hard to find the uncommented 'live' option you're trying to change.

As mentioned earlier, my second big issue with Linux is reliability. Most people squawk about how reliable Linux is, but I think I've had more reliability problems with Linux (CentOS/Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora) than with Windows XP. What's weird is, Ubuntu seems to have gotten worse the last couple of releases instead of better. Hardware compatibility is worse, and networking seems to work worse than pre-2010 versions of Ubuntu.

Windows XP isn't *that* bad if you know what you're doing. I have many customers who are still running XP SP3 and as long as they aren't doing anything foolish, aren't viewing dangerous sites or opening infected e-mail attachments, their XP boxes are rock-solid.

OS X hasn't been any better than Windows 7 for me in terms of reliability. I have been a Mac owner since 1995, and I have to say with OS X, I've had more problems with the Finder freezing up, programs not launching, kernel panics and similar issues than with Windows 7 on a 2008 Mac. I think I've had one BSOD with Windows 7, and that's when it was accessing a Mac drive using an Apple device driver! Sure, Windows Explorer has restarted a few times (gracefully) due to an error, but since I've used Windows 7, I've never had a problem launching new programs or have Explorer go completely unresponsive. I think I've had many more KPs with OS X than BSODs in Windows in the last few years.

Linux is a wonderful OS in that it can be modified and configured in a million different ways, but if you are actually trying to *use* it everyday for work, or as a web/e-mail/MySQL/DNS server for your business, prepare for crashing / dying if you're unwise enough to run software updates, prepare for hours upon hours of text config-file work to get everything running just the way you want, and to google until all hours to find out how to do something that would otherwise be easy in Windows. I could not, in good conscience, recommend Linux for my customers because they'd freak about the lack of decent font support, Samba's quirkiness/bugginess, and the inevitable questions such as "Why can't I run QuickBooks on Linux?" No, Wine is NOT a production-quality answer to that question, or similar Windows app questions.

Guys, Linux is great if you're tinkering and if you don't plan to ever update your system, but outside of that, it's still too immature for prime-time. When I see a distro that can perform admirably and reliably and not keep me up passed midnight installing and configuring, I will gladly change my tune.

That is a fact, and 50% of computers today are still running XP.

If you consider that XP was released by Microsoft in 2001, and vista came out in 2006, XP had a flagship lifetime of ~5 years. This is matched by the ~5 years of vista+seven, yet XP continues to hold the bulk of the market. This would be prima facie evidence that MS has a problem. Incidentally Vista has 20% market after 4 years(and wont grow any more) and Seven is chasing it with 17% or so after only 2 years.





Who are you trying to kid? 90% of the net runs "web/e-mail/MySQL/DNS servers". That you are problematic with linux in those applications has more to do with you than linux. Otherwise the web would be run on windows. Its not.


compared to editing the registry in windows? An operating system where you CANT configure everything just the way you want? Thats like saying you cant lose a marathon because you have no legs. In any case, changing your theme isnt work in a code editor. Unless you want. Changing your theme in windows xp {b]is[/b] hacking. You know? Hours and hours of non-text file config work?



Gotta respect your integrity. Nobody should recommend something they wouldnt use. Users would baffle over why they cant use their MS applications.



If only you could configure XP, you could be up past midnight.

I'm sitting here at my GNU/Linux box system. It works perfectly. By perfectly I mean that the only bugs I have are because I use Arch Linux and have installed Xfce wrong.

I don't expect GNU to run any kind of Windows application. that's nonsense and illogical. Two different OSes, kernels (in my case, Linux) and file formats.

The reason you guys are having such a hard time adapting is because you don't sit down and play around with it and learn. You get frustrated that it doesn't do something that Windows does or something the same way and just go back to Windows.

I perfer GNU/Linux over Windows any day. I don't care if I can't play games, it works for what I do. Recently I've been uploading stuff to YouTube and cropping videos and testing file formats (like WebM). I discovered that I was able to convert a video to another video format and codecs using one command in the terminal. The terminal is seriously underrated. I can do heaps with it, including batch file commands.

As for Windows, I'm tired of it breaking down on me and having to reinstall. I don't want to defrag, have to remove software completely or download application installers then manually install the program. I want things to be simple.

No reason to get personal now I never claimed to be a Linux guru or genius, but if I can get Windows to work decently, why won't Linux work decently for me? Doesn't that speak to it's user unfriendliness? Please understand, no one would be happier to see Linux truly take off and give Windows and OS X a hard run, but Linux just hasn't worked out for me. And I just didn't install Ubuntu one time and said 'Forget it!'. I've been using Linux distros since 2001 when I started with Slackware. Since then I've used Red Hat, Knoppix, Fedora, CentOS, Ubuntu and some other small distro that I can't remember. I guess the common denominator is that I've always had to run Linux on lesser-quality hardware because I just don't have the money to buy some Xeon monster with 16 GB of RAM and RAID 5000 with cheese.



I'm sorry, I don't understand exactly what you mean by this. Regarding your registry comment, I agree with you. I like how Linux uses only config files and not some master-of-disaster database to store configuration info in. However, it's finding and editing of those config files that often trips me up, and sometimes the name of the properties and the values themselves are counter-intuitive and vague. Sure, Windows isn't perfect, and I'm not trying to be some big Windows fanboy, I'm just speaking about what I've experienced and what I know.

I want to reiterate that I enjoy Linux and really want it to succeed and become the 'Firefox' of operating systems. I'm just a very visually-oriented person, so working with config files and command-line stuff isn't always my preference (though it can be quicker than using GUI tools *sometimes*). I am a C++/PHP/VB programmer, so it's not like I've never worked with text files, but when you need to get something done quickly (recover from a crashed server, for example), clicking a few checkboxes or typing into a few text-fields is way easier than hunting through text files, or googling for some obscure value that isn't already in the config file, or shrugging at poorly-written man pages.

Something else I forgot to mention about Linux is getting X11 or Xorg to work properly. Sure, there have been some major advances in that area through the last few years, but it's still not great. I know it's not easy for the open-source guys to make stable video drivers when video card companies won't share critical info, but regardless of whose fault it is, it makes Linux less user-friendly to desktop users.

Maybe I'll try Linux again someday for server duties, but for now, everything is running smoothly, reliably and easily on my old XP box.

I can get GNU/Linux to work decently, why won't Windows work decently for me? Doesn't that speak to its user unfriendliness?

I really have personally had more troubles with Windows than with GNU/Linux. Perhaps this is just because I don't know my around Windows, but the fact remains: for me it is easier to use GNU/Linux than Windows.


This is definitely true. It's a lame cop-out to blame something not working on someone else. Sure, my wireless card was a pain because the vendor refused to support Linux or publish specifications, but to the end-user that is irrelevant. If it works in Windows or OS X but not in Linux, then it is a failing of Linux, regardless of whose "fault" it actually is, and it is the responsibility of the Linux community to make it work properly rather than try to cast blame on anyone else.

I'm really wondering if I emit some dense magnetic field or highly-charged particles from my body, because stuff that works for others rarely works for me, and vice-versa. Maybe I should toss my computers and resort to using an abacus?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d85p7JZXNy8[/youtube]

Not personal. I just come out swinging some times. The config system is superior, though you have a point about the key words, though I found they are no less obscure than the fields in windows registry. At least linux configs have half assed help files on the configs. Window... nada besides peoples experimentation efforts.

I am a little baffled as to why you are in them messing with things in the first place. Am I to assume you need to twiddle in windows too? By and large, like the windows registry, those files are not front and center because the defaults are supposed to be most efficient. Now you can and do meddle in them now and then(though I havent needed to in years), but for the most part, if you are, you are doing something wrong. Probably the xorg files are most commonly modified, and there are gui methods for making your changes there.

They are trying to step away from hand rolled Xorg. Likewise how the grub boot loader works has changed, and its harder to damage. The recent releases from ubuntu have trended into faster boots, so a lot of these files are under continual modification by the system. There is an app that is monitoring the boot sequence and optimising. So having Joe P. User in there mucking with things... yeah, not gonna be pretty. Your system will lose track of its changes and your whole boot process can be botched.



The keep trying it. That is sufficient. Whine and complain. File bug reports.

You are right that it can be faster *sometimes*. Mostly I favor the GUI too. Its that split mix of technique that really appeals. GUI was invented for a reason. But in the end, the terminal is your way to tell the computer "I'm the boss applesauce".



I never use man pages. That is the most god-awful system. Most of what I need to look up in the core system is found in "about" under system in the menu. I just typed "awk" into that, and sure enough, I can get the man pages nicely formated. It offers me variations on awk as well, such as gawk.



Correct. I already mentioned that direct editing of xorg is frowned upon. Two days ago I plugged my wacom tablet in and it picked it up, configured it and it works... true plug and play. I could go fiddle with things, but why break it? Both ATI and nvidia have effective drivers now but you do need fairly new hardware. Everything I have used from an nvidia 8600 to my 250gtx uses the same driver, but I know somewhat older stuff isnt so lucky. They work out of the box and the system picks up and offers to install the proprietary drivers.

Back in the day my ati 1650x wasnt so nice.

One the biggest beefs I have is that old tutorials and help files last forever on the net. So new people often end up following terrible instructions which bust their system. There isnt a nice point where someone says "Stop doing that!" How is a newbie to know?


That you try and you fail is progress for the linux community. It can be a head ache for you, but you are paving the way for much less proficient people. It is a little different from banging your head on a window. Your efforts ensure a healthier choice for users, just as firefox must have had a positive effect on internet exploder.

Good competition revitalizes windows too. Microsoft doesnt see it as they are aimed at profit, but its good for the users, and thats who we should give a damn about.

Well, when you set up your Linux install for Apache, MySQL, SMTP, IMAP and FTP, there are quite a few things you have to set up and adjust, and the defaults rarely work. I tried various GUI tools, but most of the time, they don't have the level of detail I need, hence the need for config-file foolery.


I have a thing about submitting bug reports. I feel like it's a waste of time because nearly every bug report I've submitted has been closed for some dumb reason, even when I am very detailed. I develop software myself, so I know what I'd like to see from my users when it comes to describing software problems, so I apply that to other's software bug reports. I just don't see the return on my investment in time by typing out detailed reports. If they were more like Firefox 4 Beta's recent "Firefox made me happy because..." / "Firefox made me sad because...", it would be much easier.


I'll have to give that a try. All the mega super-star master Linux gurus always ding you on forums and mail-lists for not reading the man pages, so that's where I picked up that habit.


Well, when it comes to x11/xorg, sometimes the super-fancy-automatic system still doesn't recognize your card or monitor, and when you use the GUI config tool, it doesn't really seem to work right, so that would be the only time I'd mess with xorg.conf.


Very true. It would be nice if the dates of the forum/list posts were more prominently displayed. Google has got better at this, but still I wish older stuff was pushed to the bottom of the results.


When I have more time, I will try. If I had a dual or quad core machine around, I'd just run virtual Linux servers instead of a physical one. That makes it easier to recover from disasters because you have snapshots of the last good configuration, etc. I have been 'married' to CentOS for years, and always preferred Red Hat-based distros, but maybe it's time I give Ubuntu Server another try, despite its weirdness compared to CentOS.

If you don't want to put effort in to configuring your OS, don't do it. That simple.

Anyway, I use Linux-only tools that I can't live without, so Windows is pretty much useless now.