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

Post Reply New Topic

Right, I think a lot of this depends on familiarity. I was never a full-time Windows user, so I never grew dependent on any Windows-only programs. I run Linux, so I've grown accustomed to programs in Linux and depend on them to get what I need done. I have no idea how to do half the stuff I do in Windows, and presumably Windows users feel the same way when booting up in Linux.

^ as a recent convert to full time linux I can verify this, for years I toyed with the idea of using it but just could not get my head around the different programs and lingo. Once I made the switch (thanks to your good self and Fuzzy) I now get really annoyed with the way windows works. I only use one of my old programs , MYOB (under wine), and this is simply because the idea of five years worth of business data entry is not something I really want to attempt.

If I was to start a new business I would use a free open source one accountancy package. This statement alone shows the level of confidence I have in free open source as I have no idea what packages are available and yet I fully expect that there will be one to suit my needs

I now have a laptop which has only runs linux and a desktop which has windows/linux dual boot simply because I want to play games on the odd occasion, and even then when I have finished with the game I generally restart and boot into linux.

Personally I just find Windows laggy and slow, plus the need to have two or three anti.... programs running s**ts me

I'm just sitting here, waiting for a Windows XP Home to manage to struggle through a reboot... which takes about two minutes... limping into a shaky desktop. It's got dual 3GHz processora in there!

This time round, it has decided to tell me "Windows has finished installing new devices....", which is rubbish. It wants another reboot, so here goes...

Thirty seconds to shut down... and one minute 45 seconds until it crashed into another reboot, just before the desktop came into view...

The usual tedious screens... for another minute, before a desktop grudgingly appears.... and asks if I want totell Microsoft about the "serious error" it has recovered(sic) from.

...

This is a machine that I've been cleaning up after an acquaintance had the misfortune to let "Antivirus7" into their life. I've cleaned up most of the dross, and stopped all those irritating start up routines, so there's little excuse for its treacle-like behaviour.

...

Still, they now have a dual boot with Lucid Lynx, which takes about four seconds to boot up, and three seconds to shut down. I'll let them have a play with that... and see if they like it. At which point I'll probably squash XP down out of sight, and transfer their files to Linux.

...

I really do need to get the machine back to them... as I've been playing far too much OpenArena on it.

Trying out Linux Mint today, the color is easier on eyes, had trouble loading it off my pen drive and couldn't find a dvd to burn the image to, then found my disks 15 mins ago yaay, I find most distro's based off of unbuntu to be very easy to install, I am amazed that there isn't more people using linux

Last edited by Friskeygirl on 31 Jul 2010, 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Different = Not user friendly. That's all.

Your logic sucks. Windows 3.1 was very different from dos and it was much more (new)user friendly.

Last edited by Fuzzy on 28 Jul 2010, 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It was a different era then. People saw a GUI and were like "wow, I've got to try this." Now you take someone who's been using Windows and show them Linux, and it's not going to wow them. The best you're going to get from most people is something like "Hey that's actually pretty neat. Where's the start button? How do I get to Internet Explorer?"

I use Linux, but it is what it is - an OS for computer geeks like us. Mainstream users want a mainstream OS. Anything different can be intimidating.

If only a major OEM (not some niche thing like System76) would make more than token efforts at supporting Linux. People will use whatever is preinstalled on the computer they buy from the store. Sit anyone down at an Ubuntu system (once it's already set up) and they usually have no trouble using it.

Your claim was bogus so you are trying to change the subject. In any case, if you had ever used linux in a public place, you'd know that people say, "Wow! How did you get windows to look like that?" Quickly followed by "Can I try it?"

Thus different = new and interesting, not unfriendly.

You already made that claim about a new GUI(windows 3.1), so go ahead, change the subject again.

Again, by your logic, we should all be driving the original maker's minor variant of one of these brilliantly user-friendly (at the time) vehicles...

...ah, no, because Benz is only half a company, now.

I often wonder who will gobble up MS, once their brief stay is over. Who knows, they may well manage to survive, the same way IBM did. That's by adapting to change, not fighting to prevent it.

Linux itself is very unfriendly - its the distros that make the difference. I like puppy and ubuntu only because they are well supported. The user theme behind ubuntu and others seems to be to make it work with every machine and every possible configuration right out of the box. And it does to a certain extent. In most cases, its far more difficult to do a clean windows install than ubuntu.

The problem comes from when ubuntu doesn't understand your hardware configuration. That is when things get really complicated. With windows, because manufacturers support it better, you can usually always find a driver somewhere that will make it all work. With Linux, you frequently have to deal with anti-linux hardware manufacturers that either don't or poorly support their products.

Around here, I am mixed mode OS. I have windows and linux on several machines and some even have both thanks to virtualbox. Puppy BTW runs from a flash drive so I can boot it on anything.

Fuzzy, I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to change the subject. You used the example of Win3.1 was very different from DOS, and I pointed out that it was a different era where consumers had no preconceptions of how a GUI is supposed to work. From my perspective, yes, different = new and interesting, but from the perspective of people I've shown Linux to, (and who better represent the general public,) different = intimidating and not user-friendly. It's like having a hole-in-the-wall store that makes amazing burgers, and next door is a McDonalds. Better food doesn't mean more customers. Apple and Microsoft have name recognition that the general public is comfortable with, and that gives the impression of being more user-friendly, even when the products they make are crap.

I have to disagree on the part about Apple. I have used Mac, Windows, and Linux, and I've found that Mac OS X is the best for daily use. Unlike Windows XP/7, it actually has a decent command line, it doesn't try to make all my decisions for me, and it doesn't bombard me with messages telling me to upgrade my security software. And unlike the Linux distro I use, Mac OS X has pretty decent full-screen animation and I don't have to change to a different theme to keep the screen from flickering. And whenever I have a problem with my Mac (internet access disabled, applications acting strange, etc.), I just reboot it and it the problem fixes itself. My PC, on the other hand, currently has no internet access, and I haven't been able to get it back, even after rebooting it.

I'm not knocking OS X. It's Apple's software (Quicktime, iTunes) and portable hardware (iPhone, iPod) that are crap. But people know Apple, are comfortable with their products, and therefore iPods appear to be "simpler" than Zen or Archos. Same concept.

Because they are too stupid to figure anything out by themselves. They need guide by guide instructions to do things.

Apple's iPods are popular because Apple got there first.