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

Post Reply New Topic

For me, it's pretty straightforward. On my distro you can use a desktop that looks like either Windows or Mac, and most everything is already configured. I didn't have to configure the wireless internet access; it was already there when I started it. I also had no problem downloading Firefox onto my hard drive. The only thing I haven't gotten to work is the sound.

I assume because of it's coder friendliness, and the reputation that goes along with it more than anything. I don't know diddly squat about coding but I use it and it treats me well.

It is simply an untrue statement that Linux is not user friendly. In my experience, people stick to Windows mostly because that's what they are familiar with and want to learn how to work with a new operating system.

I've tried Linux several times. One thing that turns me off is dependencies when installing certain applications and the fact that you have to install additional fonts and codecs for things to look and work properly, plus lack of compatibility with my favorite applications. On Windows, things just well, work. I want to like Linux, but just can't totally warm up to it.

Try updating it or installing something... It rarely works in my experience, and on many distros you have to use the command line to do such things, too. Last I heard, anyway.

What do you mean by "look proper"?

Not sure whats tricky about the graphical update managers...

I can feel for you in regards to the command line. I recently attempted to install python and a few libraries in windows vista. It was a cluster-euphemism getting everything solved dependency wise and now my PATH variable is convoluted, lengthy and the whole mess STILL doesnt work.

I have no idea why the c/c++ DLLs for the gtk+ library work(gimp uses them for instance), and why the pygtk library imports in python, but it chokes and fails when the pygtk wrapper attempts to call gtk. And yet it works perfectly fine in linux.

Its sad that you have to resort to the command line in windows in this day and age.

There are few reasons why it gets done that way. In particular, some video formats like MPEG are patented and maybe the company providing the Linux distro does not want get sued, thats why a codec for MPEG isn't usually included by default. I install those codecs myself and couldn't really care if they illegal or not.

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

Because it isn't. Or rather, it is, but it's user friendly in the same way that Windows is: it's friendly until it breaks, and then it can become very complicated and unfriendly. (And so far as I've seen there's an element among Linux users who pride themselves on telling teh n00bs to STFU if questioned about the sudos and don'ts of the CLI. )

Also the fact that Windows has the desktop market in a vice also sort of affects things. As an employee, once you hit the job market, you'll find Windows everywhere (Unless you're a network tech or something).

I managed to download and install Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird without any problem. The process is slightly different from the way you would do it in Mac or Windows, but it wasn't by any means difficult, and I didn't have to use the command line either. I think most of the difficulty of installing software in Linux arises from the fact that open-source software developers often provide their product as source code rather than as a binary. When this happens you have to run the makefile and sometimes a configure script, which must be done from the command line. I have downloaded several open-source programs as source (on my Mac, not on Linux) and so far I have yet to run a single makefile without finding out that there's a glitch in the code and gcc won't compile it. I've even tried compiling the source code by hand with gcc, but I get the same error messages. That's one thing I hate about open source.

Cant argue with you there. You have it correct.



Again, you are right on the money.

Instructions are often provided in terms of CLI because by its nature its compact... you dont have to provide screenshots and the interested user can just cut and paste(which isnt always safe).

As in the additional fonts you have to install or most websites look like utter crap.

I am still baffled by this statement. When creating a font, one assigns it to a family, either some extant family, or a new category made up by the author. So for example, If I scan my handwriting in, turn it into a ttf font, I assign it to 'script' or 'cursive' depending on my ego. This is different from the actual font name, which can be anything. The family categories are not subject to copyright.

So there exists a multitude of fonts in the arial family for instance, and if the real deal is missing, one of the other arials on your system will take its place. These will have some resemblance to the real deal, either superficial or an almost exact copy. Baring the presence of one of those, I believe you get sysfont, whatever it happens to be one that system.

It was only recently(in the last year) that Microsoft repealed the open license on their main fonts "mscorefonts", such as the aforementioned arial. Within a matter of days free versions appeared, and within a matter of weeks these were added to linux repositories.

As these are the only fonts guarantied to be present on every install of windows, 99% of websites and documents make use of them.

I just started open office and the default is indeed "Times New Roman" which is one of the Microsoft core fonts, and I did not install it. Arial and the others are there as well. So I cant help but think that any web site that 'looks like utter crap' uses an atypical font and will look like utter crap on most windows systems too.

On Windows XP, the text looks like total crap and web pages look all grainy, and no one thinks of complaining.

Linux is so called user unfriendly because it's harder to install because the sheep want their OS preinstalled. You still have to use the command line occasionally but it's not a big deal in the more supported distros such as Ubuntu,Debian,Fedora,Mint ect.
Linux is different if you used Linux as your first computer you will find Windows difficult.