Skip to main content
gamedev.net
🔒 Locked

Linux Usability

Started by template Jun 5, 2004 at 6:22 PM 35 replies 2k views
Original Post
template
template
I just typed out a long reply to the "101 reasons to hate Windows" thread and when I click "Reply to Topic" I find out that the topic was deleted. Anyway, there seems to be a lot of misinformation about Linux being posted so I will post my reply here and hopefully spark a new discussion about Linux usability. Most modern Linux distributions are incredibly easy to use, take Fedora for example, the installer detects your hardware, partitions your disk etc. automatically, although it does give you the option to do it manually too. About the only time I remember having to actually make a decision about something was when asked which packages I wanted to install, however for the average user the defaults will suffice(GNOME, Mozilla, OpenOffice, Evolution, XMMS etc.). Unlike Windows most basic Linux distributions actually have decent default settings, they don't have useless and annoying services like Messenger running by default. Fedora and Mandrake automatically configures your firewall for you, the firewall in Windows XP doesn't even start by default, you need to right click on your Internet connection icon, go to some tab and tick a box to enable it. If you want to install stuff afterwards you can just use Yum to get packages from an FTP server. If you wanted to install Mozilla for example it's just a matter of going to a terminal(there's also a graphical frontend for Yum) and typing "yum install mozilla", it will figure out the dependencies and install them too and a few minutes later and it's done. It's much easier than installing most Windows software, no need to go through loads of menus agreeing to licences, choosing installation directories, entering names, addresses and serial numbers etc. There are some programs which aren't very usable but I assume you're referring to the shell programs etc. and lets face it how often will the average user ever have to use a terminal? Probably never. I installed Fedora Core 2 on my mothers computer so she can do things like write letters, browse the Internet, send Email etc. and when asked if she found it more difficult to use than Windows she replied "no". Linux being more difficult to use than Windows is just a myth. Yes, there are some distributions which are more difficult to install/use than Windows, i.e. Gentoo, Slackware etc. but why would the average user want to use those when easier distributions like Mandrake, SuSE and Fedora are available? What are your thoughts? [edited by - template on June 5, 2004 7:23:50 PM] [edited by - template on June 5, 2004 7:24:24 PM]
template
template
How so?
Raduprv
Raduprv
Last Linux distro I used was SuSe 7.0, and I was very unhappy with it. Everything was a hell, installing stuff was a big problem, due to dependencies, and so on.
I heard that other distros, such as Gentoo are good, so I''ll have to check that, next time I install Linux again.
template
template
I've never actually used SuSE but it's up to version 9.1 now so perhaps things have improved. Gentoo is good(it's my preferred distro) but it is pretty difficult to install, you need to do everything manually like partitioning your disks and installing a kernel but the package management system is excellent and it doesn't install any un-needed stuff unless you tell it to, it only installs the basic programs which are required to function properly.

The documentation for Gentoo is top notch though and the support forum on gentoo.org is an excellent resource.

[edited by - template on June 5, 2004 7:33:50 PM]
Witchcraven
Witchcraven
Linux is usually easy to use. But when I need to do special configuration of software or hardware it becomes a pain in the ass.
--------------------------I present for tribute this haiku:Inane Ravings OfThe Haunting JubilationA Mad Engineer©Copyright 2005 ExtrariusAll Rights Reserved
Conner McCloud
Conner McCloud
quote:
Original post by template
If you want to install stuff afterwards you can just use Yum to get packages from an FTP server. If you wanted to install Mozilla for example it''s just a matter of going to a terminal(there''s also a graphical frontend for Yum) and typing "yum install mozilla", it will figure out the dependencies and install them too and a few minutes later and it''s done. It''s much easier than installing most Windows software, no need to go through loads of menus agreeing to licences, choosing installation directories, entering names, addresses and serial numbers etc.

First of all, wtf type of name is ''yum?'' Seriously, to your average moron, which is a more logical way to install a program? Going to a terminal and expressing your hunger, or running ''install.exe''?

My main point, though, is why shouldn''t installation programs make it easy to chose where your programs install to? I''ve gotten suckered into trying to install some OSS on my Mac, and they were throwing files all over the damn place. Very messy.

CM
tHiSiSbOb
tHiSiSbOb
quote:
Original post by template





If you want to install stuff afterwards you can just use Yum to get packages from an FTP server. If you wanted to install Mozilla for example it''s just a matter of going to a terminal(there''s also a graphical frontend for Yum) and typing "yum install mozilla", it will figure out the dependencies and install them too and a few minutes later and it''s done. It''s much easier than installing most Windows software, no need to go through loads of menus agreeing to licences, choosing installation directories, entering names, addresses and serial numbers etc.





[edited by - template on June 5, 2004 7:23:50 PM]

[edited by - template on June 5, 2004 7:24:24 PM]


Those things (...entering names, addresses and serial numbers) depend on the software developers, not the OS. I''ve tried Linux and really I see no point to my using it. If one wants to develop Linux apps, run servers or do other things, I see the advantages. Otherwise, no (at least for me). Windows never gives a knowlegable user trouble. I''ll stick with Windows.
----------------------------------------------------"Plant a tree. Remove a Bush" -A bumper sticker I saw.
Yann L
Yann L
Suse 9.1 is pretty good. I'm using it extensively here. But since the company Suse is primarily targeted at corporate and governmental Linux solutions, their distributions aren't really well suited for Linux newbies. Mandrake 10 would be more advisable in this case.

quote:

First of all, wtf type of name is 'yum?'

Uhm, a program name perhaps ? Who cares ?


[edited by - Yann L on June 5, 2004 7:42:29 PM]
tHiSiSbOb
tHiSiSbOb
quote:
Original post by Conner McCloud
quote:
Original post by template
If you want to install stuff afterwards you can just use Yum to get packages from an FTP server. If you wanted to install Mozilla for example it''s just a matter of going to a terminal(there''s also a graphical frontend for Yum) and typing "yum install mozilla", it will figure out the dependencies and install them too and a few minutes later and it''s done. It''s much easier than installing most Windows software, no need to go through loads of menus agreeing to licences, choosing installation directories, entering names, addresses and serial numbers etc.

First of all, wtf type of name is ''yum?'' Seriously, to your average moron, which is a more logical way to install a program? Going to a terminal and expressing your hunger, or running ''install.exe''?

My main point, though, is why shouldn''t installation programs make it easy to chose where your programs install to? I''ve gotten suckered into trying to install some OSS on my Mac, and they were throwing files all over the damn place. Very messy.

CM


Not only that, but, what is so hard about clicking "next" 4 or 5 times (on average)? Going along with Mr. McCloud, I like the fact that there is a specific folder that it will default to...It protects me from my sloppy self. All my Linux installations always have program folders lying aroung...not yum.
----------------------------------------------------"Plant a tree. Remove a Bush" -A bumper sticker I saw.
template
template
YUM is just an acronym for YellowDog Updater Modified. I think it was initially developed for YellowDog Linux and then integrated into other distributions. There's a graphical installer for it too, "Add/Remove Packages" is pretty descriptive, no?

Most programs in Gentoo are installed to either /usr/bin or /opt. I can't comment on the Mac point because I've never used one before.

Nothing's difficult about clicking "Next" a few times but many people complain about it being too difficult to install stuff on Linux which simply isn't true on most modern distributions.

There are some features which Windows has that I would like to see implemented in GNOME, for example, in Windows if you type a letter in a listbox it will jump to the first item beginning with that letter, another thing is being able to press "Return" at a dialog box and it automatically presses "OK", small things like that can make a big difference to usability.

[edited by - template on June 5, 2004 7:47:19 PM]
Conner McCloud
Conner McCloud
quote:
Original post by Yann L
quote:

First of all, wtf type of name is ''yum?''

Uhm, a program name perhaps ? Who cares ?

Such crappy names hurt usability. The name offers no clue as to its purpose, and its purpose offers no clue as to its name. A programmer who named a function ''yum'' would be fired, but its a pretty common practice for application names for some crazy reason.

CM
etothex
etothex
Fedora Core 2 is a pretty good choice for both newbies and hackers- it''s possible to install and access the web, email, word processing app, and even play a few games without going to a command line at all, which is the biggest stumbling block so far to new users.

My biggest complaint though is the lack of multimedia by default in Fedora. All newbies need though is someone more experienced to give them their yum.conf and they''re set.

I personally use FC2 as my full-time os, using xp only for games. I also almost never install from source anymore, and only sometimes by rpm. Yum is good enough.

I do compile my own kernel instead of the rpm''d ones, though, because I want preempt + 8k stacks (so nvidia drivers work) + ntfs, and I always use the latest bk snapshot, recompiling every few days/week. And I''ve never had trouble with stability.
Yann L
Yann L
quote:
Original post by Conner McCloud
Such crappy names hurt usability. The name offers no clue as to its purpose, and its purpose offers no clue as to its name. A programmer who named a function ''yum'' would be fired, but its a pretty common practice for application names for some crazy reason.

Oh come on, how many Windows programs have absolutely idiotic names or acronyms. Very few programs do actually have descriptive names. Excel, Powerpoint, 3DSMax, Maya, etc, are all highly unintuitive and undescriptive.

YUM is an acronym, and while it sounds pretty dumb, it doesn''t matter. When accessing it, you''d probably go through the KDE application menu anyway, and there it will be titled something along the lines of "System configuration". No problems here.

Linux has many usability problems, fully agreed. But so does Windows. Starting to bash any of them because of program names is grabbing at straws.
haro
haro
I have never seen anybody actually offer a good reason to use Linux. I am actually half-intelligent with my use of Windows so I have never had any problems with virii (don't start), spyware, etc.. I don't particularly care if it is free, I am a student who can buy XP for $5. I have never had any issues whatsoever with stability under XP. XP also runs extremely well on my machine performance wise.

What does Linux offer, in and of itself, that makes it better than Windows?

[edited by - haro on June 5, 2004 7:59:08 PM]
template
template
Yann L: Not to mention the fact that KDE has a nice feature which allows the menu to display a short description of the program next to the name in brackets. i.e. Mozilla (Web Browser), Evolution (Email Client) etc.

haro: The fact that for the average user it can do everything it needs to just as easily as other OS's and it's free. Why waste hundreds of pounds buying things like Windows and MS Office when there are alternatives which just as easy to use(if not easier) for free?

[edited by - template on June 5, 2004 8:02:54 PM]
C-Junkie
C-Junkie
First off who cares about installation lcoations? I click on mozilla and click on install, and it appears in my program menu and I can use it from there, or drag an icon onto my quicklaunch panel. yay.

quote:
Those things (...entering names, addresses and serial numbers) depend on the software developers, not the OS.


Partially correct. Part of the Linux culture is the lack of having to deal with stupid crap at install time. Every bit of software that I run on linux has no EULA at all. My distribution already ahs an intelligent method of organizing program files, as well as adding program icons to menus.

What else was involved in those install thingers... reboots? not on linux... run the program automatically? annoying...

I can''t think of anything else.
Yann L
Yann L
quote:
Original post by haro
What does Linux offer, in and of itself, that makes it better than Windows?

Nothing makes it inherently worse or better (at least not for desktop systems). It's just different. Having more than one option gives people the opportunity to choose an OS according to their personal preferences and needs - and that's a good thing.


[edited by - Yann L on June 5, 2004 8:05:17 PM]
Raduprv
Raduprv
Linux lacks two things:
1. Consistency (each distribution does things it''s own way, some libraries are there, some are not, etc.)
2. A fix for the dependencies hell. For example, if you want to distribute a program under Linux, with an user friendly install, you have to have a RPM for RPM based distros, and then an ebuild, and other similar things, which sucks. Sure, the mainstream applications such as KDE, OpenOffice, etc. are easely instalable via the built in updater (in the OS). But a lot of other applications (the semi unknown ones) do not have that, so it can be a pain in the ass to install.
Conner McCloud
Conner McCloud
quote:
Original post by Yann L
Oh come on, how many Windows programs have absolutely idiotic names or acronyms. Very few programs do actually have descriptive names. Excel, Powerpoint, 3DSMax, Maya, etc, are all highly unintuitive and undescriptive.

I agree, its a problem with software in general. However, Linux apps are the ones trying to increase usability. A great way to start that would be to start chosing intelligent names.

Its was not meant as a bash, but as an observation about the point the OP was trying to make.

CM

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.

Sign in to reply to this topic.