...making Linux just a little more fun!
Dr. Parthasarathy S [drpartha at gmail.com]
Linux usability -- an introspection (Code name :: linusability)
In spite of all claims and evidence regarding the superiority of Linux, one aspect of Linux remains to be its major weakness -- usability. This may be the reason for its slow acceptance by the not-so-geeky user community. I am launhing a serious study into various aspects of the usability aspects of Linux, so as to list out the problems and hopefully help some people offer solutions.
I need help. Please, if you have any ideas on this subject, or if you know any sources where I can get directions, or if there is something I should (or should not) do, let me know directly, by email. I will compile all my findings, and post them back in this forum. Let us make Linux more enjoyable by more people.
Many thanks,
partha AT gmail DOT com
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. S. Parthasarathy | mailto:drpartha at gmail.com Algologic Research & Solutions | 78 Sancharpuri Colony | Bowenpally P.O | Phone: + 91 - 40 - 2775 1650 Secunderabad 500 011 - INDIA | WWW-URL: https://algolog.tripod.com/nupartha.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kapil Hari Paranjape [kapil at imsc.res.in]
Dear Partha,
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010, Dr. Parthasarathy S wrote:
> I am launhing a serious study into > various aspects of the usability aspects of Linux, so as to list > out the problems and hopefully help some people offer solutions.
"Usability for whom?" is a question whose answer it is important to establish before going too far.
At the very least you need to address two classes of users:
1. Those who have used computers before (usually this means Windows but it could sometimes mean MacOS as well).
2. Those who are using computers for the first time.
I think that a lot of effort (GNOME/KDE, openoffice, ...) has gone into addressing (1); and that is indeed a difficult problem since those users have expectations/prejudices.
There have been a number of worthwhile attempts at (2), such as the Sugar interface for school kids. These have been successful on the usability front.
Just my 2 paise worth.
Kapil. --
Paul Sephton [paul at inet.co.za]
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:18 +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> Dear Partha, > > On Thu, 08 Jul 2010, Dr. Parthasarathy S wrote: > > I am launhing a serious study into > > various aspects of the usability aspects of Linux, so as to list > > out the problems and hopefully help some people offer solutions. > > "Usability for whom?" is a question whose answer it is important to > establish before going too far. > > At the very least you need to address two classes of users: > > 1. Those who have used computers before (usually this means Windows > but it could sometimes mean MacOS as well). > > 2. Those who are using computers for the first time....
There's a third, and even larger class of user- those who use Linux without even realising that they are doing so. I am unsure of just how many web sites are driven by Linux, but I do know it's huge.
jose [jmanel at gmail.com]
Dear Sir Sorry, but my opinion is that if you show Linux and teach how to use it to people that had no previous knowledge of computers they will learn it as fast as they learn windows. Of course I am speaking use Ubuntu or similar linux. I have seen some comparatives done in schools and they show this fact. The fact that Windows is more widespread is the consequence of multiple factors, one of them the money M spends promoting it and giving away licenses to schools. sincerely Josep Manel
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:03:17 +0530 "Dr. Parthasarathy S" <drpartha at gmail.com> wrote:
> Linux usability -- an introspection (Code name :: linusability) > > In spite of all claims and evidence regarding the superiority of > Linux, one aspect of Linux remains to be its major weakness -- > usability. This may be the reason for its slow acceptance by the > not-so-geeky user community. I am launhing a serious study into > various aspects of the usability aspects of Linux, so as to list > out the problems and hopefully help some people offer solutions. > > I need help. Please, if you have any ideas on this subject, or if > you know any sources where I can get directions, or if there is > something I should (or should not) do, let me know directly, by > email. I will compile all my findings, and post them back in this > forum. Let us make Linux more enjoyable by more people. > > Many thanks, > > partha AT gmail DOT com > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. S. Parthasarathy | mailto:drpartha at gmail.com > Algologic Research & Solutions | > 78 Sancharpuri Colony | > Bowenpally P.O | Phone: + 91 - 40 - 2775 1650 > Secunderabad 500 011 - INDIA | > WWW-URL: https://algolog.tripod.com/nupartha.htm > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > TAG mailing list > TAG at lists.linuxgazette.net > https://lists.linuxgazette.net/listinfo.cgi/tag-linuxgazette.net
Amit Saha [amitsaha.in at gmail.com]
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:39 PM, jose <jmanel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir > ? Sorry, but my opinion is that if you show Linux and teach how to use > it to people that had no previous knowledge of computers they will > learn it as fast as they learn windows. Of course I am speaking use > Ubuntu or similar linux. ?I have seen some comparatives done in > schools and they show this fact. > ?The fact that Windows is more widespread is the consequence of > multiple factors, one of them the money M spends promoting it and > giving away licenses to schools.
+ 1. IMHO, its about "attacking the mindset". A programmer focused article, I wrote recently [1] has a section on the same. There is still a notion that Linux is tough. I mean, sure there is a learning curve, but anything new has a learning curve- learning a new language, learning to cook, you name it. Its the mind that has to be attacked, and unfortunately that's as tough as it can get. M$ goes long back, most young men/women of today started with computers which had Windows on them and the associated software. So, its not going to happen overnight. A revolution is needed. How, and when remains to be seen.
Hope this doesn't get classified as rant, which in a way I am.
[1] https://www.linuxforu.com/how-to/write-your-next-program-on-linux/
Cheers, Amit
> ? sincerely > ? ? Josep Manel > > > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:03:17 +0530 > "Dr. Parthasarathy S" <drpartha at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Linux usability -- an introspection (Code name :: ?linusability) >> >> In spite of all claims and evidence regarding the superiority of >> Linux, one aspect of Linux remains to be its major weakness -- >> usability. This may be the reason for its slow acceptance by the >> not-so-geeky user community. I am launhing a serious study into >> various aspects of the usability aspects of Linux, so as to list >> out the problems and hopefully help some people offer solutions. >> >> I need help. Please, if you have any ideas on this subject, or if >> you know any sources where I can get directions, or if there is >> something I should (or should not) do, let me know directly, by >> email. I will compile all my findings, and post them back in this >> forum. Let us make Linux more enjoyable by more people. >> >> Many thanks, >> >> partha AT gmail DOT com >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr. S. Parthasarathy ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?| ? mailto:drpartha at gmail.com >> Algologic Research & Solutions ? ?| >> 78 Sancharpuri Colony ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | >> Bowenpally ?P.O ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?| ? Phone: + 91 - 40 - 2775 1650 >> Secunderabad 500 011 - INDIA ? ? | >> WWW-URL: https://algolog.tripod.com/nupartha.htm >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> TAG mailing list >> TAG at lists.linuxgazette.net >> https://lists.linuxgazette.net/listinfo.cgi/tag-linuxgazette.net > > TAG mailing list > TAG at lists.linuxgazette.net > https://lists.linuxgazette.net/listinfo.cgi/tag-linuxgazette.net >
-- Journal: https://amitksaha.wordpress.com ?-blog: https://twitter.com/amitsaha
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:03:17AM +0530, Dr. Parthasarathy S wrote:
> Linux usability -- an introspection (Code name :: linusability) > > In spite of all claims and evidence regarding the superiority of > Linux, one aspect of Linux remains to be its major weakness -- > usability. This may be the reason for its slow acceptance by the > not-so-geeky user community. I am launhing a serious study into > various aspects of the usability aspects of Linux, so as to list > out the problems and hopefully help some people offer solutions.
I suppose it depends on how you define "usability". If you're talking about simple ease of application use for the average user, then you may be operating from an outdated model of the situation. As you probably know quite well, one of the major parts of any study is designing the experiment environment - part of which is neutralizing any observer bias. In this case, the strongest bias that I see is your belief that Linux has usability as a "major weakness". I might have agreed with you, say, 10 years ago; you could still make somewhat of a case for it even 6 years ago. Today? I'd say that Windows has a very serious usability problem (I just mentioned the screaming frustration of trying to deal with a simple task under it the other day.) Linux has, in my estimation, surpassed Windows in usability - and continues to improve constantly.
On the other hand, if you define "usability" as the total package - that is, application usage, administration, program installation, etc. - then Linux may well come up a little short by comparison for the moment. It won't always stay that way, but for now, Linux definitely has some places that could stand a lot of improvement.
On the positive side, I've done a number of Linux installations (Ubuntu, mostly) over the past several years. In most cases, these people had no understanding of computers - they were just simple users - and simply wanted to get on with their tasks: writing letters, sending email, browsing the Web, using Skype. Once I set up their systems, walked them through using the applications, and showed them how to install new software, they were on their own... and guess what? None of them had any usability problems. One woman called me up because she was having trouble using Skype... turned out the problem was the microphone gain on her daughter's computer on the other end of the connection.
This is not to say that Linux is problem-free - but then, we don't ask that of any other OS, so that's not a rational metric. Here are the problems that I currently see:
1) Windows and MacOS have very slick UIs: once you learn how to use
one app, there's a large hunk of interface dynamics that carries over to
every other app. This is, unfortunately, not true for Linux: given the
"bazaar" method of app creation in the FOSS community, just about every
program outside the standard KDE/Gnome set has its creator's idea of
"the perfect interface" - whatever new and different thing that may
happen to be. Worse yet, the FOSS competition model doesn't work, or
works only peripherally, for refining that part of the system - so a
Linux user has to learn and remember each app's UI. This is rather
inefficient, as well as being a pain in the ass. This is a big one,
and I don't know that much improvement is possible.
2) The Linux methodology for program installation is a wonderful thing (especially when compared with the "infectious diseases ward" environment of Windows software installation); however, it is different. As such, it needs to be made more explicit and more obvious to the new Linux user. Fortunately, this wouldn't take much: in my opinion, an "Install New Software" icon on every freshly-installed desktop would do a great job of pinging a user's interest and making it obvious. Also, working to make that installation interface as intuitive as possible - it's pretty good now, but could be improved - would be a good idea.
3) System administration. This is a rather technical issue under Linux, and is usually blown off with "oh, just go to the Ubuntu forums - they'll explain everything!" THE AVERAGE USER IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT. They'd rather go back to their comforting - albeit infected - Windows world (spyware and viruses don't usually wipe out a computer these days, and anti-virus software mitigates much of the pain anyway. Beware the slippery road of "graceful degradation"...) I applaud Ubuntu's effort in creating their "System->Preferences" and "System->Administration" menus - but it's not enough. That UI - here's that issue again! - needs a lot of improvement, and a lot more polish. Perhaps giving it a look and feel that's similar to the Windows Control Panel (which, in turn, looks similar to their file manager interface... that's pretty good UI design, there) would be helpful.
4) As a competitive issue, there aren't enough Linux programs yet. Yeah, sure, $BLAH thousands of programs... not nearly enough. Windows has millions of programs that have been written for it, filling nearly every niche, including lots of free apps. Many of them are really good. With Linux, once you get away from the mainstream, you're mostly out of luck. E.g., as a sailor, if I want a good charting and navigation program, I have... um... well, there's 7Seas ENC (proprietary app, very rough UI, badly thought-out) and OpenCPN (https://www.opencpn.org/). There used to be 'xmap' - proprietary and longer supported. That's about it. If you compare them to one of the many, many available Windows apps - "The Cap'n", "SeaClear", "Fugawi", the excellent "MaxSea", or the highly-professional "Tsunami"... well, there's really no comparison. Niche business apps, like - say - restaurant POS software, medical practice or childcare center management? Not happening under Linux (although some people are working at it, and might have a usable product in the next few years.) Not to knock the efforts of the people who are writing the Linux apps - I'm really, truly grateful for their efforts - but there's just a much larger software universe for Windows, and Linux hasn't caught up yet. This one will take some years - and, in my opinion, this is where the real battleground lies.
The average user knows nothing (and cares less) about licenses, philosophies, and larger ideas/issues behind Linux; most of them have "free" (illegal/stolen) copies of Windows, so cost isn't a real issue for them. What they do care about is getting what they want, with minimum effort and minimum time investment. In most cases, for most users, Linux supplies that at least as well as - and sometimes better than - other OSes. In some situations, it's not quite there yet.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * https://LinuxGazette.NET *
Dr. Parthasarathy S [drpartha at gmail.com]
Ben has reacted just the way many of us (including me) would react. It is very easy and tempting to start comparing with MS-doze (but why should we compare apples with oranges or bananas ?). I am trying to make an objective study, believe me. I will also make many of my study parameters visible soon (in LG itself deo volento). Let me get all your views and suggestions till then. We have just started an introspection. And maybe we will come out with some concrete suggestions to make Linux more acceptable.
I would also like to know if anyone has made a scientific, unbiased study of this aspect.
//** the strongest bias that I see is your belief that Linux has usability as a "major weakness". **//
Agreed, this was a provocative statement, but it is not completely wrong (or biased). How else do we explain the slow acceptance of this technology ? How do we explain the huge amount of queries we get on the TAG forum itself ?
partha
On 08/07/2010, Ben Okopnik <ben at linuxgazette.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:03:17AM +0530, Dr. Parthasarathy S wrote: >> Linux usability -- an introspection (Code name :: linusability) >> >> In spite of all claims and evidence regarding the superiority of >> Linux, one aspect of Linux remains to be its major weakness -- >> usability. This may be the reason for its slow acceptance by the >> not-so-geeky user community. I am launhing a serious study into >> various aspects of the usability aspects of Linux, so as to list >> out the problems and hopefully help some people offer solutions. > > I suppose it depends on how you define "usability". If you're talking > about simple ease of application use for the average user, then you may > be operating from an outdated model of the situation. > > As you probably know quite well, one of the major parts of any study is > designing the experiment environment - part of which is neutralizing any > observer bias. In this case, the strongest bias that I see is your > belief that Linux has usability as a "major weakness". I might have > agreed with you, say, 10 years ago; you could still make somewhat of a > case for it even 6 years ago. Today? I'd say that Windows has a very > serious usability problem (I just mentioned the screaming frustration of > trying to deal with a simple task under it the other day.) Linux has, in > my estimation, surpassed Windows in usability - and continues to improve > constantly. > > On the other hand, if you define "usability" as the total package - that > is, application usage, administration, program installation, etc. - then > Linux may well come up a little short by comparison for the moment. It > won't always stay that way, but for now, Linux definitely has some > places that could stand a lot of improvement. > > On the positive side, I've done a number of Linux installations (Ubuntu, > mostly) over the past several years. In most cases, these people had no > understanding of computers - they were just simple users - and simply > wanted to get on with their tasks: writing letters, sending email, > browsing the Web, using Skype. Once I set up their systems, walked them > through using the applications, and showed them how to install new > software, they were on their own... and guess what? None of them had any > usability problems. One woman called me up because she was having > trouble using Skype... turned out the problem was the microphone gain > on her daughter's computer on the other end of the connection. > > This is not to say that Linux is problem-free - but then, we don't ask > that of any other OS, so that's not a rational metric. Here are the > problems that I currently see: > > 1) Windows and MacOS have very slick UIs: once you learn how to use > one app, there's a large hunk of interface dynamics that carries over to > every other app. This is, unfortunately, not true for Linux: given the > "bazaar" method of app creation in the FOSS community, just about every > program outside the standard KDE/Gnome set has its creator's idea of > "the perfect interface" - whatever new and different thing that may > happen to be. Worse yet, the FOSS competition model doesn't work, or > works only peripherally, for refining that part of the system - so a > Linux user has to learn and remember each app's UI. This is rather > inefficient, as well as being a pain in the ass.This is a big one, > and I don't know that much improvement is possible. > > 2) The Linux methodology for program installation is a wonderful thing > (especially when compared with the "infectious diseases ward" > environment of Windows software installation); however, it is > different. As such, it needs to be made more explicit and more obvious > to the new Linux user. Fortunately, this wouldn't take much: in my > opinion, an "Install New Software" icon on every freshly-installed > desktop would do a great job of pinging a user's interest and making it > obvious. Also, working to make that installation interface as intuitive > as possible - it's pretty good now, but could be improved - would be a > good idea. > > 3) System administration. This is a rather technical issue under Linux, > and is usually blown off with "oh, just go to the Ubuntu forums - > they'll explain everything!" THE AVERAGE USER IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT. > They'd rather go back to their comforting - albeit infected - Windows > world (spyware and viruses don't usually wipe out a computer these > days, and anti-virus software mitigates much of the pain anyway. Beware > the slippery road of "graceful degradation"...) I applaud Ubuntu's > effort in creating their "System->Preferences" and > "System->Administration" menus - but it's not enough. That UI - here's > that issue again! - needs a lot of improvement, and a lot more polish. > Perhaps giving it a look and feel that's similar to the Windows Control > Panel (which, in turn, looks similar to their file manager interface... > that's pretty good UI design, there) would be helpful. > > 4) As a competitive issue, there aren't enough Linux programs yet. Yeah, > sure, $BLAH thousands of programs... not nearly enough. Windows has > millions of programs that have been written for it, filling nearly > every niche, including lots of free apps. Many of them are really > good. With Linux, once you get away from the mainstream, you're mostly > out of luck. E.g., as a sailor, if I want a good charting and navigation > program, I have... um... well, there's 7Seas ENC (proprietary app, very > rough UI, badly thought-out) and OpenCPN (https://www.opencpn.org/). > There used to be 'xmap' - proprietary and longer supported. That's about > it. If you compare them to one of the many, many available Windows apps > - "The Cap'n", "SeaClear", "Fugawi", the excellent "MaxSea", or the > highly-professional "Tsunami"... well, there's really no comparison. > Niche business apps, like - say - restaurant POS software, medical > practice or childcare center management? Not happening under Linux > (although some people are working at it, and might have a usable product > in the next few years.) Not to knock the efforts of the people who are > writing the Linux apps - I'm really, truly grateful for their efforts - > but there's just a much larger software universe for Windows, and Linux > hasn't caught up yet. This one will take some years - and, in my > opinion, this is where the real battleground lies. > > The average user knows nothing (and cares less) about licenses, > philosophies, and larger ideas/issues behind Linux; most of them have > "free" (illegal/stolen) copies of Windows, so cost isn't a real issue > for them. What they do care about is getting what they want, with > minimum effort and minimum time investment. In most cases, for most > users, Linux supplies that at least as well as - and sometimes better > than - other OSes. In some situations, it's not quite there yet. > > > -- > * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * https://LinuxGazette.NET * > > TAG mailing list > TAG at lists.linuxgazette.net > https://lists.linuxgazette.net/listinfo.cgi/tag-linuxgazette.net >
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. S. Parthasarathy | mailto:drpartha at gmail.com Algologic Research & Solutions | 78 Sancharpuri Colony | Bowenpally P.O | Phone: + 91 - 40 - 2775 1650 Secunderabad 500 011 - INDIA | WWW-URL: https://algolog.tripod.com/nupartha.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:22:35PM +0530, Dr. Parthasarathy S wrote:
> > //** the strongest bias that I see is your belief that Linux has > usability as a "major weakness". **// > > Agreed, this was a provocative statement, but it is not completely > wrong (or biased). How else do we explain the slow acceptance of this > technology ? How do we explain the huge amount of queries we get on > the TAG forum itself ?
Most people find change to be painful, and will not do it unless there's a strong motivation. What motivation is there for people to change to Linux?
1) "But it's free!" - so is Windows, as far as the average user is concerned. And once they've got it installed, "upgrade" costs don't seem like too big of a deal compared to the disruption of installing and learning a complete new OS.
2) "But it's Free!" - very few users care. Really. Most people don't have a well-considered ethical basis; they simply operate from self-interest, modified by the threat of the law or other external circumstances. Getting to a larger perspective, or a higher state in which things like this matter requires either education, much meditation, or a natural ability to understand that the world isn't just "me against them."
3) "No viruses and fewer crashes!" - yep, that's less painful. But absence of pain is, again, a motivation that appeals to the thoughtful and the intelligent (always a small segment of any population); otherwise, it's not much of a stimulus. Severe pain is, but Microsoft's main efforts are directed toward mitigating that (rather than fixing their product in the first place) - and they're quite successful at it. So, yeah: using Windows is annoying, but only up to a point... and most people have better things to do with their time than reinstall and learn a new OS. Seriously.
People who install Linux are somewhere in the Venn diagram of the above motivations, plus a few others (curiosity, geekiness, experience, etc.) For most people, they simply don't experience enough pain - that being their tipping point - to cause them to change.
[shrug] The *nix environment has always favored the adventurous, the curious, and the intelligent. Personally, I wouldn't want it to change - even at the price of faster adoption.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * https://LinuxGazette.NET *
Jimmy O'Regan [joregan at gmail.com]
On 8 July 2010 17:52, Dr. Parthasarathy S <drpartha at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben has reacted just the way many of us (including me) would react. It > is very easy and tempting to start comparing with MS-doze (but why > should we compare apples with oranges or bananas ?). I am trying to > make an objective study, believe me. I will also make many of my study > parameters visible soon (in LG itself deo volento). Let me get all > your views and suggestions till then. We have just started an > introspection. And maybe we will come out with some concrete > suggestions to make Linux more acceptable. > > I would also like to know if anyone has made a scientific, unbiased > study of this aspect. > > //** the strongest bias that I see is your belief that Linux has > usability as a "major weakness". **// > > Agreed, this was a provocative statement, but it is not completely > wrong (or biased). How else do we explain the slow acceptance of this > technology ? How do we explain the huge amount of queries we get on > the TAG forum itself ?
The "huge" (you think this is huge? I'd characterise TAG as a low traffic list) amount of queries on TAG has nothing to do with Linux's usability. Nothing. At all.
You seem to be making the assumption that the simple fact that there are queries to be made is somehow anomalous: it's not - there are thousands of forums for Windows users out there, all full of questions.
-- <Leftmost> jimregan, that's because deep inside you, you are evil. <Leftmost> Also not-so-deep inside you.
sloopy malibu [sloopym at comcast.net]
comments inter-posted below:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:11 -0400, Ben Okopnik wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:22:35PM +0530, Dr. Parthasarathy S wrote: > > > > //** the strongest bias that I see is your belief that Linux has > > usability as a "major weakness". **// > > > > Agreed, this was a provocative statement, but it is not completely > > wrong (or biased). How else do we explain the slow acceptance of this > > technology ? How do we explain the huge amount of queries we get on > > the TAG forum itself ? > > Most people find change to be painful, and will not do it unless there's > a strong motivation. What motivation is there for people to change to > Linux? > > 1) "But it's free!" - so is Windows, as far as the average user is > concerned. And once they've got it installed, "upgrade" costs don't seem > like too big of a deal compared to the disruption of installing and > learning a complete new OS. >
plus a big number of apps that are Windows (or even Mac OS) only.
> 2) "But it's Free!" - very few users care. Really. Most people don't > have a well-considered ethical basis; they simply operate from > self-interest, modified by the threat of the law or other external > circumstances. Getting to a larger perspective, or a higher state in > which things like this matter requires either education, much > meditation, or a natural ability to understand that the world isn't just > "me against them." >
One thing i see is alot of people still have the old belief that 'you get what you pay for' and wont use anything that doesnt have a cost attached to obtaining it. I used to pick up computers that people would throw out, and refurb them and then sell them, it would seem that people who knew where they came from would not want them at any price (if someone threw it out it must be bad). But if i said i recieved them from a person who recycles them for refurbishing, they were fine (two different ways of saying the same thing)
This is a BIG obstacle in getting wider adoption...
> 3) "No viruses and fewer crashes!" - yep, that's less painful. But > absence of pain is, again, a motivation that appeals to the thoughtful > and the intelligent (always a small segment of any population); > otherwise, it's not much of a stimulus. Severe pain is, but Microsoft's > main efforts are directed toward mitigating that (rather than fixing > their product in the first place) - and they're quite successful at it. > So, yeah: using Windows is annoying, but only up to a point... and most > people have better things to do with their time than reinstall and learn > a new OS. Seriously. > > People who install Linux are somewhere in the Venn diagram of the above > motivations, plus a few others (curiosity, geekiness, experience, etc.) > For most people, they simply don't experience enough pain - that being > their tipping point - to cause them to change. > > [shrug] The *nix environment has always favored the adventurous, the > curious, and the intelligent. Personally, I wouldn't want it to change - > even at the price of faster adoption. > >
i have lurked (and posted occasionally) for years, and while i am vested this far, i just want to say, Ben, excellent job these years in doing this project with the diligence and perseverance, with an eye on detail etc.
sloopy.
Henry Grebler [henrygrebler at optusnet.com.au]
>Agreed, this was a provocative statement, but it is not completely >wrong (or biased). How else do we explain the slow acceptance of this >technology ?
Um, Beta vs VHS? IBM vs computer companies? Healthy food vs junk food?
Your original post said:
In spite of all claims and evidence regarding the superiority of Linux, one aspect of Linux remains to be its major weakness -- usability. This may be the reason for its slow acceptance by the not-so-geeky user community.
Perhaps the first question you need to address is, um, the question. I am tempted to restate what you seem to be saying in light of subsequent posts:
In spite of all claims and evidence regarding the superiority of Linux, one aspect of Linux remains -- slow acceptance by the not-so-geeky user community.
Can this be explained by usability?
The first sentence will probably find few objections.
Some would argue that slow acceptance by the not-so-geeky user community is an advantage (for the rest of us). It's probably worth investigating that proposition. How are we advantaged by having not-so-geeky users adopt Linux? Unless one is committed to proselytising, what's to be gained?
Don't provide user-friendly interfaces; let's aim for user-antagonistic!
I can understand that we need enough like-minded devotees. But why do we seek to convert people against their will?
Let me put this another way. I get countless jokes by email (we all do). Almost invariably I am encouraged to "pass it on". Why? What is there about this technology that makes people do that? (Indeed, is it the technology?) People also tell me jokes. Never once has someone said, "That was a great joke, wasn't it? Make sure you tell everyone you meet?"
Why? Why is it different? If someone tells me a great joke, they don't need to encourage me to tell someone else. Try to stop me. And if the joke is a fizzer, why would I repeat it - by mouth or by email?
Usability.
Perhaps usability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm with Ben on this. Whenever I go near a Microsoft system, I find it really difficult to do the simplest things (which I want to do). It's as if a fog of mediocrity and stupidity envelopes me and lowers my IQ.
Macs look good, but they are not for me. I'm sure if I wanted to do the things that Macs excel at, I'd probably be impressed with a Mac. But I don't and I'm not.
I happen to like the command line. All I want from a computer is an xterm. Well, lots of xterms. But, hey, I'm unusual and I know it. I don't play games which interact in real time. (I play two sorts of Solitaire.) I read my mail with "less" in an xterm. I edit with emacs in an xterm (NOT xemacs). Whenever I can, I browse with lynx. In an xterm.
I often use Firefox, but that's pretty much the same across platforms. I avoid Word and Excel and such. But I admit, occasionally I'm forced to go there. If someone sends me a Word document, I use "antiword" and "less" to read it in an xterm.
But my way of doing things does not suit others. I understand that. I would like to be allowed to continue doing things my way. I'm prepared to let others do things their way - even if it means they inflict Microsoft products on themselves.
Areas of usability.
If you want to talk about Linux Usability, there are areas that I would suggest, but I suspect that these are not the areas that you are interested in because they certainly would not interest the not-so-geeky user community. Hell, they wouldn't even understand the issues.
I've been thinking about these recently, hoping to put together an article for LG: 10 Things I Hate About Linux. Here's a couple, just to give you the flavour.
Dynamic libraries. From what I can see Microsoft actually has a better story here. I want to install Product X. I try the latest rev of Product X and decide that it has gone downhill (probably in an attempt to appeal to the not-so-geeky user community). But, I've still got my Fedora Core 2 on one of my computers, and I love the version that was there. So I try to run it. But it won't run because whatever distro I have now (in that case it was FC5 - a long time ago!) doesn't have the old revs of the libraries. Or something:
/FC2/usr/bin/sol ERROR: Unbound variable: set-feature-word!
It would suit me better if I could get statically linked versions of software. Then it should work from one distro to the next.
Incompatible upgrades. My editor is emacs. I wanted to add spelling checking, so I set up a mechanism which used aspell. (My memory of the details may be a little hazy). When I switched from FC2 to FC5, I discovered that my spell-checker wasn't working. It turned out that between one rev of aspell and another, one of the switches had been changed to mean something else. Like the world is running out of letter combinations.
The GNU people have a lot to answer for. They are extremely disrespectful of compatibility. With EVERY new rev of emacs there is a learning curve as one incompatible new feature or another is introduced. Is it really so hard to arrange for a piece of software to continue to operate as it has in the past? Can new features not be put under switches or config files?
Can the assumption that different is better really go unchallenged?
The not-so-geeky user community.
Finally (every body breathes a sigh of relief), I have a question which I think is even more compelling. What explains the non-adoption of Linux by the really geeky user community?
I have a circle of colleagues, a group who attend a Wednesday lunch Algonquin. They are all competent geeky Linux (or Unix) users. They all spend as much time as I do bagging Microsoft. Not one uses Linux on his home desktop, and most don't on their work desktops. They all use Microsoft.
It might be worth asking the LG user community: who runs Linux (or some sort of *nix) on their desktop? I must confess that this is being written on FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE.
If you can't get the converts to go to your house of worship, why would you expect passing infidels to be the least bit interested?
Paul Sephton [paul at inet.co.za]
On Sat, 2010-07-10 at 16:33 +1000, Henry Grebler wrote:
> Don't provide user-friendly interfaces; let's aim for > user-antagonistic!
Henry, you make so many good points in your mail, and I enjoyed your perspective immensely. A breath of fresh air. It would appear that of late a great many programmers are in full agreement with your last point. There's ample evidence.
Having used Linux for well over a decade now, my subjective opinion is that the phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth" is very relevant to Linux in 2010.
> I can understand that we need enough like-minded devotees. But why do > we seek to convert people against their will?
I believe a psychiatrist would be best suited to answer that question. Safety in numbers? To justify our own choices? Certainly not because we have other's best interests at heart.
> But my way of doing things does not suit others. I understand that. I > would like to be allowed to continue doing things my way. I'm prepared > to let others do things their way - even if it means they inflict > Microsoft products on themselves.
This insightful comment is at the heart of things. Linux to me has always been about choices. Imagine a world without BSD, Linux or Mac- a stagnant cesspool without choice.
> Dynamic libraries. From what I can see Microsoft actually has a better > story here. I want to install Product X. I try the latest rev of > Product X and decide that it has gone downhill (probably in an attempt > to appeal to the not-so-geeky user community). But, I've still got my > Fedora Core 2 on one of my computers, and I love the version that was > there. So I try to run it. But it won't run because whatever distro I > have now (in that case it was FC5 - a long time ago!) doesn't have the > old revs of the libraries. Or something: > > /FC2/usr/bin/sol > ERROR: Unbound variable: set-feature-word! > > It would suit me better if I could get statically linked versions of > software. Then it should work from one distro to the next.
> Incompatible upgrades....
> The GNU people have a lot to answer for. They are extremely > disrespectful of compatibility....
> Can the assumption that different is better really go unchallenged?
Oh boy, don't get me started. In earlier versions of Linux, dynamic libraries other than the core glibc followed a simple convention. The library name (soname) was simply [library].so.majorversion.minorversion; A symbolic link for [library].so.majorversion, and [library].so ensured that an application linked against a majorversion would always work regardless of minorversion. Binary interface compatibility was assured, since interface changes only happened at the majorversion level.
Today, after so many years, and so many incompatible interface changes to the core glibc, we are up to major version libc.so.6. We should have been at libc.so.36 if the glibc folks understood the first thing about unix DLL versioning! Instead, there's a whole new versioning system built into the ld.so dynamic linker itself, resulting in silly messages like "this application requires at least version xxx of the C library".
In other words, we currently have several incompatible versions of libc.so.6.
Then there's C++, the fact that it is impossible to do C++ exceptions in a statically linked C++ library (if the app does exceptions too), the fact that with every version of C++, they decide to change the name mangling algorithm which makes binary compatibility impossible, and the fact that Theodore Tso (God bless him) has been tasked to come up with an entirely new ABI versioning for C++.
Change just because different is better? What about standards? Consistency? Maintainability and compatibility? Decisions are made to depracate tranches of the standard C library, just because someone decides that strncpy is less safe than memcpy. My question is: who got to decide that? the ANSI group? It was their standard to begin with.
No. Change is bad when it is done with the sole purpose of being different.
> Finally (every body breathes a sigh of relief), I have a question > which I think is even more compelling. What explains the non-adoption > of Linux by the really geeky user community?
I believe you have answered that yourself. The ethos of Linux has changed. Change is not necessarily bad, but then it is not necessarily good either. Lately, everyone seems excited about how close Ubuntu is to running X as non-root. Fancy that. In 1986, I could do that by typing 'startx' from my user session. Ooooh! I can pop a CD in my drive and see it without having to type 'mount -t iso /mnt /dev/cdrom'- well, as for myself, the changing quagmire that is DEVFS and DBUS has given me nothing but trouble. I am sure a standard out the box Ubuntu or Redhat would work perfectly, but why can I no longer build and maintain my own system as easily as I once could?
All the improvements to the 'GNU' part of Linux, introduce more and more complexity, making it harder to maintain something which used to be simple. When a complex part of the whole is altered or deprecated, the house of cards comes tumbling down. Why would a geek adopt something like that, unless he is a sucker for punishment?
Paul
Jimmy O'Regan [joregan at gmail.com]
On 10 July 2010 07:33, Henry Grebler <henrygrebler at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Dynamic libraries. From what I can see Microsoft actually has a better > story here.
HAHAHHAHAHAHA.
You're joking, right?
> I want to install Product X. I try the latest rev of > Product X and decide that it has gone downhill (probably in an attempt > to appeal to the not-so-geeky user community). But, I've still got my > Fedora Core 2 on one of my computers, and I love the version that was > there. So I try to run it. But it won't run because whatever distro I > have now (in that case it was FC5 - a long time ago!) doesn't have the > old revs of the libraries. Or something: >
That's not a Linux problem, that's the nature of shared libraries. If you want to use out-of-date software, you have to use out-of-date libraries - same on Linux, same on Windows, same on Mac OS X...
> ? ? ? ?/FC2/usr/bin/sol > ? ? ? ?ERROR: Unbound variable: set-feature-word! > > It would suit me better if I could get statically linked versions of > software. Then it should work from one distro to the next. >
Then statically link everything you use. At least with open source, you get that option.
Everything else you have to say falls under the same category. If you're so averse to change, then don't upgrade. Or learn to make your complaints a little more constructive, and direct them to the right places. When a vocal subsection of the users of a piece of software complain about something -- like 'the name of this switch is misleading' -- and, when the developers ask 'does anybody use this? will this break things?' and they get no response, then I think they're justified in making an incompatible change. Which is what I would guess happened with aspell.
-- <Leftmost> jimregan, that's because deep inside you, you are evil. <Leftmost> Also not-so-deep inside you.
Kapil Hari Paranjape [kapil at imsc.res.in]
Hello,
Henry Grebler wrote a long and very interesting post which I agreed with in many parts. So I will concentrate on my points of disagreement.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Henry Grebler wrote:
> But, I've still got my Fedora Core 2 on one of my computers, and I > love the version that was there. So I try to run it. But it won't > run because whatever distro I have now (in that case it was FC5 - > a long time ago!) doesn't have the old revs of the libraries.
There are innumerable ways to run multiple versions of GNU/Linux on the same machine at the same time. ("I have a few articles on this theme in LG" says he modestly!)
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Paul Sephton wrote:
> Having used Linux for well over a decade now, my subjective opinion is > that the phrase "too many cooks spoil the broth" is very relevant to > Linux in 2010.
Since these are not only cooks but writers of recipe books, you are free to (may the source be with you!) cook things your own way. Less metaphorically, both Fedora and Debian provide source packages and rather easy ways to create clean build environments to build these source packages after making your own modifications.
> I am sure a standard out the box Ubuntu or Redhat would work > perfectly, but why can I no longer build and maintain my own system > as easily as I once could?
It is easier today than it was once, since computers are faster today than they were yesterday. (Not the same computers obviously!)
In general, you can build it. If you choose not to build it and use pre-built binaries that "just work" then you will have to live with the choices made by the people who built the binaries. In Debian, (and I believe in Fedora as well) the reasons for these choices are generally well documented.
To come back to the original question, the "low usability of Linux" meme that has been around for a long while, is slowly losing ground in a number of different ways. At the same time we need to stay sharp to ensure that gains are not made at the expense of core values like tinker/tune-ability ... and of course the "command-line interface".
Regards,
Kapil.
This was typed in vi under screen under (fullscreen) xterm under xmonad under xorg under linux which may or not not go to show that "I am as geeky as the next guy".
--
Dr. Parthasarathy S [drpartha at gmail.com]
In an earlier mail, Mr. Kapil H Paranajpe had commented as follows ::
//** "Usability for whom?" is a question whose answer it is important to establish before going too far.
At the very least you need to address two classes of users:
1. Those who have used computers before (usually this means Windows but it could sometimes mean MacOS as well).
2. Those who are using computers for the first time. **//
YES I agree with him. There is one more dimension to what he said -- usability is also related to what one does with Linux :: sysadmin, s/w development, office use, teach/train, distro. etc.
I stumbled on an ISO (9241 - 11) defintion of usability:: QUOTE Usability: the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use. UNQUOTE
The terms "specified user" and "specified context of use" map respectively to the two aspects which Mr. Paranjape has exposed. Thank you Sir.
I am also thankful to the TAG/LG community which has given me (and continues to give me) so much copius amounts of opinions and ideas, on a subject which is so dear to me.
To be able to take out the maximum of this discussion, and propagate it to all others, I have set up a web page specifically for this::
https://www.profpartha.webs.com/linusability.htm
I will enrich the page as an when I consolidate something sustantial.
Please keep talking. We have so much to learn from each other,
Thanks a lot,
partha
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. S. Parthasarathy | mailto:drpartha at gmail.com Algologic Research & Solutions | 78 Sancharpuri Colony | Bowenpally P.O | Phone: + 91 - 40 - 2775 1650 Secunderabad 500 011 - INDIA | WWW-URL: https://algolog.tripod.com/nupartha.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ernest104 [er.shashank.kumar at gmail.com]
Hello everyone,
'Linusability', this term reminds me of the time when I shifted to linux. Linux puts computer in absolute control of user and thats Linusability.
Would you like make a radio transmitter on your own or may be you would like to have FM jammer for particularly noisy neighbours. Did I hear someone say that you want your own OS, Linux is the answer my dear friend.
Linux, a kernel that can make a DJ night rock or make a space mission successful or help SETI to find an extraterrestrials or make internet tick.
Linux has almost no limit as far as technical usability is concerned but when we talk in terms of user base the story is a bit different. Homo Sapiens by their very nature are slackers(no offence anyone!). User base is more the problem of psyche of human beings than usability of Linux. OS like windows virtually dictate them what to do next to get a task done.... 'Sir, please accept license terms or I wont install' or 'Sir, please pay my maker a sum of XXX or I will format your entire HDD', well maybe not that explicit requests, but the point is you dont have to stress your brain cells to get things done. As far as Linux is concerned its you who tell the system what to do next.
There is just 1 little thing which is as much as opportunity as a problem, the number of 3rd party applications doesn't have as much variety as windows has to offer (If I am not wrong this point has been highlighted by Ben too.) This is opportunity for people like me to use the freedom linux offers and make the software I need. This might not sound a good idea to most of us but then someone has to take the initiative.
'And how do you account for other flaws in linux', you say. Every operating system has flaws, but the plus point with linux is that you are always welcome to come ahead and work it out besides other developers are always (well, almost always!!) on your side.
Thats Linusability for me. Cheers to Linux for the way it is!!
regards ernest104
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 04:33:27PM +1000, Henry Grebler wrote:
> > I get countless jokes by email (we all > do). Almost invariably I am encouraged to "pass it on". Why? What is > there about this technology that makes people do that? (Indeed, is it > the technology?)
Thomas Edison's biography describes a time when he was a telegraph operator; it seems that operators all across the country would collect jokes and forward them to the big facility in Philadelphia, which would then "spread the joy" to everyone at the slowest time of the day. When I read that, I found it both amusing and somewhat jarring. "Plus ?a change", etc... It appears that the reason - or at least the capability - is indeed an effect of technology.
> Perhaps usability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm > with Ben on this. Whenever I go near a Microsoft system, I find it > really difficult to do the simplest things (which I want to do). It's > as if a fog of mediocrity and stupidity envelopes me and lowers my IQ.
Right on the dot. It's as if there was a "YOU MUST BE BELOW THIS MENTAL HEIGHT TO ENTER" sign beside the Microsoft doorway - and the level of that portcullis is too low for me to crawl under.
I don't normally knock their products; "live and let live" is my preferred approach to this. But after having had to use the stuff a little while ago, I'm still quite annoyed.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * https://LinuxGazette.NET *
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 01:01:42PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
> On 10 July 2010 07:33, Henry Grebler <henrygrebler at optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Dynamic libraries. From what I can see Microsoft actually has a better > > story here. > > HAHAHHAHAHAHA. > > You're joking, right?
I was a bit lost when I read that, too. I gather that Henry hasn't spent a whole lot of time sussing out and dealing with the "DLL Hell" on the MS side. Trust me on this one... you really would not want to trade the Linux version for the Microsoft one.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * https://LinuxGazette.NET *
Ben Okopnik [ben at linuxgazette.net]
On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 11:02:56AM -0400, sloopy malibu wrote:
> > One thing i see is alot of people still have the old belief that > 'you get what you pay for' and wont use anything that doesnt have a cost > attached to obtaining it.
There's an ancient Japanese proverb that states "the reverse side also has a reverse side." People make cost-based assessments because most of them don't have enough knowledge to make value-based ones (this is not surprising; everyone can't be an expert in everything.)
Given that this is true, fighting that mindset isn't going to win you any friends - and might garner you some enemies. Instead, it might make sense to attach a small cost to the help you provide. E.g., offer to help them install Linux if they invite you to dinner - or at least do something for you, as an explicit "tit for tat" exchange. This would definitely establish you, and Linux, as valuable resources.
Frankly, eagerly offering to install Linux for people puts them on the defensive ("what does this person really want?") and gives the whole interaction a slightly creepy flavor; in fact, I think it establishes a small but definite negative perception of its value. If, instead, you treat it the way you would approaching a MOTAS, it would fit into the average person's worldview a lot more smoothly - and the result would be a greater appreciation of the value of your time and of Linux.
Here, let's try a thought experiment:
The Anatomy of a Linux Seduction
--------------------------------
FWU (Frustrated Windows User): Blah, blah, viruses/spyware/crashes/ headaches/expense, blah, blah....
MLG (Masterful Linux Geek): Wow, that's really raw. I run Linux, so I don't have to deal with any of that, but - ah feel ya pain, brother.
FWU: Um... isn't Linux, like, all techno-geeky and stuff?
MLG: Nah, that's just a story we spread to keep clueless people away. You know how exclusive clubs have an initiation fee, etc., but once you're in, you're on Easy Street? Well, with Linux, it helps if you bribe a Masterful Linux Geek like me and get him to help you install it the first time; it's the same deal. But it'll probably cost you.
[PAUSE]
On the other hand... didn't you say you were Italian, and your grandma did all the cooking in your house? I just might be susceptible to a really amazing Veal Piccata and Tiramisu.
FWU: Uh... actually, that's what we were going to have, um, Thursday! You wanna come over for dinner?
That's not how the typical interaction goes, though. In fact, it's a lot
like the average teenager's first seduction attempt - and ultimately,
just about as effective.
> I used to pick up computers that people would > throw out, and refurb them and then sell them, it would seem that people > who knew where they came from would not want them at any price (if > someone threw it out it must be bad). But if i said i recieved them from > a person who recycles them for refurbishing, they were fine (two > different ways of saying the same thing)
Not exactly. In one case, you were giving them someone else's garbage; in the other, they were being financially wise and ecologically savvy.
The difference here isn't mechanical, or technical; it's social and psychological. From the former perspective, the two approaches are completely equivalent; from the latter, they're worlds apart. I'm actually coming to have a much sharper appreciation of that distinction these days, for a variety of reasons.
> i have lurked (and posted occasionally) for years, and while i am vested > this far, i just want to say, Ben, excellent job these years in doing > this project with the diligence and perseverance, with an eye on detail > etc.Thanks, Sloopy - much appreciated! A lot of the credit goes to our proofreaders and technical editors - René Pfeiffer and Aioanei Rares have been doing a stellar job in the recent few months - as well as all the folks in The Answer Gang. Without all of us pulling together, LG would evaporate like the morning dew.
-- * Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * https://LinuxGazette.NET *