Linux?

Unfortunately there is little known about Linux among average computer users.  Even if you ask your tech guy, chances are, he/she really doesn't have a good handle on the differences between Window and Linux.  This is not really there fault, more of an issue of lack of exposure.  When you ask about Linux you can usually expect to hear something to do with it being  "very difficult", for "professionals", "it's just for web-server"(a particularly annoying one), or something like, "blah...blah...we don't support it...blah blah".  

  If you don't use it, any knowledge that you have is cursory at best -- unless you are a Ph.D. in computer science or a related field.  It has most of the same utilities as other operating systems, and most people haven't any need for it's more powerful utilities. 

I wouldn't say that Linux is difficult for the average user, since they can't fix their computer anyway. Though many think they can. This is what is know as: job security. 

  A user familiar with using a Windows system is less likely to be able to use Mac's interface efficiently at first either and it is considered to be one of, if not the most user-friendly.  In most cases they are able to utilize the basic functionality, but lack the understand to dive deep into concepts and troubleshooting procedures.  I have found that this is mostly do to the change in interface more than it has to do with end functionality or the bits of software involved.  You can write the best software, but if it is foreign to the user it will be deemed crap.  Over time if the user were to continue with the Mac (or any other system), they would become as proficient as necessity.  Once people get used to doing things a certain way, they become hard habits to break -- at a certain point you just assume, ..." this is the way it is done...".  With no thought to how other may be accomplishing the same, or perhaps getting better, results.  This is often argued about in tech circles and is usually referred to as a religious war.  Songs, website, and software forks are the fog of war.  

  Linux is ultimately a tool to complete tasks.  In every real sense it is not superior to windows perse  -- it is basically the same, ie. 'Church-Turing Thesis' .  The real differences live in the general operation, how processes are handled, configuration options, and what software is available -- all things that really don't matter to the non-programmer.  This is far above the heads of most users - so we try to simplify these technical bits into non-technical globs of information to sell the user -- 'more secure', 'not able to get viruses', etc.  The problem tends to be attached directly to making generalized statements.  This is compounded by making such statements in technically literate company or just generally amount those from a different camp. 

  I once read a paper (In the Beginning there was the command line...) long ago that compared windows to Linux using a tank vs. cars analogy.

  ...Linux, which is right next door, and which is not a business at all. It's a bunch of RVs, yurts, tepees, and geodesic domes set up in a field and organized by consensus. The people who live there are making tanks. These are not old-fashioned, cast-iron Soviet tanks; these are more like the M1 tanks of the U.S. Army, made of space-age materials and jammed with sophisticated technology from one end to the other. But they are better than Army tanks. They've been modified in such a way that they never, ever break down, are light and maneuverable enough to use on ordinary streets, and use no more fuel than a subcompact car. These tanks are being cranked out, on the spot, at a terrific pace, and a vast number of them are lined up along the edge of the road with keys in the ignition. Anyone who wants can simply climb into one and drive it away for free. 

  The Author makes the claim that Linux really is like a tank supported by the community for free; and suggests that this is the optimal choice, as opposed to buying a Ford focus (or other standard vehicle).  The problem here is; this is a more literal implication than the writer intends.

  Assume for instance;  all your coworkers, friends, etc., are driving cars (or car-like contraptions) -- and one day you announce to them that you have decided sell your old ride, keep the money, and start driving a free tank that they are giving out at the dealership next door.  To your surprise, everyone is against the whole tank thing -- most assuming that anything that is free must have a catch somewhere -- and your like "... but it's a free tank, ... no one is going to be able to hurt the tank if they hit me..., ..." etc.  Let's not forget the best bit -- tanks are cool, and free tanks are even cooler -- right?

  The immediate problems that most people see with taking the free tank, relates to compatibility with their current environment and technical knowledge related to the actual operation of the tank.   They don't know if it is going to fit in the garage, will it go fast enough on the highway, what about gas mileage.  Then there is the actual operation -- not many people would feel confident in their abilities to just jump in a tank and take off.  These are all relevant concerns. Though most Tank people will tell you that everything will be fine once you get used to the change, ..."if anything you will want to expand the abilities of your tank and really see what it can do...", they often reply.  Then, when you take it for a dive it seems that your fears are confirmed.  It doesn't fit in your garage, there is no where to park it at work, the cup-holders are too long for your favorite mug, and you can't seem to figure out how everything works.  Every time you get in it, you have to remember how everything works, since it is so different then all the cars you've been used to over the years.   

  To complicate things further, you don't understand most of it's controls and features.  What you really want is just something to get you to the store and you don't want to become a tank engineer or read a bunch of manuals to make this happen.

  Now, if you are a non-technical user (or even some of the most technical users), and you have used Linux , then you can understand what I am talking about.  You download and install Linux and your video driver doesn't work, or there is no audio, wifi doesn't work, etc.  Now you have gone from what you were told was going to be an easy install, to feeling frustrated, doubting your abilities, and just being generally frustrated.  This is not they type of first experience to keep them coming back. Though some crave this experience. We are known as nerds.  This has been mostly taken care of over the years -- though there is still some of these annoying problems hanging around that take some time, skill, and experience to figure out.  

  This is mostly due to vendor support issues for certain hardware devices or software. At-any-rate, this is the same result that you will get if you have ever done a clean install of Windows.  

  Most of the time, the OEM systems that people purchase are already configured with much of the software they will need (and much that they neither want nor need) -- since the vendors understand that if their customer has trouble figuring out their product, they will be less likely to keep using it.  There are options available for pre-installed Linux, though there are few and they are considerably  more expensive (from a general comparison) since the hardware is usually better quality -- though you are getting a lot for the price.  (ZAReason for instance.) But if you don't understand why that particular hardware component is better (and especially if you are aware of cheaper options), this will be of little comfort to you.  

  In the end you will find yourself with a better machine and more options for the future -- but this is not easily explained to new or non-technical users.  The Technical among us either has tried or will try every operating system we can, but we are a different breed. 

  There have been a few times that I can remember when companies have tried selling pre-installed, configured Linux systems in big-box-stores.  Though it has happened on occasion, it always seem to end with mixed results.

  The rate of Linux adoption has suffered due mainly to a lack of official support that regular people can understand (ie. phone or local support. as opposed to bbs.boards & mailing.lists), or a lack of compatibility with systems in use by their employer or educator.  Many websites and applications are built with Windows in mind -- since Windows is on most of the machines out there this makes sense to a degree.  

  The lack of support from computer shops is staggering.  I know one in the area (meaning 25 or so miles^2), and that is because myself and another avid Linux user convinced him to install it for his customers in a number of carefully designed use cases(over a period of nearly 3 years of demos and explanation).  The added benefit to him is that we are available to support any corner-cases that might arise -- this may be a problem for other shops that don't have the experience to reliably offer support.  Though it has been adopted by nearly 50% of his clients, it is by no means an easy sell.  Mostly people want what their friends have, or what they are used to -- if it is available and they can afford it. 

  So I guess the question is: "how do we fix this and gain Linux adoption by the average Joe/Jane more readily. "  This is more complicated then it seems at first, to the Linux user this is an easy choice (based on experience) but for most people stepping into a new world, especially when they depend on their machine to get work done (mostly this is a question of what software they need installed).  Most of the non-technical users that I have spoken to about their choice to switch to Linux make it mainly because they have had enough of fixing windows (viruses) and/or they can't afford Apple.  As in anything, money is the prevailing reason for the switch. 

  The main problem revolves around understanding what a computer really does and identifying what jobs/tasks you are going to be using it for.  Many (including some rather tech-savy people) have commented on how hard Linux is to learn, or there favorite piece of software(game) isn't available on it.  Now this is not to say that these people understand Windows either, they just choose to use it because it is familiar, most tasks can be completed visually (ie. they're GUI_Drivers), and they have a friend they can call for help when things go tits-up.  So in the end, there is just less incentive to learn it; since it has a bit of a steeper learning curve when it comes to system administration tasks, and Windows does work well after all. 

  There exist here a ray of light.  As hardware and software costs increase, you can see Open Source Software adoption increase as well.  This is mainly about the money and not necessarily to do with the ability of the technology; but I'll take it.  

  The goal should be to have a high enough level of adoption that it incentives the hardware and software vendors to support it.  Lets be honest, this is the only real reason that we care whether or not you use Linux.  

  I don't personally care about your level of productivity or up-time (unless you are paying me to do so.).  Though I do have a better chance of having hardware and software compatible with my OS of choice if more people use it.  It is really that simple.  

  Changes to the technological ecosystem that have helped FOSS adoption have come in the form of inexpensive Netbooks, and the Android operating systems popularity on mobile devices.  Now we are able to say to users that their operating system on their phone is the same as having Linux on their computer (for all intensive purposes).  This increases the initial comfort level, because they have already had the experience of using the device and don't feel so intimidated by the general concept of something new. 

  So I have taken a similar approach with customers in explaining the switch to Linux in the enterprise market.  Instead of telling them how stable it is, or how they don't have to worry about viruses (though this still comes up at some point), or how much faster it is -- this all means little to the non-technical users; since they can't put these things in proper context.  Instead I just tell them that I have a platform they should try that will give their machine a bit more life and save them money on upgrade and licensing costs.

  That is really, when it comes right down to it, what consumers and business people alike understand.  If it is cheaper, and will provide the same functionality, they are in -- if it is more stable in the long run, that is just a bonus to them included without the need for them to spend time sorting through technical information. 

  Though this seems strange way to make decisions to the engineer minded among us, this is the default setting for humans when they can't understand the more technical bits of a larger purchase or change.  

  Car dealers have learned this long ago, which is why you spend your time with the salesmen instead of a technical representative for the car company.  In reality the salesman knows and understands little about the inter workings of the vehicle, but that isn't within the scope of his job.  His purpose is to make you feel comfortable with the purchase and if you need any bits of technical information, he will be the facilitator. This doesn't usually end up with you getting the best product possible, or the best deal, just one that suits your basic needs or the ones you were keen enough to express. 

   For the technical customer, there is no need to offer such simple insights.  When we go into a car dealership, we tell them what car we want and what it should include.  We have done our research at a deeper level than the average consumer, and  -- even though we may not have any experience with the vehicle at this point -- we understand it's functionality at a deep enough level to make the most seasoned mechanic doubt his ability and understanding after just a short conversation. 

  So we already know what we like about it, what we don't, and if there is anything that we need to know.  In fact, if the salesman decides to give us their pitch, we will immediately explain to them that they are an imbecile, and go on to tangentially explain why their understanding of the concepts of this fine automobile -- and mechanical engineering in general -- are on par with a dim-witted third grader -- and perhaps they should seek some kind of refund from whatever institution was responsible for educating them.  

  For the average user though, explaining the details is a waste of your time and theirs.  First of all, they are not going to understand what you are telling them, and secondly, they don't care. 

 I have seen, from observing users that are new to Linux, that as soon as they have figured out how to do what they need to do - the name and flavor of the operating system just seem to fade into the background.  At a certain point they no longer think about the OS not being windows.  Mainly because, when configured correctly, it just works.  One of the things that has really helped this is the introduction of the Software Center by Canonical and others.  

  Before, when a user wanted to install new software or hardware they either had to: enter the command line (ie. scary stuff!), Google it and download a GUI tool to do it (If available.), or they had to get someone to do it for them (which drives up the cost).  Now that there is a way for them to just click a link, go to the store, search for what they need (as they are already accustom to from using similar stores; Itunes, Android Stores.) and install their choice in software.  For some of my clients, that have a tendency to install lots of stuff, I limit their access to software sources so to avoid them breaking their machine by adding some of the more technical bits of software unintentionally.  For most people I have installed Linux for, my initial configuration gives them access to far more software then they ever need (Except in rare cases.). 

  Moving forward we should make sure that we are not overselling Linux and making promises that it may not be able to keep in the end.  This simply comes down to semantics, ie. ..."Linux is less susceptible to viruses..."; being careful not to say "...it is impossible for Linux to get a virus..." -- though as advanced users know, it is highly unlikely scenario for a multitude of reasons.

  Recent changes with Adobe's Linux support model have made things harder for Linux Desktop adoption -- this is really less of a problem for most home users than has been reported, but it is still a concern (since many local, state, and federal offices are using electronic documents supported only by Adobe.).  This is also one of the biggest reasons to use open-source; avoiding vendor lock in.  If you start in on the topic of licensing with the average user, chances are you will be able to hear their eyes rolling.  

  I use a bunch of operating systems (Debian, Arch, Plan9, Haiku, and Puppy Linux), but this is for convenience and ease of use more than it has to do with other factors.  For me personally I don't care what OS I use -- again Church-Turing.  I use open source because I believe in community and I think it is the most logical way to go from a development and support standpoint.  Having the extra software is nice, but the same software utilities are available on other platforms as well, so I don't see this as a selling point.  Even though I believe that FOSS works better and makes me more productive in many cases -- that is conjecture  -- and the same can be said for the other choices involved when configured correctly.  One of the things that we need to push is the pure open-source model.  Give away the product and charge to support it.

   This is no different then getting a custom car built, though usually much cheaper.  So you are paying the amount you are in order to save you both the time of doing the work, and the time learning how to do the work (the longest bit).  We are all about paying for convenience.  

  Building your own computer should be considered just as a challenging endeavor as building your own car.  The engineering in terms of the computer is far more complicated and far more sensitive to minor changes.  For some reason, people that would never open the hood of their car, start cutting wires, and fiddling around have no problem doing it with there computer.  The worst part is when they screw it all up, or there is a situation they don't understand they decide the operating system is at fault, and blame it.  This is usually Linux or Windows -- though I have seen cases involving Mac(especially since moving back to the West Coast.)

  Please don't take any of this to mean that I am not in favor of you downloading a Linux distribution and giving it a go.  Also, don't take this to mean that you are stupid, or incapable.  If I can do it anyone with a heart beat has a fairly good chance of making me look foolish -- though I have to say I am quite good at doing that on my own. 

  Understand; computing is complicated, and there may be some challenges -- and if you didn't study hard in physics, there will be some additional challenges.  Though there will usually be some reason why things don't work exactly as planned, especially when you are new to the Operating System, device, etc. Feel free to install and explore but don't blame Linux if everything isn't to your liking; it is just doing what you tell it to.