Interesting to read an anti-linux article not directly from the marketing dept. of MS. Although I must wonder about his luck the day of installation. The first time I intalled linux it worked like a dream. Easier then Win95 for sure (which I have only installed once). Win98 might be easier, but not by much. My video card worked fine, as did my sound. The only problem was getting the onboard net card to work. Given that it was onboard, I realized that was a stretch, so I pulled an old one from a junk machine at work. Worked great.

Two questions:

1.) Why can a mid-educated (just now getting in my major) lameo like me, have no problems while this tech-writer (they have to take more math then most! at least at UW) have such problems?

My first guess is the old hardware, but something doesn't add up.

2.) Why do you think installation has not been looked at more closely by user-interface people?

Other then OS X (XP too, I guess), which was easier then sleeping, most operating systems are a little clutzy during install. Why does nobody pay attention to installation usability? Particularly Linux distros, which get such bad press on their installation.

I suspect there is a little assuming going on by the OS makers. Not everybody installs their own OS, so why make the proccess easy for everybody to use?

Posted by: blogmin on April 7, 2003 12:04 PM

---

 

My first and only install of Redhat (I think it was 6.2, a couple years ago) exploded in my face. I finally had to invite over a Linux-guru-friend and he got it going, but not without some major mojo on his part. I never really ended up using it too much (all my graphics software is in Windows and I'm sorry, but Photoshop still kicks GIMP's ass).

But recently I popped a Knoppix CD into the same machine and it booted right up just fine, so maybe things are improving for Linux-newbies.

John

Posted by: John Bedard on April 7, 2003 01:43 PM

---

 

I thought the Linuxworld article was excellent. It was well written (great "voice"), and showed real-world examples of poor usability. In all fairness, many (not most) commercial products aren't much better. See John's great article on installing Norton AV for an example.

The "suggestions and comments for improving the experience" section (way at the end) is especially good. Linux developers should take heed.

Some of my favorite quotes from the article:
"If you are a hairy-chested Linux administrator or programmer, you will undoubtedly find yourself screaming as you read the following. Save your breath."

"I want an operating system that works like a Honda Accord and not a kit-car project."

"Removing this pile of penguin poop was not easy. The uninstall didn't work, ... Dragging the dead penguin to the trash in Windows 95 worked"

"Before you say RTFM, make sure there is AFM to R"

I've written a bit about Linux usability before. Some excerpts:

"If success for Linux were defined as being a great, cheap, open source *NIX-like OS, then Linux has already succeeded many times over. The problem is that UNIX was never meant to be a broad-base desktop environment -- just like Cray's aren't built for gamers. So if you've defined Linux's success as domination of the desktop computing market, then you've probably started with the wrong product -- Linux was not designed as a desktop computing product for the masses. If Linux ever does become a Windows-killer for average computer users, then it will fail to deliver what most hard-core Linux users want today -- a free and powerful *NIX clone."

from: Linux needs focus not whiners

"Linux on the average consumer's desktop? Not in the foreseeable future - it's built by geeks for geeks. And geeks love it, so it's successful in its own way."

from: Open Letter to a Power User / Developer

Related:
The Usability of Open Source Software - First Monday

Posted by: Lyle, Lyle, Linux Lover on April 8, 2003 01:41 AM

---