Very well said. When I see people in here say they installed Linux on their parent's computer, I have to hope Mom and Pop are old Unix hackers, or their kid has a lot of free time.
We don't realize just how much non-technical people struggle to do the most basic tasks on their computer. They struggle mightily to so much as connect to a new wireless network or download and run a graphical installer on Windows or Mac. Adding a printer, changing settings or connecting to a Bluetooth device are probably beyond their abilities.
My parents are both extremely intelligent, and early adopters of technology who've had PCs since the 80's; every time I see them they've filled their Macs with adware ("No, it's good; it does a cleanup! It's from Amazon!"). To send them an email is to risk it being lost in the flood of hundreds of newsletters they inadvertently subscribed to. I know fellow developers with Macs who run all their apps off of the still-mounted disk image instead of dragging them to the Applications folder.
You expect non-technical people to use a package manager? To find the non-free repository, or have the slightest clue what "package manager" or "non-free repository" even means? To hack on the command line? To edit configuration files? I often need to run to the docs and StackExchange for those kind of things, and I'm the guy my (intelligent, competent) team members come to about that stuff. You expect them to find and install drivers? To deal with stuff breaking when they update their distro? To update in the first place?
Like the woman in the story, they're likely to give up when they see MS Office isn't available. People in my graduate CS courses claim they can't open .docx files because they don't have MS Word. It's a more-competent-than-average person who even knows about and recognizes file extensions.
Think about how painful it is to get your coworkers to so much as try out a new language, library or development tool. How much hand-holding they need. How they whine and complain about the slightest difference, even when the new way is clearly superior. And this is talking about highly-intelligent people above the 99th percentile for knowledge and interest in computers.
So yeah, I don't think Linux is really in a state where it's usable (without handholding) by non-developers without lots of time, ability and interest to learn Unix. Even Windows and MacOS are something of a losing struggle. People do better with the more idiot-proof iOS and Android, but I'm still troubleshooting my folks' phones on a regular basis.
Anecdotally, completely wrong. I set my tech phobic father up on Ubuntu 6 or 7 years ago. He doesn't need to care what a package manager is, because he doesn't install anything, except for security updates when prompted. He uses the browser, abiword, and gnumeric, and is totally fine with that setup. A couple of years back he bought a new printer, plugged it in, and the system walked him through configuring it automatically.
Same thing can be said about Windows. It's not anywhere more ready for out of the box use than Linux. I.e. it needs learning, and learning effort can take time, that's true. But the argument that Linux is harder to learn doesn't stand.
The situation with drivers, hardware compatibility, internet configuration, software discovery, installation and availability, OS updates, layman-friendly Google troubleshooting and so forth is far more idiot-proof on Windows than Linux. Most of those are ecosystem and not OS-related, but that doesn't help a person who's not totally clear on what an operating system even is.
What's easy for you or I is worlds beyond what's easy for the average Joe or Sally who wants internet, email, MS Office and maybe gaming.
If we are talking about people who buy pre-assembled computers, hardware compatibility questions are addressed by the manufacturer. I doubt they would be selling hardware that runs Linux, and at the same time has drivers problems. And if we are talking about people who are ready to assemble PCs from parts themselves, they are as well ready to do their research and figure out what works and how well.
At the same time, driver situation on Windows can be actually worse than on Linux. Especially if we are talking about manufacturers dropping support for their closed drivers. It often happens, that with Windows the only solution is to upgrade your hardware, while Linux merrily continues working on it for years. I encountered this multiple times, especially with laptops.
Not sure what you mean about network configuration woes, Network Manager GUI for example is pretty straightforward and easy to use.
Well there's the rub, virtually nobody is selling out-of-the-box Linux PCs. So, if Linux is being installed by the user, you're rolling the dice on how nicely it plays with your wireless, touchpad, graphics, sound, webcam/microphone, HiDPI screen and so on. "Probably" isn't good enough when the competition is guaranteed to work out of the box. And again, it needs to be guaranteed totally automatic; the population we're discussing won't be able to make the correct selection from a dropdown or install drivers manually (or have any clue what that means).
The problem with the GUIs I've seen for Network Manager is the same problem affecting nearly all Linux software, which is they're geared towards expert users. They expose too many configuration options to the user instead of hiding them in menus or preference panels. Experts like you or I see past all the noise and recognize the relevant bits. But a layman doesn't know what anything means or what's relevant, so they're likely to become stuck and confused.
Worse, many of the visible but probably-irrelevant options will prevent them from connecting to the internet if they're set to the wrong thing. The biggest part of idiot-proof UI/UX is looking at a "connect to a wireless network" modal and counting the number of ways it's possible to exit the modal without vs. with successfully connecting. You want all roads to lead to the happy path, even with Grandma rand() at the wheel.
Most Mac and Windows software could use improvement here too, although to a lesser extent, and same with iOS and Android but again to a lesser extent than with the desktop OSes.
Think of a person who leases a Camry. They like it because it's familiar and easy to drive, it meets all their needs more than adequately, and it has a low cost of ownership. If something goes wrong they bring it to the dealership and it's either covered under warranty, or, if not, they just pay whatever the cost is out-of-pocket. When their 2 years are up they lease another Camry.
One of the car blog Jalopnik's writers, Tavarish (https://kinja.com/apidaonline), doesn't know why anyone would want a Camry when they could have a 10-year-old European sports or luxury car at the bottom of its depreciation curve. The idea they're maintenance nightmares is a myth; he does all the maintenance himself, and finds like-new parts in junkyards instead of buying from the OEM, so they hardly cost him anything to own.
Obviously, Tavarish is an expert mechanic. He can replace a clutch or a turbocharger in his sleep, whereas so much as a fuse or a headlight is beyond the capabilities of our Camry lessee. We are experts. If our printer stops working we can recognize the issue, find and compile the community-supported open-source Epson 6000 SUX driver, and be on our merry way. Other people, who think a driver is a golf club or Morgan Freeman, just buy a new printer.
> Well there's the rub, virtually nobody is selling out-of-the-box Linux PCs.
That's exactly the root of the problem that was discussed above, isn't it? So that's the real issue, and not inability of Linux itself to address common use cases of non technical users. Because Linux can address them today.
> So, if Linux is being installed by the user, you're rolling the dice on how nicely it plays with your wireless, touchpad, graphics, sound, webcam/microphone, HiDPI screen and so on.
Such users don't roll dice to decide what hardware to install on (if they are smart to install it on their own). They do research, get parts that work well with Linux, and then install it. Without doing research - well, anything can happen.
> The problem with the GUIs I've seen for Network Manager is the same problem affecting nearly all Linux software, which is they're geared towards expert users. They expose too many configuration options to the user instead of hiding them in menus or preference panels.
OK, for a test (KDE Plasma 5.8.4), I just enabled my WiFi (I'm currently on wired connection), selected a network from the list, and clicked a single button [Connect]. It opened a field for password right there. Type in the password - and voilà, it's connected. Nothing else is needed for the simplest scenario. Of course you can always go into connection settings and start changing around custom DNS and what not if you know what you are doing. But all of that in not exposed in the simplest case. So I doubt, configuring network will be an issue for Linux newcomers.
> So that's the real issue, and not inability of Linux itself to address common use cases of non technical users. Because Linux can address them today.
I think that's a lot truer than it was 15 years ago (although there hasn't been much improvement since 10 years ago), but it's still less true than is the case for Windows or Mac, which themselves are tricky for the inexpert user.
There's a reason Dell markets their Linux laptop as the "developer edition" and not the "Linux edition" or "Ubuntu edition" or whatever. As discussed elsewhere here, OEMs who've sold Linux PCs get many returns, and find their customer support lines (very expensively) jammed with buyers completely clueless about how to accomplish any simple tasks with Linux.
And, even if people who've never used a computer before would find Linux as easy to learn as Windows or MacOS (IMO it's in the same ballpark but still behind), most people have used computers, and have already learned how to accomplish basic tasks on one of the Big 2 desktop OSes. With Linux they need to relearn all that from scratch (and for that specific dialect). People have only so much free time, and that's a big time commitment for them, with a big opportunity cost.
When MS had their Windows 8 debacle (making their users have to relearn how to accomplish basic tasks), IIRC, Macs increased in market share, but the Linux market share didn't move (or at least it's relative improvement was worse than Mac). And then Windows 10 gained some of the market share 8 lost, at the expense of both Mac and Linux. My interpretation of those data is that they suggest Linux is harder for new mass-market users to learn than MacOS or traditional Windows.
> Such users don't roll dice to decide what hardware to install on (if they are smart to install it on their own). They do research, get parts that work well with Linux, and then install it. Without doing research - well, anything can happen.
> most people have used computers, and have already learned how to accomplish basic tasks on one of the Big 2 desktop OSes.
This comes down to MS and Apple trying to dominate the education system. IMHO schools could teach Linux from the start, and a major part of this issue would be gone already. Closed incumbents fear that, and provide "incentives" for schools, to make sure their lock-in remains unchallenged.
> There's a reason Dell markets their Linux laptop as the "developer edition" and not the "Linux edition" or "Ubuntu edition" or whatever.
There is too much inertia there. Since Dell had troubles in the past, they translate it into present. They should just start anew and offer Linux on all their models.
> very unreasonable (for a layman) modal if it can't.
If something can't deduce security method, what do you expect it to ask? Particular details of the UI adjust to selected security method (at least in KDE manual configuration). I.e. I find it completely reasonable, and I doubt Windows or any other OS can fare better if automatic configuration fails.
> There is too much inertia there. Since Dell had troubles in the past, they translate it into present. They should just start anew and offer Linux on all their models.
If I were a PC OEM I'd be in wait-and-see mode for Google's new OS, which may or may not be Android-for-the-desktop.
> If something can't deduce security method, what do you expect it to ask? Particular details of the UI adjust to selected security method (at least in KDE manual configuration). I.e. I find it completely reasonable, and I doubt Windows or any other OS can fare better if automatic configuration fails.
It should guess the possible security method(s) based on the entered password, and if that fails display the more complex modal, but with the lesser-used fields behind an "advanced" button.
Personally I'd be pretty upset about Android for the desktop. Ironically, while Android is using Linux kernel, it's also using completely incompatible userland from the rest of the Linux world, starting from its own libc. This creates a major mess and lack of drivers on mobile for normal Linux distros that use glibc, Wayland and etc. and need for such hacks as libhybris to work around that mess. I really don't wish the same sick situation to spill out to desktop Linux.
> It should guess the possible security method(s) based on the entered password
I'm not sure it's a good idea security wise. I suspect, it might inadvertently expose your password.
> If I were a PC OEM I'd be in wait-and-see mode for Google's new OS, which may or may not be Android-for-the-desktop.
I'd be investing in linux in case google and MS go the nexus/surface/mac route and cut third parties out of the equation. Kind of like what samsung is doing with tizen.
We don't realize just how much non-technical people struggle to do the most basic tasks on their computer. They struggle mightily to so much as connect to a new wireless network or download and run a graphical installer on Windows or Mac. Adding a printer, changing settings or connecting to a Bluetooth device are probably beyond their abilities.
My parents are both extremely intelligent, and early adopters of technology who've had PCs since the 80's; every time I see them they've filled their Macs with adware ("No, it's good; it does a cleanup! It's from Amazon!"). To send them an email is to risk it being lost in the flood of hundreds of newsletters they inadvertently subscribed to. I know fellow developers with Macs who run all their apps off of the still-mounted disk image instead of dragging them to the Applications folder.
You expect non-technical people to use a package manager? To find the non-free repository, or have the slightest clue what "package manager" or "non-free repository" even means? To hack on the command line? To edit configuration files? I often need to run to the docs and StackExchange for those kind of things, and I'm the guy my (intelligent, competent) team members come to about that stuff. You expect them to find and install drivers? To deal with stuff breaking when they update their distro? To update in the first place?
Like the woman in the story, they're likely to give up when they see MS Office isn't available. People in my graduate CS courses claim they can't open .docx files because they don't have MS Word. It's a more-competent-than-average person who even knows about and recognizes file extensions.
Think about how painful it is to get your coworkers to so much as try out a new language, library or development tool. How much hand-holding they need. How they whine and complain about the slightest difference, even when the new way is clearly superior. And this is talking about highly-intelligent people above the 99th percentile for knowledge and interest in computers.
So yeah, I don't think Linux is really in a state where it's usable (without handholding) by non-developers without lots of time, ability and interest to learn Unix. Even Windows and MacOS are something of a losing struggle. People do better with the more idiot-proof iOS and Android, but I'm still troubleshooting my folks' phones on a regular basis.