Is Linux ready for the computers of non-tech savvy users?
It is.
Side Score: 24
|
 |
Nope.
Side Score: 31
|
|
|
|
|
Well, depending on the distro of Linux you use, the answer can be yes or no. And the answer also depends on the level of experience of the user (which you set as "non-tech savvy" in this debate). I think there's three groups of computer users: - The lowest group barely knows how to turn on the computer, fire up an email client that someone more tech-savvy than them has set up ("gmail on the internet?!?! what's that? isn't that kinda...unsafe because it's not on just your computer?"), browses the web using anything that works ("what's...safari? why does it look different than my web thingy?"), struggle with everything they do on the computer ("nooooo!! I lost my work! microsoft word suddenly disappeared!!...you brought it back? you're a genius! how'd you do that? ...it was...minimized? what's that?") and essentially barely get along (note: these are true quotes from someone in my family :P). - The middle group knows a bit more about software alternatives (e.g. firefox), understands basics on how their computer works ("the CPU is kinda like...the brain, right? so the bigger the better?"), and are familiar with using their computers (again, these are true quotes). Except they g33k out when they hear anything about programming ("what's html? ooooh that's like...programming, right? O_O") - The topmost group is familiar with programming and terminal work and knows everything from what a MAC address is to far, far beyond. After all that, I'd like to say that Linux is for the lowest and topmost groups. The topmost group is apparent because Linux allows a huge amount of control over the OS. But that's not under the boundaries of this debate (non-tech savvy users). For the lowest group, certain Linux distros (e.g. gOS) are really simple and only contain stuff you use a lot (e.g. email and web browser). Side: this was a lot of writing
I agree with your grouping of people, but the middle area is hard to define. There are people who know a lot about hardware but know nothing about software... which is essentially all you really need to know when you're using Linux. Most of the time, actually, people know a lot more about hardware than software. Sure, people in the middle class can find their ways through file systems well and remember file extensions and what they do (sort of) and be fairly independent... but really, if you were to ask one of these people what a .dll is, even though they've probably swapped them out before or ran into them in windows, they couldn't tell you what .dll stands for or what it does even if you said it stands for dynamic link library. Most people are in the middle class, and can use computers ok but I think that they only get to the middle class via trial and error. Most power users I know have way more understanding of hardware and software and how they interact with each other and get it all from experience and authentic interest that has at some point driven them to learn the sort of "metaphysical" aspects to the computer as well. Power users can handle linux well, even people who are not so "powerfull" can figure linux out... but the middle class of people that if they have an issue (any issue) will think the problem is a virus or lack of low latency memory will struggle with it and probably cause more problems than the lowest group could ever have. Side: Still too complicated for consumer base
I'd agree that the middle area is hard to define. I had trouble with that when I was writing my group distinctions. Like you said, I'd also agree that the middle group generally find Linux hard to use in terms of background tech information that they need to know. I used Ubuntu as my main OS a couple years ago, and I remember trying to puzzle over whether I should use ext2 or ext3 file formats, the Gnome or KDE desktops, etc. That was part of the reason why I left Linux (at age 11 all you care about is how to use your computer, not spend time figuring out how it works. :P). And, yes, power users can handle linux well. But since the debate is about "non-tech savvy users," I'll briefly ignore them for now. I guess my main argument was that there are certain Linux distros specifically designed for the tech-illiterate crowd. These distros are extremely simple - most of those in the middle group would probably find them to be too limited (but perfect for that someone in my family mentioned in my first argument ^_^). Evidence that these distros are easy to use is demonstrated by...airplanes! I'm not sure about other planes, but if you fly on a United Airlines 767, you will notice that the multimedia-viewing touchscreen display (which, as far as I know, no one has trouble figuring out how to use) is actually a distro of linux - the simple, limited type I am arguing for. Side: good for uber n00bs
Depends on a number of factors. In many ways it's actually better for non-tech savvy users as it is far more difficult to "shoot yourself in the foot". A pre-installed linux box (Ubuntu?) would be perfect for people with no computer experience. If, on the other hand, they're already in "Windows mode" a switch to Linux will be more painful. But I've converted I few in my time :) Side: ubuntu
I installed Ubuntu on one of my machines and I found it user friendly. Check the videos here: http://ubuntuclips.org/ Side: It is.
I have installed Debian with gnome shell for my father's net book because it was slow, and he prefers it to windows. I also installed Ubuntu on my friend, who only uses computers for gaming and schoolwork, and he can use it well. I think that Linux can be used easily by anyone who can use windows. Side: It is.
|
Hey. I love linux and that's the only system for me, but it is EXTREMELY difficult for those who aren't tech savvy. Its not that its hard in general, just there are so many ways to do things on linux that it confuses the tech-illiterate. Whereas mac has one or two ways to access a program or download a file and it even has a pop-up window that says "Click Here to Download". But on a linux if you don't know how to install or download a file correctly, you may end up erasing some very important information that you might need. However, if we were debating what system is best for learning the basics of tech-literature, then linux is the best for that. Side: Still too complicated for consumer base
I'm not sure that your statements are entirely correct. For Debian-based distros there's repositories that make installation entirely painless certainly for anyone whose ever run windows, and several other distros have similar systems. That being said a manual install, though also fairly easy to manage, is probably out of the average user's league. Side: It is.
I would say that it's getting there. Many distros, Ubuntu for example, are trying hard to take out a lot of the exclusiveness in maintaining the OS. It's not ready yet but I can definitely see a time in the near future where people who are even moderately familiar with Windows or Mac will be able to switch to a Linux distro relatively painlessly. Side: Nope.
Sorry, it just isn't. I've had my parents using various flavours of linux for ages but without my support, it never would have worked - it's just too hard for non-technical users to get to grips with. For instance, there will always be issues where websites will require queer java applications, flash versions etc. which will require configuration. Side: Nope.
It may be ready for the computers, but it's not ready for the users of them. It's just too difficult to maintain and there is too much going on under the hood that sort of, you have to know while you're using Linux. For tech-savvy users linux may seem like the perfect OS, but that's because we all know how to deal with whatever comes our way... there's not much difficulty if you know what you're doing or know where to look when you are stuck, so it sort of slips your mind.
Try setting your family up with Linux, you'll find that you hear from your family way too much. Even explaining simple things like apt-get can hurt a users mind that doesn't even know what terminal is or is used for. I hate when people claim that Linux is all anyone needs because in all actuality, it's always a few years off from being that usable. Side: Still too complicated for consumer base
2
points
I deal with Linux at work and Windows at home. They do exactly what I want them to do in their respective arena. I can't get Linux to do everything I need to do at home and I can't Windows to do everything I need to do at work. Here's one reason why: But if you still want to try Linux at home, here's some info before you jump in: My recommendation: Go with Ubuntu http://codingexperiments.com/archives/ Hope this helps someone. Side: Nope.
2
points
So your argument is just that it's different? Then we should definitely stick to MS-DOS, it was so user-friendly... I've installed Linux (generally Ubuntu) for many friends already and they get used to it much faster than Windows. I've only had troubles with Windows "power users" that try to force bad habits into their new system: "What? This doesn't have a registry??" For those who think that Windows is easy, check the link below. Side: It is.
I think this pic says it all LoL Side: Still too complicated for consumer base
|
