Marvin

I have spent the last month or so downloading various Linux distribution. This has been a great experience for me and I learned a great deal. I'm not going to discuss any specific distribution in this rant, but i am looking at the whole Linux landscape from a Mac OS X and Windows user. This is in no way designed to start a flame war, but just to see what other people here think about the problems Linux faces and whether my analysis is correct. I welcome any comments and please correct me if i am wrong.

I will start with the install process on a blank system. I found that the installation process was very easy to understand on most distributions. Some distributions take the non graphical approach and just install a standard system without asking the user about disc partition layout and what software they wanted to install. I just put the disc in and it asked me if I was sure I wanted Linux. Then after the main part of the installation it asked me for user name and password. Now I liked this as it was very easy and I think most newbies to computers could actually get a Linux system working this way without having to ask for help. The main drawback to this approach I found was that a more experienced user might find the lack of customisation a real drawback. I like to have control over what is being put on my computer and how the disc is laid out and I imagine this would be true for most people here.

The next sort of Linux installation type would be the graphical approach. I found distributions with this type very powerful. I could arrange the partitions, select what software I wanted and it would sort out the dependencies automatically. This sort of system had the ability to have a more customised installation for more advanced user and still have the more automated installation for newbies. There is of course the problem that you have to have a more powerful system to use this, but by that i mean anything with more than 256MB of RAM and a processor designed no more than 5 years ago. So its not really an option for those who like the challenge of getting Linux on their old Pentium 1 or 486 boxes to run as a web server.

I also found that these graphical installation distributions more often than not had a old style non graphical installation system. I did not look much into this type as i am aware it generally asks the same questions as its graphical counterpart, though you have to use the keyboard only. I will come back to installations later.

The next thing I suppose to look at is the desktop environment. Some Linux distributions just come with one and some come with 5 or more. I personally feel that when there are more than two included in a distribution its a nightmare. I cant see how they can make the desktop environment integrate will with the software installed if distribution makers have to deal with more than two. Some distributions that are like this tend to have one really well done, usually Gnome or KDE. I started to ask myself what was the need to have more than two included in a distribution. The obvious answer is that people like choice. But on the other hand why not just have a distribution with Gnome and one with KDE. At least then people can still make the choice without having wasted the space installing two or one and then half or another because other software need its specific libs such as QT and GTK. I think having two major desktop environments is harmful to Linux. Now some people will say it gives them a choice, but does it really?. Some software is obviously written for Gnome, and some is for KDE. The software never looks quite right on an environment that it was not designed for. So why not have one standard desktop for Linux so that commercial and large open source projects can say that's what most users use so we will write for that. At least then software will integrate with the desktop environment well and the user experience will be better.

The next stop on my rant is installation again. Will someone please make a standard installation system like Windows and Mac OS X has. I Know this is hard with as making one software package install on every major distribution is a challenge due to file system layouts and library version differences. I know there is the Linux Standard Base project, but how far has that come. My idea is quite like that. There would every six moths to a year be a standard set. I would include a file system layout, the most current stable library version and major system component software(Kernel, GNU tools etc.) and config file structure. The major distributions could adhere to this standard so that when a package is released it could say which version of this standard it requires to install successfully. Also if there was a unified installer/uninstaller that keeps track of what has been installed this would surely get rid of the dependencies problem. If one piece of software required another piece of software it would come with the minimal version of what it would need, if the dependencies it requires is not installed or is an older versions it will upgrade them. Also there could be large packages that install a whole system, such a development tools. In the installer the use would have options as to which components they want of the software. But at least they will be able to say i have version x of the Linux development tools regardless of the individual software included in that packages version. This would not just be for dev tools, but for graphics tools and office tools. This would be rather like the way Mac OS X handles things but with a better way up removing software without killing other software on the system.

To sum up for those who have given up on my rant. I would love to see a Linux that feels like its software was designed to with other parts of the system. It would be lovely to download Mono for example and it would come with mono develop and all the tools it requires in one single installer package and it would be the only package they provide for whatever version of a Linux standard system. If i wanted to uninstall it all i have to do it run the installer software witch removes the software without removing any shared libs it might have installed originally but now other software uses. It would be great if we had one really well designed desktop environment that all major software would guarantee to look great on. It would be simple for the novice and quicker for the expert. I know this has been a long post but i just thought i would share my views. I would be truly grateful for any comments, even if you do rip me to shreds.

__________________
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without trying to invent any more of it."

DaWei

Marvin, this is a good post. I will have to admit that my response to your introduction was, "We don't need a psycho here who can't deal with reality -- we have enough reality issues with actual technical questions." Welcome to the forum.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Marvin

Thats ok DaWie, i was just in one of my funny moods that day. I was just trying to be different in my into, make a few people laugh. Thanks.

__________________
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without trying to invent any more of it."

grumpy

The reason there are multiple "desktop interfaces" in linux is that there is not yet consensus on which is best, and the people creating each linux installation have different views on what is best for the user.

The reason windows and macos have a "standard" installation isystem s that the installation processes are each under the control of one vendor (Microsoft and Apple, respectively). And if you look at the history of windows (in particular) you will find that the installation system chaged dramatically between some versions of windows.

The basic fact is that it will never be possible to define an OS that pleases all of the people all of the time. MacOS users grumble about windows. Windows users grumble about MacOS (something which amazes MacOS users) and even about Windows (which MacOS users consider to be vindication). Some people can't stand using GUI at all, and only want to work from the command line. Others would have a fit if they even saw a command line interpreter. Some people want intimate control over every detail of their system configuration, and will grumble about a system that holds their hands and does things without asking. Others just want to have a system that works with no effort on their part, and will grumble if the installation asks them even a simple question.

MBirchmeier

One thing that should be kept in mind though is for the most part, linux has been (since the dominance of windows) an operating system for those who continously like to tinker, and for the most part always will be.

(Greatly over-simplifying things) I've ran into 4 types of computer users:

Those who know exactly what they want to do, and don't care how it gets done: This is the aunt-gertie example in DaWei's most recent linux thread, she want's to check her e-mail, possibly IM with a grandkid here and there, and play a bit of online bingo, and if she's buy and sell collectables on E-bay. She doesn't care what she's using as long as it works, and her system will look exactly the same today as it will in the year 2050, there's no need for anything new. Linux is an option for her, and she won't even notice, the difference once she gets into her routine. The basics will always be there for her (browser, e-mail, AIM) so different interfaces don't make a difference to her.

Those who don't know what they want to do, and don't care how it gets done: For the most part this is me. Day in day out I don't know if I'll be number crunching, web design, editing photos scanning etc. I need maximum flexability, but efficiency/speed isn't really an issue. Linux could probablly gain more converts from people like me with a standard interface, but at the same time I have windows, and for most things will plan on using that. I don't enjoy going through dependancy hell on linux every time I want to set up PHP, I stick with windows mostly for speed of install. Ubuntu has made this process overly easy, and this is my *nix of choice, but I digress, most in this category will not use linux simply because the lack of professional quality niche software, which again, suffers from your multiple interface dilemma.

Those who know what they want to do, and care how it gets done: I'd argue that this is your most common linux user, they're tinkerers to the core, and although they know what they'll be doing, they're always looking for ways to optimize it. I'd say these guys benefit the most from multiple interfaces, they get to contiously tweak for their overall goals, aren't going to radically be changing what they're doing day in and day out. So an extra half an hour of tweaking configurations could save them 10-15 minutes a week. The multiple interfaces are designed for these types of people.

Those who don't know what they want to do, and care how it gets done: A standard Linux interface would probablly help these guys greatly, as when they get a new program it's nice to have it work well with your interface of choice, however these guys also like choosing their interface (yay catch 22) I'm guessing of those that use linux in this category many of them use it because they use it because they can modify their interface.

I don't think a standard interface during runtime would be any more useful than the current 'multiple' interfaces, for those that already use linux, and I don't think the draw would be that large, to gain new converts.

-MBirchmeier

(Perhaps I misgauged the meaning of your post, perhaps I'm just rambling, but I am interrested in hearing more)

stevengs

so basically it boils down to '"Grumpy" people are happy people".

("A bitching private is a happy private.")

YES! Exactly! And if you change even the slightest little thing, Aunt Gertie gets seriously bent.

__________________
-Steven
"Is this a piece of your brain?" - Basil Fawlty

DaWei

A bitching private knows the sarge is out of earshot....

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

King

If all the distros conformed to one installation system/package manager and Windows Manager what would be the point of different distros? Also dependency problems are becoming less of an issue lately with decent package managers. You said that gnome apps don’t look right in KDE and visa versa... you must have done something wrong because I don’t get that at all. Linux is just a Kernel; each distro should do things how they want without following a set of rules, and if a distro does something awesome, more distros will start using it. This is why Linux is awesome, if every distro did things the same, Linux wouldn't have come as far as it has in the last 5 years.
Very nice post though.

__________________
I am Addicted to Linux!

Marvin

I thought that this would be the mentality of people here. Linux is for geeks so why make it easy. I want to use a Linux Distribution that is as easy as windows and as powerfull as UNIX. You dont have to remove the command line or make it so things can only be configured though a GUI.

Mac OS X is an easy to use UNIX based OS. It has the simplicity that people who want to get things done want, but with the underlieing complexitiy that you can get too if you are inclined to type alot on the command line.

Now im not saying Linux sould become a Mac OS X clone, im saying that Linux as a complete OS could learn from other systems. I like to tinker, but i hate having to download 10 or more KDE packages everytime i want to upgrade KDE. Why not make one that then gives you options as to what parts you wish to install, its not like download bandwidth is an issue these days. You can get the best of both worlds.

To put it simply GNU/Linux was designed for geeks by geeks. I think if the geeks want Linux on computers outside goverment,geekdom and web/mail servers they really need to work on the user experience. If you make things too hard for people they will not want to even look at it. Im sure there is a balance to be found.

One more point is, why have 100's of difference distributions. They are all just aspiring to be like the top five. I know its nice to have choice but its like going to a vending machine and finding that there is 50 varities of cola all with subtle differences. I know there are distibutions that are designed for enterprise application, some for high end servers, clusters etc. But im talking about the desktop. One or two main easy to use, but still powerfull distributions would probably see a much greater rate of adoption.

I would like to add, that having some standard might also make developers lives easier. Big software comapines wont become interested in porting their app to linux unless they know that it will work on most desktop linux's. I would love to see Adobe port all theirs apps to linux, but its hard if you have to make a different version for each linux distribution and version. Maybe its just because Richard Stalman does not want proprietary software becoming the norm on linux. If we make it hard to write commerical apps then there wont be many. But i wont start going on about the free as in freedom movement at the free software foundation led by RMS.

__________________
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without trying to invent any more of it."

Indigno

A lot of the reason why there is so much diversity in linux these days is that people always think their way is better, and therefor must have it that way. No one can agree on which is best or how to combine them, and as a result, instead of Linux becoming more standardized, more distros are popping out every day. This si part of the reason why a lot of companies don't produce software for linux is that what may work for one distro may not work quite with another, and people are too split up for them to just say "Let's just use _____ distro because it's what most people use". I think that if linux wants to gain more influence they really need to make their OS more user and developer friendly.