[j_baker]

You know, to a certain extent, unfriendliness is what I like about Linux. I like "friendly" systems for browsing the web, email, and watching video. But for hacking, Linux simply can't be beat. I really don't see why Linux needs to be an OS for Joe Internet User. What's wrong with Linux being a server/development OS?

[Goladus]

I like orthogonal, compose-able features. I like self-documenting configuration. I like grep. I like multiple desktops. I like managing my configuration using revision control (though the move towards using databases is making this a bit more difficult). I like the thorough and reliable documentation in man pages. I like transparency and the ability to read the source of most any aspect of the system. I like my distribution's massive package repository and the ability to provision entire systems with a few simple commands. I like not having to maintain a repository of license keys and original media to reinstall software in case my system ever crashes, or worry about some sort of online authentication.

[huge_dong_420]

Strangely, my grandmother isn't terribly concerned by these issues.

Why are you listing open sourceness and man pages as a reason that Joe Average User should use Linux? Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with Joe.

[Goladus]

Open-sourceness isn't an unfriendly feature by any measure, and the features I list are useful whether on a server or a desktop, that's the point. Man pages might be the only thing in that list that can genuinely be considered unfriendly, and that's still highly subjective. In contrast, license keys and online software registration are inherently unfriendly features. No subjectivity is required.

I didn't make that point explicit only because I didn't want to seem too confrontational, as j_baker's comment was clearly well-intentioned.

> Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with Joe.

I know lots of Windows users. They're each very different, but not stupid and frequently surprise condescending nerds with their capacity to figure things out. The most technophobic person I know, someone who uses their home computer ONLY to browse the web and check email (who probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between windows XP and gnome) once ranted to me for several months about various productivity hits caused by their office's migration from a terminal-based mainframe system to windows NT workstations. Most windows and mac users I know are particularly proficient with several applications. Whether it's Photoshop or Excel or Matlab or Finale or Final Cut Pro or Revit or ProTools or LaTeX, using the software effectively typically requires a lot more technical knowledge than "Joe Average User" requires to browse the web and check his email.

The original linked article covers this issue effectively in section #5, The myth of "user-friendly"

[jrockway]

Here's why the average Joe should use Linux instead of Windows: it's $200 cheaper. If all you are going to do is connect to Wifi and run Chrome... guess what, you don't need a Windows license.

After that, it's all details. Windows has spyware. Linux has apt-get. But users don't care.

[microtonal]

Here's why the average Joe should use Linux instead of Windows: it's $200 cheaper.

Except that it's not true. We had Windows Vista Home Premium (IIRC) + Works refunded once from Dell, because Ubuntu was used. The refund was 80 Euro.

In fact, they say it inflates the price of PCs barely, because the relatively small OEM Windows fee is compensated by installing tons of adware, browser bars, etc. from 3rd party vendors.

[wazoox]

> the relatively small OEM Windows fee is compensated by installing tons of adware, browser bars, etc. from 3rd party vendors.

Now that is user-friendly; you must spend the best part of a day removing nagwares and spywares from a brand new computer.

[eropple]

It takes about twenty minutes on a Dell (which tend to be among the biggest purveyors of nagware). Forty minutes or so if you just saw screw-it and reinstall the OS, plus whatever time it takes for Windows Update to do it's thing. I get that you're a partisan, but can we not be completely hyperbolic?

[Goladus]

Right, but you can extend that logic to other software, and in general the tradeoffs are very similar. Photoshop vs GIMP, MS Office vs Libreoffice, Scribus vs InDesign. It adds up after awhile.

You don't have to switch to linux to take advantage of free software, but it's usually easier and regardless, many of the Linux issues raised in the original article apply to the FOSS alternatives as well.

[eropple]

It doesn't need to be "friendly," but if it's not going to be such, pushing it on normal people who don't know any better is probably a bad idea.

That said, friendliness is not incompatible with "hacker-friendly."

[j_baker]

I agree on both counts. I find Ubuntu to be a good mix of hacker-friendliness and user-friendliness.

What I'm getting at is that everyone seems to think Linux has to succeed on the desktop. Perhaps that was a good goal in the Windows XP days, but it's not as big a deal now.

I don't see why Linux needs to be a mainstream OS.

[wazoox]

As the saying goes, "Unix is user-friendly. It just isn't promiscuous about which users it's friendly with." (Rob Pike IIRC). Yes, there is some elite, snob, warm fuzzing feeling about all this, and you know what? I'm elitist, and I think it's all right.

[shadowfox]

This is fairly ok. Except when the elites start ranting about the serfs not getting it :P

[djd]

The reason Linux seems to be un friendly is because windows takes care you as a baby,most of the time you are not in control and there is nothing much to worry. So if kids where exposed to Linux first this problem would not arise IMHO

[eropple]

Alternatively, Windows takes care of things that a normal person has no need to, but Linux forces you to do.

It's like being forced to think about breathing.

[rjbond3rd]

I disagree. Windows is always interrupting me with things. Updates, virus scans, warnings, malware etc. whereas Linux stays in the background (for me).

[eropple]

I don't remember the last time I was prompted for, literally, any of that, with the exception of Windows Update--which is about as annoying as Ubuntu's nagging updater (that is, not very).

But, then, I don't install crap. Most people do, but most people who do also don't care so much about whether they see those popups or not. It doesn't register to them. So, yes, there is an edge case here where you can install crap and then be offended by said crap's tendency to annoy you...but personally, I rarely see it.

[rjbond3rd]

Really? You don't get told there's a new version of Java, Acrobat Reader, Flash, updates for whatever security suite, updates for other applications?

You change the motherboard after it fails, now Windows needs to re-validate, then if you don't do that right away, Windows Security Essentials starts counting down to when it won't work anymore?

And the Windows re-validation process fails for unknown reasons every time, so it keeps telling you "this copy isn't genuine" even though it's a 100% legit retail version (and prompts again each boot).

Which I installed to get rid of the -crap- the hardware vendor installed. And then on top of that, the -only- stuff I installed was Java, Flash, Firefox and Reader. That's -it-.

I don't even use Windows -- this is my wife's computer. Linux never bothers except for security updates.

And in the last year, Windows got infected twice, requiring re-installs when MalwareBytes and AV could not disinfect (hence, perhaps, the validation problem).

It takes more effort to keep the Windows machine going than the other 5 Linux boxes in the house (each running a different distro no less).

[eropple]

Acrobat Reader sucks, so I don't install it. I squelch Java's nags because it's disabled in my browsers and I only have it for running Netbeans. I am probably more lax in my Flash updates than I should be (because I don't see them, I squelched them as well), but I run FlashBlock in Chrome so I'm not overly worried. Microsoft Security Essentials updates through Windows Update and never bothers me.

I've gotten revalidation prompts, but never failures; I know they can happen but it's never been an issue for me.

Seriously, I honestly don't know why so many people have trouble with it, but I have had a pain-free experience since installing Windows 7. Even Vista was pretty much problem-free, although MSE wasn't around then and I did get occasional AV nags.

[rbanffy]

It's been a very long time since Linux forced me to do anything. Windows, OTOH, is a chore. Install the base OS, install anti-malware, install decent browser, install miscellaneous things, keep track of everything myself... No. I use Linux precisely because I have a life.

[bonch]

You might also say that Windows treats you as if you have a life and don't spend your free time setting up sound cards and installing multiple desktop environments. We also no longer hand-crank automobiles to start them.

[cbf]

There is nothing wrong with a Linux distributions being focused on fulfilling server or development roles. That is not the role a Linux distribution like Ubuntu Desktop is attempting to fulfill however. Critiquing Gentoo or Arch or what not against the traditional desktop incumbents is unfair, Ubuntu Desktop, not so much.