The Gadget Tree

In this article I will discuss some of the key issues that have prevented Linux from being a larger success within the consumer sector. Sure Linux has always been a competitor in the corporate and server market, but the companies that are built around the Open Source movement have seen an enormous opportunity for expansion into the consumer realm and I for one am glad they're taking it.

Follow up:

The RTFM Syndrome
So, you'd been eying that OpenSuse box sitting on the shelf at your local software retailer for a while. You pondered what sorts of new worlds an "alternate" operating system could open up. Finally you decide to take the plunge and fork up the cash. You take it home, pop it in your machine and if you're lucky and a little computer savvy you're up and running in no time. Wow! You think, "this is so cool that all of this is created by a community and how it.....oh wait....how do I?...."

"No problem", you think, "Surely there must be tons of Linux users out there who wouldn't mind helping a newbie." Here's where your passion for your new OS is likely to have a sudden 90mph tail-spin crash into a high-voltage electric pole. Upon asking for help you'll most likely be told to RTFM!! (Read the F***ing Manual). There is a problem with this statement; however, other than the fact that the person saying it is being a holier-than-thou asshole. In order to RTFM you would have to spend years, not days, weeks, or months, but years and possibly DECADES pouring over documents trying to make sense of something that could be easily answered by an experienced user, should they be so inclined to help someone else out. First off trying to even FIND the manual they're talking about is usually next to impossible, secondly even if you do locate and read the f***ing manual it probably makes absolutely no sense to you because it references 200 things you have no idea about.

The "RTFM Syndrome" is the singular issue that keeps Linux away from the very people it was meant for, hobbyists. Linux users have a reputation of being complete jerks because they've spent years of their lives learning this stuff and feel that they're some kind of L33T HAXOR, and that everyone should quit their jobs, move into their parent's basement, and do the same. I hate to be the one to break it to them; however, but if everyone "started from scratch" on everything they ever did in life we wouldn't have 1/1000th of what we have today. Scientists studying stem cells don't go back and re-invent modern biology from scratch because it's just "better" to do it the hard way.

There is some light at the end of this tunnel though, with the advent of more and more desktop oriented distributions such as Ubuntu, Linux Mint, and Fedora it does seem that one can now ask a Linux related question without being flamed by a score of 36 year old virgins. The Linux die-hards can say what they will about Ubuntu, but the truth of the matter is that most people don't want an operating system that is "difficult-by-design". They need to keep in mind that very large contributions to the GNU/Linux community are made by companies, companies who make their money not by selling Linux itself, but by selling support for it. There is an enormous marketplace in desktop computing that these companies can draw income from, and I applaud them for exploring it.

KDE vs Gnome

Ok, the average user has a hard enough time figuring out a start button, a task bar, or a dock. When Windows XP was released tens of thousands of users were mystified by layout of the new OS.....even though it was nearly EXACTLY the same as previous version, with the exception of now having a Playskool plastic blue/green motif.

These people were stumped by a different color scheme and very minor re-arrangement and you expect them to even remotely understand that Linux has more than one graphical interface?? A common question by people interested in Linux is "What does it look like?", with the typical answer being "Whatever you want it to look like." This is usually accompanied with by a look of absolute bewilderment. Sure, I think it's really cool to be able to pick how you use your desktop, alas it's beyond the majority of users. That leaves us with a decision, average users will NEVER be able to figure out something along the lines of WindowMaker, Enlightenment, Afterstep, etc, so that leaves two major contenders, KDE and Gnome.

This is an issue that divides the Linux community pretty well. If Linux were to be a true success on the desktop who would have to be the inevitable victor? In my mind the choice is remarkably simple, Gnome. In fact most of the Linux distros that have gained any ground in the consumer desktop sector come running Gnome as a default. Why Gnome and not KDE? Sure KDE occasionally innovates far beyond the reach of Gnome, and for many daily tasks it does feel just a little bit faster, but to me KDE has always felt as if it were on the brink of falling apart. It feels like handling a deck of cards, it feels.....hollow, somehow. Not to mention that it often looks much more "chintzy" than Gnome does. Gnome takes the slow, rock-steady approach and in my opinion creates a much more cohesive desktop experience. Oh, and lets not forget you don't have to put up with every application name starting with a K (yes I know some Gnome stuff starts with a G, but somehow that seems less offensive). I guess to me KDE just resembles someone's "too-much-of-a-rush" idea of what Linux should look like, Gnome looks like....well....Linux!

Now assuming that Gnome were to be the de-facto standard desktop on desktop Linux computers there's still a problem. Click on your System menu....go ahead...you see that damned About Gnome item? That's the problem. Little details like this just help to make the system feel more cobbled together, rather than being one comprehensive unit. Remove the About Gnome item, remove the dumb little Gnome foot icon and replace it with the distro icon. Stop letting every piece of software advertise that it is indeed a completely separate entity. With a team of developers all writing programs for Gnome that integrate tightly and look, feel, and act the same the experience would be so much more gratifying. Another issue would be to get rid of the whole "bootloader" kit & caboodle. What if Linux is your only OS? Should you be presented with a menu asking which OS to boot every time you turn your computer on? What about simply having the option to press a key during a certain part of the boot sequence and THEN be able to choose an OS to boot.

Let's step back and take Ubuntu as a for-instance. Let's pretend for a moment that it's years down the road and Ubuntu has fixed these issues. I press my computer's power button, I'm presented with a BIOS screen which then goes black, moments later a nice animated Ubuntu logo presents itself, loading finishes and I'm now shown a nice Ubuntu branded login window, no mention of GDM or whatever it is, just Ubuntu. I log in and come to my nice polished Gnome desktop, there is no mention of Gnome or anything else for that matter anywhere in sight, just Ubuntu. Sure programs like VLC and Firefox will still have their own names, they're programs...but the SYSTEM will seem to be one cohesive unit and not something cobbled together that feels more like a toppling tower of Jenga blocks than a computer operating system. But I digress, people will argue this for years to come. The simple answer; however, is that in order for Linux to be popular on household computers it will need a very unified and universal layout.

Software Installation, AKA I have to do WHAT to install software???

No matter how much of a Linux fanboy you are you cannot deny that Linux has the absolute most back-asswards way of installing software that has ever existed. Sure it's fine if you want to compile everything from source but guess what? NOBODY GIVES A RATS ASS. I can compile Windows and Mac OS X software from scratch, shit I can build a f***ing car from scratch, but why would I want to?! There's a reason that simple things like TV dinners, the iPod, the Flip video camera, and countless other things do so well, because they take the work out of it for you!

And I know what you're thinking. There are RPM files, DEB files, YUM repositories.....all of which are still monumental more difficult to use than a standard installer file. Now don't get me wrong, Linux has made enormous leaps and bounds in software installation. I run Fedora 11 (Leonidas) on my laptop and I had almost no trouble getting everything I needed installed, but that's because I'm not a moron. I was smart enough to type "Fedora 11 Install Guide" into Google and locate a handy document that detailed setting up the YUM repositories, adding Adobe Flash, etc..

The point is; however, that the average computer user is completely baffled with the process of downloading an installer file, locating said installer file, double clicking it and then hitting NEXT on every screen. You expect them to go into a terminal and type in commands to add software repositories?? First off most people never think to search the web when they run into a problem, secondly even if they did most people would immediately freak if they were presented with a terminal window. Sure you and I don't mind the terminal, hell I even still use it in Windows on occasion, but most people joined the computer revolution in the Post-DOS days and have never had to type a single command into a command prompt.

Let's say that by some act of divine intervention they do manage to get those repositories added though, the average user would still have no idea what they are doing. Look at most things in the YUM repositories, you search for VLC and you'll not only get VLC, but all kinds of other results which are only distinguishable from the actual application package by a very small notation in the filename (for instance the word "dev" will be in there somewhere to denote it's the developer tools for the application). These repositories need to have clear, categorized results with long descriptions and screenshots before the typical user will have any hope of figuring it out.

That being said I feel that the software repositories idea is interesting, but probably not the best route to go. There's always the way Windows does it, you download an installer file and are then walked through the install by a wizard. This works, but as I stated earlier in the article still gives lots of beginners problems.

By far the most elegant method I have found for installing software has to be the simple drag & drop functionality of the Mac OS X. You download your application and then simply drop it into the Applications folder. DONE! No messing with repositories, dependencies, runtimes, DLLs, etc... Hell I'll do you one even better, how about the first time you open the application file it simply pops up with a little dialog asking if you'd like to install it or run it from where it's at. If you choose install it would simply copy itself into your Applications and start itself up.

A simple method to add non-open source software

When netbooks became all the rage people bought them in droves, even the Linux ones. Did most of them buy it because they really wanted Linux? Short answer, No. They bought it because it was cheaper than the Windows counterpart. Sure the sales guy (most likely a techie, like us) explained how it does everything Windows does. Well after getting home the user quickly figures out that it doesn't. He tries to visit YouTube, but it's not working. Why? Because Linux distros don't come packaged with proprietary (commercial, closed source) software (Adobe Flash). Sure for anyone in the know it's a really easy fix, add the necessary repositories into your package manager and install. For this guy; however, he's stuck either not having Adobe Flash or having to go through who-knows-what to pry the information out of some other Linux users.

I understand WHY Linux distros do not come with proprietary software, but that doesn't mean that installing it shouldn't be super easy. Why can't there be a nice little link on the desktop that says "Install Additional Software"? You open it up and it has check boxes for Adobe Flash, MP3 decoders, Quicktime Decoders, and tons of other useful stuff. Granted this is not something I personally find to be that big of a deal, but then again I know what I'm doing. It's something simple that would really help a lot of end users out.

Conclusion

Is Linux a bad operating system? Of course not. Is it fine the way it is? It is, but why not make it even better? In recent years there have been massive leaps forward in the usability of Linux as a desktop OS, but it seems to be some of the simplest and most basic things that have overlooked. It is my opinion that if some of these little wrinkles could be ironed out that desktop Linux could take off and the Free Software Revolution could really begin. It would then be a community of people actually USING their operating system instead of just working on it. Currently it feels more like a kit that comes with instructions written in Korean.