The "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" Moment

[nemorathwald]

OK, here are the redeeming facts as near as I can ascertain them:

You possibly do not need to use the command line in Linux until you're actually getting some use from your system first.

There is a program in the graphical user interface, which you can get to from the System menu, called Synaptic Package Manager. Search among thousands of quality programs and just tell your powerful servant to get them for you. It will cover for your inadequacies without you ever having to sacrifice a chicken to it.

There is an Ubuntu starter guide. Unfortunately since graphical user interfaces change so much it has to give you instructions only for the command line. But still, it will walk you through getting Menu Editor, Java, Flash Player, PDF reader, etc.

Linux is able to associate many file types with a program to automatically open them.

You can right-click a document and choose from a menu of programs to open it with, just like in Windows.

You can, if you wish, set one of the preferences to auto-launch software from CD when it's inserted.

Installing a program is supposed to put it in the Applications menu. This sometimes works.

If you can hunt down the file in your files browser, you can use a menu editor to make it go in the Applications menu.

Right-click the taskbar and you'll be given an option to put something from the Applications menu there as a launcher button.

The problem with Linux adoption by newbies might not actually be Linux. It is surprisingly forgiving. You just wouldn't know that from the help you get. The GUIs change, so the people helping you have no way to know how to play in the shallow end of the swimming pool. They grew up using the command line so that's what you get. So the non-Linux user will inevitably have a "you've got to be kidding me" moment. They will not tolerate very many of those, and rightly so. The upshot of this is that I am going to turn in a feature request in Bugzilla. The feature would be for the install process to end in asking you if you want a little guided tour of the basic, fundamental computing tasks.

For instance, one of the first things the newly installed Ubuntu should describe to someone who requests the tour should be Synaptic Package Manager. Not apt-get. Wait until they are happily using Synaptic to download and install programs, and then tell them how much cooler it is to use apt-get from the command line. But have paper towels on hand to clean the Pepsi that they snort from their nose laughing at you.

Comments

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Whether CLI is indispensable to other people is irrelevant to whether it's an evil thing to inflict on me. I said before, and I'll say again, that CLI has it's place. The place is far away from novices, but that is still a place. I'm not an enterprise user and I don't have a render farm. They can go ahead and use some version of Linux that has not been tailored for the new, non-technical desktop user. But there should be an adoption build. Not one that locks out the potential to use CLI in the future for its power-user features-- but one that heads off a potential disaster at the pass by saying "whoa there new user, don't ask that Linux geek for help about this, he'll just scare you. Take this tutorial written in human-speak about how to avoid having to talk in computer language."

In the past few journal entries I have not been complaining to power users that they have too-powerful an OS. I've been complaining to TUX Magazine, whose raison de etre is that Linux is supposedly usable by newbies from the world of the desktop. They're not the only ones declaring the readiness for widespread adoption either. Nary a word is spoken in any of their issues thus far to clue us in to the reality that we will experience.

[phecda.livejournal.com]

From a desktop usability standpoint, Linux is about where Windows 95/98 was when it first came out. Many things are working, but there's still a slightly kludgy feel to it. Having been subjected to the whole evolution of Windows (including Windows 2.0 running on a 286) I am ecstatic with where Linux is now. So keeping in mind that distros like SuSE and Ubuntu are where windows was six years ago (from a GUI standpoint, not from a functionality/stability/reliability standpoint) and given that Microsoft was pushing that self-same interface as being for everyone, I don't really see the issue with TUX magazine saying that the Linux desktop is ready for primetime.

Six years ago, when someone would come to me to recommend a system to purchase, I would evaluate what they wanted to do, and his or her technical capabilities. For less technically savvy people I would suggest a MacIntosh, because everything worked well, was nicely integrated, and was a very nice computing appliance. They were able to get their work done, and I was left in peace.

Just like some people like to vacation at resorts where every whim is catered to, and some people like to go out into the middle of nowhere because of the challenge, it really comes down to what you want as a user. I prefer not to bow to the Microsoft computing hegemony, and as much as I've been an Apple fan over the last (almost) thirty years, Steve Jobs irritates me. So free software in all it's manifestations is my preference, and I'm willing to put up with a less integrated environment. It also helps that I grew up with Unix and it's a comfortable environment for me. GUIs, while pretty, are very inefficient when you want to accomplish real work. Key combos, while a steep learning curve, are far more efficient than mousing through menus trying to find some obscure feature or do repetitious actions. Typing 200dd in vi is much more efficient than using the mouse to select 200 lines in word and then choosing "delete" from the edit menu, etc. At the same time I recognize there was a significant learning curve for me to learn all the key commands in vi, and someone who is not facile in text editors is going to be more productive faster in a GUI editor. And these days we're all about instant gratification.