Why do new people give up on Linux?

[exploder]

The biggest reason people give up on Linux is hardware support. Hardware support in Linux is by no means terrible, most things work without having to do anything. The problem is that when new hardware comes out, it immediately supports Windows and Linux support comes later. Hardware issues are very difficult for new users to try and deal with. Ubuntu seems to be having a better relationship with hardware vendors these days and things are getting better. As Ubuntu gains popularity things will improve quite a bit and they do have the attention of hardware manufacturers now.

Another issue is with applications like Netflicks that refuses to support Linux. A lot of people seem to want things like this and are turned off by the fact that they can not have this if they run Linux. Everything takes time, I look at where things are today compared to where they were 10 years ago. Linux has got so easy to use, package management is so simple and convenient that anyone can understand it. New interfaces have peaked peoples interest and many can really see that Linux has a very bright future now.

I gave up on Windows years ago, so it works both ways. Linux is not for everyone, just like Windows and the MacOS aren't. Android has put Linux in the hands of many people and they do not even realize they are running Linux. Times are changing, people want something fresh and different and Linux distributions are delivering that. Also, I figure if someone has taken the time to check out Linux they can not be that satisfied with Windows. Maybe Linux was not right for them at the time they tried it but they just might take another look in the future.

[Emegra]

I am probably the perfect example of an average user, I'm 52 year old I didn't do computing at school PC's weren't around then, but when they did come around (maybe the late 1990's for me)I was still young enough to learn new tricks and the only option was Windows

I remember booting up my first PC and how facinated I was with it, I didn't know what a registry was a file system or a driver,I didn't have to I had a friend who was an IT technition and I can't tell you how many times I had him come round and fix something I screwed up which when I think back were really easy fixes, the point is going back in time windows was a huge learning curve for someone like me and many like me, computers were a mystery, but through time Windows became familier and comfortable and as windows evolved from 95 to 98 then on to XP (in my humble opinion the best OS microsoft ever produced and still is) it became easier and easier to use or at least that's how it seemed.

Almost exactly a year ago I tried Linux Why? because I was bored and wanted something new to learn, Was it easier to use than windows ? NO, Did it do anything windows didn't ? NO, Did all my hardware that worked in windows work in Linux ? NO, Was I able to run all the applications I needed ? NO, Did I find alternatives to all the applications I needed ? NO, So why do I use Linux exclusively on my PC today and would never contemplate returning to Windows? for me the answer is probably philosophy, the fact that since installing Linux my PC feels like it's truely mine, I can do what I like with it, I can configure it in such a way that will make my PC look like nobody elses and I can live in the knowledge that I no longer contribute to the disgusting profits made by the Microsoft corporation or Apple (collectively around $7 billion in the first quarter of this year).

Using Linux has made me learn a little bit about how a computer works but more importantly the computing industry and how companies like Microsoft and Apple vie for the power to enslave people in what I've heard called "walled gardens" but they're not walled gardens they're concentration camps with barbed wire perimiter fences patrolled with viscous guard dogs ready to rip out the throats of anyone who tries to get in, ironically these concentration camps are easy to escape from, but all too many people choose to stay enslaved out of fear, fear of the unknown or some misguided sense of loyalty.

Therin lies the problem with Linux adoption, fear of the unknown or just plain ignorance, all too many people don't know what an operating systems is let alone what Linux is, they think a computer is windows and windows is a computer, and as long as they can log into Facebook what else is there to know

A while back I installed Linux as a dual boot on my Office computer (I still need windows for some specilized programs) to see if I could switch over,one day my secretary said to me "What's this Linux thing that shows up when I reboot the computer"? I said "it's another operating system", then she said "What's an operating system ?", A good friend of mine once asked me "why do you use Linux?" it seemed a reasonable question so I said " well because it's faster than windows. it's more stable, it's more secure, it's more configurable and it's free" (I didn't go into the open source philosophy thing) I then said "why do you use windows ?" he said "What do you mean ? " I just laughed "never mind" it's like it's reasonable to ask someone "why do you use linux" but it's just plain stupid to ask someone why they use windows, they just do.

The point is people who use Linux choose to use Linux for various reasons but most people who use windows dont choose to use windows they just do like I did back in the nineties.

So from what I see having used both operating systems one system is really no better or worse than the other both do the same job just as easily as each other and although I believe Linux is the better system it's not so much so as to make it a compelling reason for people who dont know what a .iso is let alone how to burn one and install it to change over, so the moral is you have to want to use linux to use Linux otherwise you use windows.

Since starting to use Linux I have become passionate about it and it's developement and I admire the many developers and programmers who contribute to it. I also admire the people of these forums who share their knowledge helping others like me and I lament that I can't do likewise and although I understand the need for greater adoption do we really want the ignorant hordes adopting and destroying our operating system and our philosophy

[AlbertP]

My problem is not the upgrading, my problem is no one make it easy. if upgrading every 6 months become the standard, it's time to come with something more smart than the actual system. You know the swap partition is now so big that is possible to put inside a mini version of Linux with a small desktop ...

Upgrading every 6 months is not necessary at all. Mint 13 is a long term support release which is supported until 2017. Other releases have one and a half year of support: you need not upgrade your Mint 12 computers yet, even though 14 is around the corner.

[eiver]

Upgrading IS necessary - older releases though supported do not have the latest apps in their repos. Windows XP is 11 years old and it is not supported anymore - that still does not prevent me from installing the latest VLC 2.0.4. On the other hand I cannot easily install the latest VLC on the still suppored LM9, because it is still in version 1.0.6 in the repos. Trying to compile from sourse is a route to hell, as you suddenly discover, that you need a ton of dependencies you don't have and the ones you do have have too low version. The whole idea is rotten. What is even worse, there is no way to roll-back and the package upgrades are not tested enough. If there is not enough resources (people) to do proper testing, then there must be a good rollback mechanism, so that people won't have to sit around with a Clonezilla CD all the time.

[altair4]

We are in an infinate loop when it comes to updating our Linux systems and I don't know of any way around it until someone takes control of the madness. To me - and this is just for me:

[] Debian is out of the question. Too many things to fix or tweak and life's too short at this stage in my life. Pointing it to Debian testing means you are always running in a beta state and pointing it to stable means nothing gets fixed.

[] Long term support means absolutely nothing and I offer the following bug report as an example: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+sour ... ug/1054495

** A bug report was submitted on cups for Ubuntu 12.04.
** The bug was closed as a fix was found and implemented in 12.10.
** The bug is still not fixed for version 12.04 - the LTS version of Ubuntu and therefore Mint.
** The bug was reopened by someone else with a plea to the developer that fixed it for 12.10:

Task opened for Precise. Its really up to Till if its worth the time to backport the fix. This is definitely the kind of hardware enablement fix that we tend to push for in LTS releases though.

There's a couple of ways to view this. This should be fixed by cups developers not Ubuntu developers but if you are going to have it fixed by an Ubuntu developer then it's not up to Till if he wants to fix it. It's up to whatever adult is in charge of this to determine if Till fixes it it or not. And if not why not. And if you have no intention of fixing it then don't call it an LTS. In any event it's not fixed to this day. I have a workaround for this particular bug but it should not be up to the user to fix this.

So the way I see it we have to follow the "if you don't like the OS you have now wait 6 months and there will be another one" process. Some bugs will be fixed new ones will take their place.

Linux is not a product like Windows or OSX that has some level of adult supervision and all the parts are owned by the same organization. It's a randomly assembled collection of software projects at different states of development that is "released" because ... well ... because it's been 6 months since the last release.

[uhgreen]

There's a couple of ways to view this. This should be fixed by cups developers not Ubuntu developers but if you are going to have it fixed by an Ubuntu developer then it's not up to Till if he wants to fix it. It's up to whatever adult is in charge of this to determine if Till fixes it it or not. And if not why not. And if you have no intention of fixing it then don't call it an LTS. In any event it's not fixed to this day. I have a workaround for this particular bug but it should not be up to the user to fix this.

I think differently about this. I don't think Linux, not even Ubuntu, should be an operating system where the end-users just click a gui icon to update their computer and don't have to think about anything. Sometimes the end-user is going to have to get their hands dirty. If that prevents the public at large from using Linux then, in my view, so be it.

Let the people who want everything to be automated use Apple products. If you want to use Linux then I don't think you should expect hand-holding and developers solving everything for you.

This is just my opinion though, which might be in the minority.

[wayne128]

Upgrading IS necessary - older releases though supported do not have the latest apps in their repos. Windows XP is 11 years old and it is not supported anymore - that still does not prevent me from installing the latest VLC 2.0.4. On the other hand I cannot easily install the latest VLC on the still suppored LM9, because it is still in version 1.0.6 in the repos.

+++

The whole idea is rotten. What is even worse, there is no way to roll-back and the package upgrades are not tested enough. If there is not enough resources (people) to do proper testing, then there must be a good rollback mechanism, so that people won't have to sit around with a Clonezilla CD all the time.

Oh well,
I did it a few times. and worked!!!
read these
http://fuduntu.org/wiki/index.php/Recov ... _or_Update

http://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2 ... -undo-new/

[altair4]

I think differently about this. I don't think Linux, not even Ubuntu, should be an operating system where the end-users just click a gui icon to update their computer and don't have to think about anything. Sometimes the end-user is going to have to get their hands dirty. If that prevents the public at large from using Linux then, in my view, so be it.

Let the people who want everything to be automated use Apple products. If you want to use Linux then I don't think you should expect hand-holding and developers solving everything for you.

This is just my opinion though, which might be in the minority.

Your post perfectly answers the question posed by the original post. Is a particular user using Linux as a hobby or as a platform to get something done?

My wife is a professional software developer ( yes, girls can be programmers ) and would never consider using Linux because she has deadlines to meet. At the moment all of her development environments run on OSX so that is her platform of choice. Others may turn to Linux because of a dislike of Windows or lack of funds for OSX or because they want to learn about Linux.

I started Linux with SuSE 6.1 and I knew at the time it was going to be a learning experience and for me it was clearly a hobby since Windows was the platform I used to get things done. Linux has become more predictable ( note that I am talking about predictability not stability ) over time until recently. And over that time Linux moved from a being a hobby to a platform for me but it's becoming tedious.

History would suggest that "Linux" favors a user like you rather than a user like me or at the extreme a user that expects it to be a free version of Windows or OSX.

I should note that I do not exactly have the courage of my conventions as I have at least 8 Linux virtual machines at present so that I can keep up with the utterly insane changes to even the most mundane components of this operation system.

[uhgreen]

Your post perfectly answers the question posed by the original post. Is a particular user using Linux as a hobby or as a platform to get something done?

My wife is a professional software developer ( yes, girls can be programmers ) and would never consider using Linux because she has deadlines to meet. At the moment all of her development environments run on OSX so that is her platform of choice. Others may turn to Linux because of a dislike of Windows or lack of funds for OSX or because they want to learn about Linux.

I started Linux with SuSE 6.1 and I knew at the time it was going to be a learning experience and for me it was clearly a hobby since Windows was the platform I used to get things done. Linux has become more predictable ( note that I am talking about predictability not stability ) over time until recently. And over that time Linux moved from a being a hobby to a platform for me but it's becoming tedious.

History would suggest that "Linux" favors a user like you rather than a user like me or at the extreme a user that expects it to be a free version of Windows or OSX.

Unlike some Linux users, who think everybody should use Linux, I think that if someone wants to use Microsoft or OS X then they should. My wife uses Windows 7. She has no desire to use linux because she does not tinker with her computer. She is getting her PhD in history and doesn't use anything except Chrome and Microsoft Office. I wouldn't even think of suggesting Linux to her.

I think that Linux being a minority is good. Just popular enough that there ARE users (and users that know their stuff) but not enough users that developers have to spend all their time catering to end-users. I think if you want to use Linux you should understand that you might have to tweak, learn, understand how the system is made.

[Matti L]

Just popular enough that there ARE users (and users that know their stuff) but not enough users that developers have to spend all their time catering to end-users.

More users would mean more developers. More developers would mean bugs were fixed faster. Less bugs would mean less updates.

Maybe you would find Ubuntu too stable and easy to use then, but there's always Arch and Gentoo and such.

[eiver]

Disclaimer: Please do not take my comment personally. I do not disagree with you in particular, but rather with a general idea that is quite popular in the community.

I don't think Linux, not even Ubuntu, should be an operating system where the end-users just click a gui icon to update their computer and don't have to think about anything. Sometimes the end-user is going to have to get their hands dirty. If that prevents the public at large from using Linux then, in my view, so be it.

Excuse me, but aren't we are on the forum of Linux Mint - "From freedom came elegance", which is a derivative of Ubuntu - "Linux for human beings"?

As I understand it: Making the system so user friendly, that everyone (not only IT geeks) can use it is the MAIN goal of Mint. There is Debian Sid or even Linux From Scratch for those who really like to get their hands dirty. Apple OS and Windows are user-friendly, but are expensive (especially Apple) and what is most important - they are closed. If you want to change something in Windows, you must ask Microsoft. Of course they want to make money, so they do tricks to force you to pay for the new version of the OS. (For example they will purposefully prevent you from installing DX10 and DX11 on Windows XP, and advertise that Windows 7 supports DX 11 ).
Linux Mint wants to do better, that is to do a completely free user-friendly OS without too much ads and one that is OPEN, so that for example, if you really like Mint Menu you can use it in Debian or even in Fedora. And you can make modifications to it, if you have some smart idea. The terms "open to modifications" and "user-friendly" do not and should not exclude each other. A system that has a GUI for everything and is super-user-friendly, can still have root account available and a terminal and ability to compile from source for those who want to do some development. These options should not mandatory to know, if someone just wants to USE the system.

[Orbmiser]

"The terms "open to modifications" and "user-friendly" do not and should not exclude each other. A system that has a GUI for everything and is super-user-friendly, can still have root account available and a terminal and ability to compile from source for those who want to do some development. These options should not mandatory to know, if someone just wants to USE the system."

Yep point I was making in another thread about coming back to linux. And pointing out the need for easier gui,configuring,system adjustments like the archaic way to do date & time strings to get basic time in tray.

And the response I got was.

Re: Clock
Postby sagirfahmid3 » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:37 pm

Linux was never meant for regular users; it was made by the geeks, for the geeks.
If you can't use Linux, too bad, boo-hoo, stick with Mac or Windows if you want your pretty point-and-click GUI and bloatware.
Linux does not have an obligation to be the most user friendly desktop in the world, nor does it have the intention of stomping out the competition.
Linux is a way of life. Sometimes, that life can be a wee bit difficult, but hey, when is life ever easy? If you can't live with it, switch to something you can live with.

As the user monkeyboy so eloquently puts it:

If you don't like it, make something better
If you can't make something better, adapt
If you can't do either ball your panties up and cry

Doesn't seem to bode well for welcoming the newbie or thinking outside the defacto linux standard.
And suggesting Gui solutions that would make the learning curve a little less on the need to know cryptic commands that one will use once to adjust kind of things. And we will forget as soon as we do them. And end up not needing them again for another 6 month's or year. Like adjusting the Date & Time and translating what the symbols are and creating a string to get the results they want.

Many distro's are aimed at beginners and targeting new to linux with promise of easy Desktop environment. With promise of Easy Use "Even my Grandma Can Use & Loves it!" So I am a bit confused.

When linux regulars user's share their frowning on user's that don't want to use the terminal and remember all those cryptic commands. And then get flame-tongued when suggesting a simpler gui non-cryptic way to do the most basic things done on a computer. Just has me confused.

"Why use Ubuntu?
It couldn’t be easier to use

Ubuntu does everything you need it to and more. It'll work with music, videos, photos and files that you use on your current PC. And it works just as well with printers, cameras and all common smartphones."

Really? All That? Don't Thinks so spent 2 years with Ubuntu. Constant upgrade breakage from video to wifi. Not to mention setting up printer from hell threads on ubuntu site. Even had a text file on desktop to re-look up commands for terminal to fix things.

Now fast forward to a month ago and trying to give linux a go again. And finding Mint Cinnamon best experience so far. And a lot of my prior experiences helped me in setting up. But truth be told everything pretty much worked out of the box even my ati 4350 vide and wireless. So much progress has been made. But there is no reason not let it continue on the Gui front in even easier basic config and tweaking of system without a terminal need. Don't see a problem in that.

"The purpose of Linux Mint is to produce a modern, elegant and comfortable operating system which is both powerful and easy to use.

Started in 2006, Linux Mint is now the 4th most widely used home operating system behind Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac OS and Canonical's Ubuntu.

Some of the reasons for the success of Linux Mint are:

It works out of the box, with full multimedia support and is extremely easy to use."

Tells the General Computer user that it is a contender to regular mainstream Windows & OS X users. And do intend to present themselves as alternative to the masses.
.