Content-Type: RST I had a revelation today, about Linux (Ubuntu in this case) and the people who use it. I will get to it in a second, after I explain how it came about. One of my friends was curious about this "Ubuntu" thing I constantly rant on about. So, he did what everybody should do, and tried it today... With a few complications: he has a laptop with a full hard drive, and is currently using a USB portable HD to carry his stuff around. He wanted to install Linux on that hard drive, without losing the ~40GB of files already there. And he wanted to do this alone, without even knowing very well what a partition is. He tried burning his own Ubuntu CD, but apparently Roxio doesn't give the ability to burn bootable CDs. Smelling trouble, I convinced him to let me help him install it today on the bus ride to school. Problem: his laptop's battery sucks, so it had to be quick. Solution: It was very quick. Even with explaining how everything was working, and what exactly I was doing, we got Ubuntu up and running with 30% of his battery remaining. It was pretty much a by-the-book installation: wireless (free and non-free) working out of the -box- CD, no weird driver issues, etc. Aside from the rapidness and relative (to Windows) simplicity of the installation, he was impressed by several things that I did not expect him to be all that impressed about. - The download is tiny. It's only a CD! - You can boot it off the CD! (live boot) - The desktop is empty. - The color scheme is nice. (what.) - Example files! (what.) - Can change background of nautilus. (I didn't even know you could, nor do I see the functionality benefits) - Intuitive interface! (he had nil trouble finding his way around. Someone's doing their job well I realized he's not (and will probably not be) the same type of Linux user that I am. I usually keep a high number of xterms open - right now, 3. I also almost never use any type of visual file browsing if I can avoid it. The terminal is so much nicer: it's a keyboard interface! (Note to self: post later on why mice *suck*) I also never use synaptic, which I had to introduce him to, and tell him what to do to upgrade to get the security updates. But whatever, these are just differences in the ways we interact with the computer. However, there were significant differences in the things that impressed him and me as well. In my case, it was Edgy Eft that was my first install. I got it for free at a giveaway at school, and went home to try it. My first impressions: - The copyright notice: "You are encouraged to copy this." - The installation: that's it? It just works? - Contrary to what I heard was common, wireless just worked. - Not very many functionality differences from how the Linux at school worked. - Only exception to the above: apt. Pure genius, and the repositories are mind-boggling. - Very many easy-button moments: apache, java, and tons of customizations. - Root/sudo power = ♥ So now, a few bytes of wisdom: most of us Linux "hacks" aren't big on point-and-click interfaces. We like to get down dirty, to edit xorg.conf, to have stuff happen quickly and to get straight results in text. Whether it be vim or emacs, we have a masochistic desire to sow our brains with complicated shortcuts and commands for the sake of efficiency. And, to be honest, the time I accidentally rm'ed the DHCP client binary was fun: I got to learn how to fix my system with only a live CD and a root password (and no internet or help). .. figure :: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/1/14/Humansuits1.jpg We are most definitely not human. Ubuntu claims to be "Linux for human beings". I'm not a human being. A human being is my brother who plays flash games online and watches YouTube. Or my other brother, who gets the chills when I tell him to open "cmd" and type in "ipconfig" and tell me his IP so I can connect to him properly for a LAN game. Humans are those who don't know the difference between a hard drive, a CD drive, and a CPU very well. And, of course, I should acknowledge the hybrids: those who know "ls" and "cd", but not much more. Many humans use Windows (true fact!). They want something where they can move the little cursor on screen and click on icons and want it to work. They don't care what vsync or antialiasing is, they care the image is smooth. They don't know what a driver is or how it works, they want to connect to the internet and check their e-mail. They have no idea what DRM is, but just want to listen to their music. They don't understand what a binary or system-dependent code is, they just want to play their games. And, open source? What's that? .. figure :: http://blog.opensourcenerd.com/upload/human-friendly How's that for human-friendliness? `original `_ I am confident that if an average user were given a blank computer and two installation disks, and were instructed to pick and use the one that works better, they would pick Linux. It requires less tweaking to get to a fully functional state. However, the sad truth of the matter is that that's not how it works: this isn't an even market. Windows comes preloaded at full functional state on all (or most) of the machines users can buy. Linux "sort of" works out of the box, but not well enough to impress non-techie users to switch. That, compounded with the unfamiliarity of a new interface, and the counter-change attitude of "humans" is what's preventing many from taking the step from "looks cool" to "I want to try that out!". Ubuntu's challenge: to be more human-friendly than the operating system that defines (defined?) human-friendliness. The trouble? Human beings aren't writing it.