[QUOTE=Addis]
Now I don’t think this is necessarily a bad idea for competent users, but for someone new to Linux firsting starting out, the range of options like desktop environments, distros etc would put them off.
[/QUOTE]
Too many options? Well, I suppose if you don’t want too many options on what you can do with your machine you should buy a Mac. Most people don’t understand the differences between the many versions of Windows, either.
You’re assuming that most people will want to install their OSes themselves, and will be confused by the sheer number of choices they have for every function. I’ve found that if I install the most feature-rich GUI which will run properly on the client’s hardware and provide a brief tutorial on how to use it, there are no problems in this respect. I also choose the packages for specific purposes that I have found the best in my own experiences. So far, no complaints at all.
“I have to use Windows at work… Man, I’m glad you put Linux on my home system. Windows sucks! Why is it so popular?” --actual quote from client.
[QUOTE=Addis]
For example, package management. In windows theres really only one way to install a piece of software properly. Double click the installer file and go through the wizard. When you want to uninstall it you use the uninstall program or go to Add/remove programs. There aren’t many ‘flavours’ of Windows, theres only one way to do it.
[/QUOTE]
Now I really don’t agree with you here. Windows doesn’t really have a package manager, all software is responsible for its own installation and removal. Didn’t install right? Too bad. Won’t uninstall? Tough. Installing software in Windows is only as good and trustworthy as the software you’re installing. Apps like Norton Antivirus and AOL for instance are nearly impossible to remove completely because their uninstallers do not have your best interests in mind. Doesn’t it make more sense to have a package manager be responsible for how software is added and removed? Besides, a modern distro’s package manager handles all dependancies and conflicts automatically. It basically boils down to clicking a static box next to a discription of the program you want to install from the package manager’s list and clicking “Install”.
There are, of course, software packages for Linux that are simply compressed into an archive and must be extracted to an appropriate place manually, there are also graphical installers, non-graphical installers, and even source code you must compile yourself in rare cases. But how is that any different than Windows at all?
[QUOTE=Addis]
In Linux, you mainly install programs with package management tools like urpmi, synaptic, yast… or even compile from source. How do you explain to the new user that Linux is really at its core the kernel, and depending on what distro cd they bought the way to install a new program is different.
[/QUOTE]
Linux has a kernel, as does every OS. Should the user care about that? What does it have to do with package management? Are you really going to install every flavor of Linux on their system, or just one, and teach them that package manager? Besides, how different is, say, Synaptic from urpmi? Click software to be installed, click ‘install’. All graphical, with fundamental similarities.
[QUOTE=Addis]
“Well, in Mandriva you can go to K Menu>System>Configuration>Packaging yadda yadda…or you can open up a console as root and use urpmi gaim.” “But if you’re using Ubuntu, then open up a console as root and type apt-get and then the program name” “Oh btw, you’ll need to configure your repositories before you do this.” If someone has no experience with command line programs or arguments it must be hard.
[/QUOTE]
Again, are you going to install every Linux distro for them, or just one? This argument makes no sense.
[QUOTE=Addis]
Not that its hard to do, just the different ways can be daunting, and for those who aren’t committed enough to stick with it, or think that its going to be a completely smooth transition and no new learning is going to be required. I think some people think when they hear about linux “oh its just like windows but better” with no actual experience with it at all.
[/QUOTE]
It’s true that this is a common misconception. Linux is a UNIX-like OS, not a DOS-like OS. Even many of the most rudimentary concepts are different. So really, it’s apples to oranges. Of course, one can compare apples to oranges on some levels, especially when one costs much more, has worms in it, and is covered in pockmarks from bird attacks.
[QUOTE=Addis]
I’m not saying distros like Mandriva or Ubuntu are not user friendly for newbies, but because they’re all different in some ways it can get confusing.
[/QUOTE]
Man, you are falling back on that again. As a computer enthusiast, if you understand the fundamentals of how UNIX works you will have no problems grasping the subtle differences between major distros. On the other hand, an average user will not be interested in such conventions, and they will only be interested in one distro – the one you install for them. As long as that works, they likely won’t care what other distros there are in the world.