Thread: Google Chrome OS

Originally Posted by cyberfish

I can't believe a MENSA LIFE MEMBER has trouble installing mainstream Linux distributions. For modern mainstream distributions, they are essentially boiled down to time zone selection, language selection, partitioning (there's an auto mode that resizes existing partitions, or partition the free space), and click "Install". Try a recent version of Ubuntu, SuSE, Fedora, or Mandriva before you make this statement next time (if I had time, I would record a Ubuntu installation in a VM...).

Whoa... hang on. He didn't say he had trouble installing Linux, he said the average user can't be bothered to learn how to install Linux and I completely agree. What's the difficulty in realizing that the average person doesn't care to dedicate the time to learning computers that you have? The average computer user couldn't read this response that I'm quoting without asking a few questions about computer vocabulary. Distributions? Partitions? VM? Do you really think the average joe knows what you're talking about? Does that make them stupid... no... it just makes them blissfully ignorant to something that doesn't interest them that much while they dedicate their time to things they know and care about.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

He didn't say he had trouble installing Linux, he said the average user can't be bothered to learn how to install Linux and I completely agree.

So do I, but moving from cyberfish's misinterpretation of "average user", I think that the point that cyberfish is trying to make is that installing certain Linux distributions can be about as easy as installing say, MS Windows. The point of partitions being jargon that an average user might not understand should be considered, but then I think that this entire point is not a very good one. As I noted, it is a non-issue if the operating system comes installed with the computer. As such, the underlying problems crippling Linux in this case would be the lack of widespread OEM adoption of Linux, coupled with a bewildering array of distributions, some of which are not as easy to install as MS Windows.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

What's the difficulty in realizing that the average person doesn't care to dedicate the time to learning computers that you have?

Right. I take that to mean the average person does not have to use linux. What is going to do for them anyway? Why would they even want to? Why would you want to make them want to? It does not matter because it is not a business*, so there is no need to take over the world (which would probably be more like letting "the world" take it over, so that all major OS's start looking more and more the same. Yuck.)

* to the extent that it is, I believe it is *mostly* a commercial server business, and if you are running a commercial server, I hope and pray you do know a lot about computers, and it might even be a bad idea to make running a server "easier and easier for anyone".

Originally Posted by MK27

I take that to mean the average person does not have to use linux. What is going to do for them anyway? Why would they even want to? Why would you want to make them want to? It does not matter because it is not a business
(...)
to the extent that it is, I believe it is a commercial server business

I do not think it is correct to claim that. You can claim that Linux as an OS kernel is not a business, but if you want to also claim that Linux is to some extent "a commercial server business", then you should also include those Linux distributions that attempt to market Linux as an operating system for the masses (or to bring this back to the topic: that attempt to build on Linux for an operating system intended for the masses), in which case Linux would do for them what an operating system should do for them, and they would want to use Linux because it does so. As to why a company or some other entity would make them want to... that depends on the entity.

As I noted, it is a non-issue if the operating system comes installed with the computer. As such, the underlying problems crippling Linux in this case would be the lack of widespread OEM adoption of Linux, coupled with a bewildering array of distributions, some of which are not as easy to install as MS Windows.

I'd risk also also Linux doesn't offer many good alternatives to command prompt management of application installation and removal, laserlight. And this is where I think it particularly hits the average user.

Distros often adopt confusing repositories policies with even more confusing names to these repositories. GUI package managers still make poor alternatives to a proper command prompt installation and removal of software packages. Different package formats, completely incompatible between themselves, add yet another layer of complexity. (And, although invisible to the user, many package creators add or forget to remove unnecessary dependency rules, which contributes to hard drive clutter and eventually add to the complexity of daily computer management).

All in all, I don't see this as much of a problem, because I don't actually think of this issue as "Linux fails at being an alternative OS for the average user". Despite the intentions, I actually defend that Linux is not -- and shouldn't be -- designed for the average user. If it's a matter of market share, then we can take a look at the servers, where Linux shows its capabilities to stand toe to toe with anyone else.

It is quite humorous that all the effort into making Linux a more user-friendly OS, are exactly where the more bugs and crashes can be found or experienced, and where the Linux community experiences the biggest divisions. It's just not easy to make something easy. And we shall see if Google will show this to be wrong.

EDIT: erm... many replies before I posted. Adding the quote above to put this in context.

The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs: Let's all take a deep breath and get some perspective

Fake Steve Jobs to the rescue!

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Note that you also need to know what the word "partition" means to install Windows, though.

Doesn't matter, because we're still talking about the average user. The average user doesn't know a partition is being created for the operating system. They probably don't know what partition means outside of the general definition (if that, even). Most people aren't even comfortable installing Windows from a DVD. As someone mentioned earlier, the vast majority of computers sitting in people's homes at this very moment had the operating system installed by the manufacturer.

I'm going to trace back the line of conversation that stemmed to my defense of abachler's assessment on what's wrong with Linux as I understood it. In reality, there were multiple points made in this thread, all of which could have been contributing factors to this point and could have, of course, lead to plenty of interpretations of what exactly we're all talking about here. Abachler directly quoted Aparavoid who suggested that Google OS could bring more recognition to the open-source and Linux communities. The implication being that Linux will have better opportunity to attract a more mainstream audience. Whether or not you agree with that should stem into a new point, entirely. Abachler then made his assessment as to why Linux would not attract a mainstream argument whether it got the attention or not, this statement was then rebutted by cyberfish in what I found to be a very condescending manner, and I defending this argument.

The replies that followed suggested both the lack of necessity for the mainstream community to understand the process and the lack of desire for the mainstream community to even express interest in the software. The latter of which falls completely outside of the scope of the debate and the former, while having its merits, I believe diverts from the general point of the statements being defended. I agree... let's say Google OS gets popular and by effect causes the mainstream to express greater interest in Linux and other free alternatives to Windows and Mac OS... like said before by yourself and in the first paragraph of this post, in fact, most of the computers will come preinstalled with the operating system, be it Windows or Linux, however it doesn't change the fact that even the most newbie friendly versions of Linux expect a higher level of understanding from its end-user in the process of upgrading, updating, and maintaining the operating system. Perhaps at levels that the mainstream community might not be willing to adopt.

Basically, my point is this... Google OS's influence on the mainstream community would be nothing more than our own influence if we were to go around to our friends and family pitching the benefits of an open-source operating system. They'd just be doing it at a much larger scale. Now, you have to ask yourself... if you personally pitched the idea of Linux to your less computer literate friends and family today, how many would bite and how many would be scared off by how high-maintenance Linux happens to be in its current state.

Hello,
This is a big news!
But what is the type OS?, it's Linux or other that Google will made.

Thanks,
Nathan Paulino Campos

Originally Posted by nathanpc

This is a big news!

Incorrect

Originally Posted by nathanpc

Hello,
Why Incorrect?

Maybe because of this.

Originally Posted by MK27

Maybe because of this.

no, it's because of this.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

Examples? For me, the default Ubuntu (and Debian) repository works out of the box for me. I only know (and look it up when I need to do more complex things) and commonly use a few commands - "apt-get install", "apt-get upgrade", "apt-get remove", "apt-get dist-upgrade" (the Ubuntu update system handles "apt-get update" automatically, but you used to need to do that manually). A few minutes of reading will get you familiar with these. The graphical frontend - Synaptic, works very well, too (for searching for packages, which can also be done using "apt-cache").

Again you are reverting back to an argument for non average users. Ubuntu repositories may work for you. But for my wife, she couldn't tell which is which... and why.

For the average user, even the Open Source community interpretation of "free" and "not free" aggravates their understanding of the operating system. Having to delve into licensing systems and learning about the Open Source philosophies and doctrines is really something they don't want to do or even care about. (Heck, my wife calls us a "bunch of communists!") And to complicate matters further, repositories and inaptly named making the whole thing even more confusing. And I won't even mention the command prompt.

For the rest of my reply, refer to Sly's latest post.

Originally Posted by nathanpc

Hello,
Why Incorrect?

Nevermind him. I don't get his point either.

As for your question, it will be based on Linux. But don't expect it to resemble Linux. Please, next time, read more carefully the thread before asking.