OSNews

good article from someone who knows what Average Joe wants. Now the question is, who's gonna deliver it?

With Linux, I'm not holding my breath. There's just too much 'baggage', and I'm not even sure it will ever find itself on the desktops of the masses, or even if it needs to. In fact, I'd put my money on a BeOS-derived resurrection before anything of substance actually occurs in the Linux camps regarding a truly 'newbie' Windows desktop alternative.

You can read all "how?" stuff but unless you click "View Entire Article" you may not know why I think it is important.

So if you question why I wrote this in the first place, you might click that link to see if any of my "why?" points sways your opinion at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't the next Linux kernel (2.6) including ALSA support by default? There is a backward compatibility layer that makes OSS programs work with ALSA. Currently Linux sound can be pretty hard to configure (especially with some cheap on board sound). My hope and expectation is that ALSA support will improve once it is the standard.

I could no agree more with the author. My father is an oem, and would live to include linux as an option. But the mentioned short comings in the article are true (mostly). Lindows does a good job -- but needs more work.

John, I read the entire article. I understand your reasons, but there are alternatives to Linux that I reckon will get there before any real action happens on the Linux desktop front. What makes me think that? The snail's pace development of a truly usable Linux desktop for the masses.

They've been talking about it for so long (years), promising so much, saying that it's here, and yet...

I agree that for basic home/newbie users, a pretty interface is necessary but unlike your assertion, KDE, Gnome, whatever, don't all need to have a Start/Programs/Linux button, the window managers should be allowed flexibility. Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc don't all have the same symbols for functions, neither are the buttons in the same location but yet people still figure out how to put the car in gear, turn on the lights, change the radio volume, etc.

>>
What makes me think that? The snail's pace development of a truly usable Linux desktop for the masses.
>>

This is not true. In the last 2 or so years, a lot of improvements have been made. The pace of development has been amazingly fast, if anything. A whole lot of stuff still remains to be done, and I am sure that they will be addressed sooner than later.

Oh, the author forgot to mention compatibility with Windows Networks. Most businesses aren't likely or even able to replace their windows desktops all at once. Most would probably do a pilot project. Being able to integrate seemlessly into Windows networks is going to be important.

Who the hell are you and what are you doing on OSNews trolling about what Linux should look like?

Ok, that was a bit harsh. I'm planting my money in and around Zeta for the time being - a much nicer desktop OS shall grow from there than Linux could ever become.

Great article, it really shows why linux has not succeeded on the desktop, and it made me realize how it is a 100 miles from doing it aswell. Technical superiority is not enough, and when you see how much of what is needed to succeed, that has been acomplished in the last two year(almost nothing!) it makes me loose hope in linux.....

I'm a heavy user of multiple OS's. You name it, I either work with it or run it at work or home. Even still, I stick to things that are easy. Distros that are easy to install, customize, and most importantly 'meet my task needs' are what I go with. I couldn't agree more that Linux needs better direction if it is ever to have mainstream use.

I loaded up XP for my parents last year. They have successfully:
1) Played music and ripped MP3's.
2) Installed a printer.
3) Attached a digital camera and printed photos.
4) Got on the internet and successfully used multiple internet apps.
5) Installed and used multiple apps, and some games.

The point here isn't to praise my parents, it's to point out that I would never in my right mind have loaded ANY linux distro for them expecting those items above to have happened. I think it coins a new term ...
"Linux ... it's not your parents operating system."

The blessing of Linux is there are multiple ways of getting things done, from word processing to window managers. This is also a curse. When I spent two weeks using my Linux box while my Mac was in the shop and was I daunted by the bazillion choices I had and the general fustration of sound configuration (Note: I Love Linux).

I disagree with a Windows centric UI tho I understand the motivation behind it. Making things simpler mis alwaysa good idea. Let there be options for power users they can turn on.

I think Linux needs a UI that says "I'm Linux" rather than a Windows knockoff. If build simplicity in for a new user then the rest will follow.

It is all well and good if the clueless newbies want to stupify their systems. But all this talk of Grand Unified This and That scares me. The idea of having only a few distributions is just dumb, frankly. I happen to use a very obscure distribution, and that is fine. It is how I like it. I don't care if it isn't 'friendly', though others might, in which case they can pick another distribution. The choice of text editor is purely a matter of persional preference. Why limit users to whatever choice the distro cabal happens to prefer? By elemenating choices, you defete much of the point!

It seems that you want to keep the new user ever in the state of newness. This is a bad strategy. Let us face it: The computer is a complex device. The user should not be expected to use it without a little knowledge and intellegence. You don't expect anyone to be able to drive a car with no training, nor do you want to elimitate all but one or two kinds of cars so that people will not be confused by the choice. Why then do you do this with computers, which are much more complex than cars? Let the user learn. Make the user learn. He will be happier and more productive in the end. And whatever you do, don't try to standardize to the extent that you force whatever Joe wants on everybody else.

linux_baby, I disagree with your assessment. Though I think a lot has been done in the past few years (though not nearly enough), there are huge barriers, virtually all of which were addressed in the article. I don't see a third of those suggestions/recommendations being tackled in the next 5 years, to be honest with you.

David, I partly agree with you. If one takes the time to learn about his computer, he will be more productive. For people that use their computers a lot, this will be worth the trouble. For people that don't use their computer a lot or that just don't want to learn we need a good standard desktop.
As for me: please, let me have a choice of window managers, browsers etc.

David McCabe, I think you lost the point of the ease-of-use bit. John was saying that for newbies, choices should be limited (I agree). As they learn more, they can customize all they want. You are looking at things from your (geek) perspective. Not that there's anyting wrong with that, but given a choice of 50 programs that do the same thing, what does a newbie think? That is too much choice too soon. Those choices should be made when one is comfortable making them, or feels the need for them as their needs or taste dictates.

The defautls should be limited, simple, easy-to-use and standard. Where the user takes it from there is up to them and what they prefer in their own time, and as their needs dictate.

I'm talking from the point of view of the above average user, also a developer, but not a kernel hacker or something, and still one who wouldn't like complexities where they are not needed.
I think that all users, novice and advanced alike would agree on stuff like not needing that much simple text editors!


Re basic system functions shared between KDE and GNOME: www.freedesktop.org exists to define some standards for them, and RedHat already started patching KDE and GNOME a little in order to make them work together (i.e. shared mechanism for handling tray icons). RedHat also patched some programs (KDE, GNOME, OpenOffice, Mozilla, etc.) to work using the same printing system, and render fonts using the shared standard Xft2.


Re installation and RPM hell: some programs do have an installtion program ("# make install") which works pretty well, asks what's needed, checks the system and installs the appropriate stuff. This is how it is with Windows (InstallShield etc.), which doesn't make it right, but still... If only in Linux there were graphical installers and not command line "make install".


Re configuation files: some things do need such configuration files to maintain customizability (e.g. Apache), some need such files for extended tweaks but a GUI for regular configuration (XFree86), and of course some things should be easily configurable well via the GUI (e.g. printers)


Re shell is evil: I think shell is ok (I use it in Windows as well), and there are some good things you can do with it, but what should be eliminated is the requirement to use the shell, especially for basic tasks like the aforementioned installations. The point is not that it should be supressed, but rather that you could do all that you need without resorting to using the shell!


Re pretty does count, standartized theme: all fonts to be anti-aliased... like forcing all the programs to use Xft2, right?
RedHat's unification of KDE/Qt and GNOME/Gtk themes is great (stop bashing it people!). Not because my KDE and GNOME desktops look almost identical, but because I can run KPPP in GNOME or XMMS configuration in KDE and not care that they use different toolkits!!


Re jargon is our enemy: yayks!! Now that's scary! Couldn't understand almost anything...


Re games are important: I'm developing a cross-platform (Windows / Linux) game using SDL and OpenGL


Re hardware support: it's important to have binary comptability between distributions, so that I wouldn't have to compile stuff to make my digital camera work, and the manufacturer wouldn't have to expose some patents by giving the source code (now those who don't expose the source and do provide the drivers for linux have to compile it for every distribution and kernel version!!!)


RK.

Part of the problem is that users expectations for software installation are, well ... skewed and rather naive. Back in DOS days, yeah all you needed was a .COM file with everything shellacked in there and it'd run. Great.

But, computing has gotten more powerful and advanced since then. Programs aren't self-contained. Code reuse is rampant ("omg no!" you say, misguided), and shared libraries are actually shared. Programs are often just clever front-ends to libraries these days. They aren't the old .COM files you may remember, they are better - allowing your system to run leaner and to make things less complicated by having a consistent set of functionalities.

The users shouldn't be continually lied to about what's going on in their system. They should know that every application is a SET of components, not some huge monolithic black box. And while perhaps the current Linux solutions aren't the most user-friendly, they treat applications in the most "correct" way, as far as I'm concerned. They see them as components that are related, and not independent blocks. So, while perhaps in terms of presentation and interface to the user DOES need to be worked on, I don't think that the packaging systems are at fault for being honest about what an application really is.

>>The user should not be expected to use it without a little knowledge and intellegence.<<
>>Let the user learn. Make the user learn. He will be happier and more productive in the end.<<

Yes, BUT thanks to the widespread adoption of the web - the PC is increasing viewed as just another entertainment device - like a DVD player. It SHOULD be easy to use for those who NEED it to be. Most people do not want to learn about the inner workings of their computer, and truthfully they don't care.


>>You don't expect anyone to be able to drive a car with no training, nor do you want to elimitate all but one or two kinds of cars so that people will not be confused by the choice. Why then do you do this with computers, which are much more complex than cars?<<

Actually, yes we do, at least with very little training. The only thing we expect someone to do when driving a car is to drive it, fill it with gas, and maybe change the oil. Everything else is handled for them. Tell me, do you know how to manufacture gasoline or refine oil? No? How about replacing your transmission, or replacing pistons in your engine? Using some Linux programs, if you don't know exactly what you are doing, is like manufacturing gasoline or replacing a transmission. While this has gotten better in recent years - there is still a long way to go.

Just like most people use their cars:

Open the door, turn on the engine and off we go; if there is something unusual, the car will be taken care of by a mechanic, AAA or whatever.

Power users might see their computers like they see their car.

Average Joe sees his computer like he sees his microwave. He doesn't want to read the instructions, isn't interested in the thousand and one configuration options, all he wants is to put a bag in, close the door, hit a button and get popcorn out.

A master carpenter might be very picky about the size of his hammer, and the type of nails he's using, and the wood he's hammering into, and...and... The rest of us just see a hammer, nail, piece of wood and get to hammering.

A computer is just a tool, let the "experts" worry about fine tuning whatever "exacting" standards they have, but let the casual user pick up and go.

I loaded up Linux for myself last year. While relatives were here, they successfully:
1) Played music and ripped MP3's.
2) Used my printer.
3) Attached my digital camera and printed photos.
4) Got on the internet and successfully used multiple internet apps including sites like barney.com, ofoto, ebay, and hotmail.
5) Used multiple apps, and some games.

Everytime the come over, the first thing they do is head for my computer. They love the themes, and are always complementing it's speed.

The point here isn't to praise my parents, it's to point out that I would never in my right mind have traded ANY linux distro for XP and have expected those items above to have happened. I think it coins a new term ...

"Linux ... it's everyone's operating system."

I agree with most of the article however, I don't see why we should transform linux in a copy of windows, trying to do this is having already lost the battle. This has been said better than i will ever be able to say it, check these links :
when Interfaces go crufty - http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$374
why the current interfaces aren't as good as you may think
Microsoft, Innovation, and linux - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,768274,00.asp
why it would be a bad idea to try and turn linux in nothing more than a pale imitation of windows

It's not just joe users that require simplicity, people that actually have use linux at work want simplicity as well, i can only speak for myself, but comparing the time that is required to configure a vpn under xp and on linux, installing a network printer, dns server etc, i mean, i don't want to spend all day messing through stupid little config files, this kind of configuration should be done automatically, wizards save a lot of time.

are useless, you configure something once and forget about it. No big deal in either OS.

I am reading quite some feedback here which I don't agree with.

a) First of all http://www.freedesktop.org standards are neither approved by ANSI or DIN. I would rather call the writings there 'suggestions'. Please don't come up and try turn the facts. These are NO standards. If you follow the discussion on certain GNOME mailinglists then most of the time only 2-3 people talk about some "STANDARDS" and after a while it shows up on there because they didn't come up with better alternatives. Sometimes it looks like better BAD solutions than no solutions. It is claimed that KDE shares most of it but that is partially true.

b) Many people here split the userbase up into novice, advantage and expert. This is right - but we talk about Linux all the time here. You can't turn Linux into an easy to go Desktop Operating System and make users belive how easy everything is. Needless to mention that a lot of people simply don't want it. Sure if you use a plain distribution like Redhat you may be satisfied with what is offered but there is still a lot of things that even a novice user HAS to know about linux to get things running correctly. There are a lot of situations where the novice user hits his head against a wall because he does not go any further.

c) People are talking about GNOME here as if it's the only Desktop that everyone uses. But this isn't the case. Compared to the overall Linux users the GNOME community is rather little and on the long run you don't get through with all your wishes and changes that you GNOME people like to see how linux should mature. A lot of normal people won't be happy with these ideas and make this public.

I am neither favoring KDE nor GNOME but I know both Desktops very well and I must admit that both Desktops have their pros and cons. My general point is that people tend to categorize users TO easy. It's easy saying 'hey we get the ultimative cool desktop on Linux for the Novice joe user and the poweruser' but you always make the same mistake. You ignore the fact that the base OS is COMPLEX, COMPLICATED and nothing for JOE USER. there is only one case where linux may become interesting for JOE USER. The time when JOE USER wants to become a POWER USER.

Look on what plattforms GNOME is available, SUN SOLARIS, FREEBSD, LINUX (and many more) needless to say that the first 3 named ones are more complex (even for experts) than the last named one. I think that this discussion about novice and professional users together with linux in one sentence is rather bullshit.

Anyways I wish everyone a happy new year.

I'm sorry but this is a huge outburst of skepticism which I believe will not happend and frankly i hope it does not. Why not use a word processor instead of a text editor?? Because text editors are not just used for writing a letter to auntie sue. The are mainly used for editing configuration files, code.. etc. For example, I prefer vi for writing python code, emacs for c/c++ and ee for config files.

Basic system administration tasks should not be made WIZARDISH. That is one of the main reasons why windows is such a sham for sysadmins. You make decisions but ultimately you don't know what changes have been made. The editing of text files is so much simpler. When editing most *nix config files, its usually just a matter of seeing where the gaps are, filling them or commenting/uncommenting lines that are well explained within the file.

I agree that the EU market needs the option of a Low. I.Q distro. What the change your suggesting is so radical that I believe would be missing the point of why *nix is superior to win32.

Ultimately though, I think that there should always be newbie and HARDCORE!!! distros available.

Please Aitvo, stop. You don't troll tactfully and its starting to grate on my nerves. Every time I read a post of yours, I can almost see you sitting at your computer chanting "Linux Can Do No Wrong!" over and over again.

You havn't offered anything useful to this thread aside from re-wording someone else's post into the opposite of what their experience was amd labeling it as your own. Furthermore you're over simplifying things with half baked notions that you configure something once and forget about it. You don't do that with everything.

Here are a few I know that are not like how you say:

FTP servers - the entire interface for vsftpd is CLI and config file driven... adding new/banning old users? ...playing with .conf files.

Webserver - adding a new server? one with a new .dso module? ... playing with more configs.

Icecast - adding new music? playing with config files.

So rather than adding nothing to the threat other than to show that pretty much view linux as nirvana. Why not give specific examples of why you think certain things are unecessary to change? Or even explain why you feel the current suggestion is not better. Geez, your going to give everyone the idea that Tampa (where I live too) is the epitome of Denial-ville.

Another 'task' to add to the list. I am pretty sure that the end-user isn't going to know how to make menuconfig and set up SCSI support just to bund a CD. Auto-detection of CD-RWs isn't too great at the moment, either.

Linux will transform into a real desktop OS. It doesn't matter what the childish anti-social geeks think or want. The only thing most of them have ever done for Linux is writing yet another IRC client. Every important part of the Linux OS is already in the hands of professionals who know what quality software is. For example easy and painless driver installations are not a sign of "stupidification" but of quality sofware. Spending a whole week to configure your system is not "power using" it's pervert geek S/M. "Power users" just like normal users use the computer to get work done (tm). They use it as a tool and not as a toy. They don't wet their pants while trying to get their soundcard working. Really just ignore these "I'm so elite and you're stupid" fools. They are stupid losers and they have nothing to say. GNOME, Evolution, Mozilla, OpenOffice, Nautilus, etc. all big commercial distros are controlled by cooperations who care about cooperate and end users. Let the loser geeks rot in the cellar. They have nothing to say.

Huh?

No no no no no. No eliminating choices. AGREEING ON DEFAULTS. Have the choices be reletively transparent to anyone who isn't interested in them. And to those who are interested, have it be as simple as them saying 'Hey, I want some options here' ala clicking on 'advanced options' or something like that.

Average Joe wants something that just works. Go for it... But let's not alienate the power users who can tweak their piece of hardware to do some incredible and astounding things, or simply to adjust it to their needs.

In a nutshell? Make it easy for those who just want it to work. Leave it powerful and customizable for those of us who are 'power users'.

How? Use defaults for everything. Make them work - Period.

Anyone who wants more than what they're served on a silver platter, can have it... Just a mouse click or two away (or keyboard shortcut to a console;))

"there is only one case where linux may become interesting for JOE USER. The time when JOE USER wants to become a POWER USER."

In times where important essential rights are threatened by things like TCPA, Palladium, etc. there is an other much stronger reason why Joe User becomes interessted in Linux. That is freedom.

The wish to have a system which is controlled by you and not the other way around is nothing which qualifies Joe as power user.

Yeah, I haven't touched a config file since October. You magically move to SERVER functions even though we are having a discussion about Linux desktops. Guess what, My Fuji Camera was supported out of the box, as was my pocket zip, Linksys wireless (The PCMCIA version), my USB mouse, and every single other piece of hardware in this notebook. I reworded the comment yes, and it is still true, I have done it with those very results. Sorry bubba, I'm not trolling those that claim it's not ready for the desktop are. It may not be ready for THEIR desktops, but it's definately ready.

A lot of the changes you are proposing involves large sets of modifications to third party applications (many which has little to nothing to do with Linux, except for the fact that they can run under it) such as XFree, Gnome, XMMS etc. What about those of us who are not using Linux, but are using those applications? And what about Linux users not using XFree, but rather Accelerated X or some other X server. Sure it would be nice with a neat graphical control panel with all settings, but since Linux, and Unix, systems provide a freedom for users to select, and use, multiple applications - many of which are providing the same basic functionality, but in different packages - it would be hard to impossible to create a single settings application. A much better approach, imho, would be to create a configuration applet standard, and a small application that could load all those configuration applets (one for each application requiring configuration, installed together with the actual app) and generate a nice control panel. (GUI or CLI)

Btw, look at the FreeBSD sysinstall application, it may not be a fancy GUI but it provides settings for the entire system, ranging from disks setup to package administration and XFree configuration.
Talking about FreeBSD (and this goes for Net and Open as well) the package manager is outstanding, either you download a package yourself or through the official package collection and when you try to install it all dependencies are automatically solved. (and unlike dpkg it does not try to reinstall something that has already been installed outisde of the package manager).

---
A very satisfied FreeBSD user who has a hard time understanding why osnews continuously reefers to most GNU and Unix applications as Linux apps. (Btw, Linux is just the kernel, the complete OS is GNU/Linux).

Low I.Q distro? *ROFL* Quite a lot of smart people use Windows/MacOS. In fact most of them do. The difference is that they have a life. That means they rather not spend their time sitting in the cellar trying to get their scanner working. Every stupid kid can learn to use Linux. It's just that most people (smart or not) don't want to waste their life reading man pages. We have girl/boyfriends and such stuff, you know.

Linux is complex yes. But MacOS X or Windows XP are just as complex under the hood. The trick is to abstract/hide the complexity behind a nice interface. Redhat, Ximian, Sun etc. will do this for Linux. You can't stop it.

FH: <em>> The PC is increasing viewed as just another entertainment device -- like a DVD player.</em>

Well, view it as you will, a PC is a general-purpose numerical computation machine. Appliences are available to those who want them. But let us not distort one thing because some people want it to be an entirely different thing. Each device for its purpose: A DVD player or `web applience' for brainless entertainment, a PC for what will you, but the core design of PC operation should not be mutilated for people who are wanting to use it without proper training or time.


FH: <em>> Actually, yes we do, at least with very little training. The only thing we expect someone to do when driving a car is to drive it, fill it with gas, and maybe change the oil. Everything else is handled for them. Tell me, do you know how to manufacture gasoline or refine oil? No?</em>

I'm not asking for kernel hacking here. But I do want them to know that red means stop, green means go, don't drive in a turn lane, use the correct gear for the terrian, etc. These things they learn in a class and prove they know with a test. I will not redesign the road system so that any idiot who's never touched a car before can hop in, press a button at random, and suddonly by swept away to wherever he wants to go. That's just silly.

"Basic system administration tasks should not be made WIZARDISH. That is one of the main reasons why windows is such a sham for sysadmins."

Yes I agree with you, I don't particularly like wizards, but there is a between ground, and not just wizards or text editing of config files.

"The editing of text files is so much simpler. When editing most *nix config files, its usually just a matter of seeing where the gaps are, filling them or commenting/uncommenting lines that are well explained within the file."

Yes I know this method quite well, and I like it a lot. Specifically because I know what has been changed. However, there is no reason to force people to sift thru 9pages of commented out lines looking for the one they really need to uncomment. Futher more the documention included in the file is a brief synopsis at best.

Again, why not implement a UI for configuration that is much easier. Right now it seems to be like this:

Scan thru *.config file, full of lines like this one:

##Uncommenting this will the set the uis to an int value.
#setuis=0

While simultaniously looking at other window of man pages so I can get at least a basic understanding of what setuis is.

What is wrong with have a specific UI tool for setting up a programs options. For instance, have a options menu for selecting/unselecting options that you want. There is no reason why this can't go an parse the .config and make the necessary changes for you. Futhermore you can integrate it with the help system so the you don't have to open multiple apps just to figure out what a specific flag does. Plently of programs in linux do this already - gftp, and lokkit are two off the top of my head.

Anybody putting out a Linux distro who is thinking about making it a desktop OS should be made to read this article. Brillant.

And the screen cap of technical jargon had me laughing so hard I cried. Technical writing is a component of my job which is why I find bad technical writing so funny ... when I'm not on the receiving end of it. (And, incidentally, bad technical writing played a part in why I found my 1 month trial of Corel Linux a few years back so incredibly frustrating. In several very important places TFM and reality had only a passing acquaintance.)

> Power users might see their computers like they see their car.
> Average Joe sees his computer like he sees his microwave.

Well sorry, Joe, but I don't care how you 'see' it. A car is a car wether you want it to be a microwave or not. And a computer is much more analogus to a car.

Kreechah, I agree with you, but the question is: Can they? Will they? He has suggested 'deprecating' the shell, which is a very bad idea. The user will be happier if he knows the shell, and does this deprecation make the shell less viable to use?

"You magically move to SERVER functions even though we are having a discussion about Linux desktops."

Does that mean that windows XP home and pro are server versions of their product? I believe those are advertiesed as for Home users and those have web and ftp servers included with them. Granted not the safest to use - but definitely easy to setup.

As for the average joe not using a server function on his desktop like FTP or Apache fine, my views may be off. However, in my experience, there are quite a lot of average joe college students doing exactly that with the random ftp shareware proggie they cracked so they could setup ftp shares for IRC channels.

> However, there is no reason to force people to sift thru 9pages of commented out lines looking for the one they
> really need to uncomment.
So instead they shift through 9 tabs of check boxes and text fields looking for the one they really need to check. And they can't even grep or i-search.


> While simultaniously looking at other window of man pages...
While simultaniously looking at the slower-than-tar and incomplete HTML help or tooltips.

Could someone explain to me how GUIs make this stuff easier?

"Does that mean that windows XP home and pro are server versions of their product? I believe those are advertiesed as for Home users and those have web and ftp servers included with them. Granted not the safest to use - but definitely easy to setup."

No, however we are talking about the average user. The average user doesn't even know that he or she can serve websites with XP. ;-)

"As for the average joe not using a server function on his desktop like FTP or Apache fine, my views may be off. However, in my experience, there are quite a lot of average joe college students doing exactly that with the random ftp shareware proggie they cracked so they could setup ftp shares for IRC channels."

I agree, however these folks will manage to configure their computers and expect to make changes when need be. Even FTP and WWW are configure once for the most part, unless they are in the development cycle.

It sounds like the author wants BeOS. I don't have the time to go into this articles' contradictions in detail, so I'll just pick one -device drivers:
HW Manufacturers should be able to write a single device driver for all Linuxes (paraphrased)
This implies that the ABI (because you don't mean the API, surely; users don't want to have to compile the thing!) has to stay still for everyone - 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6, not to mention 2.8, 3.0, ad infinitum, because HW manufacturers come and go, with no change or improvement.
They have to cope with developing drivers for (or losing support for) DOS, Win3.1, WinNT, Win9x, WinME, WinXP, from the Microsoft stable alone. If they want to sell to MacOS users, they need to develop a MacOS 9 and MacOS X driver, at the minimum. If they want those remaining OS/2 users to buy their hardware, they have to write an OS/2 driver.

This is a choice on the part of the hardware manufacturer.

If they also want Linux support, you seem to be proposing that I go to www.my-hw-vendor.com/linux, click "install" and get a driver which will run on my Linux distribution.

Do you care to explain how this could be done, so that I could use, say, a USB Scanner, on my Intel laptop and my SPARC desktop? How exactly would that binary be composed?
Maybe the Linux developers should redesign all the architectures Linux supports, so that they will all accept a single binary format?

We already have one major vendor taking this approach - nVidia. I was *so* thankful when my nVidia card died, and I had an excuse to use my i815's onboard SVGA. With the nVidia binary driver, the machine kept crashing unexpectedly (hmm, similar to Windows, where drivers are the most likely culprit for a crash. Strange you're advocating a move towards the Windows model). Of course, I couldn't ask LKML for any support - neither they nor I know what is in that module. Now I'm back to Linux's own i815 driver, it works perfectly, but if for some reason it did not, I would be able to get support for it.

Linux (and this article is a great example of why phrases like GNU/Linux should be more common - Linux is the kernel, RedHat, Debian, etc, are Linux+GNU+Other Stuff but the author only sees the Linux buzzword) does not need to kowtow to hardware manufacturers for support. Linux is not sales-driven, HW manufacturers are sales-driven. Therefore it is the HW vendors who need to embrace Linux (if they want Linux users to buy their hardware), rather than Linux crippling itself for the convenience of HW vendors.

As I said, I don't have much time, but this is a long enough response to a single point mentioned in the article ... If you want, say, Lindows, to take this approach, then write to them, and convince them of your ideas.

...

I like the shell, and I know how to use it. A lot people don't though, and don't really want to learn, and I respect that. Basically, I think the author of the article just meant that the shell shouldn't be at the forefront of the operating system, and shouldn't be an absolute necessity for average Joe.

In other words, have it where average Joe could go for years and not ever have to touch the console, but still have it there, to the side, out of the way, with all of it's functionality, for those who want to get under the hood and do something with it.

I guess it would depend on what market you went for. When I sold computers (I owned the business), I specialised in machines that were $NZ5000 plus. That is, systems running a *NIX/*BSD or Linux, with quality components like serverworks chipset motherboard, ECC memory, dual Xeon etc etc.

If your father sells to Joe Blow, I think the best he can hope for, is 15% of consumers wanting a machine with Linux. Until companies move to a non-Microsoft alternative, people won't move.

There is so much talking about making Linux better suit begining computer users' needs. And it would be nice if some of them (those, who care) could try Linux. In fact there are some distributions who are seeking that goal -- Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros and some others. But it is important to care about what experienced Linux users need, too. So, can someone write an article about what a real hardcore Linux geek needs and publish it on OSNews, that all the world could see that Linux isn't only for newbies? :-)

I have no trouble understanding that message, even though I've never heard of Pango or Defoma before. Just use your brain a little bit...

Pango must have something to do with fonts, and it keeps a file with a list of font-related configuraions. Defoma must be some kind of tool to help manage the said font configuraion. See, it's easy.

Newbies must be made to learn this sort of analetical thinking, rather than glaze over as soon as a new word pops up, than call me or just randomly click stuff unil the scary message goes away. In order to use a computer, the user must assert some reasioning skills. Therefore, we should not attempt to let people use it without them. The user doesn't have to know a lot, but the user must have an additude of figuring things out and learning.

This is a huge rock in the middle of Australia, hide under there.

BEOS IS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get it. It is dead, gone, finished, un-recoverable. It is about time people stopped flogging a dead horse. If you turned around and said that QNX RTP has a future, then atleast I could see some positive/optimistic truths in the statements, as it has all the qualities for a winning OS.

No, I am not a BeOS basher. I bought 4.0 when it was first released, then bought 5.0 Professional when it was released. Unlike you, I have seen the result. All I can say is that I threw $400 in total to a company that was poorly managed, and a lack of any technological arguments to why the baby should be thrown out with the bath water.

Had they started with a BSD/OS base (from Windriver), and then built a GUI ontop, then, IMHO, they would have had a more sucessful time converting people over.

http://linux.com/pollBooth.pl?section=index&qid=1486&aid=-1

Linux (of course) 18% 6567 / 18%

Windows only 27% 9550 / 27%

i appreciate your point on your folks being able to accomplish all those basic but nifty (for the masses) tasks.

but i don't think your parents represent the majority.

i've done so much consulting work for soho users that i'm inclined to stick with the belief that most users are dumber then sticks when it comes to computers.

sure i'll find a guy who installed his own printer, and setup his mp3 mobile device.

i also cleaned off 3 trojans, removed at least two spyware executables, deactived about FIFTY items running in the tray...removed a proxy that he had somehow been added to, removed bugbear, and disabled microsoft client/server services.

this is not a way for me to defend linux or anything.

i do in part agree that out of the box, xp might be easier for most.

so basically linux is still out of reach for those who can't setup stuff.

but i've setup my aunt and uncle with debian.

i did all the configuration for them.

they can:

1. surf the web and send email, spam & ad free. (showed them how to enable/disable popups)

2. access the games that are on the system, i.e. gltron, tuxracer, minesweeper, all the card games etc. installed a few extra for the kids.

3. rip CDs and make mp3s

4. type of txt documents, spread sheets

5. burn CDs

basically...after i was done with it...i put all their icons on the task bar, and ran them through all the stuff.

they are quite happy, and the machine was very stable and problem free.

no ads, no viruses, no trojans, their 2 gigahertz machine actually runs like a 2 gigahertz machine because they are not inundated with bullshit. no websites can take over their desktop.

Yes it did take some work on my part...but i've imaged their system partitions...so that if it gets jacked, i just restore the image.

is linux for diy and out of the box?

no.

but i see the potential...it's there. a couple more years will go buy and things will be better...not worse.

i'm not even sure if anyone should be in a hurry or rushed.

xp works for most...but there is a great alternative for some.

My parents run Windows XP, and the most they use is a scanner, which is supported by Linux. Here is a clear up:

I loaded up XP for my parents last year. They have successfully:
1) Played music and ripped MP3's.

People don't rip MP3s. Ask Joe and Jane, and they wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about. My mother puts in her Seekers (its an Australia "feel good" music group from the 1970's). She doesn't give a toss about Mp3, ogg, wma or what ever tla you can throw at her. She wants to listen to her music and type letters and check email.

The only people I know who are into Mp3's are teenagers, who have the knowledge to use what is available on Linux already. If you say to me that someone can't use GRIP, then god help them, because I don'y know a program easier than that, which rips and compresses whilst playing the CD.

2) Installed a printer.

what is so hard with loading up KDE Admin? or better yet, my brother, who I have setup with FreeBSD 4.7 simply clicks on a short cut, and it taken directly to http://localhost:631 so he can see the printing progress. As for setting up printers, he was able to do it himself using the wizard that comes with CUP's. He is happy that is computer now doesn't freeze when compiling papers for his University entrace assignments.

3) Attached a digital camera and printed photos.

Again, the majority of people you parents age don't use Digital Camera's, even so, wouldn't it be easier to hook up the camera to the printer and bypass all the download, open and print crap all together?

4) Got on the internet and successfully used multiple internet apps.

Can do that with Linux already. All the person has to do is make sure that Java is installed, which, since most people don't install the OS, they get the same person who installs the PCI card or what ever, they're the ones who setup and install the OS.

5) Installed and used multiple apps, and some games.

Can be easily done in FreeBSD. I've already taught my brother how to use /stand/sysinstall and the portage system. btw, my brother has no computing background, his main forte is Chemistry. Same situation for my sister who is at university who is majoring in Art History and English. She is able to do all what my brother can.

That is one thing I do like, the MacOS GUI, especially the first version of the MacOS Server that was released. It was very cool.

What I would like to see is a AmigaOS like interface for Linux, which doesn't carry all the bagage of Windows. The only aspect I don't like about MacOS X, like Windows XP, is the childish interface, even the classic Windows, it is stil childish.

When I want to use a computer, I want to have a boring interface that is straight forward, like IRIX's 4DWM or CDE, which both use Motif. I especially like 4DWM as it takes the good aspects of MacOS + AmigaOS and produces a snappy desktop.

I would PAY (a small amount) for a HIGH QUALITY Amiga like GUI for Linux. :-)

Agreed to a certain degree. Lets look on the other side. You spend $NZ3000 on a computer, wouldn't it be prudent to ensure that you get the most out of your computer by learning and utilising all its capabilities?

For me, why spend money on something when all you are going to use it for is as a glorified type writer and internet access box, you might as well buy a type writer and get a Internet Terminal running QNX or some other embedded OS.

People have been comparing computers with cars and microwave ovens - cars can (clearly) kill people very easily; microwaves can destroy themselves easily enough (just put something metal into it) - computers are, compared to these, far more benign.

CARS:Most people need to spend a few months learning to drive, from a certified instructor, before being allowed onto the road.<BR>
If "Nobody told me that "# rm -rf /" would kill the machine" is a reasonable complaint, does that mean that "Nobody told me that driving at 150mph would be likely to kill 5 people" is proof of the car's poor design?

Microwave Ovens:These come with a book, as do PCs, which most people do not read. They are rather simpler to use than a car or a PC, and the main things you need to know, are: Do not put metal in it; Do not put dehydrated items in it.
That's pretty straightforward, and it's a single-purpose device. PCs are multi-purpose devices.

--------------

On another slant, the "My Parents" theme:
My parents, my wife, my sisters, all got me to configure their PCs for them, whether Windows or Linux. My brother seems to have done his own quite happily, but that's 5/6 people (83%) of my immediate family prefer to have a geek configure their machine, than do it themselves, regardless of the OS.
My wife uses Linux because I refuse to pay for a Windows license, and refuse to steal one. If she was prepared to pay for Windows, she can have it; while she's happy with what Linux offers, she keeps that.
In both cases, so long as the machine is configured properly, allows access to the web and email, word processing and spreadsheets, from a single click, they don't care what the OS is.
If they had to configure the OS themselves, however, they'd be staring at a blank screen still, whether they'd chosen Windows or Linux.

This subject keeps coming up, because people say "I'll try Linux ... ooh, hard to install." They seem to have forgotten installing Windows. Install Windows, easy enough. Job done? No. Get the printer's CD-ROM, find out what version of Windows you have, find that part of the CD, click on a .INF file? Maybe the setup.exe file? Or let Windows find the "Best" driver for you? Maybe you should go to the vendor's website, though, for the latest version? Download that, get WinZip, unzip it, see what's in it, find a setup.exe or .inf file, pick one, guess what to do, finally get the printer configured. Repeat for your sound card, video card, scanner, camera, etc etc etc. Oh, but do get your Mobo driver first, because it might have some stuff which changes how the others work.

People seem to have higher expectations on Linux usability as compared to Windows, when it is touted as a technically superior OS, not an easier OS.
If we were discussing BeOS, or Windows from a Linux user's perspective, I could understand this attitude, but the only way this could be achieved would be if you bought a sealed black-box machine with Linux preinstalled and configured on a ROM. (I still like my BBC Micro, which did this, but we need something more flexible these days)

Steve

>>>i also cleaned off 3 trojans, removed at least two spyware executables, deactived about FIFTY items running in the tray...removed a proxy that he had somehow been added to, removed bugbear, and disabled microsoft client/server services.

my point here was that xp is very easy for the masses to accomplish basic tasks...because of the "out of the box" ease of use....but there is a price.

if anyone here claims to be ignorant of that price...you are doing so just for the sake of being a troll, or flamebait.

sure i use xp and i don't have any problems, but we are talking about how well the ignorant masses are served.

sure linux is not easy as pie...but it's not that far off either.

and xp? the masses do have a price to pay for their free lunch (i.e. not really having to invest time in learning how to TRULY operate their computer)

1. If they want an entertainment device, they should by several single purpose devices to cut down on complexity, hence the rise of Internet terminals.

2. You should know how Petrol is refined, in terms of of producing Diesel, Petrol, the gunge used on roads etc. IIRC, that was covered in Forth Form Science under hydrocarbons, which covered how petrol is defined and process. IIRC, around the age of 13/14 years.

You give the example of a carpenter, now, I am no woodwork guru, however, I take an interest in ensuring I buy a quality hammer, and, IMHO, the best equipment I have picked up so far is Stanley. Sure, you can buy the cheap stuff, but don't expect it to last the distance.

Webmin can do all that stuff. If you did a bit of research, you would know that the default interface for configuration of stuff in SCO Linux 4.0 is Webmin, you would also know that the majority of things can be done quite nicely via a webbrowser or a wizard.

I don't know how oil is refined, but I know to put unleaded in my car, not diesel. It was a decision I made when buying the car, aware of the car-cost/petrol-cost/environmental tradeoff in the purchase. So I had to know something about how these things are (if not how they work).

And I had to remember it, and remember it each time I fill up. It's not difficult.

(Americans stop reading here....)
We've all seen the American police shows, where some idiot gets into a car with a bottle of whisky and a shotgun, and an IQ of 3. Do we really want these people in a car? Do we really want him thinking the PC is the DVD player?

You should atleast know the additive which increases the octane level of unleaded petrol.

Basic chemistry that most people should have learnt. It isn't complicated. I'm not asking you describe the chemical make up of cyclohexane for goodness sake.

Please, understand that this is not a troll. But it seems to me like submissions to this website are written by untechnical folks that seem to think GUIs are the be all and end all. Furthermore, they don't understand the techincal end (which is one of, if not the, most important aspects of the topic).

This is an excellent article - well, it's a really bad article, but could provoke some excellent discussion, like the discussion (can't find the link) on newsforge.com which ended up becoming http://www.theopencd.org/

This discussion could come up with useful things, too, but the format of "reply to the whole thing" means that interesting threads cannot be built up independantly.

If OSNews.com had threading, it could become a crucial site - as is, it's an interesting place to see *nix vs. Windows idiocy.

I don't "know the additive which increases the octane level of unleaded petrol." So shoot me.

I do know what a red light and a green light mean, and the difference between first and fifth gear. I know what a clutch does (and have had that critical experience of learning how to use it effectively, by stalling enough times when I learned to drive).

I don't ask that PC users know the details of how RAM and hard disks work, but that they know the difference between them. I've lost count of the number of people who've bought extra RAM because they didn't have enough disk space to install another program. Of course, it doesn't solve the problem. I'm sure a mechanic could (frequently does, for all I know) make fun of me for not knowing the details of the fuel I use, but at least I know how to use my PC, and how to drive.

I used to drive a VW Polo, and tinker with it a lot. Now I drive a Vectra, which has a "computer-controlled" Engine Management System. This benefits me how? It turns on a EMS light on the dash, so I take it to the dealer, who plugs in his (closed) gizmo, and says "It's revving too high, that's £80 to fix", or (honestly) "It's reporting a fault in the AirCon system, so it's running in a less economical mode" - the car does not have aircon. If I had access to the system (or car) I have paid hard cash for, I could fix such a bug, but because the car I own is controlled by buggy software I do not own, I have to pay someone to fix a "problem" which did not exist in the first place.

That's a difference between cars and PCs - I would never be forced to pay a vendor to fix his own bugs, but with this car (made by Vauxhall, aka General Motors, a big enough company) I have to pay the vendor to fix their own bugs, or live with unreliability and an economically unfeasable system. That reminds me too much of Microsoft, but (to give them credit) they tend to fix their bugs for free, if 3 months too late.

Listen a lot of the things could be a hell of a lot easier.

There are easy solutions to half the issues listed if the distros had the balls to really seriously try. Then again there are problems that are not going to be resolved quickly because this is open source.

Lets take the four most frequent bitches about linux.

1. Software Installation

If RH8 had apt capabilities built into their package installation program, you could for example download any old rpm and if there was some sort of dependency missing it would tell you and then start the downloading the required packages. Correct me if I am wrong but Mandrake already even has something like this.

Right now I have so many bloody libs on my box 90%+ of anything I download in rpm format and I doubleclick on will install with no issues but you cannot expect an average user to deal with this for sure.

2. Hardware support.

Ok, you could say this is a lost cause, after all, you are pretty much at the mercy of the hardware folks. I remember the dark days of Apple when some hardware folks did not even bothering support Macs until the iMac came around. However, if the United Linux, Mandrake, IBM and RedHat COMPANIES came together as a group and asserted their corporate influence I think the situation would improve over night. There would still be some proprietary drivers but that is going to be the case anyway.

3. Admin tools.

SuSE is better than most for server as well as user related Tools. Redhat in my opinion the easiest to use tools and the best set of user centric desktop-focused tools. Every distro should have:

NIS client/server setup tool
LDAP client/server setup tool
Network shares tool that let you export and import samba and nfs shares with an option for advanced options for those admins running a server. The hell with the NFS server tools available for most distros and swat is nice but if you are going to do the tool do it right. I got this idea from the Ximian Setup Tools.
Http server tool.
DNS setup tool.
Time server setup.
Mysql or preferably a postgres db server setup tool and yes I mean it.

Some distros have some of these but any major service you can put on the box should have a good graphical configuration tool or you should stop bothering and wasting your bloody time and just include the best configuration tool for *nixes around, webmin.

4. Slow gui.

This one is odd. I find linux faster than Mac OS X. A bit slower in terms of application startup and responsiveness in the apps than XP. However, in terms of responsiveness under load better than XP. I have said before that the Xfree86 guys, the gnome and kde folks, the guys in charge of gtk, qt , OpenOffice and the mozilla folks should all be locked in a building and not allowed to leave until they figured out how to make the gui experience better for the user. Yes, have better kernel frambuffer support would help but it ain't all the fault of X. The widget tool set, window manager folks and the desktop folks all have a little bit of the blame to hold. BTW, it ain't as fast BeOS, faster than Mac OSX and a bit slower than XP unless you run more than 4 Microsoft products at once and then Linux is more responsive. Yes, Outlook is still a frickin' resource hog and IE too.

In general, linux is still an alternative OS based on opensource work and projects. Linux is based off of thousands of little projects mostly hosted and worked on by volunteers. RH, SuSE and Mandrake all just package those projects up add a couple of cool setup tools and maybe a theme and then tell you to go to it. Don't be fooled.

I like Unix. I like the command line. The cygwin tools and every other unix toolset on NT solution feels like a hollow hack. I like having a dozen choices and like being able to make my desktop look different every other day of the week for months without hitting the same window manager. I am a tinkerer. I do not mind looking through a Hardware Compatibility List before buying a peripheral. I live with the annoyance. I don't randomly install programs off the net. If I want an app, I look to see if it is in the apt list of apps in synaptic (a gui app) click on it and then click install. I know that is soo hard and difficult and unreasonable but I do not mind. There are limitations and things that you live with when it comes to XP. I am not going into it because I will not on the OS-bashing trek.

It all depends on what you like whether or not you will like Linux. I use it at home and work and enjoy it. Then again I am Unix sysadmin with 7 years of IT experience. My wife likes it too because linux has more desktop games (Tetris, Mahjong and others right out of the box than XP).

Just remember that the distros are still trying to put the polish on something that is the collective effort of thousands of different projects created by almost millions of different programmers all over the world and make it feel like one unified OS. Good luck. I got into linux because it was different than Windows and I liked Unix.

Linux will never be enough like Windows to please half the people posting here and they should stick with XP.

Well...as usual, this seems to have degenerated into a Win/*nix battle. With of course, some people espousing BeOS in the middle...

But, here goes. I've used Windows in the past and I use Linux currently. I am very happy with what Linux offers - BUT - I know that there are lots of things that Windows does better.

1) Linux is the underdog. This means that in order to grab market share it has to be *significantly* better and cheaper than Windows. This is one of the things that will accelerate change. Right now, although some components of Desktop Linux (DL) are good, others are woefully inadequate.

2) Linux is crufty. This is both a good and bad thing. One major good point is that older unix based applications can be moved to Linux with relative ease. This is part of the reason why Linux has had such great success in the server space. Its much easier to move to Linux that say...move to Windows. The bad thing is that you have much much less flexibility with which to rework the system and incorporate new ideas.

3) X11. Well...what can I say. I use X, but I'm none too fond of it. 'Cruftiness' definitely applies to X. It needs serious rework. It's slow... It suffers from a lack of focus sometimes... I would be _extremely_ pleased to see an alternate windowing system such as Fresco replace it, but I am pragmatic. Video card drivers, toolkits etc, all center around X and for all this talk [me included], we seem to be doing very little work to help X alternatives.

4) Lack of standardization. Very big deal. There is no standard sound daemon. Check out mediaapplicationserver.net for something that looks like a credible replacement for both ESD and aRTS. In the 2.6 kernel ALSA and OSS will be included. Its a good guess that OSS will be used for a long long time. There is no standard printing system. There is no standard packaging system. Even though the filesystem is 'supposedly' standardized - the reality is far different. Each distro has their own ideas as to how to deal with packages.

Many Linux proponents will state that this is not a problem. Although I like Linux, I think this is a *major* problem. A software developer has to work overtime to support/write code for all the various Linux systems out there. You should not have to worry about which printing system will exist on a specific person's computer or what sound server they're running. You should know that there are defaults that are being followed by the community. Most packagers will get around this by writing software for specific distributions (works on RedHat 7.x, SuSe 7.x etc). Other's will lose out...

5) Software installation. I use apt-get. Yeah its easy. But I'm not in luck if I don't have a Debian package. From that point on, things disentegrate. Usually to get what I want, I build it from source. _No_ user who wants to get _work_ done will do that. I understand that approach. No, I do not think the Windows approach will work. Why not? Because Windows programs are self contained and a lot of Linux software is dependent on libs provided elsewhere. I think Linux software will require an alternate installation method. Whatever it is - it'll have to be of the form where people can simply go a website, download, double click and it'll work. ALWAYS.

Also apt-get works only because of the committed (and large) Debian community...

It's nice to think of a way in which a lot of this is swept clean and we can start anew. There's a lot to be said for that approach. But the truth is that Linux does have a lot of momentum and its probably better to work with what we've got.

Oh yeah...as Jonathan mentioned above - drivers.

Binary drivers are a fact of life. I prefer free [open] drivers a lot, but I am pragmatic. (I am not however fond of companies that just throw the specs to the wind and say - go ahead - implement. ALthough it is a start).

It would be ideal for people to be able to download a driver and install it. Without worrying if it was copmiled with gcc 2.95 or gcc 3.x or so on. They don't want to have to deal with that...

I want to thank the author for an excellent article written from the non-Linux guru's point of view. I get sick of the constant rantings and ravings of Linux-elitists on how making a distro easier to admin is "the devil". I think a copy of this article should be sent to every developer of every major distro that is attempting to create a viable Linux desktop/Windows replacment.

I just can't comprehend why people are resist in making Linux a little bit easier to use and more accesbile for the the masses. If you are a true power user, then you can modify any default settings, install/remove the packages, and do whatever else you want....so what are you bitching about? If you want the shell, it should be there. If you want a wizard, it should be there. If that doesn't work for you, there will ALWAYS be true power user distros such as Gentoo, Slackware and Debian for you to use.

Can somebody tell me (taking about the the big picture here) what harm it cause if Linux is made easier to admin/use for non-techie types?

The way I see it, the easier it is to admin/use, the more people will get a chance to use a free, flexible and excellent OS. The more people that use it, the more MS loses it's monopolistic grip on the desktop, more ISVs will start porting their apps to Linux, and there will be more hardware support.

John, very good points. You've got me rethinking about my computer expectations on a lot of areas.

I hope some strong leadership or 'glorious' trend takes off with this article in their library.

"Are we trying to make our own system or everyone's?"
(Congratulations if you got this far in the comment list....)

I got one of these from BT; they insisted that they come and confiugre the line itslef. They would not touch the PC (Windows 9x supported, nothing else) regardless of the OS. This modem works under Windows, FreeBSD, and Linux.

Of these I know Linux the best, and configured the modem (thanks to http://speedtouch.sf.net/). I became aware that others had problems going through the documentation, so I created http://speedtouchconf.sf.net/ which is basically the existing code plus a script to configure it all. It doesn't have a pretty GUI; maybe someone else will feel like creating one, if so, good for them. But what I have written, allows a user to run ./speedtouchconf.sh from a Terminal Window (shock! horror!) and get their modem configured under Linux.

I have made life easier for some Linux users. If someone feels that a GUI would be better, feel free to write one - use anything/everything in my script, it's all GPL.

I've offered something, more than I needed (my modem works, thank you). Alcatel (Thomson, now) are less than forthcoming with details about their modem, but a lot of people have made a massive contribution to *nix users. I have added an extra level of simplification. If you fancy going the extra step and making a GUI, feel free. Don't complain to me that there is no GUI, though. I have given you enough for free, and you can take my code, make it a GUI, and call it your own.

As I have no GUI skills, but understand what is needed to configure this modem, I have offered what I have. If you have GUI skills, feel free to take this script and make a GUI out of it, if that is what tickles your belly-button.

Just taking one concrete example from the wilderness -there are lots of utils like this, which use CLI / textfiles / etc to configure. All of these are (IMHO) superior to the Windows Registry. Any documentation on that? Please? For anyone - developer or user?

I have no trouble understanding that message, even though I've never heard of Pango or Defoma before. Just use your brain a little bit...

Pango must have something to do with fonts, and it keeps a file with a list of font-related configuraions. Defoma must be some kind of tool to help manage the said font configuraion. See, it's easy.>>>

Okay, that bit wasn't so hard to figure out. But that still doesn't help me.

"Something to do with fonts?" What kind of something? Will this change other settings on my computer? what will it do for my fonts? Figuring out that it has "something to do with fonts" still leaves 98% of what I'd like to know unsaid.

"Some kind of tool?" What does this tool do? Why do I need it? Can I get by without it? Will it play nicely with the other tools in the box. Is it a screwdriver but I really need a wrench?

It's like s