The Great Ubuntu-Girlfriend Experiment
contentconsumer.wordpress.com
contentconsumer.wordpress.com
On the other hand I downloaded Ubuntu last month, and after taking several hours just to get onboard wifi working (xps m1330), I lost all desire to use it further.
For me, gradual hurdles vs. massive roadblock after roadblock is the difference between enjoying the learning process instead of dreading it.
I've got an xps m1330 and it's run Gutsy and now Hardy without any issues with the Wifi.
I've got the Intel 3945ABG card in there.
I had the N card in for a while and couldn't ever get it to work well with Gutsy.
Win+D = minimize/unminimize all windows
Win+R = Terminal
I also added Win+G = Gedit and Win+F = Search (which really needs some improvement)
Finally, standardize some behavior! Gedit and your ctrl+alt+pgup to change tabs, I'm looking at you.
So where are the geeks who are excited enough to update a piece of open-source software to help newbies out? I mean, if I were contributing to the greater good and all, seems like it would be with something that I personally had a need to do. While I'm sure that most contributors think of the noobs, where is the cohesive push for simplification of user experience?
It's always seemed like to me that FOSS was great for geeks who wanted to keep adding cool stuff and sharing it, but the motivator is -- excitement. It's still an economy going on, it's just about emotion. I just don't understand how people get excited about stuff that seems archaic or strange to them.
Those issues the girl-friend had are really not so severe. She would have had the same issues or worse the first time she used windows. Definitely worse the first time she would use OS X.
He brought it over on Saturday and I booted off the HH live cd and copied all his stuff onto my NAS.
There was a LOT of crap on his laptop (spyware and viruses it looked like).
I then installed HH, opera and the flashplayer on his laptop and said "here you go, your password is xxx". I showed him synaptic and made sure that hibernation and the wifi card worked and sent him home.
So far, I've not heard any complaints yet :)
I mean, I hate that ctrl-d duplicates the current work, rather than deselect... but this weekend, I used the ctrl-d multiple times with wild success, so maybe my process is broken :)
I used Corel Photo-Paint for years and years, and when I tried Photoshop after that, it seemed like it was designed by space aliens. I don't mean to say that Photo-Paint is easier to use -- I doubt it is. But when you get used to a particular interface for something like photo editing, maybe any given interface is ok, but switching interfaces is hard?
A couple months ago, I had to create some annotated screen shots to be used as cheat sheets by a number of people I'm working with. I knew that I could do something like this in Photoshop, having used Photoshop a bit 10 years ago.
I first tried GIMP, because it was free and available. After trying for a while to figure out how to get layers happening, I finally gave up and downloaded a copy of Photoshop. Everything was immediately intuitive. Even though the Photoshop UI had changed (a lot) from when I had used it a decade ago, I was able to very quickly create my annotated screen shots.
Now, you could say that I didn't bother to read any of the GIMP documentation, and you'd be right. But with Photoshop I didn't have to.
But I don't know if Photoshop would be nicer in that regard , I haven't used that in a long time.
I started with Paint Shop Pro, and what it lacked in features it made up in ease-of-use. I especially liked the ability to mix raster and vector layers; Photoshop still hasn't captured the simplicity and power of PSP's vector layers, IMO (in terms of UI, at least). After I used PSP, I moved on to Photoshop. While it was initially a bit intimidating, my familiarity with PSP quickly helped me overcome this and I was up to speed pretty fast. Fast forward a long time and I try Corel Painter. Its interface is definitely different, but still easy to follow. I picked it up in a few minutes (for some definition of 'picked up').
Then I tried GIMP. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and I never got used to it. I can't explain why GIMP doesn't work for me; just that I didn't -- couldn't -- pick it up like I did Photoshop or Painter (or openCanvas for that matter).
How many clients do I look access too, when I can not just use CS3? How much is that worth? $2,300 I spent on CS3 seems cheap in comparison.
If you want converts, GET WINE WORKING! Heck, I will buy windows to have the really DLLs, I just want it to work in Linux.
MACs just work because Mac users that want to run windows, BUY WINDOWS and run it in OS X. There is some software that people ARE willing to pay for it to JUST WORK.
Mac users that want to run Windows buy windows and install it inside of a VM (or dual boot). What's preventing you from doing the same under Linux?
Seconded. Lots of apps run really well in XP with VirtualBox in seamless mode. That's how I test sites against Safari and IE, and I run Visual Studio that way when I need it.
VirtualBox is the reason why I never got around to setting up a Windows partition like I was planning on. Instead, I just reclaimed the space for more files under Linux.
Gimp is a bit old fashioned with it's dozens of little windows, though. I think there is a "make it look like Photoshop" mod of Gimp, actually.
I've used Paint.NET pretty heavily over the last 6 months (I use it when I don't want to wait for Photoshop to load) and while it's good for casual use, it is no photoshop/gimp/paintshop pro replacement.
The biggest system I've ever worked with was a game I worked on with a friend for a year. By the end of the year the codebase was so massive and tangled that the thought of adding a new feature or even modifying a current one made me want to curl up in the corner and mumble incoherently.
I think the big problem to solve right now is simply making software development easier.
The test about using youtube is particularly bad. It's good that Ubuntu doesn't come with flash, it would be even better if it didn't even tell you about it. Maybe in the future it might come with gnash already installed (you may want to install it, I'm sure it's on the repositories, even my debian etch has it). For youtube specifically, as I understand the latest totem comes with a plugin that allows you to watch youtube videos directly from totem, another alternative for using youtube without flash.
And yes, I'm a free software extremist, who simply doesn't get it, who will forever be wrong. And I'm too radical, things can't be taken so seriously, I'll never find a girlfriend. I know all that. Still, the purpose of Ubuntu is to spread the use of free software, not to be another system offering propertary software. If the free software already available is not enough for some people, I guess we'll just have to wait (not change our systems so it includes propertary stuff).
Just as Ubuntu now has "restricted drivers" it should also have "popular non-free apps", and a screen should appear on the first boot that lets the user install flash, skype, etc.
It seems silly that a hard line on a few small apps is making it so nearly any windows or mac user will get scared off by Ubuntu in the first 10 minutes.
I don't like that kind of behaviour from ubuntu, such as offering restricted drivers and suggesting for the user the installation of proprietary codecs -- I've been told it does that, I might be wrong. That's supporting the use of proprietary software, which I don't think shouldn't be the goal of any GNU/Linux distribution. In that sense I only wish ubuntu has less support for proprietary software, not more.
The thing that should attract people into GNU/Linux is the free software philosophy. If they're going to use GNU/Linux without even worrying about what free software is, then I don't care at all if they are using it or not. Why should anyone involved in free software development care about people who doesn't care about free software? Why should I care about someone who doesn't even make an effort in trying to stay away from non-free software, unless they have absolutely no choice?
Ubuntu doesn't ship with Flash to the convenience of the users who want to use free software -- so they don't have to uninstall it (or worse, use it without realising it's non-free).
It's a bit ironic that the whole point of the GPL is to control how others use the code!
My point is simply that Ubuntu is not an ideological undertaking, it's a business. Thus, it should have a simple screen that loads on the first boot that lets a new user avoid ending up with a crippled system, when perfectly good (free as in beer) software exists.
This will only help the Free Software world, since more people using Linux means more support for existing open source code and for new projects.
The real problem with closed source is that it fails to harness the willing contributors who would fix bugs, etc. Even OpenLaszlo uses the adobe runtime... so by shipping Ubuntu w/o a working swf runtime installed, Ubuntu's maintainers are harming at least one vibrant open source project.
Actually, it does come with a package called "Ubuntu restricted extras" that installs flash, LAME, DVD playback, the JRE, etc. If you wander through Add/Remove Applications, it's there and easy to install. The problem is that they don't follow the rest of your suggestion and make people aware of it on first launch.
Who cares if the software is free or paid? OSS or proprietary? Find what works best for YOU, and go with it. Note that the best answer is likely to be very different person to person.
Fanboys of any denomination are all equally annoying and blind.
We are not looking for as many people using GNU/Linux as possible (althought that's sure much better than people using nothing but proprietary software). We are looking for many people supporting free software. So, having tons of users who don't contribute or care about free software doesn't make me happy. I'm not saying we should drop usability, it's important, it's nice, but we shouldn't confuse lack of proprietary application with usability, that's all.
Sometimes the end justifies the means. I'm sure that many of the Firefox converts didn't switch because of their love of free software. But it forces web developers to think about standards and not limit their web pages to Internet Explorer. So more users benefit you directly.
This essay explains a lot of my point of view towards software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
I think finding what work best for me is just too selfish, I rather find what I think is best for everyone. Also, I realise that, althought proprietary software may be the best thing for me in the short-term, in the long run, free software will be much better for me. It will give me more freedom.
Now, I was hoping to have a serious discussion, but you call me a fanboy (althought for some reason people are downmodding me like crazy). Are you want to troll me?
I care about the consequences of my actions as well (or at least some actions, I am not to be held responsible when beer is involved), but free software != the absolute answer for everything. Do you not believe that everyone deserves to be paid for their work? Paying for software creates a cash flow for the company, which can be used to fund development, maintenance and enhancements. Some companies use that cash flow (IMO) in better ways than others, and that factors in to how I make my choices.
Free software doesn't mean you can't charge for them, it only means that the user of the software trully owns it, as opposed to simple having the right to use it.
Where I live it's very common to see companies that will write management software for other companies and sell it to them. I don't see any reason why they couldn't be selling free software, it would be very benefitial for the client because he would be able to even maintain the software if they want to. Or they can even contract a different company for maintaining the software. You give your client a lot of freedom this way.
If you release your software under a free software license, users are not only free to look at the source and modify it, they are free to redistribute it to others who have not paid for it.
If you can find a way to make free software work for you in a way that still allows you to earn a good living developing your software (such as by providing services), then more power to you. But for-profit software companies are not producing non-free software simply through myopia and ignorance.
Let's say a company wants to outsource the development of some software they need. They go ahead and contract your company. You develop it and sell it to them for a certain price. Even if the license is free it's not very likely that they will redistribute it for other companies, and even if they do, it probably won't fit their needs just right. OTOH, they will be able to call other companies (other than yours) to maintain your software. So they have that extra freedom. And it doesn't really hurt business because, if you do a better job maintaining your software than other people, chances are your client won't switch.
There's also the case of the end desktop user. That's probably harder territory for earning money with free software. But I've never seen some company selling their software but giving the user a package with the GPL-licensed code. Sure, after a while there would be lots of other non-official sites to download the program from, but doesn't that already happen with all the proprietary softwares nowadays? And it's not like anti-piracy laws are doing any good against it. This way people may do their own derivative work, for which they might even charge just like you. Now you'll have competition, so things get more interesting and you have to make better stuff. Why can't that work?
You can still charge for constant patches you deliver (though they are all GPL'd). If it's an online game, you might charge for your server, and so on. A big part of software nowadays seem to be services, anyway.
Say google opens the source for their search engine. Why would you turn to a different site other than google.com? It would make great research environment, nonetheless. Even google could gain from it.
So, what I'm saying is that I don't see a reason why people can't earn money while keeping their software free. Even though things might get a little different from what they are today. That's good, though, because today is far from perfect. And I think free software is a move in the right direction.
If someone openly pirates your proprietary software, you have legal recourse. If someone openly redistributes your open source software, they are acting within their rights to do so.
In fact, a third party repackager of RHEL even has the option of charging to provide service, at a discount from Red Hat's price, and they can do this perfectly legally.
Short version of the economics: if you can charge for services, you can make money on open source, but only client by client -- you don't become more efficient the more services you sell, unlike with products (especially low-marginal-cost products like software). You have to add employees for each new hour of services you provide. So if you have a potentially popular product, all other things being equal, you have a higher potential for growth if you sell the product rather than the service.
Of course, all other things aren't equal, which is why the desktop software market has been in decline since its heyday in the 90s. Because the marginal cost of each unit you ship is so low, when there's plenty of competition, you tend to see a race to the bottom on price (unless you can convince people to buy your product because it is the standard, as Microsoft has done).
Many enterprise markets are small enough niches that (1) there are a limited number of competitors, and (2) if you give away your product, you may not easily be able to make up the revenue in any other way. On the other hand, if you have technically savvy clients, you may find it worth your while to offer them your source under a non-redistributable license. They still have to buy your product from you, but they can debug against the source, integration test, etc. This isn't free software (obviously), but it may be a happy medium for both you and your clients.
And yes, when the option of selling (or monetizing in some other way) access to your server presents itself, that can be far more profitable than selling a client-side product. That's why World of Warcraft is ridiculously profitable, and it's why Google makes so much money. But it seems clear that this works better for some markets than others.
I say all of this as someone who believes in free software wherever it is practical, but also as someone who makes a living writing software and wants to continue to do so.
And, as Eric Raymond argued over a decade ago, for something like an operating system that is used by large numbers of people, there will be no shortage of free labor to produce an open source product. But people will probably only work on software for managing a multinational mineral extraction business if you pay them. So open source is a great idea for many, many things, but probably not for everything.
Even if the software is paid I would still prefer to get the source code in addition the binary when I purchase it. Because of this bias I'm willing to put up with the slight inconveniences of using free alternatives.
Another one is that I do a fair bit of photography and have been known to sell a picture or two from time to time. I use Aperature and Photoshop a lot. I have not found an OSS app with the same capabilities as either of these apps to support .RAW formats, elegant workflows, manage extremely large image caches (thousands of 13MP images and derivatives, etc.). The Gimp is powerful, but it is cumbersome (and I've spent many hours attempting to learn it), and seems (to me) to lag Photoshop by quite a bit. Also it is much harder to build on the work of others (part of the OSS spirit) with The Gimp because while many custom brushes, plugins and tutorials exist for Photoshop, they are fewer and farther between for The Gimp.
I CAN HACK the registry in WINDOWS, but i can't figure out WHERE to find information on fixing my nVidia Drivers on a released version of Ubuntu. Vista has the same problem. Which is why XP is the best OS right now. Things are most likely to just work.
Right now my plan is to format my ubuntu partitions and to start over with 8.04.
It looks like the nVidia support got better between 7.1 and 8.04. I was able to get my card running on 7,1 using a little script called "Envy", which can be installed and ran through apt-get. When I upgraded to 8.04, I did not need to make any further changes to get the graphics to work, though I did need to jump through the same hoops for my wireless adapter again.
Coders are now making scripts like Envy to help users install those last few tricky pieces of hardware. It would be nice if the auto-detect, download, and install process were part of Ubuntu itself, but these are available now as a good halfway point.
After I rebooted under the vesa driver, I was able to use the Hardware Drivers tool under System/Administration to turn on the normal Hardy nvidia driver.
I also recommend grabbing nvidia-settings from the repository to tweak things like multiple monitors more easily. (Once it's there, you just call 'sudo nvidia-settings'.)
so, can i skip right to 'sudo nvidia-settings' ? or do i need to do one of the above steps?
Since I installed ubuntu 2 months ago i've been into vista 3 times. Each just to get some settings I had to open the program to find. However, I do still use a networked computer to run photoshop. I use it through rdesktop ... which works surprising well.
should be
"make the experience a lot more friendly for people who use Microsoft Windows extensively"
If you want to avoid the $300 Vista upgrade, along with the DRM and general suckage of Windows, you might have to learn to use the Free alternative. Why is that such a terrible thing?
Besides, if the features are so easy to implement, surely you have a patch ready for submission.
Usability tweaks to ease use for a class of user should be feature requests. So a hypothetical developer of open source software has to choose between spending her time developing software features that have no fundamental use to her, or spending it developing features that are exciting, interesting, or are otherwise fulfilling.
The rejoinder is that wide adoption requires that kind of usability. It must be an integral feature of your application, or your app will remain ghetto-zed and obscure. That may be ok for some developers, but for most, usability must be just as key as functionality.
10 million * (30 min on google + 1 hr reading docs + 1 min typing the command line)
that is a 15.0166 Million person hour loss.
Making the process more efficient, does not involve making it easier to Fix the problem for the user, it involves making the problem not existent.
The number 1 rule of design is "if a user does not need to make a decision, then you should make it for them."
When I was in Japan, you could put your subway ticket in any direction, and "IT WOULD JUST WORK," the machine did not spit it back out at you and FORCE the USER TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, because it was a waste of time to do so. Instead the machines are incredibly more complicated to account for someone putting the ticket in wrong. It made the whole subway experience work much more smoothly. Now people who can not read, make a mistake, or are completely foreign to the system, can JUST USE IT. They do not have to read docs, to do one simple thing, pay for the subway ride that should be fast, simple and easy.
The whole software industry could use a little bit of time learning industrial design.
It's almost unfortunate that everything is contactless now.
It certainly doesn't mean Linux should jettison things that rock, like throwing out package management in favor of Windows-style installer chaos. But at the very least, we should expect to help users coming from different paradigms understand what package management means and how it's different. Any novices who are remotely sane will love the little Add/Remove Programs widget in Ubuntu.
should be
"make the experience a lot more friendly for the 99% of the population who use Microsoft Windows extensively"
Just to be clear, I do think this experiment was worthwhile. It's important for Ubuntu to be usable by more savvy users. I just think a separate experiment would be needed to truly measure usability for computer-illiterate users.