Secondly, For all it's touted good points, OSS/Linux is simply NOT ready
for the ordinary computer users that most of us are. It is simply to
a.) The average computer user to install configure and keep up to date
for ordinary everyday usage let alone keep secure; Computers are
supposed to be easy to use. Ordinary users should not have to configure
the 'inner workings' of the OS and applications just to make them do
what they're supposed to do. Ordinary users Dont and WONT do that.
They just want to be able to press the on switch and to start typing
that letter/email, play that game, or surf the internet.... They're
simply NOT interested in have to configure and tweak to do that.
b.) It is simply too hard for the ordinary user to make secure. They
dont want to have to configure and tweak the OS to make it secure; They
just want to install the security (preferably automatically) and have
their computer made secure by that security install.
Thirdly, Unless and until OSS/LINUX offers the ease of use and 'out of
the box' experience that Windows users currently have it will never be a
suitable replacement for Windows......
What with so many different versions of the OS, it's applications, and
no generic support that covers ALL the variants of Linux, it will never
become an alternative for the ordinary computer user.....
And like it or lump it, the *ordinary computer user* who sees a computer
as just another home appliance or tool that they do their work on (at
work) are in the majority. They dont want to become 'computer geeks,
they dont want to know how their computer OS works, they dont want to
have to configure and tweak the OS and Apps to make them work or secure,
they just want to have the computer do what they want it to do, no
matter what OS or application it's running.....
I stumbled onto this conversation while searching for something else.
The above comments are very interesting.
Background: I use Windows 2000 both at work and at home. I have a
Linux server, kernel 2.4.9, that was RedHat 7.2 that I upgraded
myself. It is my primary firewall and file server. Yes, my
preference is Linux. However, I know how to run Windows and
manipulate it, having started with 3.0 and its .ini files, up through
the 9x series and now to 2000 (and some XP experience).
Three comments that apply to all flavors of computers:
* Unless the computer you're using is a homebrew from the base up, and
you've written all the software, there's going to be someone writing
software to try to cause havoc to your machine. DOS, Windows, Linux,
OS/2 . . . they may not all be viruses in the strict sense (they could
be worms or Trojan Horse programs). Mac, Intel, Alpha, Amiga . . . no
platform is immune if it has any kind of a significant installed base
at all.
* To reasonably believe that a person can just sit down and use a
computer without knowing anything is absolutely ludicrous, IMHO.
Anyone that can do it is the exception rather than the rule. Almost
anything manufactured comes with directions of some sort. Even candy
bars and milk cartons say "Open here ->". To the experienced, the
direction is pointless. But for someone unfamiliar with it, the
direction may be necessary. Thus, to presume that a person can sit
down in front of a computer and start using it is not realistic. I
believe this is a fallacy propagated by the GUI-based operating
systems (Windows, OS/2, even Mac). If a person has never used a
computer, they're going to either need to read the manual or have
someone guide them through it.
* To say that it is too hard for the user to properly secure the
system, IMHO, is to insult the user and propagate the self-fulfilling
prophecy that the user is stupid. When the user finds a need to do
something, they'll figure out how to do it. They may not do it today,
tomorrow, or next week, but once the realize the importance of it,
they'll figure out how to do it. If that means calling technical
support, then that's what they'll do. But they'll do it. And they
can do it. We've taught people to be scared of the manuals. And yet,
they exist precisely to help people. But people need to read them.
If the simplest things need instructions, then computers need
instructions. And when the user decides he/she needs to read the
instructions, he/she will read the instructions.
Now, to address the points you've listed above:
2a. Computers are supposed to be easy to use is a fallacy. Is a car
"easy to use?" A person has to go through, typically, months of
training in order to be able to use it properly. They have to be
licensed to use it. Should computer users be licensed? I'm not
saying that. I'm saying that, for something that gets used every day
and is a regular part of most peoples' lives, it's not something that
one can just sit down and use. Computers are complex pieces of
equipment that can perform numerous tasks. Why do we have to believe
that computers are supposed to be easy to use?
2b. Computers should set up the security on installation. User needs
change. They may go from not having a network connection to having a
high-speed DSL or broadband connection. Security parameters must
change. To assume that the operating system will know how to
configure the parameters properly and automatically is, in my mind, a
stretch. Even a user going from dialup to high-speed has different
needs. Whereas the user may not have concerned him/herself with
firewalls in the past for "just a dialup connection," now he/she will
need firewall protection on a consistent basis. How is the operating
system to know this automatically? A new network connection may be to
an intranet or directly to a high-speed external connection. To say
that the operating system should be able to determine the correct
security settings automatically, without having the user do anything .
. . well, that just won't work.
3. Out of the box use is a fallacy as well. Take two people, both
with a little computer knowledge (enough to perform the most basic
operations of at least turning it on, booting the operating system,
and logging in). Since Windows and Linux are the sacrifical animals
in this thread, let's take one machine loaded with Windows and one
machine loaded with Linux. Both have been loaded with ports of an
application. The Windows version is GUI-based. The Linux version can
be GUI-based or text-based. Take your pick.
I theorize that the person running the Windows version will be able to
get the program up, running, and doing perhaps very basic useful tasks
immediately. The person running the Linux version will probably have
to spend some time reading the manual first. But ultimately, when it
comes to doing anything more than the basic operations, both users
will put in approximately the same amount of time trying to get to a
point where they can do something more advanced. People don't
recognize how much time they're putting into it because they don't
consider reading the help menus and purchasing "The Idiot's Guide to .
. ." or ". . . For Dummies" as reading the manual. They don't
consider going for training in the application (for the Windows port)
to be "training" per se. Yet, if you total up the time it takes to be
able to accomplish said advanced task, it will take both approximately
the same time to learn enough to be able to do it. In addition, those
people using the Linux port will say that they had to read the manual
or take a training course. My guess is that the Windows user will
gloss over those facts -- because the Windows version is supposed to
be "easy to use."
A few days ago, I upgraded Windows 2000 to service pack 4. When I
finally logged off the machine (today, the Windows machine), I
received an error saying that it could not write my roaming profile.
Puzzled, and knowing that I hadn't changed any of Samba's
configuration on my Linux box, I went poking around the server for
unexpected changes -- perhaps (although I felt unlikely) someone had
hacked my machine. I didn't find anything suspicious. I didn't
expect that upgrading to service pack 4 had changed anything.
And yet it did. It took me Googling through the newsgroups in search
of someone else that had the same problem in order to determine that
there was a new setting (it was either new or it had been changed from
its default) as to whether Windows 2000 should ignore the permissions
for the roaming profile directory. The error message was basically
unhelpful, and essentially told me to contact my network
administrator. I don't consider the operating system making changes
to my security settings automatically, and without notifying me, to be
helpful or user-friendly at all. Total diagnostic time, from first
noticing the error to implementing a solution, was almost an hour. It
would have been helpful for the operating system to display something
about the settings changes it made, or additions of new security
settings, when it installed the service pack. It thought it knew
best, and it was wrong (IMHO).
Until a computer can understand the intent and purpose behind the
request made to it, it cannot meaningfully presume the settings
necessary for the user. When we get to the point where we can say to
the computer, in these words, "Protect the system so that anything we
want to send on the network goes out but don't allow anything to come
in unless we've created the connection," then maybe a person will be
able to sit down and just "use the computer" without any further
knowledge. Until then, the user must know what to do with the
computer and how to protect it in order to prevent outside attacks.
On the surface, it feels like Linux is more difficult to configure in
this manner. And yet, when I compare the man pages I've had to go
through and the help menus I've had to read on Windows in order to
know where to go to configure something, well . . . the two are pretty
much a wash.
And if someone did scientific comparisons between the two setups --
objective comparisons -- I'm guessing you'd find similar results
between the two comparisons. Windows is easier to set up in some
ways, Linux (or UN*X) easier in others. Couple those with the
necessity of reading documentation, I'm reasonably sure you'll find,
ultimately, that there's not much difference between the two -- except
that Windows has a much larger installed base of users. That's all.
'nuff said.
Matt