For the casual user Microsoft is the way to go
It doesn't matter if it comes preinstalled or not, the fact that it is easy to use makes it the #1 choice for everyone (casual pc user)
If you want to install a program all you have to do is download the exe file.
On Linux you have to check your dependencies if it fits the requirements.
If not you have to install that first, most common via console.
That alone is too much for a non geek
Sure you have the same thing with MS .Net libraries, but again, all you have to do is to download the exe file, execute it and the missing libraries are installed, then install your program of choice.

MS just keep things simple, as they should be for the average user, though you have freedom to modify your OS to your liking.

Linux tries to keep things simple too, not as good as MS but they are heading in the right direction (KDE(YAST),Gnome)

I think what moste people irritate is, that it looks like Windows but it acts different.
You see some similarities to Windows and you know in Windows you had to do this and that in Linux it's just different.
I think that's the main reason why people dislike Linux, they used to to Windows but don't want to bother reading the manual :/

Microsoft tries to make things simple, mostly by simply ignoring details. In aprticular, they completely ignor library versions most of the time. This is dangerous, as you may upgrade a critical library (like the MS foundation classes or the C library) for one application and it suddenly breaks everything else. Worse, an upgrade of an application (like an Office update) may change critical libraries without telling you and other applications start crashing. Patches and service patches often require upgrading other applications (or just cause unexplained problems).

The various Linux/BSD distros on the other hand, at least attempt to deal with the real problem of dependencies: they track library versions and let multiple versions of a library coexist, they track dependencies in the packages and do not let you install packages with out proper dependencies, and they provide installers which are dependency aware so (e.g.: fink. YAST) they can fetch and install needed packages.

The real problem with systems like fink and YAST is that repository management. If you want to install a package in one online repository and it needs another package from a different repo, say DAG, you need to do some management to be able to activate that repository and install the package. On the other hand, security-wise, repository management is *really* important. If that were automated, you would be able to one-click install tons of malware and trojans.

Repository management leads to problems with programs or dependencies outside the repository structure, mainly comercial ones. Fink, at least, lets you satisfy a dependency multiple ways, so that, for instance, you can install either the free or commercial version of X and be okay either way. Because Fink compiles the packages itself, it has no DLL problems with minor version changes.

The system that really manages individual package installs well is Mac OS. Because Applications are packages, they can provide their own versions of Frameworks (collections of libraries and other potentially shareable stuff) or rely on the system versions. Since Frameworks borrow library versioning from UNIX, multiple versions of Frameworks can exist together, and there are no problems with upgrades. You can have different Frameworks at the system, user, and package level, making installing apps into your own home on a multi-user system normally very simple. The install process manages this complexity very well. In most cases, simply dragging an app from a disk image to an application directory is enough. Standard installers take care of the more complex cases. Fink is available for UNIX-style packages and installs. System upgrades range from automatic to manual depending on preference and rarely break things.

Anyway, I agree that Linux is a bit harder to manage than Windowsm especially if you are not familiar with the mindset, but I disagree that MS' habit of simply ignoring problems in the name of simplicity is the way to go.

What the Majority think.

I first tried Linux before this thread started (back in 2005). Back then it was much harder to install than it is now and even harder to install programs. I had a wireless card that wasn't even supported by Linux and some of the solutions that were offered to 'fix' the problem were simply mind boggling.

I am an extremely experienced of user of Windows and have been since 3.1 It's interesting to see how this thread developed and even more interesting to see that linux is fast going down the route that Windows has been on for many years. Almost everything now seems to be point and click. I recently installed a distro and found it's installation and operation an absolute cinch! No more trying to work out what is mean't by the term 'mount' and less frustration about where the hell the file just went that I downloaded. I'd go so far as to say it looked stunning!

But to the elitists that say that Linux is bullet-proof in the right hands, I say that so is Windows.

A fully patched install of XP in the hands of a normal domestic user very rarely gets any problems. The only problems I usually see come from systems infected by users opening email attachments or by the users visiting 'dodgy' sites and in both cases by them ignoring the security warnings. That said, I have read that it is not a good idea to run Linux while logged in as 'root'. Will that advice stop normally people doing it? I doubt it. After I advise about when thier problems came from, they are normally more careful in future.

I have had the same install of XP running pretty much since they released it. And further more, my 9 year son has taken more than a year to 'break' his installation of XP and he could care less about virus updates and hotfixes. I fixed the boot partition and cleared out the crap on his box and it was running again in under an hour.

Yes, education is the key, but I know what I am doing. But the hundreds of people whos PCs I have fixed have no interest in learning my job whatsoever and why should they?

There are lots of analogies to cars on here, but they don't run deep enough. Normal people have desired to own cars since thier inception. very few of those people want to 'fix' thier own car and many haven't even looked under the bonnet. Today, cars are even easier, they have sat-nav, ABS brakes, air bags and even 'auto-sensing'braking' is on the horizon. But at the end of the day, they just want a car to get from A to B.

People want a new Cadillac/Ford/whatever just to go shopping, to the school or visit Granny. The problem is, these cars are common, so people break into them and steal things (if not the car itself). By ratio, because they are everywhere, they have more accidents and more breakdowns. 'Common' car 10 years ago used to breakdown more often than they do today. The car industry is constantly finding ways to make the cars safer and more secure. But there will always be the few with no morals who try to steal them.

On the otherhand, there are people who want to drive a kit car. Even if the kit car arrived assembled, if you might want to add new bits to it. If so you are going to need a set of spanners and some knowledge of what you are doing. When your kit car is finished, you will proably go out to meetings and meet other kit car drivers and point fingers and laugh at the 'stupid' normal car drivers.

So, kudos to you if you want to drive a Linux 'Kit Car', but to the majority of people, a computer is a just a means to an end and Microsoft is making the 'computer' easier to use for the masses who simply don't care how it works. They are also taking steps to ensure the OS is more secure than ever. No mean feat when there is an army of people out there constantly trying to find chinks in the armour.

So, please don't forget, you 'Kit Car drivers' are probably more careful drivers because you are passionate about your vehicle.

But to the majority, a car is just a car and a computer is a computer and as long as they get from A-to-B they really don't give a toss what the 'mechanics' of the world think. Many people would gladly be in a chaffeur driven car. It's good news that Microsoft is working to make the driver a little safer!

Until Linux can run all of the software commonly available in the highstreet labelled as 'PC-CD' and you can say to people, "yes, install Linux and all the software you already own will work perfectly", Linux will always remain in the shadows. Even saying "Oh, also, it's free!" won't be enough.

This is not designed to be a contraversial post, I am just trying to empart the 'feeling' of the masses.
Rgds

Mike

This post has been edited by mikenco: Jan 2 2007, 09:23 PM

And I believe you have done so very, very well.

I couldn't agree more on that one lol, that's pretty much how it is, concerning the masses.