And this, folks, is why there will be no “year of the Linux desktop”. The technical difficulties, and the surrounding gatekeeping.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a dev, I RTFM, but for most people, their computer is just a simple tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver, that lets them do the actual work they have to do. They aren’t any less “real” Linux users. Just users that will go back to other OSes cause it doesn’t work for them and they keep getting told that it’s their fault for not reading the manual.
And this, folks, is why there will be no “year of the Linux desktop”. The technical difficulties, and the surrounding gatekeeping.
Joke’s on you, we don’t need there to be one. Mine was 2007. Yours was whenever it was. I welcome new users, but my happiness doesn’t depend on Linux appealing to everyone, and neither does the survival of Linux as an option.
The types who appreciate what differentiates the Linux experience from Windows or MacOS (in terms of the typical benefits we’d evangelize) will find their way here. It’s naturally getting easier over time, and the contrast (especially against the Windows experience) is only increasing in its attractiveness.
You need a willingness to learn, and if you’ve never installed an OS ever before that will be true even for Windows. Why are we trying to lower the bar further than that? Not everyone has to start with Arch, or should.
This is merely one way to view it. The other is the one I gave. An OS is a tool for most people, they don’t even understand nor learned Windows, it’s mostly the gateway between them and their actual work, i.e. the software they use. They want a computer that runs their software, that’s it.
The “we don’t need them as Linux users if they don’t want to RTFM” line of thinking you’re exhibiting was exactly my point. Why do you interpret making things better for everyone as “lowering the bar”? Unless you genuinely think it’s a good thing the technical barrier is there, I don’t know how you rationalize this opinion.
Mine was 2007 too. Almost two decades later, and we still have the people playing gatekeepers.
Who’s gatekeeping? Why would a new user be pushed to Arch? There are many options where a user can probably get by without having to read a wiki, and certainly not the Arch wiki. It’s no harder than installing Windows to install those distros for a basic install - and no harder than an advanced Windows install for an advanced install. What problem are you trying to solve?
My point is - there’s always this underlying “well it’s not easy enough for every last untrained child to pick up an iso and install it, so it’s failed!”
My point is:
Netiher is Windows
Even Windows has a learning curve, but it’s so ingrained that folks don’t realize they’ve already traversed it and
NOTHING appeals to or is suitable for every last person, so why does desktop Linux (edit: Or at least Arch for sure as in OP) need to be?
Jesus, the self-entitlement of users these days… When saying you might have to RTFM is equivalent to, “that feature never worked or never existed and you should feel bad for wanting it”.
Nearly every machine with any complexity greater than a light switch comes with a manual. As the number of features of a system grows, it becomes less and less feasible to design user interfaces that expose all of those features so intuitively that most people get them instantly. In fact large software with tons of features in UI have manuals and need books to master. Featurefull software requires documentation. And so the question isn’t whether one piece of software requires documentation to use or not, instead it’s whether that pieces of software can do more or less, and whether someone bothered to write a doc. In Linux’es case someone typically bothered to do it. There is an M to RTF. On Windows on the other hand, if something obvious doesn’t work, or it isn’t obvious, you’re often stuck with hearsay or worse - banging your head against the wall. It’s quite alright for people to prefer to stick with what they know whether it provides the easiest way to do something or not. But let’s not get confused that RTFM is a bad thing. RTFM means there’s an M, it means the M will help, it means that the software has the capability you need, and likely more than you need. ☺️
Okay. But did any of these users need to read the manual to use Windows? My point was not that RTFM is a bad thing per se, but that pretending people aren’t proper Linux users if they don’t is absurd. They have Linux in their machine? They’re Linux users.
You’ll find that most users don’t really use Windows. They use a handful of programs, usually superficially, and that’s pretty much it. People tend to have as little knowledge of anything computer related as possible. Whether they actually need it or not. Knowing about computers is seen as “bad”.
If you ever have to support users, it’s very enlightening in that regard.
Which was exactly my point. Most people see their computer/OS as the thing that lets them log in and launch their programs, that’s all. Which comes back to expecting most people that launch Linux to do it being an unreasonable ask. We don’t ask people to be specialists of their cars’ mechanics to drive it.
And this, folks, is why there will be no “year of the Linux desktop”. The technical difficulties, and the surrounding gatekeeping.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a dev, I RTFM, but for most people, their computer is just a simple tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver, that lets them do the actual work they have to do. They aren’t any less “real” Linux users. Just users that will go back to other OSes cause it doesn’t work for them and they keep getting told that it’s their fault for not reading the manual.
Joke’s on you, we don’t need there to be one. Mine was 2007. Yours was whenever it was. I welcome new users, but my happiness doesn’t depend on Linux appealing to everyone, and neither does the survival of Linux as an option.
The types who appreciate what differentiates the Linux experience from Windows or MacOS (in terms of the typical benefits we’d evangelize) will find their way here. It’s naturally getting easier over time, and the contrast (especially against the Windows experience) is only increasing in its attractiveness.
You need a willingness to learn, and if you’ve never installed an OS ever before that will be true even for Windows. Why are we trying to lower the bar further than that? Not everyone has to start with Arch, or should.
This is merely one way to view it. The other is the one I gave. An OS is a tool for most people, they don’t even understand nor learned Windows, it’s mostly the gateway between them and their actual work, i.e. the software they use. They want a computer that runs their software, that’s it.
The “we don’t need them as Linux users if they don’t want to RTFM” line of thinking you’re exhibiting was exactly my point. Why do you interpret making things better for everyone as “lowering the bar”? Unless you genuinely think it’s a good thing the technical barrier is there, I don’t know how you rationalize this opinion.
Mine was 2007 too. Almost two decades later, and we still have the people playing gatekeepers.
Who’s gatekeeping? Why would a new user be pushed to Arch? There are many options where a user can probably get by without having to read a wiki, and certainly not the Arch wiki. It’s no harder than installing Windows to install those distros for a basic install - and no harder than an advanced Windows install for an advanced install. What problem are you trying to solve?
My point is - there’s always this underlying “well it’s not easy enough for every last untrained child to pick up an iso and install it, so it’s failed!”
My point is:
Jesus, the self-entitlement of users these days… When saying you might have to RTFM is equivalent to, “that feature never worked or never existed and you should feel bad for wanting it”.
Nearly every machine with any complexity greater than a light switch comes with a manual. As the number of features of a system grows, it becomes less and less feasible to design user interfaces that expose all of those features so intuitively that most people get them instantly. In fact large software with tons of features in UI have manuals and need books to master. Featurefull software requires documentation. And so the question isn’t whether one piece of software requires documentation to use or not, instead it’s whether that pieces of software can do more or less, and whether someone bothered to write a doc. In Linux’es case someone typically bothered to do it. There is an M to RTF. On Windows on the other hand, if something obvious doesn’t work, or it isn’t obvious, you’re often stuck with hearsay or worse - banging your head against the wall. It’s quite alright for people to prefer to stick with what they know whether it provides the easiest way to do something or not. But let’s not get confused that RTFM is a bad thing. RTFM means there’s an M, it means the M will help, it means that the software has the capability you need, and likely more than you need. ☺️
Okay. But did any of these users need to read the manual to use Windows? My point was not that RTFM is a bad thing per se, but that pretending people aren’t proper Linux users if they don’t is absurd. They have Linux in their machine? They’re Linux users.
You’ll find that most users don’t really use Windows. They use a handful of programs, usually superficially, and that’s pretty much it. People tend to have as little knowledge of anything computer related as possible. Whether they actually need it or not. Knowing about computers is seen as “bad”.
If you ever have to support users, it’s very enlightening in that regard.
Which was exactly my point. Most people see their computer/OS as the thing that lets them log in and launch their programs, that’s all. Which comes back to expecting most people that launch Linux to do it being an unreasonable ask. We don’t ask people to be specialists of their cars’ mechanics to drive it.
Yea but we expect them to also know “R” isn’t for “Really fast”.
You need to recognize what defending ignorance is.
Nobody is gatekeeping anything by merely pointing out that you will very likely be digging through docs to troubleshoot Linux.
That’s just stating a fact. Why does stating a fact offend you so much?