I don’t blame Alfresco for this prioritization, they are after the largest possible market which is Office, not OpenOffice. I am observing the possibility that this also carries over to the Windows vs Linux on the desktop space and needs to be considered in Matt’s views.

Furthermore, I’ve installed many applications on both Linux and Unix, and obviously, many many apps on Windows.

Fundamentally, the flaw with Linux, I feel, is this: distribution, and communication of what it is that’s being distributed. While the recent applications installers on Linux is frankly awesome as compared to what it was, this is fundamentally different from what someone expects when coming from a MS environment.

Specifically, the act of downloading a specific install file, and pretty much being guaranteed that the install file will install an executable, and that that executable will run, pretty much every time you install anything.

That expectation simply cannot be there in the current Linux environment, regardless of what UI you pick to go on top of the fundamentals. Too many inter-package dependencies. Too many library dependencies. Insufficient guarantees that it will work.

If we go back and talk about the application installer services in Linux, these are absolutely fantastic and resolving these dependencies. But here, distribution is a problem. Instead of searching for something under google, clicking a link and then having the app installed, a user with Linux must find out what they are interested in, and THEN BEGIN SEARCHING. Does the Linux distro they have support the particular app they’re interested in? Can the app even be found, wading through the thousands of apps available on the distribution? Is it exactly the same verison, can you get the latest? etc and etc.

The average user wants to click the button, download something, then maybe double click the downloaded result on their desktop. That’s what grandma and grandpa can do with little re-education.

Please, me==#1 linux fan. Linux has completely changed my life in so many ways. But until these issues are simply solved? No way Linux can be a platform for the average user.

Best Regards,
Steve.

True, but you over look an important point: The users who are most efficient at using a PC are the ones who do memorize the interface - especially the shortcuts. When you change the interface, you force them to think about the “mechanics” of what they are doing.

This is one area where following the defacto standard will benefit Linux (nevermind that MS frequently violates this concept)

BTW, I use - and love - FluxBox on Debian Linux

A truely new user is going to have to learn a whole lot of idioms - file managers, files/folders, windows, icons, click/drag, double-click, right-click, etc. This is a steep learning curve on any OS. I’ve suffered through teaching several computer illiterate but otherwise intelligent people about it. Mostly on the Windows interface. Blech. Not something I ever want to do again. It would be just as hard to teach them KDE or Gnome, but they “learned” on XP. I’ve also introduced some XP types to both KDE and Gnome. Once they get past the block of “but Windows has it here, or does it this way” and actually think about what they are trying to do, they pick up KDE or Gnome pretty quick. I’ve also helped users go from XP to OSX. Note, I don’t know anything about OSX. But we were able to figure out the usual stuff relatively quickly. No more so or less so than the people I’ve introduced to KDE/Gnome. Interfaces are different, but people who focus on the idea behind what they want to do, and not on memorizing interfaces by rote will have no problems moving from Windows to KDE, Gnome, or OSX.

How do users currently acquire software for Windows? By searching the internet using a web browser or by purchasing off-the-shelve software at retail outlets. It’s not very obvious how to acquire new software. It’s a process that doesn’t come easily for less advanced users.

I feel the Linux desktop has an advantage over Windows due to it’s package management facilities, especially in Ubuntu, Kubuntu, etc. The user can search for keywords and find software, in most instances installing it in one-click.

However, I do feel the list of available software should be vetted for non-technical users by default to keep users from installing software that may confuse or corrupt their systems. Obviously, this process would be very subjective. I believe right now packages are classified by stability and proprietary status (free vs. non-free).

I agree with you RedMonk, the Linux desktop is not “utter crap” as some may believe.

Enter Kubuntu…

I’ve installed it for half a dozen people now — all of them non-technical folks. The only complaint I’ve had is from my friend’s 18 year old who can’t Photoshop on it (although I’ve heard rumors that it’s doable with wine) and is too stubborn to spend a few hours learning gimp. My neighbors, in their 70s, are basic web-browser / email / word processing folks — No problems, once I spent $15.00 on a D-Link USB wireless adapter to replace a generic something-or-other.

Did I have to do all the configuring for all these folks? Yes, of course… but I’d been doing the same things for most of them on their Windows boxes, too … so that’s a moot argument for me.

I think Linux on the desktop is now a viable solution…

As to installing software, remind the critics that to compare Linux to Windows or the Mac, they must read the EULAs to perform a compliant install. After they do so, ask them then how easy a Win/Mac install is.