Common Reasons People Leave Linux

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

From the title alone, you can probably guess what this article is going to entail, and you're probably going to be correct. But, it's good to be refreshed of things from time to time, because Linux does need some improvement in order to take over alternative OS', at least in my opinion. All too often I'll hear complaints from people who've tried Linux and have gone back to Windows, and I'm certainly not the only one.

In a brief article at PC World, there's a list of seven reasons that people decide to leave Linux, with the number one reason being the inability to run many applications that people are familiar with. That issue in particular is getting better over time, but I believe Linux will really start to take off when more commercial applications become available for the OS. Many people shun non-open-source applications, but it's clear that there are some commercial applications that far exceed the capabilities of free alternatives.

Other common complaints include the fact that Linux didn't pick up on some hardware, but in truth, Windows is no different. Never have I installed Windows and not have had to install drivers for something, whether it be networking or audio, or WiFi. There are other reasons listed in the article that are good, and I symphasize with newbie Linux users over them. Things are certainly getting better all the time though, that's the important thing.

There are also those who take a haughty position and project their fear onto others: "I had to type commands! Ergo Linux just isn't ready for the ordinary person!". Here, the individual concerned seems to be implying that the " ordinary user" (whoever that might be) suffers from an intelligence deficit and is incapable of typing commands. It that really true? Why do we always assume that other people can't possibly be as smart as we are?

Source: PCWorld​

 

[Ben]

Most people use what they first learned PCs with and in the majority of cases this would be Windows. Switching would be difficult because how you expect things to work, isn't they way Linux does them.

The best article I've read on this distinction is here:

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

 

[Kougar]

Excellent link Ben. Puts some of that much more nicely than I would've... I had taken some mild offense from that PCWord article as the author comes across pretty snobbish. He glosses over or outright dismisses some valid issues with "common users" in his points.

#2: Yes, that's true of any OS. But in Windows it requires a quick google search, download of a single exe, and a double click to run it. And you are done.

In linux it requires a search, download of multiple files, and some files need to be manually placed in specific folders while others must be executed at the command line with very specific commands to install. Libraries also are sometimes needed as well and some of these files need to be compiled. The user must not only read the readme file to learn what to do but also (in my case) do some extensive googling to figure it out. Setting up a single missing driver in windows takes 2 minutes, in linux it can take an hour!

#3: Typing commands is one thing, learning what you need to type, what paths, and which command flags to use when three or four are often called for takes time. Especially when compiling downloaded files. "A lot of instructions on the web" is nice, but they almost never specifically mention exactly what you need to type for your specific install, they must always be modified which requires yet more reading. Which is fine, unless you just want to play a certain music file right now that would have played out of the box in Windows and would rather not spend over an hour trying to make it play in Linux.

Linux is just a matter of time. Even if the user was proficient in linux it still takes significantly more time to perform the same tasks in Linux as it does in Wndows. It takes longer to set up each program and application, it takes longer to configure and get them working properly, and it takes longer to do just about anything.

If I had some reason or the interesting to invest that amount of time into Linux, then I would. But Windows is a better alternative, I can set it up and go from there quickly and things "just work". Even when Windows fails to work properly it's much quicker to troubleshoot than any Linux distro seemed to be. There are only 24 hours in a day and I'd rather not spend a significant portion of them getting the same functionality out of Linux that I can already get for "free" with Windows. Boy, that comment really sounds bad...

 

[Ben]

#2: Yes, that's true of any OS. But in Windows it requires a quick google search, download of a single exe, and a double click to run it. And you are done.

In linux it requires a search, download of multiple files, and some files need to be manually placed in specific folders while others must be executed at the command line with very specific commands to install. Libraries also are sometimes needed as well and some of these files need to be compiled. The user must not only read the readme file to learn what to do but also (in my case) do some extensive googling to figure it out. Setting up a single missing driver in windows takes 2 minutes, in linux it can take an hour!

Actually I would argue that installing programs in linux is easier than Windows. If your compiling from source in Linux, you run the same commands every time:

./configure
make
make install

and your done. In Windows you no doubt have seen several different installer types floating around: .msi, InstallShield, ZIP, Nullsoft Installer, etc. Yes they do all work in a similar manner, but the fact is on linux, you can run those same 3 commands to install anything.

The only difference is in regards to shared libraries. In Windows they are usually packaged with the executable, but in Linux you have to find and install them yourself. This could be a challenge, but today with the the repositories that major distributions have, its not really hard at all.

#3: Typing commands is one thing, learning what you need to type, what paths, and which command flags to use when three or four are often called for takes time. Especially when compiling downloaded files. "A lot of instructions on the web" is nice, but they almost never specifically mention exactly what you need to type for your specific install, they must always be modified which requires yet more reading. Which is fine, unless you just want to play a certain music file right now that would have played out of the box in Windows and would rather not spend over an hour trying to make it play in Linux.

Playing an MP3 is a good example of why linux fails because it involves a lot of different parts of the system: sound card, drivers, codecs, and frontend software. Any of these could have issues. Your sound card has to work in the first place, you have to make sure you have the MP3 decoding codec installed, and then you have to make sure the software supports that backend.

There is definetly room for improvement here but Linux offers options. If you don't like xine as the backend, you can run gstreamer. You can't get this funtionality on Windows, except if you install another program. Again, this program would package all fuctionality in the same file, but in Linux its up to you to make sure you have necessary requirements.

Linux is just a matter of time. Even if the user was proficient in linux it still takes significantly more time to perform the same tasks in Linux as it does in Wndows. It takes longer to set up each program and application, it takes longer to configure and get them working properly, and it takes longer to do just about anything.

If you were proficient in Linux, I would expect you to get things done faster in Linux than in Windows. But the fact is that most things come working already in Linux. The difficult part, maybe configuring them to the way they are in Windows.

There are really two major issues I find with Linux today: power management and sound. Both of these are filled with various issues and gotcha's that if you don't know what to do and where to do it, you will run into issues. I think the PulseAudio issue really highlights the fact. PA works great IF you set it up correctly. How many people did that who ran Linux? Probably not very many.

 

[Glider]

For me GNU/Linux is actually a lot easier to use then Windows. Transparent FS structure, a user rights system that works, ...

I have to agree that it took me about a month to get used to it (when I made the initial switch to Gentoo from Windows XP), but after biting through the initial shock it grew on me.

I think the main reason why people tend to leave Linux is lazyness. It takes a bit of an effort to make the change. People usually resist to change...

 

[Rob Williams]

I do have to agree... it makes sense that most people simply wouldn't want to switch over to Linux because of the time involved, and chances are, the same people would feel the same way about moving to a Mac. It's easy to become too comfortable with your current situation... something I battle myself over often with other things ;-)

In linux it requires a search, download of multiple files, and some files need to be manually placed in specific folders while others must be executed at the command line with very specific commands to install.

This is, without question, the biggest issue with Linux. It's fine when an application you want is available in the distro's repository, but prepare to become confused if you have to head to a website to download the installer. This becomes tedious even for an experienced Linux user. I mean, .tar.gz, .tar.bz2, .bin, .sh, .rpm... talk about a confusing experience for a newer user. Hell, I even stumbled on a .bundle the other day... I'm not even sure how many possible installer extensions there are. I won't even get into the installers that make you compile the application first...

Typing commands is one thing, learning what you need to type, what paths, and which command flags to use when three or four are often called for takes time. Especially when compiling downloaded files. "A lot of instructions on the web" is nice, but they almost never specifically mention exactly what you need to type for your specific install, they must always be modified which requires yet more reading.

For simple applications, or common applications, like music players, the repository will have it. I always recommend users stick to the repository for their given distro, as it's usually very easy to find and easy to use. They're also categorized, so chances are you can find the right tool for the job fairly quickly. That latter complaint leads me back to my previous thought... there are far too many ways to install an application. In Windows, you either extract a zip archive or double-click the setup.exe... it's simple. In Linux, you sometimes have to ./configure;make;make install, or run the file as a script ./setup.sh and so forth.

Perhaps I should take all this bitching and turn it into a piece of content.

Linux is just a matter of time. Even if the user was proficient in linux it still takes significantly more time to perform the same tasks in Linux as it does in Wndows. It takes longer to set up each program and application, it takes longer to configure and get them working properly, and it takes longer to do just about anything.

That's not always the case. Want Firefox? Open up the software manager included with your distro, search for it, right-click and install. Simple. In this case, it actually takes longer in Windows to install it, and repositories have a lot of applications (and arguably ALL common ones), so really, it's usually easier in Linux.

Things become complicated when you need something like Java, but to be honest, that's even confusing in Windows thanks to Sun's retarded website that offers like nine developer files and one that an end-user needs, all on the same page. Far too confusing.

If I had some reason or the interesting to invest that amount of time into Linux, then I would. But Windows is a better alternative, I can set it up and go from there quickly and things "just work".

I guarantee you didn't sit down in front of Windows for the first time and knew how to do everything. It's the same thing with Linux, except Linux actually gives you more control over your system. I'd argue that it takes you no longer to learn than Windows, but it seems that way because you have far more control than in Windows. What do you need the command line for in Windows? Nothing really. Everything is dumbed down. I'm not speaking as a Linux fanboi, because I'm the furthest thing from it, but honestly, Linux is better than ever for setting it up and going.

Last year, I installed Ubuntu on a notebook I needed for a business trip, and everything worked right after the install. I'm talking the webcam, bluetooth, WiFi, et cetera, and even the power states were working fine. You can't install Windows and see that happen. You can with restore discs, but that's a little different.

The only difference is in regards to shared libraries. In Windows they are usually packaged with the executable, but in Linux you have to find and install them yourself.

Heh, that's another PITA with Linux, but luckily nowadays you rarely have to deal with it, unless you are installing an off-beat application that's not found in the repository. Even then, the application will usually tell you what dependency is needed, and sometimes, those are found right in the repository as well.

Your sound card has to work in the first place, you have to make sure you have the MP3 decoding codec installed, and then you have to make sure the software supports that backend.

If you are using a good distro, even that shouldn't be too much of a problem. When I used Ubuntu on that notebook, everything worked from the get-go, except FLAC support wasn't there. But when I tried to play a track in Amarok, it told me I needed to install it, and after the click of the "OK" button, it took care of it for me. I'm not so sure if all scenarios would turn out to be so simple, but I'd hope so.

Generally, if you are using somewhat common hardware, installing a distro like Ubuntu or SUSE should leave no hardware untouched or uninstalled.

Both of these are filled with various issues and gotcha's that if you don't know what to do and where to do it, you will run into issues. I think the PulseAudio issue really highlights the fact.

Hah, audio is the biggest PITA as far as I'm concerned. PulseAudio... don't use it, but ALSA can be extremely problematic as well (I'd guess that the vast majority of major issues I've ever had with Linux have been related to ALSA).

I have to agree that it took me about a month to get used to it (when I made the initial switch to Gentoo from Windows XP), but after biting through the initial shock it grew on me.

Woo hoo, another Gentoo user. Welcome to the forums

 

[Kougar]

Dunno, ya can say that but I do have a much easier time using a Mac than I did Linux and my time spent on either of them is nearly the same. At least assuming when the Mac uses a mouse with more than one button...

and your done. In Windows you no doubt have seen several different installer types floating around: .msi, InstallShield, ZIP, Nullsoft Installer, etc. Yes they do all work in a similar manner, but the fact is on linux, you can run those same 3 commands to install anything.

I'll make a note of this the next time I give linux a try, maybe that is what I was missing. However, with those various windows installers they all work the same, all they need is a double click and then to be executed. When I tried a major Linux distro most of the files I downloaded were compressed folders full of files without an obvious install method. The rare times they came without a readme file I was utterly lost. I will freely admit I'm going to be ignorant when it comes to Linux, but I do have above-average PC knowledge and am quite familiar with a range of operating systems compared to average Joe. If Linux is so hard for me to use then its gotta be worse for average Joe, and this entire Linux article pretty much is trying to claim otherwise.

It was rather amusing in hindsight, but I had no trouble jumping right in and using the Red Hat boot manager to configure my Windows 98SE system into a dual-boot Win98se/Red Hat system using a single hard drive. I only started floundering when attempting to actually use Red Hat even though they claimed to have the largest repository at the time for downloads and had a built in service similar to Microsoft Update. I've dorked around with newer distros of Linux since then but not as extensively as I did then.

That's not always the case. Want Firefox? Open up the software manager included with your distro, search for it, right-click and install. Simple. In this case, it actually takes longer in Windows to install it, and repositories have a lot of applications (and arguably ALL common ones), so really, it's usually easier in Linux.

Hmm, that sounds much more straightforward then what they were used to calling a file database/repository when I was trying it.

I guarantee you didn't sit down in front of Windows for the first time and knew how to do everything. It's the same thing with Linux, except Linux actually gives you more control over your system. I'd argue that it takes you no longer to learn than Windows, but it seems that way because you have far more control than in Windows. What do you need the command line for in Windows? Nothing really. Everything is dumbed down. I'm not speaking as a Linux fanboi, because I'm the furthest thing from it, but honestly, Linux is better than ever for setting it up and going.

No, but I was able to teach myself Windows very easily the first time I sat down and began using the new computer my father bought. It was Windows 3.11, and it was pretty easy for me to learn as a kid because it was extremely basic and straightforward to figure out. I didn't have any online documentation and the Help files at the time were laughably basic (If they were not simply blank) in most instances, but it was quick to learn. Every Windows since then is just a naturally progression... A new user sitting down in front of Linux for the first time is going to have a much harder time of it as it is a more complex OS that requires far more knowledge to use for basic everyday tasks. In your post you make Linux sound as easy to use as just a few mouse clicks... if that's the case I'll need to try it again.

I use the windows command line regularly, it's a requirement to properly set up and configure an OS install and there are several programs I use that require the command line just to be installed or simply to be run. Don't know your IP address but don't want to spend a minute digging through Vista's litany of windows just to find it? Just run ipconfig, to name one example.

 

[Glider]

If you put an utter PC illiterate behind a Linux station (Ubuntu and the likes), he/she'll be able to do all the basic stuff as fast, or even faster, then on Windows.

The problem is that most have already used Windows, and start comparing to that. To them the FS structure is chaotic, while in fact it makes more sense then one Windows uses...

 

[Brett Thomas]

I've spent a lot of time on this argument personally, both with Glider and with Rob at different times. To be honest, I don't ever understand this even being an argument.

Linux isn't harder OR easier than Windows. It's different. Personally, I don't really even view it as an "alternative" at all - it's meant for a totally different thing.

When i set up a computer that requires reliability and functionality, I go with Linux. Why? Rock solid stable, very few security loopholes right out the box, and frankly Ubuntu as a base install was so simple that even my fiancee asked for it on her laptop instead of Windows. You build it, you spend some time tweaking it, and from that point forward it just does what it's supposed to. Home theater, kiosk, server...these things will never be anything BUT Linux to me because the return value is worth the investment in getting it working. I like that adding or tweaking can be done remotely with just as much power as if I was sitting there, and I can do it at times that users won't be inconvenienced. I love the scheduling and the LACK of user interaction so that the machine can focus on what it's designed to do instead of what it needs to do.

As far as day to day, I prefer OS-X. It's Unix core, so I have all my linux commands that I know and love (I honestly can't imagine how people get by all day without ssh). But the software support is greater, the OS is more robust for daily operation, and it "feels" easier.

The one-click for OSX doesn't work for office work, though, and the software support really stops at the home user/graphic artist...so I use Windows at work. I don't mind it there and there are enough pieces of software that everything talks to each other - so really, I guess that's why this whole argument always leaves me confused.

Windows works best in the office for me, I live daily on the hybrid that is OSX and I use linux for my a-few-vital-tasks machines. There is room for and a need for more than one OS most times - you can write a whole paper in MS Excel, but why would you when there's Word? The same argument applies.

Of the three, if I had to be stuck with one it'd be OSX - but that's a testament to how far 'Nix has come when people put real development dollars behind it as a consumer OS instead of a server architecture.

Just my $0.02. That and another $1.50 might get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.

 

[Rob Williams]

However, with those various windows installers they all work the same, all they need is a double click and then to be executed.

I agree, and that's the problem with Linux. I've said it a million times, but Linux needs a universal installer that works the same on each distro, and it shouldn't be one through the command-line. The problem is, this is not going to happen, because each distro is headed by someone with a different vision. There's a reason there's a thousand different software repositories and handlers right now... everyone thinks they can do things better than everyone else.

Red Hat's RPM, I believe, was the first installer "standard", and while they can be installed on some non-RH/Fedora distros, it's definitely iffy. I wonder if there's an open-source project that exists that aims to be a repository for all distros. Essentially, you'd install the repository for whatever distro you have and it would take over the installed software. There's obvious (major) issues to be had with this, but it'd be interesting nonetheless.

Hmm, that sounds much more straightforward then what they were used to calling a file database/repository when I was trying it.

To make sure that's how things still are, I loaded up my Ubuntu install in VMware and went to install Bluefish. The exact steps are A) Click on Applications and then Add/Remove Applications, B) Search for Bluefish and click the checkbox and C) Click Apply Changes and wait. Less than a minute later, it was downloaded and installed, ready to go. The same goes for most applications, although some will of course take longer than others (like OpenOffice, given it takes so long to download, or a piece of media software, since it might have to download some dependencies first).

I use the windows command line regularly, it's a requirement to properly set up and configure an OS install and there are several programs I use that require the command line just to be installed or simply to be run. Don't know your IP address but don't want to spend a minute digging through Vista's litany of windows just to find it? Just run ipconfig, to name one example.

That's fair, but if you can do that, then the Linux command line isn't a huge jump. You're talking now about power user stuff... simple computer users aren't going to use ipconfig, unless it's for some tech support issue. The thing is, there's a huge difference between a regular computer user and a power user. Regular users, like Glider mentioned, aren't going to have a hard time with Linux. The ONLY thing a little more complicated is that they need a password, and this is for security reasons (something Windows should mimic, but doesn't). You don't want someone to be able to hop on your machine and install whatever they want, and that's what having a password helps (I should note that you CAN tell it to remember the password if you so desire).

Linux is different, that much is obvious, but I don't think the regular user is going to become overwhelmed, and the vast majority will not have to touch the command-line, unless something breaks. My siblings have often hopped on my PC to check their e-mail or do something else without much of an issue. Some things of course are a little different than on Windows, but no OS is the same.

Of the three, if I had to be stuck with one it'd be OSX - but that's a testament to how far 'Nix has come when people put real development dollars behind it as a consumer OS instead of a server architecture.

That's another answer that will be different for each person. You don't game much I'm assuming, so for most current PC users, neither Linux or Mac will work (and I know dual-boot is easy, but not a lot of people want to go through the hassle). Oddly enough though, it's Windows that complicates the dual-boot situation, not Linux. Windows' boot manager is unGodly bloated, and needless. Nothing was wrong with Windows XP's boot loader!

If I had to choose a single OS, I'd have no choice but to go with Windows. I appreciate being able to play my games when I want to, and I still rely on Photoshop and Office 2007 for certain things (I like GIMP and OpenOffice, but they're free for a reason as far as I'm concerned). I'm lucky to now run Windows through a VM though for non-game use. I love the stability and overall power that Linux (Gentoo especially) offers. I couldn't have it any other way.

Gentoo in particular is one distro I'm fond of, and if that project ever got shut down, I have no idea what I'd do. I have never found another distro I've liked half as much.

 

[Brett Thomas]

Well, if you'd fiddled with OSX long enough, you'd stumble on Crossover for Mac. the same group that did/does the linux version, and there's a version specifically designed for games. I run all sorts of modern games on that, so I can game on my macbook just fine.

Granted, it's a patch solution for an otherwise annoying problem, but it works and works well.

 

[Rob Williams]

I had Crossover Games installed on this machine a few times in the past (even recently), but I've since uninstalled it and see no reason to go back. Most games it supports can also be supported with the free version of Wine with some tweaking, and to add to it, the supported games list is far too small and boring. Unless all you play is WoW, Half-Life 2 or Spore, you're going to be craving a heck of a lot more.

Then take into consideration that the graphics you'll see through this emulated manner won't match what you'd see in Windows. No anti-aliasing, and I've often had issues with games where textures wouldn't even show up properly... such as with Guild Wars, and that's a Platinum status title at Wine's AppDB.

In no way do I consider Crossover Games or Wine to be a total replacement for Windows gaming. It's on the right track, but the ultra-limited game selection kills it for me. If all you play is older titles, then great, but don't expect to play the latest blockbuster with either solution.

 

[Ben]

Gaming is an issue, but I think a lot of people who are really into gaming probably aren't interested in Linux. If your trying to get every FPS possible then Linux isn't really where you want to go. At the end of the day what it comes down to IMO, is whatever people can get work down the easiest in. Be it Windows/OS X/Linux, as long as it gets the job down then thats what that person will use. A "working" Linux install I'm sure would suite most people just fine. The problem again is working. Getting it setup and making sure things like Wifi, Sound, Video all work properly is a huge effort. Then you have more advanced options like external monitor support, suspend, hibernate, battery life, etc. If all these worked perfectly then I'm sure Linux would take off as a great alternative to Windows, but until that happens you either have to be really patient or incredilbly lucky.

 

[Glider]

I disagree... Lots of hardware is easier to get going on Linux then on Windows... Did you know Linux offers the most hardware support of all OS's...

 

[Ben]

I disagree... Lots of hardware is easier to get going on Linux then on Windows... Did you know Linux offers the most hardware support of all OS's...

Which is exactly why my ATI x1400 works perfectly with Ubuntu 9.04? Oh wait...

Or why suspend and resume work just dandy? Its these things that they *could* make work with the right config, but don't.

 

[Glider]

Hibrernate and suspend worked fine on my Gentoo Laptop...

ATI has a history of shafting their Linux users, blame them... However, nowadays they are catching up quite rapidly... Just use the closed source drivers...

 

[Rob Williams]

I'm with Glider on the power management issue... I've had better luck with Linux in that regard than Windows. It's faster, and more reliable. At least this was the case when I used Ubuntu 8.04, I believe it was, last summer on a typical Intel GPU-based notebook. I think in general, the newer your notebook is, the better supported features like that will be. As for the desktop, I'm not sure. I've never used standby/hibernate on a desktop, Windows or Linux.

As for your ATI card, that's ATI's problem, not Linux. NVIDIA offers robust drivers that actually work (although they still have their caveats), while ATI's drivers are a chore to get working. Last time I attempted to install one, I ended up getting a corrupted desktop, so I said screw it and went back to NVIDIA.

 

[Kougar]

I disagree... Lots of hardware is easier to get going on Linux then on Windows... Did you know Linux offers the most hardware support of all OS's...

Does it? Define most hardware support... as in will have the least unknown devices upon isntallation? I will burn the latest Ubuntu to disc and see how many devices are not recognized.

Windows 7 RC failed to recognize my Xonar sound card but otherwise everything else worked. I'd fall over if Ubuntu could recognize it.

 

[Glider]

Does it? Define most hardware support... as in will have the least unknown devices upon isntallation? I will burn the latest Ubuntu to disc and see how many devices are not recognized.

Hardware support as in "drivers" (aka modules) to interface the hardware...

 

[Rob Williams]

Define most hardware support...

This idea isn't new, and many developers will agree that Linux does indeed support more devices than any other OS out there. Part of this is thanks to certain modules being able to handle more than one specific piece of hardware. Certain networking modules cover a wide-array of chipsets, and the same goes for some others. The Linux kernel offers an incredible amount of support for various types of hardware (I recompile often, so I know this well).

In the end, it's really up to the distro to take full advantage of it. It needs the ability to query hardware in the system and then load the appropriate module. Most common distros do a great job of this, although some are better than others. If there's a single caveat, it's usually the video drivers, although they can easily be installed through the package manager post-install.

Windows 7 RC failed to recognize my Xonar sound card but otherwise everything else worked. I'd fall over if Ubuntu could recognize it.

Well, I saved you the trouble since I had an Ubuntu 9.04 disc lying around and had to reboot. The result: