When comparing Linux to Windows you have to take into consideration what kind of user is involved. Many "home users" use their computers for Office applications (word processor, spreadsheet, presentation), internet (web browsing, email, IM) and games - and nothing else. Most of these users don't even so much as change their date/time localisation settings from the control panel.
In this regard, a standard installation of (say) Mandrake provides all the software necessary. No command lines, no compilations, nothing. All the software comes ready on the CDs. The installation, using Mandrake's control centre, is even easier than Windows - there is a single user interface for all products and this requires nothing beyond merely choosing which applications to install and pressing Ok. You don't have to choose which "optional features" to include, which directory to install in etc. Since almost all this software is GPL'd, you don't even have a license to accept (since you'd have accepted the GPL at installation time). At most the installer informs you that this application will also install 'x' other packages, you click Ok and they're installed too. The only time you'd need to compile anything is if you either want the very latest, bleeding-edge version of a product from CVS (and if you do you're probably already an incurable geek), or else you want a product that isn't included as standard with the distribution - and Mandrake does a pretty good job of including most products you could ever concievably need. For business desktop users, chances are that the company will have already decided on a standard corporate configuration, which includes office applications, desktop environment and other packages to be used in-house. In all my years of using Linux I have never once compiled the kernel. So far I've simply never needed to. The only reason I compile applications is because whenever OpenOffice or some other group annouce a new version I can't wait for the RPMs to come out - I want it by yesterday. In short, I can compile stuff because I'm a geek... but at the same time the only reason I'd want to compile anything is also because I'm a geek. Regarding the installation of the OS itself, I really don't think that the Mandrake installer is more difficult than the Windows installers. Pop in the CD, boot off it and, a few prompts later, you're running. The only time you reboot is at the very end, and then it's well and truly installed. Hardware is automatically detected, the disk is automatically partitioned and so on. If you choose "expert mode" you get lots more options, but then "expert" is another word for geek. I'm not saying that Linux is perfect - far from it. However it is comparable to Windows in ease of use. While a user who's accustomed to Windows will find Linux difficult at first, the same can be said of a Mac user who tries Windows, etc. That's not so much a matter of ease of use - any change requires adaptation. I remember when Windows95 was first introduced there were a lot of complaints from people about how they couldn't find anything. If I were to make a list of things that I would do to make Linux more user-friendly, this would be it: 1. Limit the choice of applications to install, at least in "newbie mode". There should be only one text editor, one word processor, one browser, one email program etc. The other applications can be made available in "expert mode" if necessary. A newbie doesn't know how to choose between Mozilla, Galeon, Konqueror, Netscape and Opera, so they shouldn't be expected to. 2. Standardise RPMs in such a way that RPMs can work on all distributions. All distros should start with RPM and URPMI and move on from there to create a system where a developer can create one RPM per processor family (x86) and place it on a website ready for any user to install, whether they're using Mandrake, RedHat, SuSE or anything else. Ramon Casha
