Debunking Some Linux Myths

Kudos, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by ocjack on Oct 25, 2009 5:24 PM

Linux users (which probably covers everyone reading this column) may not be the best one to accept the invitation to add "myths circulating about why ordinary users can not, or should not, or will not use Linux" but here goes ...

This one might fit as a reason an ordinary computer user will not use Linux. Of course, one could get into a debate about what an "ordinary user" as Jamie referred to in his article is intended to be and yes, I've assumed it means an ordinary Windows user as opposed to an ordinary Linux user, as for ordinary LInux users asking for myths about why they cannot or will not use LInux is meaningless.

One complaint I've read a few times has been that installing software is too hard for ordinary users in Linux. Of course, for most software, it isn't difficult at all-only different.

However, where the desired software is not in the default repositories, for many or perhaps most Linux novices, especially those wishing to know about as much about computers as they do about their cars (turn ignition, put in gear, steer, gas, brake) the steps of (for example) finding a repository, adding the repository, adding the GPG key, reloading and then finding and installing the software is more than they'll feel comfortable trying-no matter how trivial it feels to an experienced Linux user.

I'm assuming an most ordinary users wouldn't feel comfortable going to the terminal and typing things like apt-get install, aptitude install etc.

b

Updated by tyhee88 on Oct 25, 2009 7:53 PM

Sorry if this comment appears twice, I'm having problems with my Internet connection. What I wanted to say is:

1) in a sense, Linux does have applications for everything. The most recent, true story example I can provide is the "mom explaining why everybody should attend a Linux Day" at http://stop.zona-m.net/education/mother-explains-why-everybody-should-attend-2009-linux-day

2) however, what most non-geeks really mean when they say "Linux is lacking in applications" is "Linux is lacking in applications that can handle without problems the files I ALREADY CREATED with proprietary apps only running on Windows, or that I RECEIVE from people only using such apps". This is not Linux fault, of course, but it is very wrong to ignore this fact.

Updated by mfioretti on Oct 27, 2009 9:07 AM

Hi All, thanks for reading and commenting.

@tyhee88 - I agree that this is a theoretical possibility, and I have heard this complaint too. However, I wonder how often this actually happens today. Not a year or more ago, today. I think it should be safe to assume that the "average user" we are discussing here would be trying to use one of what I consider the "big four" distributions - Ubuntu, Mandriva, openSuSE or Fedora. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes with that very off-the-cuff list, they are just the ones that popped into my head. Perhaps it would be equally valid to assume that such a user would NOT be trying to use Slackware, or Arch, for example, which are the ones which come to mind when I think about more "hands-on" distributions. Anyway, the point is, if there are applications which people want and which are not in the repositories of those four distributions, I would be interested in hearing about them. The only times in the past 18 months that I can recall using apt were when I wanted a newer version of OpenOffice that Ubuntu wasn't including yet, and when I was downloading and installing drivers for devices in my HP 2133 Mini-Note, which were so new they hadn't been integrated in the distributions yet. Today that same 2133 loads the current Beta/RC releases of all four distributions straight out of the box. So I guess my reaction is yes, I see what you mean, I know it has happened, but I strongly suspect this is slipping into the same category as "you have to compile everything yourself" - it used to be that way, but not any more.

@mfioretti - Special thanks for having the perseverance to post a comment when your connection was acting up. I also agree with your comment, to some extent, and I think it is probably still a bit more true than most of the other points I made, there are indeed some proprietary Windows applications which don't have Linux equivalents, or whose files can not be properly read and processed by Linux applications. The number and severity of these is going steadily down, though, and I believe it will eventually disappear. I would also point out that Microsoft has been known to makes some ridiculous incompatible change in the default file format for Office documents (as with Office 2007, and at least one time before, was it with Office 97 or XP?), which produced exactly the effect that you mention, where someone with Office 2007 mails a document to someone with an older version of Office, and they can't open it. I like to use OpenOffice and GIMP as my examples here, both of them are vastly more flexible in document format support than their Windows equivalents.

Your point is still a very valid one, though, and it needs to be paid attention to. There was quite a discussion a while back, about a student who supposedly bought a netbook preloaded with Linux, and then had problems with a class because it "wasn't compatible" with what the instructor expected them to use. When I read that, I assumed they were probably talking about OpenOffice vs. Office, and I thought to myself "why didn't someone show them how to save from OpenOffice in .doc format?". Ok, that might go slightly beyond what you expect the "average user" to figure out, but when Office 2007 documents started being sent around, and previous Office users couldn't open them, one of two things had to happen - either the recipient downloaded and installed the MS Office add-on to support reading the new file format, or the sender figured out how to save in Office 2003 format. Both of those are the same as learning to save from OpenOffice in a different format, so where's the difference?

Thanks again

jw

Posted by J.A. Watson on Oct 25, 2009 8:40 PM

Its good to post and re post this type of useful information to dispel the FUD of many about Linux. I have consistently found Linux to be superior in every way to that other operating system that will remain nameless.

I was sadly disappointed to see that nameless company once again trying to spread crazy wrong FUD about Linux by stationing and/or paying for personal in certain big box stores to perpetuate these and other myths about Linux.

Its sad when good people are mislead by these lies. Your post is welcome, that anyone still spreads any of these myths today tells you all you need to know.

Thanks to the good folks at the Linux Driver Project (http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/foswiki/bin/view) all a proprietary company has to do is contact them to get Linux device drivers written for the current distros.

This is the reason that Linux, today, supports more device drivers than any other operating system in the world! And yes that is a heck of allot more than Windows or Macintosh.

Yet even today that FUD is spread, that there are many, many device driver problems with Linux. Here is a heads up to the few who may not be aware of this, the problem is NOT Linux. The problem is the proprietary hardware companies that cater only to Microsoft Windows.

There is a simple solution to this issue, very simple.

Only purchase hardware from vendors that know and do Linux. My favorite is ZaReason (http://www.zareason.com/shop/home.php) as I have met the owners and witnessed first hand their concern for their customers. Another good Linux builder is System 76. I am sure there are many others.

The bets part of all, is that you can run Windows operating systems on these Linux PCs if you want too. Not that I would, even more important, when the next version of Windows is discontinued and you can no longer purchase products for it and are forced to spend yet more money to upgrade; that computer will run Linux, simply because it was built with Linux in mind...absolutely zero hardware issues, everything just works.

So the problem folks, is that many purchased the wrong hardware from the wrong companies. All big box stores are to be avoided. They do not know or do Linux right. So the problem is not Linux. Not Linux at all.

Friends don't let friends by inferior vendor locked-in hardware!

Updated by cbemerine on Oct 27, 2009 10:58 AM

Its good to post and re post this type of useful information to dispel the FUD of many about Linux. I have consistently found Linux to be superior in every way to that other operating system that will remain nameless.

I was sadly disappointed to see that nameless company once again trying to spread crazy wrong FUD about Linux by stationing and/or paying for personal in certain big box stores to perpetuate these and other myths about Linux.

Its sad when good people are mislead by these lies. Your post is welcome, that anyone still spreads any of these myths today tells you all you need to know.

Thanks to the good folks at the Linux Driver Project (http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/foswiki/bin/view) all a proprietary company has to do is contact them to get Linux device drivers written for the current distros.

This is the reason that Linux, today, supports more device drivers than any other operating system in the world! And yes that is a heck of allot more than Windows or Macintosh.

Yet even today that FUD is spread, that there are many, many device driver problems with Linux. Here is a heads up to the few who may not be aware of this, the problem is NOT Linux. The problem is the proprietary hardware companies that cater only to Microsoft Windows.

There is a simple solution to this issue, very simple.

Only purchase hardware from vendors that know and do Linux. My favorite is ZaReason (http://www.zareason.com/shop/home.php) as I have met the owners and witnessed first hand their concern for their customers. Another good Linux builder is System 76. I am sure there are many others.

The bets part of all, is that you can run Windows operating systems on these Linux PCs if you want too. Not that I would, even more important, when the next version of Windows is discontinued and you can no longer purchase products for it and are forced to spend yet more money to upgrade; that computer will run Linux, simply because it was built with Linux in mind...absolutely zero hardware issues, everything just works.

So the problem folks, is that many purchased the wrong hardware from the wrong companies. All big box stores are to be avoided. They do not know or do Linux right. So the problem is not Linux. Not Linux at all.

Friends don't let friends by inferior vendor locked-in hardware!

Updated by cbemerine on Oct 27, 2009 10:58 AM

@ J.A. Watson-I'd almost written about the incidence of the example I'd given above in my initial comment.

I agree that the incidence will be rare, but don't expect it to be merely theoretical, except perhaps for those using a rolling release-and the main distros normally cited as friendly for novices don't fit that category. The example you gave of changes in OO in Ubuntu is the best example I can think of, because of the changes in the form of a few Calc functions between versions 2 and 3 of oo and then the problem with sharing OO files via Samba in OO 3.0.

Another example in Ubuntu will be people wishing to use Opera.

Updated by tyhee88 on Oct 27, 2009 9:05 AM

I don't think we should be so keen on interoperability as some people tend to be. Of cause we need to BE inter-operable on every front possible, we just don't need to spend so much time "convincing" MS users that we already are able to import/export various file formats from the Windows world.

Be honest. What is MS' greatest problem, according to themselves? Right, piracy. And they spend millions on solutions that'll 'help' them get rid of the problem. And the cleverer they get, the more 'afraid' Joe and Sally-six-pack become. Then they seek other solutions to their "fight" for a free office suite, or free what-ever software they need.

Not that I believe that 'pirates' all become honest over night, but some simply need to know that there's alternatives already out there. We in the FOSS community just need to advocate it better.

AND FOSS need to begin using some effort on collecting some money to produce commercials to show the public on the various TV stations. Some organization of volunteers could controls the means collected to pay the fees. Linux needs commercial publicity if Joe and Sally are to become Linux users.

Oh. And one thing more: We need to stop being so nerdy if we are to 'sell' the message to Joe 'n Sally. I've been able to 'sell' Ubuntu Linux to my 70 year old mom and she loves it.

Updated by Jimmyfj on Oct 27, 2009 9:04 AM

@tyhee88 - The Opera example is an excellent one. Odd that I didn't think of it, since I am typing this in Opera... anyway, I agree that this shows it will not be as rare as I had originally thought. Perhaps the OpenOffice.org example is also a good one, although I'm not as convinced. The last time I needed to do it was when OOo 3 added support for reading .docx/.xlsx files, and I had been cursed with MS Office 2007. I don't think situations like that are likely to arise very often, and I suspect that users who are sophisticated enough to know about, understand, and need to use such things are not likely to be disturbed by the manipulations necessary to get the newer versions.

Thanks again.

jw

Posted by J.A. Watson on Oct 26, 2009 8:00 AM

@jw:
"The number and severity of these [file formats unusable with Free Software] is going steadily down, though, and I believe it will eventually disappear."

Please note that this is only going to happen after citizens, managers of public schools and governments start to understand the difference between software and "file format" and demand that only open file formats are used in public transactions and official procedures. By definition, it is impossible that file formats unusable with Free Software disappear with reverse engineering. Because even ignoring legal obstacles, as soon as reverse engineering is done, those controlling the file format change its specs just to maintain lock in. The only way to break this circle is to refuse proprietary file formats in public administration and education. Once that happens, that is once small businesses, schools, students... are not forced to use proprietary software just to keep working or studying, but can freely use FOSS for those activities if they so wish, then there is no reason for anybody to eve bother about Linux myths and similar.

It is time that we stop thinking so much to Free Software and start thinking to Free as in Freedom communication. We use software to create, use and exchange data, not the other way around. If the data formats are all open, the license of the software processing them becomes irrelevant. So everybody is free to use whatever software they prefer.

For your reference, all these themes will be covered, a bit at a time, on my website http://stop.zona-m.net. To get an idea of what you'll find there, please have a look at this seminary which summarizes many things:

http://mfioretti.com/how-file-formats-can-be-used-favor-or-hamper-innovation-active-citizenship-and-really-free-markets

Updated by mfioretti on Oct 27, 2009 10:58 AM

A couple of thoughts on this interesting thread. First, Microsoft has made available a plug-in to allow Office 2003 to read Office 2007 document formats (those whose extensions end in X, e.g., .docx). Of course, the necessity to know why my copy of Office won't read a document sent to me, know that a plug-in exists to fix it, search out a malware-free copy of that plug-in (hint: google "Office 2003 plugin for docx"), and figure out how to install and configure it (Microsoft lists 4 non-trivial steps) is exactly the complaint I see lodged against various Linux distributions!

Also, you asked about software not usually available in Linux repositories. Since I used an HP-41CV calculator extensively in college, I prefer the Free42 emulator (http://thomasokken.com/free42/) on computers I use (it's available for all major platforms). I usually have to download and double-click an archive to set it up regardless of platform - .tgz on Linux, .zip on Windows or Mac. Only the iPhone store has it available for "easy" installation. Go figure.

Updated by ricegf on Oct 27, 2009 9:04 AM

@ricegf - Thanks for reading and commenting. You hit the nail squarely on the head, the Office 2007/2003 file format change and associated "plug-ins" are a very sore point with me. Not just that they exist, but that the are a perfect example of exactly the sort of thing Linux is constantly being bashed for, but when it happens with Windows the reaction can be summed up as "Mooo. Ok. Mooo. I'll go get the plug-in. Moooo. Or I'll pay some Windows Certified Consultant to come in and do it for me. Moooo.".

In fact, every last bit of Office 2007 gets under my skin. The changes to the user interface were so extensive that I have seen over and over again that users have considerably less trouble changing from MS Office to OpenOffice.org 3 than they do in changing from any previous version to MS Office 2007. Yet it is Linux which continues to take the rap for applications being "different from what Windows users know".

I know exactly what you mean about the calculator, I am an RPN guy from way back, and I still have an HP 41 in my desk drawer. There are a couple of decent RPN calculators in the repositories of the major distributions, but I haven't found one yet that really pleases me.

jw

Posted by J.A. Watson on Oct 26, 2009 11:55 AM

Perhaps the most oft-repeated myth regarding Windows vs. Linux security is the claim that Windows has more incidents of viruses, worms, Trojans and other problems because malicious hackers tend to confine their activities to breaking into the software with the largest installed base. This reasoning is applied to defend Windows and Windows applications. Windows dominates the desktop; therefore Windows and Windows applications are the focus of the most attacks, which is why you don’t see viruses, worms and Trojans for Linux.

Phill

Posted by erasmusp on Oct 26, 2009 12:39 PM

Perhaps the most oft-repeated myth regarding Windows vs. Linux security is the claim that Windows has more incidents of viruses, worms, Trojans and other problems because malicious hackers tend to confine their activities to breaking into the software with the largest installed base. This reasoning is applied to defend Windows and Windows applications. Windows dominates the desktop; therefore Windows and Windows applications are the focus of the most attacks, which is why you don’t see viruses, worms and Trojans for Linux.

Phill

Posted by erasmusp on Oct 26, 2009 2:19 PM

@Phill

Its not really a myth because the virus, trojans etc do infect WIndows with ease. Sure, if linux was as prevalent as Windows there would be more attacks but they will not succeed to infect the systems other than by social engineering. The problems with Windows, it will execute a file based on its extension but with Linux/unix, you need to copy the file to disk and then give it the correct permission before it can execute - hence only social engineering will do it. It cannot happen in a mass way like windows.

Posted by rtfazeberdee on Oct 26, 2009 4:51 PM

If linux was as popular as windows, there would be just as many security problems. You all think that the average windows user is smarter than they really are. Windows is king because they force their shit on everyone and will remain that way until something else comes out and does the same shit for cheaper. These people don't care about alternatives, they only what what everyone else has. If you want to pull over more people, you need to pull over the IT professionals, businesses, and gamers. People don't want to learn two different OSes. They will get what they have at work or what someone recommends or installs for them.

Updated by bobdowne on Oct 27, 2009 9:02 AM

I would like to cross-link the 'too many distros' with 'security'.

The more distros the better, and the more different desktop styles too. Each difference widens the 'genetic' pool and makes it harder for the malware-er to find out where the doors and, er, windows are.

Greatest of all, the more different processor types the better. I for one eagerly await a full ARM based desktop machine. Even if all the other variables have been defeated, your malware authors then either have to detect then install different code for different processors, or have to restrict themselves to interpreted languages that may or may not be on the target machine.

Updated by Tezzer on Oct 27, 2009 9:02 AM

Although most of the myths when taken in full are false, some of them still have some truth to them.

"Linux doesn't support much hardware" (Mostly False) -
The truth is, Linux does support a lot of hardware. However, it still does not fully support some major brands of hardware in use by home users without Terminal tinkering. As usual, the partial to absent support can, much of the time, be blamed on the need for proprietary drivers however, it also can be blamed on incompatible changes to the kernel. My Broadcom wireless card comes to mind. I have experienced plenty of times when a new Linux header, ruins my OS's hardware interaction.

"Linux is Difficult/Confusing to use" (Mostly False) -
For this myth, I will ignore all Linux distros that are not made to be home user friendly (and I will ignore that I disagree with your Windows/Windows, Linux/Windows similarity comparisons). To make it even more narrow, I will focus on Ubuntu. If all Linux's Windows user difficulty was centered around using and familiarizing oneself with the GUI, then this myth would be completely false in my view. However, ease of use also includes ease of software installation (including proprietary software) and dealing with hardware issues like the one mentioned above.
Windows users are used to a one click installation file. Although Debian/Ubuntu has .deb, that package is not generic across Linux distros. Therefore, users may have to learn how to integrate programs downloaded in TAR archives into their system. Yes, users can just search for the software they want in Ubuntu's Synaptic Package Manager or Add/Remove, however Ubuntu does not have proprietary software in their repositories.
If a novice user encounters a hardware, GUI-less terminal tinkering is not high on the list of things to do ease, nor may it be much of an option since most would probably take the "I can't fix it" attitude and not think to do a forum/Google search.

"Windows user in this world who could honestly say that they haven't experienced a crash, hang, or other system "event" that required rebooting or power cycling...I honestly can't remember the last time one of my Linux systems hung or crashed on me."
To give people the impression that Linux (or Mac) does not crash, hang, or encounter other "events" is very misleading. Any system where extra software can be installed and the user is given control could lead to the problem above. Though it may happen less often, other systems are not immune and can easily be made unusable until restarting or restoring. If those issues didn't exist, then terms like "kernel panic" and "spinning wait cursor" wouldn't exist.

Updated by AssistantX on Oct 27, 2009 8:59 AM

Thanks AssistantX for your honesty.

These are some key points that I agree with and see hindering mass adoption of open source operating systems.


"As usual, the partial to absent support can, much of the time, be blamed on the need for proprietary drivers however, it also can be blamed on incompatible changes to the kernel."

Probably the most important of all here, if the kernel's cannot be unified across the spectrum then no proprietary developers will make an effort supporting them.


"Windows users are used to a one click installation file. Although Debian/Ubuntu has .deb, that package is not generic across Linux distros."

Again although not quite as bad as the kernel issue, these one's still make things more difficult than they really need to be.

"Yes, users can just search for the software they want in Ubuntu's Synaptic Package Manager or Add/Remove, however Ubuntu does not have proprietary software in their repositories."

Repositories have served there purpose well since the beginning when they where needed the most but no OS should be relying on them in this day and age, wouldn't the community's rather have 500,000+ independently developed applications for there OS's instead?

Fragmentation isn't a bad thing but when the groups start fragmenting the way the cores work to the point of indifference to one another, then its catastrophic for anyone wanting to develop & release software for them all.

If these obstacles can be over come then I do not see anything standing in the way for more people wanting to use & develop for them, as they would then be a viable alternative to windows or macs.

Posted by CA on Oct 27, 2009 9:07 PM