My review of the latest release of Ubuntu was picked up by Slashdot this week, releasing a flood of criticism.
Although the article praised Ubuntu, it was also one of the first to mention some of its shortcomings, so it probably provoked more reaction than the average review. Much of the criticism was by people who didn’t know as much about a subject as they think they do, and even more was by people who had either misread the article or not read it at all. But the comments I thought most interesting were those who criticized me for suggesting that in some cases Ubuntu made things too simple, and didn’t provide any means for people to learn more about what they were doing. Didn’t I realize, the commenters asked, that the average person just wanted to get things done? That few people wanted to learn more about their computers?
Well, maybe. But as a former teacher, I can’t help thinking that people deserve the chance to learn if they want. More – if you know more than somebody, as Ubuntu’s developers obviously do, you have an obligation to give them the opportunity. To do otherwise is to dismiss the average person as willfully ignorant. Possibly, I’m naive, but I’m not quite ready to regard others that way.
Anyway, which came first: operating systems like Windows that prevent people from learning about their computers, or users who were fixated on accomplishing immediate tasks? If computer users are task-oriented, at least some of the time, the reason could be that they’re conditioned to be so. Perhaps they’ve learned from Windows that prying into the inner workings of their computer is awkward and difficult. We don’t really know how many users will want to learn more, given the opportunity.
Nor will we, until we design graphical interfaces that give users the chance to learn when they want to. Contrary to one or two commenters, I’m not suggesting that every user will always want to do things the hard way and use the command line – I don’t always want to myself, although I gladly do so when typing commands is the most efficient way to do the task at hand.
But where did so many people get the assumption that there’s such a contradiction between ease of use and complexity, that choosing one means that you forgo the other? It’s mostly a matter of tidying advanced features into a separate tab, or perhaps a pane that opens to reveal features that a basic user doesn’t want.
However, when so many people believe in the contradiction, we’re not likely to see graphical interfaces that are as useful to demanding users as basic ones.
Even more importantly, I suggest that giving users the chance to educate themselves is a corollary of free software principles. If free software is only going to empower users theoretically, then it might as well not do so at all. To help that empowerment along, free software has to provide the opportunity for users to learn, even though few may take the opportunity. Yet, so long as the chance exists that any users want the opportunity, it needs to be offered.
Moreover, I believe that, given the chance, many people will eventually embrace that opportunity. The first time that they use a free software interface, they may be focusing mainly on adjusting to so much that’s new.
However, eventually, many of them will learn that they can do things their own way and take more control. And eventually, surrounded by such choice, many may take advantage of it. If they don’t know the choices are available because their desktop has been simplified until the choices are obscured, then the developers are doing them a dis-service.
Some might say that simplification is needed to attract people to GNU/Linux. Personally, though, I doubt that exactly the same thing they can get on Windows is likely to attract anyone. If free operating systems are going to get a larger market share, then it will most likely be by providing a new perspective on computing. I like to think that new perspective should be attempting to accommodate everyone, not just beginners.
Off the Wall 
I agree with many of the things you say. one of the things I noticed while installing Ubuntu was the lack of options to choose what gets installed. I have installed other distros that allow you (if you want) to choose groups of packages or even separate packages at the point of instalation. You don’t have to come back later and work out if everything you want was installed.
I know the default option is good for new users but why not have an advanced option for those of us who want it?
I too use the cli if it is the best option for what I want to do and the gui if it is. The good thing about Linux is the choice to use it as you want.
This is one of the main reasons I dropped Windows for Linux: the possibility of learning the real functioning of the system, and having control over it.
Simplified GUIs are helpful when you approach a task for the first time, and you know little about it. When you get accustomed, windows-like GUIs actually slow down your work, offering each time question and options you don’t need.
Moreover, fancy high-level interfaces add complexity, and we al know complexity brings bugs and resource hunger (see: Windows Vista).
That was an excellent article on the blind acceptance of Ubuntu. There was another such article 2 days ago. it talked about de facto Linux (Red Hat on the server in particular, but it alluded to Ubuntu on the desktop as well).
My primary desktop user environment is KDE, so I will never be an Ubuntu devotee.
I have tried the corresponding KDE version, Kubuntu, on 3 occasions. Unfortunately, Kubuntu utilizes a crippled, dummied-down modification of KDE. I could spend a great deal of time fixing Kubuntu’s KDE, but it’s not worth the effort. KDE doesn’t need to be dummied down to the point where it’s as inflexible as Ubuntu’s Gnome environment.
It’s not a matter of education for the sake of education. It’s not like taking the computer hardware apart to see what it looks like.
“the average person just wanted to get things done”
That comment is odd: since switching to Debian, I’ve been able to do everything I want. Computer OSes are complex. The only way to use them for everything you want is to actually have a basic idea of how they work. Period.
What those commenters are really saying is that computer users limit their wants to things that can be done reasonably (but not perfectly) well without much training. When you make your living with a computer, that’s not a good situation, which is why I don’t use Windows anymore.
There’s something that these people should keep in mind. If your not willing to invest a little bit, you’ll never be able to move from Windows to Linux. Period.
Imf said most of what I wanted to say already, but I still have a few things to add.
Computers are maybe the most complex thing ever manufactured by man. They are extremely multi-purpose machines, and that versatility means that they are complex are do things in ways that are difficult to understand.
Yet people seem to think that anyone should be able to use a computer from day 1 without ever having to understand at least a little how they work. I just don’t understand this attitude. Does anyone think we should be able to drive cars without ever taking driving lessons, and having to take driving lessons is a sign that cars are ill-manufactured? Heck, people have to *learn* to ride a bike, a piece of machinery millions of times less complicated than a computer, and everybody finds that normal!
So why this different attitude with computers? Why this call to dumb interfaces down so that people will be able to use them without thinking? The only result will be a machine with a few purposes and nothing else, a glorified webbrowser, email client, word processor, or a game console. There’s nothing wrong to want something like that, but there *is* something wrong asking for a machine to be as easy to use as a dumb typewriter while keeping the same versatility and expressive power as a fully-fledged computer.
I am not saying that people should learn the HTTP protocol by heart, or understand how data is written on hard drives. That would be the equivalent of disassembling a car motor and learn to reassemble it. But a bit of understanding of the main principles of computing and networking, is that too much to ask?
Moreover, there is a very practical advantage, even for basic users, in understanding at least the basics. If you know at least the basics of how a car works, when yours breaks down, you’ll be able to at least get an idea of what went wrong, or you may even be able to recognise the first signs of an impending break down and prevent it, if only by going to the garage on time. And thanks to this basic understanding, you won’t stand like a doofus in front of the repairman, not understanding a thing of what he says or does (thus being an easy prey for unscrupulous people). In the same way, if you have a basic understanding of how your computer and your operating system works (as well as the main applications you use), when things go wrong or are about to go wrong you will be able to understand what’s happening, giving you an edge when calling the helpdesk or googling/browsing forums for this issue. In many cases, you’ll be able to prevent a full breakdown or at least speed up resolution of the issue.
So educating users is not only desirable, it is necessary, because computers are complex machines with complex purposes, and trying to dumb them down will only make them lose their power and versatility. And I haven’t even started on the issue of security, in these days of networked computers and Internet access to everyone, virusses, spyware and social engineering (this issue can only be handled by education anyway).
I’ve had a similar experience on my own blog. I can review 100 other distros, say whatever I think about them, and the response is positive. I review Ubuntu and point out some flaws (while still acknowledging that it’s a useful distro for some people) and get flamed as a heretic.
It got to the point where I tried to say, “Fine then, let’s not call Ubuntu Linux. Let’s instead call it ‘the Linux-hosted halfway house for recovering Windows users'” Got flamed even worse for that.
Still, people who leave Windows for Linux get lost. It’s the prisoner mentality all over again – former slaves have no idea how to function as a free person. Perfect freedom also means perfect responsibility.
I’m baffled. How are we going to solve this? Hacking people is ever so much more difficult than hacking computers.
There is a very good article on this subject in the context of GNU/Linux and
free software at
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
with which I completely agree. I’m one of those users whom the author claims
comprise a majority of the Linux community, who want Linux to be “the best OS
that the community is capable of making. Not for other people: For itself. The
oh-so-common threats of “Linux will never take over the desktop unless it does
such-and-such” are simply irrelevant: The Linux community isn’t trying to take
over the desktop. They really don’t care if it gets good enough to make it
onto your desktop, so long as it stays good enough to remain on theirs.”
(Before reacting against this, I would suggest reading it in the context of
the entire article. The author isn’t opposed to expanding the community; the
claim, instead, is that quality, choice, flexibility, etc.,are the most
important considerations and that “dumbing down” the software, reducing the
diversity of options available, etc., just to attract users of other operating
systems isn’t desired. At the same time, people who want to be part of the
community and who appreciate the freedom, configurability, power, etc., that
Linux provides are to be welcomed and encouraged to join in.)
I just read your review. Are you aware of the alternate desktop CD? It is available by checking a box at the end of http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download. It uses the debian installer and offers more control over the installation. It might better suit your needs. The Startup-Manager of Gutsy, which is available via System, Administration, allows to enable bootmessages on startup and to disable the boot-splash.
Markus:
Yes, I am aware of the alternate CD. But, the trouble is, most people aren’t. So it really isn’t a case of my needs, but what the average person knows about and is going to use.