31 Oct 2003 | MrAnonymous said...

Yeah, I deal in customer service for some major software companies and the basic downloads are super complicated for some people. It baffles me sometime why these people even have computers...much less PCs. (Not a Mac user, by the way...but PCs are too complex for retired beginners.)

31 Oct 2003 | MrAnonymous said...

Of course, I should add, our downloads ARE easier than what you quoted. Crazy, man. Someone wasn't thinking.

31 Oct 2003 | poultryfarm said...

MrAnonymous wrote:
It baffles me sometime why these people even have computers

hmm, my reaction is the opposite. it baffles me why most instructions aren't more clearly written.

31 Oct 2003 | linux weenie said...

This isn't the fault of the corefont people, and I think its unfair to single them out. It's a problem with some (most? all?) linux distributions.

Thanks to the corefont people, on some versions of linux (eg, debian) installing the fonts is as simple as typing "apt-get install msttcorefonts". Yeah, this is slightly more arcane than downloading and dragging to a folder. But it's the way everything is installed into the system. If you want mozilla, type "apt-get install mozilla". If you want php, type "apt-get install php" and the system does the rest, unlike the complicated install process for jaguar. Same with any other piece of software.

The people at the corefonts site are doing their best with what they have available to them. The fact that there are too many linux distributions with no common standards is the problem. Well, one of the problems at least.

31 Oct 2003 | Louis said...

I can understand what you're saying about how unclear documentation can confuse non-technical users. But how much common sense should a technical writer assume the average PC owner has? Should the writer "dumb down" their documentation to the 3rd grade level? Or should they assume the user has a high school diploma and average intelligence?

Maybe an organization should be formed that standardizes ALL documentation, from computers and software to IKEA tables and VCRs. Kinda like a W3C for technical writers.

31 Oct 2003 | jason said...

My understanding of this is that it'd be illegal to repackage those fonts, and this is a clever way around that problem by making the end-user build their own package of them before installing. It's bound to be a little complicated to hack around MS licensing.
Apt-get isn't repackaging the fonts either, it's installing a helper application that does the same thing as the .spec file listed above.
If it was simple and one command to install, Microsoft would likely consider it "repackaged". I doubt they'd let redhat in particular get away with that.

If these fonts were freely distributable it'd be as easy as "up2date msttcorefonts" on redhat.

That said linux still has a long way to go on the usability side and it hasn't usually been the developers' top priority. After all, it's not like they have any trouble installing this stuff.

31 Oct 2003 | Darrel said...

Linux is hoplessly complicated. I'm finding the GUIs like KDE in the latest Mandrake distro are actually getting worse. There is no clear plan to fix any of this and, as such, it's a continuing random collection of this and that, all modifying different config files here and there and all without any really useful documentation.

31 Oct 2003 | Ryan said...

I agree that KDE seems to be getting more difficult. I have never been a fan of it aesthetically either. OTOH, Gnome or Ximian's latest desktop have been shaping up quite nicely!

I use linux on my Apple powerbook and PC desktop. I enjoy having a unified environment on different hardware platforms. Wouldn't be to thrilled to run Mac OS9 part of the time and XP the other.

-r

31 Oct 2003 | Darrel said...

Maybe it's time I look at Gnome again.

The main problem I have with linux is that you pretty much need to know the entire library of command-line syntax.

That's OK, in itself, but the GUI's they are building on top of linux are not actually being designed to replace the command-line syntax, but rather, they just augment it...meaning to understand what the GUI is doing, you still need to know what command lines are to make the conceptual link between the GUI and whatever particular config or system setting it is modifying.

I'm going on two weeks now to get linux up and running with Apache 2. Just getting the machine's own networking to work to a combination of drakeConfig, Webmin, manual config file editing, and finding 2 or 3 different firewalls that need to be set along with setting nat strings with the command line. Ugh.

And don't get me started on apache...it's a great server with no logical interface. About the opposite of IIS (so-so server with a great interface).

02 Nov 2003 | Publius said...

Well, Linux doesn't want you to think she's too easy.

27 Nov 2003 | ben at leftclick au said...

I'm not a regular reader of this forum just randomly stumbled across it from Google and I couldn't stand to let this go uncorrected...

> Linux is hoplessly complicated. I'm finding the GUIs like
> KDE in the latest Mandrake distro are actually getting
> worse.

I don't know what drugs you people are smoking! Five years ago Linux wouldn't even have crossed my mind as a regular desktop, now I use it every day. KDE has improved dramatically since 2.0, even since 3.0.

At least with Linux you can choose to have whatever GUI you like - or no GUI if you want. With Windows you are stuck with what you are given.

> The main problem I have with linux is that you pretty much
> need to know the entire library of command-line syntax.

IMHO most regular Linux users these days wouldn't even have to know what a shell is. Mandrake for example has some very simple GUI tools for installation, and just about every config setting there is. Sure, if you're a Debian user there is a bit more of a learning curve, but most distros are getting easier and easier.

> I'm going on two weeks now to get linux up and running
> with Apache 2.

It took me about 1 hour to get Mandrake 9.1 with Apache 2 installed and running with the default settings. So you have to know how to modify the config files. Boo-hoo, if you aren't that confident then you shouldn't be running a web server. You'll probably just leave it insecure and it'll be an exploit for spam-kiddies or whatever they're being called these days. Oh wait a minute I just described IIS!

> That said linux still has a long way to go on the usability
> side

Compared to what? Windows? Windows is impossible to use! After using Linux if I go to a Windows PC I find it takes about 3 steps to do things that normally take 1 step!

I do agree that some things could be made easier, and I'm not saying that Linux is perfect... But to say that it is getting worse is blasphemy! If any OS is getting worse it has to be Windows... now they are trying to say they want control over our hard drives!

Besides, even if some things are a bit harder, there is a whole online community waiting to help you. With commercial software you always have to pay for support. With Linux there is free support and, if you really need it, commercial support from most distros.

Regards,
Ben

www.leftclick.com.au

27 Nov 2003 | ben at leftclick au said...

I forgot to mention, the original article talks about how difficult it is to install TrueType fonts on Linux, what about the procedure for installing X fonts on Windows? Oh that's right there is none.

Ben

www.leftclick.com.au