Which Linux For Non-Techie Windows Users?

obarthelemy writes "Having at last gotten Linux to run satisfactorily on my own PCs, I'd now like to start transitioning friends and family from XP to Linux instead of Windows 7. The catch is that these guys don't understand or care much about computers, so the transition has to be as seamless and painless as possible. Actually, they won't care for new things; even the upcoming upgrade to Windows 7 would be a pain and a bother, which is a great opportunity for Linux. I'm not too concerned about software (most of them only need browser, IM, VLC, mail and a Powerpoint viewer for all those fascinating attachments). What I'm concerned about is OS look-and-feel and interface — system bar on the bottom with clock, trash, info on the right, menu on the left, menu items similar to those of Windows. Is it better to shoot for a very targeted distro? Which would you recommend? Are there themes/skins for mainstream distributions instead? I've been looking around the web, and it's hard to gauge which distros are well-done and reasonably active."

Try OpenSUSE

[Anarke_Incarnate]

11.2 is very polished and nice and YaST makes it easy to get things done if you are unfamiliar with how Linux configuration files work or are located. It can install software almost as easily as Ubuntu, but in my opinion, does more things "right" than Ubuntu does. It has almost everything you would need and good overall integration. If you install it, I recommend you do it via the install DVD rather than the live CD.

Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian. Its

-simple
-easy to set up
-stable, even testing
-uses apt
-ubuntu tutorials will work with it 99% of the time
-you wont get laughed off of help forums as you would with ubuntu
-includes a large amount of DE/WM choices.

Ubuntu

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Give them Ubuntu. Out of the box it's similar in look and feel to windows. If you want it to look like OS X then install AWN and Compiz (or if their system is old/slow turn on Metacity instead of Compiz) and the advanced effects thing (I forget what its called but it lets you make those squishy windows and the cube for switching between workspaces and lots of other effects.

Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[ztransform]

Having recently paid for Windows 7 Professional, I can tell you that Linux offers you so many benefits that it is hard to see how Microsoft will be able to compete in the near future.

For example:

• you can install Linux even when there are multiple hard drives in your computer (you can only install Windows 7 if there is one and only one hard drive installed)
• you can choose to have your entire Linux partition encrypted - no need to buy Windows 7 Ultimate, or install truecrypt later
• Linux will support RAID - 0, 1, 1+0, etc - Windows 7 only supports RAID 0, and RAID 1 for those who buy Professional or Ultimate, and cannot do RAID 1+0
• Linux will not magically create a 100MB partition that you cannot erase and is essential to the operating system, unlike Windows 7 that will refuse to boot after removing the 100MB magic partition using Knoppix and cannot repair even with the original installation disks

If it wasn't for games and some professional software being released only for Windows I would not even think about paying money for a product that is far inferior to the free one.

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[Threni]

I considered Suse but noticed that Ubuntu not only looked easier, but had UbuntuForums.org which seems to be the place to search for info or ask for answers, and didn't see anything as popular for Suse or other distros. Also, Ubuntu seems to be by fair the most popular, which makes it easier to check if this or that game/gfx card/piece of hardware works. And it's less nerdy to get obvious `this shouldn't be hard` stuff done, like installing software.

Mint

[uvajed_ekil]

I'd say Mint is a good choice, though I'm certainly biased from using it for years now. It is easy to install, comes with everything most users need, and is Ubuntu-based, meaning anything you don't find should be easy to add. The included software manager makes it super easy to pick and choose optional software. At least give this one a look, as it has become quite popular, according to distrowatch.com and some other linux reviewers.

Linux Mint

[SixArmedJesus]

I'm personally a big fan of Linux Mint. It builds off of Ubuntu, but it comes already setup with a number of proprietary items that other distros don't want to include, such as flash , mp3 and NVidia support. It has the familiar Windows-like setup you mentioned and it's easy to maintain with the mint-update tool, which lets the user know when there are updates to install. (I know other distros have similar utilities, but Mint's never seemed to break anything on an update.) It also has a number of other mint-* tools that make maintenance very easy and gives it a nice polish even over Ubuntu.

the answer to your question, and then some

[drinkypoo]

What I'm concerned about is OS look-and-feel and interface -- system bar on the bottom with clock, trash, info on the right, menu on the left, menu items similar to those of Windows.

All you have to do to get this with Ubuntu is to move the task list from the bottom panel to the top, delete the bottom panel, and move the top panel to the bottom. With a little research you could probably do this from the console (or by extension, a script) with the gconftool-2 command. The menu items are already sufficiently similar to Windows.

Making it act like OSX is slightly harder, but not really difficult. Add the AWN testing team PPA (some of the mac features like pinning an app to the dock as a launcher require the new AWN) and install avant-window-navigator-trunk and all the plugins ending in -trunk, remove the gnome-panel from the list of required applications (again, via gconf) and configure Compiz to include the functionality of Expose and Spaces, which is quite simple.

For both Windows and OSX-looks, there are numerous available GTK+2 themes which will provide the appearance of your choice. OSX has three or four different widget sets; you get to pick one that looks like any of them (or variations thereof) and all the GTK+2 apps will look the same, something Apple hasn't been able to manage. Windows-look is much the same; you can find Windows 95/NT4, Windows 98, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, or various other appearances. Making the gnome-panel look like the Windows taskbar is a simple matter of using the right background image, which you ought to be able to download easily enough.

I use an OSX-look; The visual effects of Compiz are slower than the effects on OSX ever since Xgl was killed off. But the rest of the OS is generally more responsive, so the final effect is fairly positive. With that said, you might consider just getting them used to Ubuntu's look. The only big drawback to it is that having two taskbars wastes screen real estate. That's why I'm using AWN with auto-hide; it's very smart in the current release. Also, this is the first version of AWN which doesn't simply disappear when compiz dies, which makes it a valid tool for the average user, who probably doesn't want to have to hit Alt+F2 and run Compiz. Instead, you can give them a menu option. This is still better than what happens on Windows or the Mac when an element of the GUI system dies.

Re:ER... Why?

[indrora]

Actually I have to place a nice "Windows 7 did its job amazingly" note here.

I ran windows 7 on a machine with the following specs:
384MB of RAM
1Ghz Pentium 3/4 (cant remember which)
4MB graphics card
(see http://sonof.bandit.name/files/tehlaptop/wtf.png [bandit.name] )
It got a 1.0 on the scale, and I had to hack together some win2k drivers for it to work, but by god it worked and it had better boot times than Linux does on the same machine(a heavily stripped down Xubuntu), down to playing a few mildly graphics intensive games (but it wasnt going to play Quake any time soon. All I used it for was net browsing and IRC) and ran more stably than the 2k os that it came with.

Microsoft has actually done something right.

ON THE FLIPSIDE
I got my grandmother up to speed using Ubuntu in a few days, with a few problems here and there with things like scanners and odd bits and pieces. Granted she still wanted her windows machine back because its what worked (and did QuickBooks)

Re:Mandriva Linux

[Linegod]

I agree. However 64-bit works quite well.

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[drinkypoo]

I could *not* get Windows 7 ultimate to install with a second hard drive and to this day it won't recognize one of my WD HDDs. I have no idea why, Ubuntu sees it just fine and XP never had a problem.

Did you try installing the latest storage driver? You need to slipstream it into the install disc, ideally even removing the entries for the originally-included version from the inf file that loads drivers during windows install. This is the most likely culprit. Which host adapter chip/version is in the system in question?

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[TheThiefMaster]

Windows 7 allows you to load storage drivers off of a usb stick before installing.

Re:Prepare for all

[commodore64_love]

>>>>you'd better not start the whole 'converting business' because you will probably get more questions and remarks than you can handle

+1 insightful.

I ran into this exact same problem. I gave my brother a new Windows/vista 7 desktop and an older Ubuntu Linux laptop (he gave me $350 in return), and you're right. I was not prepared for the number of questions I am now getting from him.

- WINDOWS 7 (vista 6.1) ----- Nary a problem. He did ask me to install RealPlayer but it only took 5 minutes and now he's gone two months without asking any questions.

- UBUNTU LINUX ----- Oh my god. Problem after problem after problem. "Where's the start menu?" "How come I can't find the calculator?" "Why won't my MS Word docs work on this laptop?" "I tried to play a game, but it refused to work." "I tried to watch CNN but the video refuses to run (it needed MS media player)." I'm starting to wish I had installed XP instead of Linux on this laptop, because it's idiot-friendly and my brother knows Windows.

Disclaimer-
This is not going to be a popular post.
I'm sorry. I can't change what I have observed.

Re:Ubuntu

[Sarten-X]

I agree fully. Having slight differences is a good reminder that the user is now unique among their peers, and uses something superior to the average. Like driving a Ferrari, it's got everything, but just a little different than their neighbor's Buick.

However, normalcy is nice. Having a steering wheel is good. This is why I usually just rearrange things a bit. Sure, it takes a bit of effort, but you can rearrange the applets on the GNOME panel and get a decent facsimile of Windows, but with different images. It's enough to match up with basic instructions from less-than-savvy friends, and it's certainly close enough to learn quickly.

Once I've converted folks, I've often put a sheet of paper next to the computer, listing equivalent options between Ubuntu and Windows. If you want to do something and can't figure out how immediately, look at the list. Eventually, that list will disappear from use.

Finally, one of the most important things I've done to convert someone has nothing to do with the OS itself. I always leave my cell phone number and a card listing the hours where I'm not otherwise occupied. For the next week, I'll get several calls, but the user gets someone friendly to help them. It also often serves as a nice introduction to the community in general. If I'm unable to really help right then, I'll direct the user to the Ubuntu forums. Calls drop off rapidly after that.

This turned into an essay. Sorry about that.

Re:Ubuntu

[Noughmad]

The KDE UI is much closer to Windows than Gnome is

That pretty much removes the first question anyone new to Ubuntu will ask, "Where is the Start Menu?". KDE is definitely the way to go here, because the whole desktop looks practically the same an Win7.

Re:Linux terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Malware / trojans ruined my family's Windows routine (most recently BSODs after a security update revealing the Windows rootkit). Ubuntu has worked for them a lot better. It comes with masses of easily installable free software. Admittedly they aren't too picky about exactly which "letter writing" or "picture editing" software they use and don't play games (other than flash games). The best part is I can log in remotely (at their request) to help them out when necessary rather than stopping by after work every few days to remove the latest trojan they got from facebook or yahoo mail.

Re:Linux terrorist

[sammyF70]

From my own experience, past the first hour of explaining where to find stuff, you'll get a LOT less support to do by using a good linux distro than by staying with Windows, as long as they don't want to play the newest games out there.Linux is way less of a hassle for the standard user, who is going to spend 99% of the time in MSN, Skype or on facebook, and who watches vids on youtube, than windows (and yes, I include even Windows7 in that). Additionally, If someone like that asks you for a certain software ("I need Photoshop, cause my cousin's neighbour's Aunt said it was great to resize pictures"), you can easily log in via ssh and install the foss equivalent, thus saving yourself the effort of being physically present and your "non-computer-type" person either a lot of money/the danger of catching a virus (you'll still end up having to explain how to use the software, but that would have happened with windows software nevertheless).

Re:My biggest problem was

[randomsearch]

I don't know if you've used iTunes, but I have.

It is such a horrible piece of software that I'd say *not* running iTunes is one of Linux's great strengths :-D.

RS

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[bill_mcgonigle]

Do you really want your OS taking on the overhead of RAID?

Yes, it's well-debugged, very low CPU (especially in a multi-core world), and it's portable across controllers.

Desktop motherboards with hardware RAID 0/1/0+1 are easy to find and cheap.

Because most of them just pass the job onto an OS driver.

How many desktop users actually have the four hard drives necessary (at a bare minimum) for 0+1 anyway?

RAID-1 is the major win for availability. It even improves your average seek time.

Re:Try OpenSUSE

[obarthelemy]

I knew I would get that kind of reaction wording my question that way. My aim is not to bash Linux, but of the 6 PCs I currently have at home, it failed to install on 4, from a HALT error to a grey screen after loading x to a weird system screen with no login or launch options to a great big freeze at the desktop. I tried looking around for docs on these 4 issues, and either didn't find any relevant info, or it didn't work, or the info was incomplete or outdated. But then again, I'm dumb.

Since it did install on my 2 latest PCs, I'm taking it as a sign it will work well enough for simple desktop tasks, though the community, as you so effectively prove, is as welcoming to curious passer-bys and newbies as ever.

As for making it look like Windows, my users have a tendency to be even dumber than me. My 80-year old dad is thrown off when a video driver update changes his screen's resolution...

Not ready for prime time

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, my advice is to not try it.

Linux is not a beginner operating system for two simple reasons: Command lines and config files.

Sure, you can install Ubuntu and have a slick interface that’s easy to use, but if something goes wrong or you want to customize something you almost always have to go to the terminal and/or edit config files.

To me I interprete this is as a sign of lazy design. After all, it’s easy to make a OS look nice and to make it easy to use, assuming nothing goes wrong.

Even something as easy as changing a display setting in Ubuntu requires the user to issue a gksudo command. Want to install a Windows Media 9 codec? That’s command line work.

I think the FOSS community does not understand that the major hurtle is not making Linux easier to use, it’s that it is still a GUI interface on top of a command line driven foundation and only hard core users want to have that sort of losely integrated approach (ask most mac users if they ever had to mess around with BSD). To most people the ideal OS is one where you never need to go to the command line or modify a config file for any reason—including to adjust settings or fix problems.

Packman is a must have !

[DrYak]

If you configure (And you should) the Packman repository

I second that. Packman is a must have repository.
Given weird IP laws, there is a lot of stuff which Novell isn't allowed to ship inside openSUSE (MP3 support, DVD support, etc...). Packman is *the* place to get all the stuff one needs (in addition to providing a nice location for some more up-to-date software and software which weren't available in the main repo).

Though one gotcha with openSUSE 11.2 : the latest opensource drivers for ATI and nVidia aren't included out-of-the-box (no nouveau at all, and the out-of-the-box radeonhd had problems supporting my 3800 AGP, though it works perfectly with older cards), so no automagic updates of kernel along with corresponding video drivers.
Will probably come with the next release (11.3)
Until then, you'll probably have to :
- either use the proprietary drivers and assist your friends re-installing them in case of kernel update
- or use the opensuse repositories [freedesktop.org] with latest opensource drivers (might require also the latest kernel which is updated quite often)
- or use something like the vesa 2D-only driver with vesa or shadowbuffer 2D-acceleration. (it's much faster than XP's vesa driver and *IS* actually usable for a user wanting only browsing web & checking mail)
- or hope the target newbie user have intel-based gfx cards (real intels, not powervr-rebranded-as-intel).

Good thing: Since 11.2, Novell tried introducing continuous update into openSUSE (so you can also "dist-upgrade" 11.1->11.2 the way you do it with Debian/Ubuntu/Mint/etc.)

The only advantage I see for Ubuntu is a much bigger and visible community around it.
(Easier to find ubuntu-specific answers when googling around)

Re:My biggest problem was

[Chaos Incarnate]

Give your friend Songbird. The default theme and functionality is very similar to iTunes, and it supports iPod syncing out of the box. It integrates functionality for a couple different music stores (7digital, Amazon MP3, etc) about as smoothly as iTunes does with the iTunes store, plus the added bonus of DRM-free music.

You mean "the added bonus of lower sound quality", since the iTunes store is also DRM-free for music, but is AAC instead of MP3.

Re:Prepare for all

[Cwix]

Im sorry this is gonna make me look like an ass, I suppose I am one, but whatev.

Start menu? Your bitching about this, wha? Its been a min since I used gnome, but if I remember correctly there is something analogus to the start button , on the top left.

Calculator? Huh Your bitching about this too? Prob under utilities under aforementioned button.

MS Word docs? They for the most part work just fine in Open Office (.docx files with large tables may have issues, I ran into this) Most people dont use tables the size my teacher was using, it was for subnetting so you can imagine how many little boxes there were for putting "0"'s and "1"'s .

Game? What game? Why didn't it work? Error message? Try a different one, open package manager, click games that look interesting, click install, make cup of coffee, play game, profit?

CNN video huh? Playing it right now using OpenSuse, and Firefox, with a flash player installed, thats it. (1-click install easy as pie) Trust me I have no MS software running on my computer..

Perhaps if you had properly installed everything, and give him a thirty min tutorial it would work properly, and you wouldnt be getting stupid questions. I installed Fedora on my buddys laptop, It has been running without a hitch for at least a year. Hes a typical grease monkey, doesnt know a hell of a lot about computers, isnt really that intersting to him, an his gf.. .sweetest girl in the world, dullest crayon in the box, she uses it with no problems.

A pain and a bother?

[brad-x]

Windows 7 preserves almost all the metaphors and usage traits people are used to from XP, and introduces new convenience features. I think a transition to Windows 7 from XP would be a much smoother process than an introduction to a new platform.

Is there a good reason to switch the family to Linux, other than for ideological reasons?

Re:PCLinuxOS

[obarthelemy]

The issue with minor distros is drivers, especially video drivers. I like PuppyLinux a lot, too.

Re:Saving Yourself A World Of Pain

[doktaru]

Linux will support RAID - 0, 1, 1+0, etc - Windows 7 only supports RAID 0, and RAID 1 for those who buy Professional or Ultimate, and cannot do RAID 1+0

Do you really want your OS taking on the overhead of RAID? Desktop motherboards with hardware RAID 0/1/0+1 are easy to find and cheap. How many desktop users actually have the four hard drives necessary (at a bare minimum) for 0+1 anyway?

You do want the OS to handle RAID for most modern desktops and servers, excepting specialized RAID hardware. There are a few reasons you want the OS to handle the RAID if you are going to use RAID:

• Cards less than $500 often have crappy hardware and will hinder performance. Just because a motherboard has a RAID feature, does not mean that it is any good. Software RAID in modern, multicore machines often has superior performance. RAID hardware is often underpowered unless you spend a significant amount of money. Using a fraction of a core for RAID is hardly noticeable overhead these days.
• Motherboard raid, unless a coprocessor and memory is specified (a very rare thing), it is actually going to be software raid, just with the software loaded with the firmware.
• Using a form of hardware RAID locks you into that specific card or controller (sometimes you can get away with similar controllers, but they might use slightly different disk signature). Manufactures like this because if a RAID card or controller croaks, you have to often buy a card of motherboard from the same maker as the failing hardware.
• Software RAID gives you greater granularity and flexibility to configure your disks. With software RAID, you do not have to use entire disks. You could configure it so that part of your disk is simple, flat storage, part RAID 1, part RAID 0. You can even use disks of differing sizes and use the portion that a hardware RAID would cut off to make all drives in the RAID set the same size.
• The failure model for software RAID is different from hardware RAID. One of the most commonly overlooked failures in RAID systems is the RAID card itself. If a RAID card goes toast, it can often take the entire data set with it. Models that support multiple RAID controllers for a single RAID set are more rare and expensive. With software RAID, you can combine different inexpensive controllers, so if one controller fails, you have a possibility of still having an operational data set.
• With RAID 5 and 6, there are some additional considerations due to the parity data structure. Because data loss may occur if certain write operations are not completed, many decent RAID cards have a form of battery backup in the case of power failure. In a software RAID, you would want to make sure that the system has an uninterpretable power supply to deal with that risk. A UPS unit is also more general and helps with other data loss factors as well.
• Software RAID, because it is more general, often has better real-world testing and reliability. Hardware implementations (especially motherboard implementations) use proprietary implementations that have smaller user bases, so may have more errors.

Re:Ubuntu

[Beardo the Bearded]

I've used Puppy, Ubuntu, and Mint recently, with a laundry list of other distros over the years.

Mint is your hands-down best out-of-the-box choice. The reason is simple -- it comes with a Flash player already installed. That means that facebook, youtube, twitter, and every other flavour-of-the-week website is going to just work as soon as installation is completed. If you're using other distros, you're going to have to enable the universal, guess about which open-source player and version will work, and cross your fingers. (Remember, if it fails ONCE, Linux is too complimicated.) It is based on Ubuntu, so you get a lot of support PLUS all the proprietary functionality that the average user will want.

Puppy is faster, and by a long shot. Even though it's not as polished, it is usable, so much so that my daughter can use it. (She is six.) I've got another copy running on my ancient P2 366 laptop, and it's actually usable.

In your own words!

[prolene]

You wrote: "Having at last" Means a lot of work before you got it working, only satisfactorily, for your own self. It would be same for each person you deploy for. Unfortunately the lesson is only learned after you have tried for yourself. In the end it gets clear that Linux is not ready for non-techies.

Re:YaST, YaST, and YaST

[Noughmad]

Most Windows users never configure their box. In most cases it only has to be done no more than once, and then it's usually done by a geek relative.

Re:Prepare for all

[TerranFury]

Completely with you. There was a time when I would have considered installing Linux on my older parents' computer, but I wouldn't think seriously about it nowadays. In fact, I've even given up on Linux on the desktop myself!

I'd been running Kubuntu on my laptop for some time... Frustrated by a dog-slow Flash player (which wouldn't fullscreen properly), and extremely flaky wifi, I switched to XP Pro. Should have done it ages ago. It runs Flash fullscreen at native (very high) LCD resolution, plays games, has 100% working, reliable wifi... and nearly everything I'd want Linux for, Cygwin gives me. Plus, you can snag Windows binaries for most OSS software of any note.

And I should emphasize: It runs about twice as fast now. KDE3.5 is slow compared to XP Pro. It's on par with Vista, seriously.

The only time I found XP to be less convenient was when, once, I wanted to access a hard drive as a block device (instead of as a filesystem) so that I could wipe it before returning it. I ended up popping Knoppix in to do that.

That one case is the rare exception.

I still run Kubuntu on a machine in my lab -- which I use only for MATLAB, LaTeX, web, and email -- and it does the job there, but frankly for that purpose it's no better than a Windows machine; it's merely more-or-less the same.

I've also had bad experiences with embedded Linux for realtime applications (It's... nontrivial.... to get realtime support.) So I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Linux is a good choice if you want a non-realtime embedded system (e.g., router or set-top box), or an extremely capable server. But on the desktop it's just penny-wise and pound foolish.

Contrary to popular belief

[cntThnkofAname]

In all my experience of converting people from Windows to Linux, the real n00bies (the ones that tell you things like my computer is to slow to run the internet) aren't the problem, it's the people that think they know what they're doing in windows that are the problem. For example, I've tried converting a few of my kinda tech savvy (as in they know the parts of the computer and could probably put together a desktop) friends by having them dual boot... It was a disaster. They were asking all the questions one would expect: Why can't I run exe's, where's the C drive, why should I unmount disks before I pull them out, ect.

After giving up for a bit I changed the crowd I was trying to "convert" to people that had never conceptualized that Windows isn't the computer that it's just software to help (some would argue) the computer to run. This went over incredibly well. It usually works the same way every time: Person comes up to me, says something like "My computer is really slow, I think myspace gave my a virus ... fix it" I respond "How about I install something called Linux which will fix all your problems". After 10 minutes of helping them understand the basics of computers they're sold. I've done this with at least 5 people and I have had maybe 7 questions in the last 2 years. I check in every once in a while and I hear the same thing "My computer is still fast!", "I haven't had a problem with it", "Why doesn't everyone use Linux?" , "I can't believe I was going to spend 1000 on a new computer" ... the list goes on.

It's my personal hypothesis the less someones knows about computers the better the are to learn to use gnu/Linux because they are already used to being uncomfortable with computers and have no preconceptions of how the interface should look or where the "C" drive should be. So don't worry about the look and feel of the OS, just make sure you explain it's different, and why it's different then you should be fine.

Kind of Ubuntu

[Daengbo]

Two things:

1. Don't do it (unless they've asked and you don't mind a full-time job supporting them forever)
2. Linux Mint [linuxmint.com], not Ubuntu

Mint is based on Ubuntu, but comes with all the post-install crap already done for you. It has the bottom panel with menu button (not bar). It's nice and green, not brown.

My recommendation for older machines is LXDE [lxde.org] on Ubuntu or Mint. It can run nicely in 128-256MB RAM.