Slashdot Mirror
Linux Demo Day Advocacy Event
Thanks to Deepak Saxena for forewarning us about the Feb. 17 Linux Demo Day Event. He writes "On February 17th, Microsoft will be releasing Windows 2000, the next version
of their enterprise/business OS. I propose that the Linux community take
this opportunity to inform as many people as possible about Linux by having
demonstration/education events. To help in doing so, I have organized a
group of Linux vendors who are willing to help LUGs and individuals by
providing freebies that can be handed out. For more info on how to
participate, go to www.linuxdemo.org "
It's great that we have people who want to support and encourage the use of linux, but I think that the timing here could have been better. Why compete like this - wasn't the whole point of linux simply building a better product and letting the consumer / marketplace decide?
I hope that any media coverage that this event gets isn't like the Windows Refund Day coverage. Honestly, someone dressed up like people out of Star Wars isn't going to convince the general public of something, it's just going to make them think badly of what that person was representing.
"Oh, look at those freaks marching up to Microsoft demanding money back."
I think it would be a very bad idea to try to host a media event on the release date of Win2k. First of all, nobody would be there. Sure, you'd get al the die hard linux supporters, but the idea behind an event like this is to gain NEW support, but all the "newbies" would be busy watching MS. Secondly, trying to steal the spotlight from Microsoft is a REALLY bad idea. Although the event really wouldn't be stealing that much attention from the release, it would be enough to incur the wrath of microsoft the next time the linux community held a really big event. I think we (the linux community) should just sit back, let win2k have it's moment, then show up a week or two later and show what you can REALLY do with your PC.
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
Linux has to stand for something more than just being anti-Microsoft.
99.9% of the people out there just want something that's going to let them get their job done. All this fanaticism does is makes people think that this is for people who hate Microsoft so much that they're willing to put up with less functionality.
When we see the new XFree and we see big companies like Creative come over to the linux world then we will see the average user using linux.
But like the easiest to install distributions. Why would the average user need an HTTP, FTP and Telnet dameon running? A security minded version of linux protecting the not so keen user of linux from outside troubles is what we need. Corel Linux has a nice pretty installation, but it also puts ProFTPd, Apache, Sendmail, and Telnetd on right at installation. And Root and whatever other user you choose are given no passwords until you set them. Yep that's right ... all those services running with Root with no password.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
As for media coverage and the issue of stupid people, I am specifically asking people to behave in a proper manner. We don't want people running around making fools of themselves trying to advocate Linux. We don't want people who do nothing but say "Microsoft bad. Linux good." It's up to each LUG to try to inform their membership that this is meant to be a well organized, well presented event. Hopefully some idiot won't fsck it up.
The goal is to educate people that there is an alternative. I don't want Linux to be shoved down everyone's throats, but just to let people be aware that there is something other than what the big media machine tells you there is. I don't want Microsoft to die, but I do think there are a lot of small/medium size companies that will just get caught up in the Win2K hype and spend gobs of money to get it up and and running without ever knowing what alternatives exist. Maybe some of these people know that Linux exists, but how many of them do you think have given it a test drive on their own? Probably not many. I'm not trying to go into Intel or some other large company and talk them out of using NT. It's the small companies, with limited funds, that really need to learn about Linux. The idea of an OS upgrade will already be in their mind due to the Win2K release hype, so why not take the opportunity to show them some alternatives.
--
Deepak Saxena
Deepak Saxena
"Computers are useless, they can only give you answers" - Picasso
There is ABSOLUTELY no point in having a Linux Demo Day that starts at the same time as Windows 2000 is officially rolled out. That's not where the press will be.
Yes, you absolutely want the event to go -through- the roll-out, but you really want to start the day before with a massive campaign to the press.
That way, come the release of Windows 2000, eyes are on Linux, -not- Bill Gates or whoever Microsoft decides should make the press announcement.
The newspapers and TV stations only have so much space/time to allocate to computer news, so the more you can shift the focus to Linux, the less time (and therefore mindshare) Windows 2000 will get.
Just keep in mind, Microsoft has the advantage of numbers. But numbers really don't count for much in a well-planned ambush, and don't count at all if you can be sure that you can strike first.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Because this is going to be a Windows-sponsored media "event" - that means a lot of money dumped by M$, and a lot of media coverage, and a lot of attention from the public. That's EXACTLY the time Linux should be presented as an alternative, and the media, many of whom will be looking for balanced coverage (Don't think I'm giving them too much credit-- in this case "balanced coverage" is also more interesting than just reporting what they've been spoonfed) will be more than happy to present another OS-option, especially considering that the mainstream media already knows about Linux.
This will work if we're unified in our message and we have some good spokespeople who can show how/why Linux is better than Win2k. Waiting a week or two will totally miss the wave.
It's free publicity folks-- and to those of you who say "who cares, Linux isn't about marketshare, it's not supposed to be a replacement for Windows, it's about the ART, man...." Uh.... suuure. Coulda fooled me.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
"Linux is much easier to administrate, you only need to dive deeply into the good old unix cruft to get it (3 or 4 years should be completely sufficient)."
...blabla ... security fixes ...blabla ... bugtraq ...blabla... he may not get cracked)."
Not so good, isnt it?
"Linux is inherently insecure due to the flawed security design of UNIX, which it clones. But it at least it can be more secure than Windows 2000, which is even worse. Of course, to get superior security, you need to learn about UNIX, but 3 to 4 years... (we already had that)"
Not really good for marketing, unfortunately.
"You only need to apply 20 or so security fixes to your distribution and look at bugtraq with argus eyes, and with some luck you may not get cracked!"
Oh, no, please.
"While admittedly setting up and administrating anything non-trivial on UNIX is pure hell for any beginner, it will be much more stable than anything Windows. If the poor admin didnt give up. (And
Well, it IS much more stable. Still... suppose the marketing people need something better to promote Linux...
Anyway. Please be honest:
Do you REALLY want to send all that poor Windows people into UNIX hell? And tell them that Linux/UNIX WILL make them happy?
I dont. How about this:
With Windows X you are using a crappy system from a company that repeatedly has proven to be unable to deliver good stuff. If you switch to Linux you =can= get a more stable and secure system. But keep in mind that UNIX is not designed for easy administration. For beginners its pure hell. The UNIX design is 30 years old and flawed. For security its deeply flawed. But unfortunately still the best this poor planet has.
(moderators: moderate this down, please, it lacks expression of popular opinion.)
You do realize that this event further perpetuates the notion that GNU/Linux exists because of Microsoft, not despite. This is really unfair to many of us. A teacher at my school has a rather faint idea of what the operating system is about. He thinks it is for people who hate Microsoft. I fear he may be right.
I must ask. What does Microsoft have to do with GNU/Linux?
I can see that much of this event has already been planned. Perhaps it would be wise to have the attendees of this event wear formal dress.
It is also notable that actually most people interested in computers at all usually already know what GNU/Linux is, or rather "Linux". But many of them think is an operating system from people who hate Microsoft.
I sincerely hope that this event becomes a Pro-GNU/Linux event instead of an Anti-Microsoft event, but it seems like you are setting yourselves up easily for the latter.
Microsoft has nothing to do with GNU/Linux.
Face facts -- aside from a different approach to development and marketing, Linux and Windows are the same thing: operating systems. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. If one or the other were to just disappear, some tasks would not be performed well when the other stepped in to fill the gap.
While I spend most of my time in Linux, simply because I enjoy using it more than Windows, it's not all things. I'm limited in my ability to surf because of an underpowered browser (Netscape) and a lack of plugins (Macromedia Shockwave and a workable Realplayer, as well as Windows Media Player formats that nothing in Linux can handle).
I do a lot of webpage design, and Linux has serious shortcomings in this area. While I can code by hand in any text editor, or use Bluefish, it is simply more practical to use Homesite in Windows.
Office software is another area sorely lacking. Staroffice comes close to filling the bill, but in a world where MS Office has set the standard, asking users to trust their productivity to underpowered and incompatable Linux equivalents would simply be wrong.
And such a rally would do nothing to correct this situation. Constant bashing of MS has done nothing in the past. It's preaching to the choir when done in venues like /., and makes Linux users look like Trekkies with their rubber ears and toy phasers when done in public.
Time should be better spent writing code for Linux. See something that's lacking? Create it, or improve on what's already available. That is the whole idea behind Open Source software. Windows got to where it is partly because it does what people want it to do. As buggy as it might be, if it didn't fill a need, no amount of monopolistic practices would have caused it to spread the way it has.
I have no desire to turn on CNN the day of the W2K release and see a bunch of Linux Geeks who can't get a date and have too much time on their hands waving stuffed penguins and burning Windows CDs. I would rather be able to walk into my favorite software store and find useable products made for Linux.
If people want to get Linux into the average consumer market's hands, there are quite a few things that need to be done.
1) Lock everything down. Any service running at all is theoretically vulnerable to some form of attack. While it is great the you can administer through telnet and everything else, the average person has no use for it. Open ports have no purpose on most consumer's machines. Uncle Bob isn't going to be telnetting into his box to read his mail. If someone's UNIX guru son decides to set up a box for his parents that he can take care of remotely, great.... but if you are doing that, it probably isn't too much trouble to go through the machine and open up the services you need. It is, however, a lot of trouble for the average newbie to go through and lock down unneeded services. Linux gets a bad name if a major exploit is discovered in sendmail and half the consumer market is vulnerable to it..... say goodbye to that security reputation. The average consumer we are marketing it to wont know how to apply the patch, they only know that their box was rooted and all the personal data they had on it was taken.
2) (Getting off the topic of your post, but I'm ranting) The user should never have to touch a CLI. Keep in mind this is a consumer we are talking about here... one who probably couldn't figure out DOS, let alone the intricacies of the mount command every damn time they wanted to put a cd in the drive (yes, I know supermount is coming). Screw make, screw RPM... For the consumer market, Linux needs something like Install Shield... a lesson should be taken from windows here... everything can be done from the GUI, adding programs to the Start Menu does not require editing a text file, installing and removing software does not require foreign command lines.
Before you start saying that Linux is viable for home users, look at who we are talking about here. Linux is not yet an alternative for:
1) The 16 year old girl with an AOL account who wants to talk to friends on ICQ.
2) An elderly person who is already having trouble seeing, the current font support in most UNIX web browsers is lacking, text just looks blocky and it is sometimes hard on my 21 year old eyes, I wonder what it looks like for those 60+.
3) The teenage boy who wants to play the latest game (support isn't quite there yet, plus the drivers for a lot of common video cards suck. I believe the TNT2 under Quake3 is an example)
4) Mom, who wants to do word processing and print stuff on her recent HP Printer (most of those printers coming with the computer deals at Best Buy are Win printers)
6) Dad, who wants to balance his checking account (are there any viable Linux alternatives to quicken out there)
7) Anyone who wants to browse the web on their brand spanking new computer from $MAJOR_MANUFACTURER. I have yet to see a new system for under 1000 bucks that comes without a winmodem. If your talking about Linux as a free OS, lets do some math here:
1 Copy of RedHat, about 50 bucks (its the one everyone buys because it's well known, right?)
1 Basic lousy hardware modem (probably won't connect any better that a win modem), 60 bucks
Total cost: about 110 plus tax.
1 copy of win98, about 99 bucks plus tax(ostensibly free because they bought it with their computer).
Looks like Windows is ahead on this one, especially since it does everything the average consumer needs right now. Yes, it is unstable, but for most applications, it doesn't matter. I personally have never lost any work due to a crash. BTW, I'm running win2k final right now, and am working on about a 2 week uptime. I have not had it crash yet, the only times I have had to reboot were after I added new hardware, which autodetected perfectly.
Linux is good for:
1) Sysadmins
2) Hobbiests who like to screw around with Unix for fun.
3) "Power Users" who tend to do a lot of work and need an OS that can keep up with them.
4) People who have it inflicted upon them by sysadmin family members, who want to lock it down so they don't get any 3am support calls. I personally would rather have my family running win98 that they could play with and install their own crap on. My family can install anything they want without having to call me about it, and it usually doesn't screw up, but when it does, a reinstall (of the program)gets everything back together in short order.
BTW, before anyone labels me a M$ supporter, the minority of my computers run windows. OS's I'm currently running on my personal machines:
Win2k (main box)
Win95 (p100 laptop)
Solaris 7 (Sparc2)
Linux (suse) (p90, k5-133, 2 486's)
BeOS (Cyrix MediaGX)
I use Windows as my main operating system because I can do nearly everything I need to on it. I switch among the unices when I want to do development or networking stuff.
Don't say Linux is viable for the average user, because it isn't... yet.