Slashdot Mirror
What the Linux Community Needs to Grok
Charles Connell sent in an article that he wrote following the onslaught of flames he (and even his boss) got following articles that were critical of Linux. I've said many times that Linux's worst enemy is the army of angry, self-appointed advocates: they don't write code, but they have
a lot of pent up anger that often gets directed in the wrong places. Anyway, read
the article and talk amongst yourselves.
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking." - John Maynard Keynes. My Favorite quote. ;)
Give a garen variety PC user a bare bones box and a 98 CDROM and see if he can set up a working Wintel system. It takes fscking 45-75 minutes and presents you with shitloads of options and settings and insert driver disk and select interrupt/port settings, configure network driver/protocol setup and "power off and on if machine does not respond for 'a long time' (whatever that means)" that they'd glaze over trying to do. Win and Mac work well with the clueless users because they're preinstalled out of the box. There's no reason Linux cannot do this too.
Have you ever used Linux yourself, I doubt it. You probably installed it so you can tell your high school buddies about it and feel 'l33t but I bet you have never used it like you use win 98.
Have you ever written C (not hello world).
So here we have it, you use win98 and you write code in basic, and you are giving adivce to others on what they should do, based on what you read on slashdot.
How pathetic.
>I've installed and tried to pick up/learn linux 5 times since I bought my first copy of Redhat 5.0 a while back. Every time was a complete disaster.
The easy explanation for that is that you used RH. It is newbie hostile. For starters, the key bindings don't conform to Win standards, delete and backspace don't do what they're supposed to. RH definitely does not work out of the box.
Use SUSE. SAMS has a 24x7 for SUSE6.2. It's made for you. Wish I had it 3 years ago. The Infomagic Linux Server, for $70, will be a great tutorial, when it gets to retail. Its previous incarnation was just great.
And whatever you do, stay away from the O'Reilly books, they made my life miserable. Can't remember the good one, Linux Network Server?
Alas...people forget who's responsible for what.
Linux advocates ARE elistist and snobbish. Developed your own OS lately? No? Okay, they've got reason to be elistist and snobbish.
Hell, they're not even expecting you to PAY for their work.
As for making Linux easier to use...it's NOT THEIR JOBS. You don't want to use it, DON'T USE IT. (It really is that simple).
Now if you WANT it easier to use, for whatever reason, you might want to consider paying for it - such as Redhat or Mandrake. Then, you'd have a reason to argue that it's not easy enough to use, it's too difficult that you had to configure XFConfig86 by hand, etc.
Let's keep things in perspective people.
I thought not. The previous poster said his girl used the computer as a tool. Not that she's afraid to use it.
While you're at it, why don't you quit eating hamburgers, since you can't handle buying a ranch, raising/slaughtering cattle, then preparing the beef. I believe that fits in with your philosophy.
TWACK! goes the Elitest Clue Stick.
Anonymous Kev
Linux shouldn't import AOL - It's not worth it to the community to get people that *have* to have AOL. But programs written to extract information from AOL so that people could leave AOL without abandoning everything they have might get the more technically competent people out of the quicksand that is AOL.
To think that Steve Case let Q-link get turned into that mess . . .
You're wrong. The point of the article is that the Linux community fails to listen to the demands and the needs of its customers and users. If it continues to do so, it will fail misrably in its attempt for "World domination." You're a perfect example of the article's thesis; you want to ignore everything around you, only to listen to your fellow Linux buddies. But that's the problem: failing to listen to what Linux needs to be better from its users is a bad thing. Never igonore--listen.
As far as I can tell, most 'shouty zealots' are people who really dislike paying for things - they really, really like the free bit. Quite possibly the same people who love all the free illegally ripped MP3's and dribble at the thought of being able to get free movies off DVDs too.
Very, very few people advocate Linux in anywhere near a balanced or well reasoned way.
Regardless of what you think of MS, Windows is pretty easy setup and use. No having to get XYZ library to use this program, having to get ABC library to use that program. The interface is consistant, and very polished. For the vast majority of users this is just fine thank you. Want to add a sound card? Put it in, restart and 90% of the time Windows will sniff it out, and off you go.
Linux can be a real pain to install on many machines, is badly documented, is not particularly intuitive, and applications usually look amateur. Not really suitable for casual use, which is what most people need.
On top of this you have the fundamentalist loud mouths squirting off in public forums such as this - not good from a PR angle. Given that all these linux zealots are 'experts' at programming, maybe they should actually contribute a driver or two instead of whining about the lack of drivers for their new whizzy graphics card.
Wingnut
Linux has been able to pick up the minority of whiney people from technology that became obsolete. years ago, you couldn't read computer rags without a letter to the editor that complained about no coverage of something minor and insignificant: ie The MAC is SO superior, you are all idiots. The Amiga is a far better graphics platform, submit or die. All of the type of tripe turns a lot of technophobic people off and makes them feel like morons. "Gosh! I must be a complete moron for having bought a PC with Windows instead of a Mac/Amiga/Linux box. I should put my PC in the closet and hide in shame."
OMG!! Yes sir. I will stop having fun computing.
I will only do things that are to the point,
the point no doubt being enscribed somewhere by
god where you have read it.
Sure Linux is open, cheap, powerful and efficient, but it does lack the features customers want, just like OS/2 and Beatmax. Like was mentioned in the article, it is still harder to install, learn and use, than what they are used to. Ever given a regulare non-techie computer user a RedHat CD and told him to install it? let alone install new software or learn to use it.
We have lost the truly intuitive software apps that the early Macs had.
I think he's close when he talks about Palm. Looking at their IPO, they could certainly put a dent in the computer market. Probably won't be an all Linux killer but who knows.
What I as a user want is something simple to check my email with (anywhere, anytime) and browse the web quickly without the display problems of current portables.
Easy enough, no?
--D
You totally misread his comment. He was agreeing with the author that linux users are too quick to flame anyone who doesn't worship Linus. Perhaps if you weren't so quick to flame others yourself you would have read the comment more carefully?
One way to find out would be:
if($ENV{'HTTP_USER_AGENT'} =~ /win/i) { /mac/i) {
# use windows comment db
} elsif($ENV{'HTTP_USER_AGENT'} =~
# use mac comment db
} else {
# use Linux/UNIX/etc. db
}
Certainly not fool-proof, but I think it would handle most cases. And I bet there'd be a lot less flaming then.
I thought this article had valid points. If we really want Linux to gain acceptance, it's got to be as easy to work with as it is powerful. I've been working with it for five years, and while it's getting to be easier to work with it still hasn't reached the point where I could recommend it to a friend that just wants to play Quake, browse the World Wide Web, and create documents.
I definitely see the author's side of things. Suggest that the user interface could use some improvement or that the installation process is a bit rocky in a public forum like Usenet, and you'll get your head ripped off. The view that some advocates take is that users are expected to adapt, and you are either an idiot or a Microserf to suggest otherwise. This isn't good PR, and I think that this attitude has driven off potential Linux users who, seeing the scathing posts that some 'Linux proponents' make, fear that using this operating system will cause their brains to rot.
Linux is at the point now where public acceptance will determine if it will become popular enough to reform the industry by encouraging open source and open standards or return to being a niche software used mostly by researchers and hardcore hobbyists (me). Shouldn't that be enough incentive to make it more accessible to the average user?
I can answer this one, speaking as someone who grew up with MS-DOS, bumped up to Windows 3.x (then to 9x), and is deep into the learning phase of Linux.
Yes, there is LOTS of documentation for Linux.
Yes, once you know WHAT you're looking for, it's generally not too hard to find it.
HOWEVER, until you're fairly familiar with the workings and quirks of linux, the documentation is often more confusing than anything else. It's not because linux is confusing. In fact, once you've started using it, linux is generally MUCH more predictable and straight-forward than Windows.
BUT, too many of the man files & HOW-TOs contain instructions that experienced users/admins find simplistic and unnecessary, but are still WAY above the level of a new user trying to get X working because the installer didn't get it right.
Case in point, I use linux on my laptop which has an 800x600 LCD display, but for some reason the 800x600 LCD option in XConfigurator will only give me 640x480 with 16 colors (the video card will handle 1024x768 with 16BIT colors). So, I have to select the 'custom' option to get the only resolution my display handles well. But, after the install, what do I discover? Nearly every configuration menu is sized to display well at 1024x768. (How people manage to use X on a 640x480 screen, I'll never know.)
So now I've got to dig into '/etc/X11/XF86Config' and set the virtual desktop size so I can actually click on all those 'OK' and 'Apply' buttons. Oops! There's no mention of the 'Virtual' parameter in the file, and there's no less than THREE 'Section "Screen"'s which refer to my video card (svga, accel, and fbdev).
Now I've got to find another document written by yet another experienced user, using different terminology telling me to do add the line 'Virtual 1024 768' to my XF86Config file in the proper 'Subsection "Display"'. No mention of how to figure out which is the right one. Oh, and it also refers to a DIFFERENT X configuration tool than the other HOW-TO mentioned (how a new user is supposed to know that XConfigurator is more commonly recommended, I don't know).
This leaves the new user the option of either making the changes to ALL of the Screen sections, or trying each in turn. Either of these options is somewhat scary to someone who doesn't know what's going in under the surface, so he boots back into windows and hits a newsgroup or help list, and asks what he should do. Thankfully, he gets a few helpful responses, or else the storm of 'RTFM' and 'man XF86Config' responses from the eletist crowd might cause him to drop the process altogether and go back to Windows, where the help isn't really all that helpful, but at least he's familiar with it, and can find classes to help him with what he doesn't know.
This example is very close to the process that I went through about a year ago getting linux configured on my machine. HOW-TOs that haven't been touched for years, or still tell how to do things with a 2.0.x kernel when the 2.2 kernel has been out for quite a while. (Let's not even talk about the ever-so-slightly-different places where config files are kept on various distributions.)
We wouldn't have all of these issues if companies like Red Hat didn't try to fatten their pocketbooks by pushing Linux to the desktop. Why couldn't people be happy with Linux doing what it was good at--being a server. It is my firm belief that Linux, or any other Unix variant should not be on the desktop of your average user. Funny how the FreeBSD people aren't trying to push their OS as the be-all, end-all of operating systems. It really is sad how the Linux community has gone to sh*t with everyone jumping all over everyone else to try to attract every last luser to the OS. I mean, come on, do we really want the inbred mouthbreathers that use AOL to be Linux users?? Something really doesn't grok here...
Here's another example. I installed Corel Linux on a home built PC (K6-2 350, Socket 7, 2 Gig IDE, 130MB RAM). This was my fourth attempt at installing any Linux at all, I previously tried Redhat 5.2,6.0 and LinuxPPC. None of these would configure a dialup PPP connection with a fairly standard modem. I'd seen the ads for Corel and that it was based on Debian, and I bought it because my next door neighbor happens to be a really good GNU/Linux user and maintains packages for Debian.
Good thing I did, too, because I immediately ran into problems after installing (which went fairly smoothly - nice interface). Turns out the installer wanted to configure the install with three partitions, making the first available partition (hda1) a 23 meg partition containing extra boot kernels and the second partition the boot partition itself (The third was the swap partition). My BIOS did not want to boot from LILO with anything except the first partition, which was unbootable. We, or rather he, spent HOURS trying to figure this one out, but I was extremely grateful to have an expert on the job who knew the OS. Eventually we had to copy the entire install to another smaller drive and then reformat the original drive with two partitions, copy everything back, and use GRUB to load the kernel instead. I now have a working machine with Linux on it, and a dialup connection which works (by console cli only, the KDE ppp configuration is still having problems as of now). Another 8 hours later and we had XFree86 running in 1024x768 mode on a NEC MultisyncII. Point is, with Linuces, you can't tell when your install is going to take minutes or hours, so you should have an expert available just in case...
Linux users tend to be elist people who have "mastered" the black art and want to impress their less technical pals with how much the know. They have an amplifier that goes to eleven. They have a $5000 CD player that is 0.0000001% better than the CD player I got Price Club for $70. I personally wouldn't let my smelliest ugliest dog use KDE, GNOME is WAY better, not to mention the licensing schem is WAY superior.
Nokia is doing exactly this with Linux and Mozilla. Watch for (not-necessarily Linux based ) efforts from Sony. The PC's days at the top are numbered, folks. Linux won't replace Windoze on PC's, but it may inherit a global empire nevertheless. The PC will soon be swamped by sub-pc devices; and whatever reigns on the sub-pc platform will lead what capabilties are developed for the PC. Linux or similar free OS on these devices may well dictate what Bill Gates can and can't do with databases, InternetServer software, etc. Despite its incredible power in the marketplace, this OS will never be a brandname, relentlessly pushed in ads and cross-promotions into the cyclopean eye of joe-consumer. Linux will be in all houses, browsing the Net, playing games, serving up the pages like it does already, running your lights, controlling HVAC, providing security, without ever becoming a household word itself.
What I want in my home and business is a PC running something free and powerful like Linux, and lots of stations that access the Net or do light duty work storing their data files, mail, etc on the PC. And does all these things SIMPLY, economically, and with a minimal demand for space, cooling and wattage. If someone steps up and pulls this altogether that company will do very, very well. Who knows, maybe while the Linux faithful are all screaming at each other to read the fucking manual, Bill Gates will sneak out of Redmond launch a startup and make this happen using BSD on PPC or something--who knows. Nokia is already planning to meet this market, obviously they'll have some company fast.
Yes. How dare they disagree! Zealots!
just check out how many key hackers RHAT + LNUX employs.
I like your response on the article, however isn't it true that Alan Cox works for Red Hat? If so, they could apply pressure to him to see features, such as increased USB support, in the next kernel.
... or pay me!
"Besides, we've had OO OS's (sort of) before -- MacOS, for example"
Eh? MacOS is not an OO OS. Don't confuse the user interface with what's behind the curtain. The Linux kernel is probably more OO than the current MacOS. (Even though it isn't written in a "OOP" language. It's very possible to use OO design practices without explicit language support, and the Linux kernel does this in several areas.)
You don't seem to understand what's going on with Linux,
so let me fill you in. Linux is a system that works. Because
it works, it's getting a lot of attention. Kind of odd
that fucntional software is looked upon as special.
I suppose if you come from the commercial world,
where you have to pay more to get the functionality
you thought you were originally paying for(OSR2?..2.5?).
Linux succeeds on it's technical merit alone. There
is no bottom line. Linux companies will come and go,
they are irrelevant as the underlying technology is
the only thing that matters to the developers and the
real "community".
You are applying a commercial model to the
shared hobby of millions. You will not dictate
to me or anyone else how we persue that
hobby. Linux was designed to make *us* happy.
This is where you've put the cart before the horse.
Commercial interests often diverge from developer
interests. You illustrate one of these crossroads
in your essay. You say we should choose the path to commercialdom.
I ask you, who will write the software then? The companies?
The users who are computer illiterate?
Obviously the latter will not do it, and the former
will only do it if it means some sacrifice be made to
them. The options your ideas present are unacceptable.
The Linux model will continue the way it is, whether
you like it or not, while continuiing to become increasingly
efficient. Consider it's availability as a gift presented to
you by the collective generousity ov those with greater vision
than you possess. Don't expect to be congratulated for your
wit or style when you say that gift might not be good enough
for you.
I for one have seen the quality of Linux degrade in distro's
that shoot for user friendliness. What we get is a fragmented
mess of competing "friendly" standards that don't work with
each other. The goal of these standards is $$ not efficiency
or compatibility with the rest of the Linux world.
Regardless, you have a very narrow perspective of the
Linux world. I'm looking at you from the inside and what you
propose be inflicted upon Linux is laughable.
It won't happen. Any branch of Linux that puts the
technology or desires of the developers in the backseat will
fail, regardless of acedemic predictions.
Certainly people who write articles on the internet taking a stance on Linux or anything else are entitled to their opinions, but what exactly makes their opinions (in the case of people like Metcalfe and Cooper, who are just as hateful and vitriolic as Joe Barr) worth more than the replies they get?
I, for one, support EVERYONE's right to use and ab-use Linux, no matter how much of a jerk they are or are not. To insist that only certain users are allowed to express their opinions is counter to the notion of freedom that Linux represents to many, including myself. If it becomes less popular because only "jerks" like Joe Barr use it, then that's just fine, I used Linux before it was so popular and I can use it afterwards.
PS: I see a trend whereby it is becoming "cool" to talk down towards "the typical slashdot poster", however I must say that this condescention is getting tired very quickly. For those of you who don't want to see it, set your preferences accordingly or simply leave. I see noone forcing you to stay.
I've been watching slashdot for a while. I've noticed that most articles have usually around 100-200 comments, but when an article against linux comes up, there are usually over 400 posts.
./'ers are not of the angry type who just reply when they feel hurt. So there is hope.
Just watch, by the end of the day, this article will have over 500 comments, while other articles will have around 100.
OTOH, 200 of those 400 can probably be assumed to be standar posts, so about half of
you'd be surprised at the number of excellent hackers who can dance some phat liquid.
This post needs to be moderated up more because it hits the nail on the head. People who write articles about the ease-of-use and ease-of-installation don't "grok" what Linux is all about.
Yeah, companies take notice. They realize that Linux users are a bunch of little kids who can only afford to buy their ported software if their allowances are big enough. Get a clue, kid.
"What are you, an idiot???"
He obviously isn't. On the other hand, I think your village just called.
I shouldn't have to say this, but reread his post and think about what he really meant.
*shrug* A lot of people just want to use their computers to talk to other people. AOL is full of other people. They may not be as good geeks as you and some of them are probably less bright, but people will still want to talk to them. Do you feel that perhaps all stupid people ought to run Windows? In that case, why bother advocating Linux at all?
I resent the insinuation that all AOL users are idiots. My mother uses AOL. She discovered a method of extracting aluminum from sea water in the 1940's before it was discovered by industry (but was told by her teachers to "go home, marry someone and have babies"). She's certainly no idiot, but she doesn't have a deep knowledge of computers. She uses AOL simply because it gets the one or two tasks she needs (email, browsing) done without having to think about how it works. As for illiteracy, check most slashdot posts and you'll find an inability to spell or use proper grammar. Being a good programmer or hacker does not necessarily make one "wise" -- it only makes one a good programmer. Not knowing computers (like my mother) does not mean that you know nothing or have nothing to offer. Some of the best feedback for my own programs came from non-programmers who saw the program from a different perspective. The Linux community needs to keep an open mind and accept all views about how to improve Linux. You never know where the next good idea might come from.
For once, just once, I'd love to see a person such as yourself get off your stinking moral high horse and realize that not everyone in the world who uses Linux posts to slashdot and flames magazine journalists. Get out into the REAL world, into your local Linux user group and you will meet REAL people, not anonymous cowards like me and people who claim to run companies who give fake names like "pheonix".
It seems like the author feels that most of the people flame him because they're in some kind of Total World Domination frame of mind. Are there other Linux fans out there who are happy just to have a product they enjoy using? People who don't care about world domination don't have to talk about what Windows apps will run on WINE and such and such. We're happy with the apps we have, and in my experience, people are willing to learn new apps as long as they're intuitive (like the MacOS products). From my experience I've seen new computer users do quite well on pre-installed Linux machines or Computer Lab UNIX machines as long as the applications make themselves fast and intuitive. My friend in Santa Cruz bought a pre-installed system from Penguin and she installed Applix by herself and figured out how to use it (I believe on the Gnome desktop). She had a copy of Windows on-hand just in case Linux was too intimidating but never had to put it in the CD-ROM. Maybe if Linux is intuitive in this way and becomes even more intuitive and easy (pre-installs, and easy to learn applications/desktops) nobody needs to sell Linux or bash Microsoft and Linux can stand on its own.
Justin
If you get tired of putting up with them, just point off in some random direction, and say "look, over there, I think I saw an Amiga!" and watch the cranks trundle off excitedly in that direction.
ah ha ha ha..... you busted me for sure!!! I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I did read that article and I saw on CNN that AOL 5.0 was the dEvil. So I decided I would stick up for linux in the only way I knew how -- by ridiculing that guy. And as to your remarks about my coding abilities.... I wouldn't say all that now. I have never coded more than hello world in basic, but I did take a C++ course at my college so I think I kind of know what Im talking about so HA! and take your win98 accusing butt home because I use win98 SE.... ya, thats right! I use second edition win98 and am looking forward to Win 2000! ya
and im NOT pathetic either that was rude of you to call me that!
Someone who wants features right now can throw money at someone, and get it. Otherwise, it's free, and development terms are dictated by the developer
So I guess this opens up a new market: Mercenary hackers that go work for whoever pays most, to implement proprietary extensions to the OS/apps.
It would be an advantage for a company to have an OS that can handle something better than their competitors can.
(Mercenaries?, I think nowadays they are called consultants)
AC
What is this 'Linux movement'?
On several occasions I've participated in debates about Linux (within the linux-community). But the discussions never gets far because it's soon turns into pure mudwrestling, with me in the one corner and an angry linux-community around, not listening to any word I say but only feeding on the 'fact' that I'm not 110% pleased with Linux and find it perfect.
What I've discovered in thos 'debates' is, that there is no consensus in the community to what linux is and it's goals.
The subject I'm focusing on UI/userfriendlyness (or rather, lack of it). And the response I'm getting is:
a) Linux IS userfriendly, it's just the (majority) of users (read: YOU!) that are stupid.
b) Linux is perfect. Insinuating that something could be done better/different is blasfemy and should be punished!
b) Linux is NOT supposed to be userfriendly. So crawl back to windows you you you windowslover!!!
c) Linux is er server OS no more no less.
d) Who cares...
... and after such a broadside of divergent arguments I'm left confused. If linux is only supposed to be a server and a playtoy for the aristocrathy of geeks, what is all this fuss and hype about? Have I missed something?
Is there or isn't there a strong force to bring Linux into the desktop?
What is this linux movement all about?
And why does the linux-community starting to resemble the amiga community? You are dead meat if you suggest Protected Memory in an Amigagroup. Just as you are dead meat if you say that the *nix dir-structure is confusing for at desktop-computer.
... just my 2 cents...
Bjarne
I practically never take part in OS-wars, but now I make an exception because I'm a bit upset about the postings here on Slashdot. My opinions on this are a bit "controversial", but maybe a few readers will identify with my views of all this...
(Before I begin my rantings I should point out that I haven't used Linux for over a year... I switched to the BSDs.)
I love the Unix-ish way of doing things (including Linux), and as with everything else I love I don't want to lose it. For example I don't want my OS (whatever it happens to be) to become too "user friendly", because to me that means "losing it". To some extent I honestly think that it's better to let a guy look at man-pages for 30 minutes than to solve the problem for him in 5 minutes. It's highly likely that he will learn something from reading the man page.
So, this obviously makes me a stupid OS zealot who don't see the need of "the community" about new users, right? Well, you are of course free to see it that way. (Luckily, I'm usually a very quiet zealot :-) I've never really felt like I belong to "the community". When reading most of the postings on Slashdot (about topics such as this), I get a feeling that everyone thinks Linux is the solution to everything. And if it isn't yet, then "we (the community) can make it so". It's like including everything from head to toe into the word "Linux". (It could have been BSD or whatever... I'm not attacking Linux specifically here.)
I'm not blind and stupid. I definitely understand that most people don't have time to read man-pages when all they want is to get their blahblah application to do whatever it is they want it to do. It's good that there's competition to the traditional (closed source) office packages etc., and I really hope that all these (free) programs continue to gain market share. 99.9% of all people just want to get their work done, they are not trying to become hackers (in the traditional old sense of the word).
The reason I post this is because I want people to realize than not everyone wants Linux (or BSD or whatever) to be the solution for everything. This is controversial, at least at a first glance, because it may seem that I say "I don't want people to use computers if they are not Unix hackers". You can't get me more wrong than that. What I actually mean is that there's nothing wrong with being a technical zealot without aiming for world domination and being part of the (Linux) revolution.
I respect all the needs for easy installs, user-friendly interfaces, availability of applications etc. Maybe I don't find them usefull to myself, but I still respect them. So, why cannot the "community" respect that there are people like me (and others) who care about what we love?
To sum it all up: When someone tells you that they don't like the way the "Linux community" is moving, or that they don't like "user friendly" applications, it does not mean that they refuse people with less than 5 years of Unix experience the right to use their computer in a productive way. Instead, it is an expression of love for something they hold dear, and they don't want it to be destroyed by non-technical issues.
Is it really that hard to understand?
/ andy
What else is needed ? ;-) It was pretty painless to install and set up but then again I was expecting HELL. It's not as easy as FreeBSD or BeOS or some of the newer Linux distros (which are all different it seems). Last I heard someone was working on getting gnome and kde to work. Since hurd can run multiple instances of it's own kernel it'd be nice to have a compatability layer where HURD could run a linux kernel too (on supported architectures) so we could get stuff like vmware, staroffice, applix, etc HURD on Crusoe!!
I think you're forgetting that the HURD is actually trying to be an innovative new thing.
Linux is satisfied to have no direction except wherever-it-wanders, and it has no design, it just leans on 'ye olde Unix' as a kinda-sorta reference design to copy from.
So naturally, Linux was destined to "rocket forward" since it's just a clone of something from the past. The secret is that it's not really "ahead" because it's just Unix-1989.
I remember when I first got Wine running, ages ago. I was also fiddling around with "Executor" on Linux at the time (Executor is a Macintosh emulator that runs on X86 boxen). I remember firing up the Windows "Neko" program (little kitten that chases the mouse pointer) and the Macintosh "Neko" program simultaneously. I wanted to see if the cats would fight. They didn't, but it was an early thrill for me to have two Non-Linux operating environments running simultaneously on the same hardware (at the time, it was a 486DX-33, with 16 MB of RAM).
What about a brand new ATI Rage 128 video card (an OEM favorite)? Get Mandrake 7 or get Red Hat 6.x with the Suse update. Or even better, recompile Linux with the VESA driver on and grap the Suse XServer.
These are practically impossible for most users.
Wow, you must be some kind of super genius. It's a good thing people don't confuse "X Windows" with "The X Window System." Also, I didn't realize that X was important for GUIs, nor that you could use it to run programs on one computer and display them on another. I bet you're a blast at parties.
>linux is (out of the box) compiled for a 386. what other os can say that ?
Minix builds on 286's and runs on them.
You have no grip on the reality of the business world. You don't market a product and then make demands of your customers. It works the other way around. With that attitude the borg will continue to provide what the business community wants. The market place is not drivin by what the programmers want, but by what the non-technical consumers want. If you want linux to remain a after school club for some geeks to use as a resume builder, fine. But if you want it to succeed in the wold at large, wake up. That's what this article is about!!!
I hate to say it, but I agree with a lot of what he says. I have seen first hand what happens when someone from the Linux-side flames a windows user. It is far better to educate them to flame them. We can no longer afford to piss people off just becuase they don't use or understand Linux/Open Source. Just my two cents folks. White-Wolf
email him
I don't fully understand how it is the Linux community in particular seems to attract so many of these people that have so much anger.
Because most Linux users have been driven to Linux out of hate. It is no shock that they continue to hate.
They hate MS, they desperately want to be accepted, they hate big companies, they hate IP because they haven't created any (by and large).
They wouldn't be using Linux if they didn;t hate.
&sign($AC[0]);
You know you're the prime example of what that poor author was talking about. Thanks
Certainly, people react when buried under hate mail. In fact, they normally get pissed off. Are you more moved by rational, well thought out and respectful arguements, or do you prefer receiving 1000 e-mails saying things like "fUcK u, l8M3R!!!"? Pissing people off is generally a poor way of getting what you want - because it normally doesn't work.
The BeOS? Where does it come in all this? (its free now btw)
Not everyone is a Doctor of Technology. Maybe if we all had Doctor of Technology qualifications we could use *nix based systems, but until then....nope nope nope. It won't work. To properly use Linux, you should know at least 6 languages: C, Perl, Python, Lisp, Java, PHP3. And that's compounded by the fact that you need to be fully fluent in the following shells: ash, bash, csh, ksh, sh, and you MUST know shell scripting to make full use of all of these. One you know all of these things, sure, give Linux a try. And the average commands in Linux? "....du -lb |sort -n > files.txt; ls files.txt |grep [file] ; (blah blah blah)....", just to do something that could be done at the click of a mouse button under Windows. I'm not defeding Windows - it's really annoying when every other "process has performed an illegal operation". But I can't use Linux - I'm not a Doctor of Technology!!! You can moderate this down if you want. Take it off the system so that the people can't see the truth, but I'm nto trying to put down Linux. I'm just making observations. I don't consider myself a stupid person. But...ok. Go ahead. Mod me down:)
"Microsoft decides that there are people that like MacOS better than Windows, so the logical thing is to become a MacOS knockoff! What a great idea!"
hmm, kinda like MacOS being a knockoff of a certain Xerox product...
NO, Microsoft demonstrated that leveraging the old monopoly's reputation gives you a huge market share.
It's time for you people to stop spreading this dellusional bullshit about the sucess of microsoft being due to them delivering ease of use. It had nothing to do with that, or even with them delivering useful applications. Even other companies did that.
All Microsoft did was exploit someone else's good reputation and use mob style tactics to ensure their dominance once they got a definitive lead.
APPLE is the company that should be dominant, if 'catering to the non-technical' user is the criterion for success.
That's why you will see most rabid zealots rip apart Microsoft and then admit that a Macintosh is a better option for the "I don't want to know how it works" crowd.
erm...the BeOS? 'Doesn't look like an OS' ? Well, it's got a command promt, o be happy!
I agree more than 100% percent. Getting rid of "wrong" posts reminds me to nazi activities (getting rid of wrong people). I personally have expierienced how much even some typed text can hurt some small ego (mine) but I know it's simply to important for everyone to have free speach to make it o.k. to just dump the speach Is John Katz really becoming the Slashdot guru who advices on what's good and what's evil? If that's so I should go look for another favorite site. It's not that I hate Katz articles or so it's simply that I like free speach more when it doesn't just apply to this one BigTroll!
You see, this is the sort of crap that just makes guys like me what to rip out your lungs and shit in them. First, you defame and libel a broad group of people based on nothing but bigotry.
Next, you continue to spread the LIE that Windows (consumer or not) is necessarily harder to install than Linux. It all depends on the hardware and LUCK (especially with Windows) whether or not your PC OS install is going to go nice or be HELL.
This is more a function of the great Kludge that the PC is. Where things are improving, they're improving such that ALL OSes can exploit them (USB, PCI, the death of ISA).
We are NOT masochists that like to make more work for ourselves. It is absurd to imply otherwise. We didn't stop using WinXX just because we don't like the way Bill looks.
Win9x can be a royal load of dung in many circumstances.
BTW, this 'mp3 pirate' was willing to shell out $400 for his first copy of NeXTtep x86 had NeXT chosen to have been a little less picky about what hardware they supported.
It's funny that this artical is being posted on Slashdot, becuase isn't this exactly what slashdot does everyday? I mean, it's like he goes out and searches for people talking badly about linux and sometime that's what I feel like this webpage is dedicated to, bashing those who are not completely and blindly follow the god Linus. Today's coment about how since david cruseo's lecture will never be seen since it's encoded to the windows media player shows the stupidity of it all, like it's downright evil to have a dual boot to windows or mac. Grow up already, Sure I'd love to run linux all the time, but it's got some major flaws that don't allow that, like NO documentation, crappy DVD support, and crappy Game support. It's people like those who run this site who actually push people further away from linux becuase they don't want to be branded a nut bag. Ok, I guess this is my rant directed toward slashdot mostly for being immature and showing it. I really think the suckdot.org paridy was well done and does reflect alot of what goes on here. I am and still am a slashdot fan, but lighten up on the anti-everything other the linux crap.
When I bought my Voodoo3, I just popped out my Voodoo2 and TNT and kudzu did the rest. I can't fathom why you would have been having any trouble. I've also seen various versions of COL 2.x go up with minor hitches on Banshees. An older version needed a 'manual driver download' to handle the card.
and jesus loves linux fanatics! :)
Sort of a fallacy to expect linux to start being
developed at a pace demanded by customers since it's _free_. Customers who like to feel like big
shots because they're 'mission critical' can go
ahead and use MS and feel real self-important and
be worse off. Open Source may mean project
management in some circles, but on the whole I
don't think linux was built that way.
The miracle of the OS movement is that it has
produced better software _for fun_ than a big
bunch of traditionally organized buisinesses have.
I think he sort of missed the point on this.
Didn't you know? There's only one "approved" USB device that any self-respecing Linux hacker would put on his machine: The piece of black electric tape that gets placed over the USB connectors.
But it doesn't, because grannie won't fiddle with the damn thing. IMO, 80% of Windows problems are caused by installing & uninstalling software. 15% are caused by crap hardware and buggy drivers. 5% are inherent bugs in the OS. Kernel developers are not stupid, whether they work for MS or not.
Now, just wait till Linux gets an easy-to-use installer, and a proliferation in hardware. For example, a BT848-based TV card has precisely one driver under Linux now. When every manufacturer is shipping their own driver, with their own software, all hell will break loose. And yes, you might have the source code, but do you have the 3 years experience in kernel dev and real-time video capture hardware to do anything with it?
Thought not.
My Best Buy has Mandrake 7.0 onsale for $30. It's at the very front of the software section as you walk in the door.
The local CompUSA had an entire End Cap worth of Redhat 6.1 going for $30.
This guy doesn't get out much.
As a cross platform user: Hell yes, Windows makes me mad! At the same time, learning Linux (Unix) is a time consuming task. I wish that /. were more of a "here is how we are going to make computing better" site, than the "there goes the neighborhood"-ish direction that it seems to be going. Why is making a process more intuitive to the non-indoctrinated bad? I would think that getting on to more important things is much cooler than spending your time on sys administration! As we all have encountered, the best teachers, practitioners, whatever, are able to rethink their approach to communicating a solution. More users in Linux space, with secure, properly configured machines, will show just how much better Linux is!
Maybe this is the reason why I have recently lost my interests in normal computer programming and start to teach myself electronics, embedded systems development and hard math thas is not related to cryptocraphy or other discrete and computing related things. Normal computing has become too mainstream. :)
For example, what does WWF do to people. It brings excitement. This guy fight that guy. It's fun. That what attracts people most. It'll probably take me another 10 years to get out of the "fun-loving" nature and into reading CNN. For now slashdot serves a great place to bash Microsoft and I love it. If Microsoft dies, I don't think slashdot would be as popular as it is now. Think about ... every time Microsoft and Linux mentioned in the same sentence or article, we get over 500 comments.
My $0.02. Flame away to any author that talked poorly about Linux. Linux does not need any bad publicity PERIOD. :)
Beside if the author goes into technical details about how much Linux suck. I don't think a lot of newbie even care to read. Look at Andrew Taubenum who in 1992 criticize Linux to be obsolete. That sickens me when it comes from a well respected CS professor like him. Oh well he deserves to be flamed as well. :)
Kent Nguyen
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/16702.html
Apparently quite a few posters at LT agree with you (right Jason).
We all know its you... You're the only one who can pronouce your name, much less spell it.
>>TWACK! goes the Elitest Clue Stick. >Shouldn't that be "THWACK!" ? 8^) Depends on how much fat the person he's TWACK/THWACKING has...I imagine the former would be an appropriate anomatapoea(sp?) for a scrawier person...
... most of those "flamey" BSD users you refer to are not actually BSD users, just trolls, some of them wanting to make BSD users look bad.
Exactly! The one benefit that Linux has over other oh-esses is that there are quite a few companies distributing it. In a few years mom or cousin Billy-Bob might wind up with a Redhat-10 system, complete with AOL7, MS/SW (not to be confused with MS/OS baby-bill) Publisher deluxe and built in drivers for all the peripherals that came with it, straight from the factory. I have a feeling that there will always be a distro or three devoted to folks with other agendas than looking at pretty pictures on the net. Any bets as to what distros cater to what needs? I'm thinking Debian for Servers, mandrake/redhat for end users, suse for rank beginners, corel for office users, and slackware for subgeniuses. Did I leave anyone out?
Maw...Paw done shot up the Red-Hat Agayyyun...
The MS zealots duel fiercely with the Mac zealots, while the *nix users tend to consider themselves in a higher league all together than the single-user-OS camp. We ignore the "lower" squabbling and so we don't see it. We squabble about BSD licensing vs. GPL, and Linux vs. Everything, etc.
"She's certainly no idiot,"
You're right the proper term would be ignorant!
Main Entry: ignorant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension
of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of
knowledge or intelligence
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ignorantly adverb
- ignorantness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge.
IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular
thing . ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative
inability to read and write . UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the
knowledge gained by reading . UNTUTORED may imply lack of
schooling in the arts and ways of civilization . UNLEARNED
suggests ignorance of advanced subjects .
So many of these posts are picking at single points and then calling the whole article a load of horseshit as a result.
So many BSD advocates pick a single questionable criticism or comment by a "Slashdotter" or a "Linux luser" as grounds for denouncing the whole lot as horseshit.
Linux users often laugh at BSD users and their pedantic, insular culture. And so your average Linux user hasn't even tried BSD before disregarding it.
See any similarities? What goes around comes around.
For all practical purposes DEC ceased to exist. They were the leader in the mini market, and made the comment that Unix was just a fad and would never supplant VMS. The Alpha sales are insignifigant when compared to Sparc or PA-RISC sales. They were not viable...Compaq bailed them out by purchasing them. As far as Lotus. You're sort of right. Lotus shot themselves in the foot in a variety of ways. The copy protection schemes pissed off a lot of users, the OS/2 version of their software was piss-poor and most OS/2 users actually ran the Windows version. The upgrade to Smartsuite96 which replaced AmiPro with WordPro was a very bad move as it was incredibly buggy and slow so much so that it came in dead last in nearly every review. Even though the user interface of WordPro was(I felt) much nicer than Word. Actually it was hard to dump those other products for Office. But it became increasingly easier because Office was what a lot of people had at home, and it was what a lot of people had used at their previous job. Kind of strange, but true. Oh, and for the last jab. Microsoft actually isn't much of a legal hound. They don't go out looking for lawsuits, unless it's something really blatant(like the Mafia selling copies of Office97). For the most part, they just launch countersuits when people sue them. Unlike Lotus, I doubt that Microsoft would go off and sue a competitor for cloning them. They'd consider it flattery and use it to their advantage instead. At any rate, don't you think it's strange that you ignore the general gist of the article and nit pick some small points?
>If AOL should happen to port their >software to Linux, there is >absolutely nothing which forces >you to install it. Personally that's what I think linux needs to "arrive". Grok on this - Linux will not be mainstream until it has an "online services" folder that attaches its ass to your desktop, even after you specifically state for it not to during installation. Oh, sorry, the preceding was satire :D Actually I said it in an above post a few minutes ago and you seem to have a similar sentiment. AOL *is* coming to Linux, maybe not literally but certainly the various public companies are heading toward that level of user (so it may as well be). Take heart, Linux is possibly the only way possible to satisfy the diversity of demand that its users have for it. In answer to your question about all of us getting along, I don't think you and I are really the problem, so much as all the people out there who have an axe to grind, and want blood spilled because they once had a blue screen and traded it for "Stability-Without-Sorenson Syndrome".
Nerds, in my experience, are angrier than the average person. I used to be a nerd, and I pretty much classified people into 3 categories - bully, idiot, and role model.
The sad thing is, I can't seem to rejoin the nerd community. Guess I'll be a stoner till I die....
"disabling pnp is not a solution for me. I use '98 more often than linux. "
FLAME ON!
Oh, so you cause the problems and transfer your own inadequecies upon Linux? I see how this game is played. That'd be like me saying getting to NYC is difficult for me because it's against my religion to use bridges or tunnels! How's this for a novel idea, delete Windows and mkfs -t ext2 that partition? What the hell are you booting Windows for anyways? Windows? We don't need any stinking windows!
FLAME OFF
To the Linux community I'm sorry but asinine stuff like this really sends me. "The solution for everyone else isn't good enough for me"
The topic of 'Linux community needs' this or that before it is ready for prime time / serious challenge to Microsoft / world domination seems to creep up periodically. The writer does not define 'Linux community' in any closer detail. All the points he makes are probably true if you consider Linux distributors, whose businesses depend on Linux being popular. I think most of those who need to 'grok', do. Linux istallation process is getting very easy, the applications are coming at an accelerating rate. But do the kernel hackers and those users, who are already getting all they need with Linux, need to worry about these things? I suspect they don't care. They don't need or want all the grandmas of the world using Linux. The software is free, the current stuff will be available for foreseeable future and it is getting the job done for a lot of people. They do not need to grok anything more. True, Linux is not going to last forever, no operating system is. I think Linux will last a lot longer than many others exactly because the community does not specifically _need_ to grok marketing to survive.
He did publish an apology. But even as I was enjoying myself at the Open Source Forum and Austin LUG events, the fallout from the angry e-mail I sent to Mindcraft after publication of its benchmarketing for Microsoft was weighing heavily on my mind. It was bad enough when Mindcraft took that private mail public, but ever since several individuals took it upon themselves to keep those ugly words before the public's eye, I've really been squirming with embarrassment. I'm sorry that this whole chain of events has transpired. If I hadn't hit Send on those notes to Bruce Weiner, the entire episode would never have occurred. As it is, Mindcraft is able to deflect criticism and a much-needed investigation of its relationship with Microsoft by simply pointing to my irate and ill-worded criticism of its practices. For that, I am truly sorry. Even though my actions were not in any way connected to LinuxWorld, I have apologized to Editorial Director Nicholas Petreley for the discomfort my actions brought him. To the rest of the fine staff at LinuxWorld and elsewhere at IDG, I apologize now. To my fellow dweebs in the Austin LUG: Sorry, gang. To any reader feeling that my actions embarrassed him or her personally, and/or the Linux community collectively, I also apologize. To Bruce Weiner at Mindcraft, I apologize for the bad language. I did voluntary community service work at El Bueno Samaritano, a soup kitchen and mission in South Austin, on the Fourth of July to make amends for these and other sins. http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-07/lw -07-vcontrol_1.html
If this guy's really right, then free software is doomed. Personally I'm not about to let a self absorbed Mac bigot tell me how my software is supposed to behave, or how I set up my property. No, I am not a coward who is afraid to look inside of boxes! And I don't want to sit helplessly as a computer removes all choice about how my peripherals work. I am competent, dammit! I don't need to relinquish all choice and freedom to Apple Computer, Inc. That's why I use Linux. In my view, this guy is incredibly arrogant to dictate to the world how things should be. I would have respected him if he had simply said "I'll stick with my Mac, thank you." But I cannot respect anyone who demands that I change to suit his will. Do not drink the Kool-Aid!
Slashdot, and indeed most current computer users are not typical of the real world.
Most people have IQs of 100-110. I'm betting we average at least two standard deviations above that.
Most people don't want to play with their car engines or redo the interiors of their TVs, they just want to drive or veg on the couch, respectively. Most people tape over the flashing 12:00s on their VCRs, and they get someone else to do their taxes.
These are the people we want using Linux if we're going to have World Domination(TM). And we can't expect them to understand otherwise, much less proceed to RTFM (or, in our case, RTFHOWTO&MANPAGES).
So lets wake up and smell the day-old pizza and Jolt Cola. Lets create a nice, simple user interface that lets people with flashing 12:00s get on with downloading e-mail, putting up web sites of their cats and printing out pictures of Leonardo DeCaprio and Natalie Portman. Keep the hard stuff under the hood, but lets give them a user interface like a car with automatic transmission, not an F-22 or a Lunar Module. If you want to learn the hard stuff, make it available by looking at that MAN behind the curtain, but otherwise make sure that even your Uncle John (who goes online to download pictures of the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker only after making a full proskynesis towards Redmond) can install, set up (by forehead install) and run it without needing any outside help after the UPS guy leaves.
Most people are not intrinsically interested in what something IS, they are only interested in what they can EASILY MAKE SOMETHING *DO*. And this does not involve reading the manual. The Web caught fire because "Any Idiot Can Web Surf By Clicking This Button Right Here And Learning To Type "Bird" Where That Funny Line Is Blinking"(TM), because although the Web was started by Smart People Like People Who Work At CERN, they were so smart that they figured they should make the Web easy to use even for idiots.
So, do we want World Domination or are we all just going to sit around and feel superior? Well, folks?
ps2 is it you old farts
Just to fan the flames a little , there are some interesting thoughts
m l
about Unix and it's derivatives
at this URL:
http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/login.ht
Amen, brother.
That $80 buys you handholding (read support) Personally I'm too lazy to go out to a store to buy Linux. I download it off the net, in ISO format, then burn a CD. Plus I get a kick out of running my systems off stuff totally downloaded. Broadband and Linux, what do I want to run today? :-)
I don't for one... Windows can have its user base, and Linux can have its. I like that.
Ok, Bored of watching Rage so I thought I might as well throw my 2c in on this one. Firstly, many of the reasons linux is more difficult to use / install etc is that is gives the user much more power and control. This IMHO is a good thing for those that are actually using linux. Does linux really want to compete with win98? (When it does I guess I will up and use BSD to retain my nerdiness quotient) I guess my point is that yeah sure this guy does have some very good points _if_ you are putting Linux forward as a replacement for Win98, but who would want todo that? Lynx, Emacs, Gcc, Python, LaTeX got about everythin you need there anyway. Drunk and Rambling, Benno
As I read his comments, I realized that we really are close on lots of things, like the home market, but the last 10% will be the most difficult. Perhaps because of the overall attitude of the Linux community toward the average user. But to get the rest of the way, I think we are going to need a complete reversal of our attitude: Computer literate needs to mean the computer is english literate. That's hard. But I think that that's what it will take to defeat a relentless, ruthless, marketing department at Micro$oft.
>That's the 99% of computer users who pay our salaries! That's my
>mother, and most of my friends. That's practically everyone who uses
> Windows.
You still haven't answered the question. Why should we care all that much about them? As Atari and Commodore has demostrated, trying to please everybody often means pleasing *NOBODY*
This man has no comprehension. Users should be prepared to spend a week or two to learn how to boot a machine for the first time, or they're weak, and will only hurt us. We must cater to our strength, which is the well-informed user base - we preserve this by not letting ignorant people get involved.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I'm sick of hearing these "Linux users flamed me because I said something they thought was stupid" articles/posts/rants.
Seriously whats wrong with a little fear. All these journalists fear Microsoft will stop inviting them to next weekends free booze junket in Orlando, or Anahiem.
I say let the rabble rouse a little. Let these journalist know that they advocate other operating systems and criticize Linux at their peril.
He doesn't seem angry at all. You are the who's getting pissed off when people point out flaws in linux. Yes get used to it, LINUX DOES HAVE FLAWS. Its not perfect otherwise everyone who has a packard bell and uses aol would have it.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I agree. As much as I DESPISE AOL, to many people it's the only reason they use computers or the internet at all. Who are we to judge what people use their computers for?
What a Linux port of AOL would provide is the ability for the average person to use AOL - the $100 or so Windows tax. Most people simply would not care as long as they had AOL.
I guess Scott McNealy is correct in this area. We shouldn't really care what OS the computer is running. We should care about how well the computer does it's job, the service it provides. OS should really be looked at as an overhead type thing, and not the focus.
AFAIK the concept of OS-centric computing was popularized by M$, for obvious reasons. This guy is correct. We have made ourselves out to be more important than we are. Humility is of the utmost, especially with these information appliances just along the way. Sure Linux is going to be a big part of this. But the fact is if the software guys do their job, most people won't know (or care) what technical nonsense is underneath. That means if the apps could be ported to something else, the switch could be done without the users even knowing.
More on the humility end of things. The fact is information technology as it stands today is crap! As much as we like to sit around and jack ourselves off about how great we are, we aren't. Everything is too unapproachable, complex, and buggy. The whole concept of computer literacy is crap in and of itself. The technology shouldn't even be noticable, much less should it require extensive arcane education.
Of course, I'm just spouting back the words of much greater people than myself. But it really has to be said! We have no "revolution," as everything stands today. We have a technical aristocracy, a "digital divide." I know countless extremely intelligent, forward- thinking people who just aren't of technical mindset. People who feel somehow inferior, or left out just because they can't project themselves into our silly little ways of thinking. They didn't fuck anything up, WE DID!
I dont believe that Linux can die in the same way as DEC, because (as even MS in the Halloween documents admitted) GNU/Linux isnt a company or even so much a product - the unkillable and killer part is the *process*.
And while companies may rise and fall, the process will always be there whatever the current trendy OS/Application.
In some ways, I think that linux becoming a commercial desktop OS is the worst possible thing that could happen to it. ISure, it would be great to knock MS down a peg or two and get more people running on open systems, but I think we need to ask ourselves what we want out of linux. Are we looking for total world domination and a linux box on every desktop? Or are we in this b/c it's great tech that we love (regardless of how "hard" it is to use)?
Me personally, I'm in this for the tech and could care less what other people are using. If everyone wants to use AOL, fine, let them. Linux has proven its place in the server market, so it's not going anywhere for the near future. That being the case, I'd rather see a better (if harder to use) OS than more users. If we start catering to less technical users, the advancement of good tech will slow b/c we'll have to worry too much about how easy something is to use. I think the OS market is big enough to support linux and MS users. The big thing that would be nice would be more open standards so that if one of those MS/AOL users sent me things, I could read them w/o any problems (I'm talking about anything, not just office files).
Just my anonymous two cents.
---
I'm not a real anonymous coward, I just play one on TV. (Thursdays on KVR-9 Austin!)
I think trolls are part of the Slashdot community. I browse here mostly because of the trolls, there are many articles that I just don't care about, but some trolls are so funny!
I have never seen an "Insightful" comment that was any good, however. What they mean by "Insightful" is actually "politically correct". The Insightful label should be eliminated.
The true decision they must make is: Slashdot is a success now, should it change? Here's my answer: I, personally, like trolls. I clicked an ad banner today. Let the cash flow speak.
> Redhat, Corel, SUSE, Debian, Slackware, all
> these distributions are starting to cater to
> what the "wealthy organizations" are "demanding" > not to what "Joe-User-downloading-for-free
> -off-the-internet" is asking for.
Debian is not a company. If someone from a big comany comes to debian and asks us to do something, we listen to them exactly as much as we do to any other individual user, and no more.
I hope the rest of your post made more sense, but I couldn't bear to read on after reading such bullshit in the second sentence.
--
see shy jo
What you need to do is find a Linux User Group to join. Here's a helpful page. Don't worry if there's not one within driving distance, they almost all have mailing lists. Just pick one. Or pick two or three, ask a few questions, and see which list is the most helpful.
I'll take this as an opportunity to plug our local LUG, GOLUM. You're welcome to join our list, or if you're in the Memphis area, come to the meetings. Plus we have the coolest mascot of any LUG.
--
I don't fully understand how it is the Linux community in particular seems to attract so many of these people that have so much anger.
Yeah, it reminds me of the Libertarian Party. Lots of the people who gravitated to it were inclined to engage in power driven arguments.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
My only gripe with what this guy has to say is this:
Companies expecting volunteers to have open-source projects done on some arbitrary timetable? They can expect all they want, but when you're doing it for free, you may not be able to concentrate on the project at hand, or you may just not feel like messing with it for awhile - and when you're not getting PAID for it, you can do as you please.
It's a different story if businesses (like RH, SuSE, VA, PrecisionInsight, etc) HIRE these people, and pay them to continue their open-source projects... but for those for whom this is strictly a hobby deal, they don't have to follow anyone's timetable, and saying that they do is ludicrous.
I do understand the rest of the article, though I think the typical user can learn a lot more than they're willing to - it's in large part a matter of desire...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
It is composed apparently entirely of people that have never been USERS in their lives.
We're all users at some point.
They've never dealt with something that they just don't have the time or ambition to learn.
Because, IMO, Linux users are a different KIND of user than the "typical" home user, who is content to learn as little as possible (i.e., just the bare minimum they need to get by)... Most (not all, I'm sure) Linux users are the type who will dig and search until they find the answer they're looking for.
Is it so bad that the Linux users want Linux to remain as is? I personally am waiting for the day when the commercial demands become too great, and many Linux users and developers pack it up and move on to another platform. That we (Linux users) are "elitist" or "snobbish" is a matter of opinion... the *BSD snobs are way worse. (Note: I didn't say BSD users - many BSD users are quite cool, and even like Linux fine, but I've met enough *BSD snobs to know they're out there.)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Sorklin is right.
I really don't care what programs other people run on Linux so long as it doesn't effect my Linux usage. So what if AOL gets ported to Linux? It won't effect me. It certainly won't cause Linux to be "dumbed down".
On the otherhand, if I were an OS developer, I might care what people want to run on my OS. But that would be so that I could provide the functionality and APIs to support their needs. But that's completely different story.
It's not about dumbing down Linux. It's about putting some suitable resource sucking eye candy on top of Linux for dumb users.
Who cares what software people want to run on Linux? Don't be so small-minded.
Any project-management is difficult. Whether it be closed-source, open-source, or even one person working in their free time, there needs to be a percentage of time spent proportional to the size of the project on managing it; a very large project will require a lot of management even for the most cohesive and dedicated group.
On the other hand, the open-source community has a habit of not making projects that big. Rather than having an Operating System, there's a kernel, a library, a compiler, a set of file utilities, a shell, an X server, a window manager... the fact of having all of these parts as separate projects increases the amount to which pieces are made to fixed specifications and thus can be treated as separate projects. The open source community couldn't write Windows, but it wouldn't think to try: writing the Linux kernel and glibc and mozilla makes more sense (people work on what they find interesting, and depend on a reasonable subset of the community).
On the other hand, it is not likely that the feature sets of major projects will eventually be dictated by the demands of business users. We already have the habit of telling people, "if you want that feature, write it yourself." The Linux kernel only gets features that seem to be good to have, not features that people are asking for. RedHat and SuSE and Debian don't even get to say what goes into the official kernel-- if they want some feature, that's their own business and they have to do it themselves.
The way things are now, and the way they will probably continue to be is that the various projects make their results the best they can in the technical aspects, and other people work on usability.
You make it sound like Microsoft staying in business is a bad thing. IMO the only thing worse than Windows having 80% market share is any other operating system (such as Linux) having 80% market share. If the company would be better off using Microsoft products, then why would anyone (who's not a sadist) tell them to use anything but Microsoft products? The *last* thing that should be proposed is getting the Linux community to bend over backwards to produce Microsoft knock-offs.
My dream is for many operating systems (BSD, Linux, Windows, BeOS, MacOS, GNU (aka "the HURD"), Eros, etc.) to all have 5-30% market share. Then, god forbid, each operating system would be have its own strengths and weaknesses, instead of trying to cater to 80% of the population. I mean have we learned nothing? Microsoft decides that there are people that like MacOS better than Windows, so the logical thing is to become a MacOS knockoff! What a great idea!
You had me up until the tax form analogy.
When something (such as tax forms) are aimed at the entire population, they should be able to be used (or filled out, etc.) by the entire population. If something is aimed at a specific population, it should be able to be used by that specific population.
The way you go on you'd think that you'd want Linux to be able to be used by the entire population. With very few exceptions, I think *nothing* should be targetted at the entire population -- not cars or shoes or buildings or operating systems. Linux should be targetted at the kinds of people that will find Linux useful. This does not generally mean accountants or secretaries or "Joe Users". This means people who will find Unix useful, such as system or network administrators, as well as students for some odd reason.
For me the thing that is most lacking in the free software world is a non-Unix operating system. Look at all the decent/usable free operating systems we have right now: Linux, BSD, uhh...is that it? While it would be definitely nice for non-Unix users to enjoy free software, crippling Unix is not the way to go about it. A user-friendly Unix would either be impossible or impractical.
IMO people who go on moaning about how Linux is "hard for newbies" or "not ready for primetime" are idiots. People don't go around complaining about how military tanks are "too large" or "not ready for the average consumer". Expecting Unix to be usable by a non-geeks is about as logical as expecting to take a tank down to the mall to buy groceries. We tried it with CDE, we tried it with OpenStep, we tried it with KDE and Gnome, and guess what, they all suck ass. The only way they'll ever become usable by "Joe User" is if you remove ever last remaining remnant of "Unixness", in which case I'd start wondering why you're using Linux at all.
I think you're referring to Redhat's Xconfigurator.. I've only used XF86setup once, but I remember it already being in X, compared to Xconfigurator, which was a python script.
You say it is far far easier to install Windows than Linux? Speak for yourself. I'm on the other side of the fence: I have no trouble putting Linux on SCSI, Jaz drives, ZIP drives, or even on top of an existing Windows drive with no repartitioning, but Windows gives me no end of trouble whenever I have the audacity to try to install it on a system that already has another OS on it.
I have just spent a dozen hours in the last week trying to install Windows onto my machine. Windows 95? Won't detect my sym53c8xx SCSI controller (no IDE on the system, so the SCSI detection is needed for installation). Windows 98? Hangs before getting to the setup wizard. Windows NT and 2000? Won't boot unless I use the setup program's disk partitioner to create a new partition for them, and when I do that Linux complains the partition table is invalid and won't recognize the new OS. No, before you ask, I am not inexperienced at this. I have installed both Windows and Linux dozens of times, but even with all my experience Windows has me at my wit's end.
You say Windows 2000 is easy to install from scratch. I believe it. The problem occurs if you have an existing OS and don't want to destroy your existing system. Windows is exclusionary by design: it wants your whole system for itself. You complain that Linux does not play nice, but in my experience Windows is far, far worse.
I could easily install Linux onto a Jaz drive if I had to, but I dare say it is impossible to install Windows onto a Jaz drive, or indeed any drive other than the "C:" of the system. For that matter, the entire concept of prefixed drive letters for different drives is a shameful vestige of the DOS era that Microsoft ought to abandon this very instant. You have no idea how much easier it is to move files from one disk drive to another in Linux, since you don't also have to change lots of drive letters in the registry while you're at it. But this is drifting off the subject.
You want me to install Linux onto your Jaz drive? Fine, I'll do that, provided you install Windows on my system in exchange (seriously). Not everyone is in your boat. Some of us find Linux easy and need help with the Windows.
I have to say that I am sick and tired of the idiot flamers, ranters and trolls that are popping up with increasing frequency nowadays. In fact, Slashdot itself seems to have got a lot worse over the past few weeks.
If people have nothing constructive or polite to say, then they should not say anything. Their foul-mouthed, spiteful and idiotic posts are tarring everyone with the same brush and I, for one, do not want to be associated with them in any way. It's easy (and still worthwhile) to remind people that these idiots are not representative of the community but after a while one gets tired of the never-ending stream of bile.
If the noise gets above a certain level, we're never going to find any signal anymore.
I'd definitely say it was time for a forum like Slashdot to review it's policy on what gets posted because it's been farcical seeing what's getting through recently.
We'll all rue the day when we're afraid to say we use Linux because people will immediately stereotype use as being rude,self-righteous, arrogant pricks.
No, no, no. The correct response is "I'll be happy to make this change for you. My fee is $500/hour". Those are wealthy organizations after all.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I have to disagree with you on this one. Businesses are all about saving money. In terms of productivity, that means hiring people with drive and efficiency. Businesses hire people who know or will learn shortcuts.
For about three years I worked at the Michigan Department of Attorney General. The secretaries who made it to division head level all knew shortcuts. When someone types around 100 words per minute, they lose too much time using a mouse. In the course of a letter, it's no big deal. In the course of a thousand page brief a few seconds here and there adds up quickly. This is compounded by the fact that attorneys are notoriously procrastinators. Now ask yourself how it's going to look when you miss a court deadline because someone thought that hotkeys weren't so important!
It is not the job of the masses to adapt to your computer system.
By the same token, it's not the job of (most) free-software authors to adapt their products and systems to the masses. Perl is out there, but it's hard to read its syntax when one first uses it. Is that a defect that should be "adapted"? GCC is one big, complex package - I'll never be well versed in all aspects of it. Should the maintainers adapt to fit my standpoint?
When people buy a new computer, they often bring the box home from the computer store, and then let it sit on the bedroom floor for several days as they screw up their courage to open it....Consider focusing your immediate application efforts on the few key pieces of software that receive 90% of home and office use. Microsoft Word and America Online.
Without trying to sound elitist, are these the people who Linux is best suited for? It seems like there's an increasing tendency in the media to try to pound the round peg of Linux into the square hole of [home/business/grandma] computer users, and then grumble that they can't run Office, or AOL, or whatever. Maybe Windows or whatever is worth the extra $50 to a sizeable part of the computer user base, maybe not. It isn't the job of every programmer to make their application or system look like what people are most used to. Where's the innovation in that?
I triple-boot on this machine into OpenBSD, Linux, and Windows. But when my grandma wanted to e-mail people, I didn't set up an account and then wonder why WINE didn't make Linux (don't have it running on BSD :) a Windows workalike, and I didn't complain that the pine keybindings were hard for her to learn. I dug out my 11 year old Mac and she was working on it in ten minutes.
If the author does indeed think that Linux should be a workalike of some well-established operating system so that users don't have to learn a new one, he'll be very pleasantly suprised when he finds out how much it resembles Un*x. My Linux and BSD systems are so similar to the Solaris boxes at school that I haven't had to spend any time at all learning new applications!
I think Linux is a first-rate Unix; I wouldn't be using it if it were a second-rate Windows.
"Since before you ever heard about it?" LOL...what was that about arrogance?
Brian
It it when you say it like that, big guy. Just some of the synonyms from my thesaurus:
:)
proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.
But in any case, I agreed with the rest of your original comment, and I know that means a lot to you
Brian
I thought the gritz guy was pretty funny myself, I'm 34.
Just laugh.
support gun control: take guns from cops
To stop squatters.
---- "First came stats, pulling habits out of rats
You can't have it both ways. Either you aim for widespread acceptance of Linux (in which case, AOL must be embraced), or Linux remains the odd box in the server closet.
It is not only the illiterate users who use AOL. My fience, who is obtaining her teaching credentials, uses AOL on her iMac. She's very bright and intelligent, but when it comes to computers, she just wants to use them as a tool - nothing more. She has no desire to learn Linux. She just wants something that works, and will work without a minimum of fuss. This is what 90% of the people out there want.
When we are married later this year, that purple iMac is going to fit right into my home office, next to my Sparc, OpenBSD and Linux boxen. She'll keep her AOL, because that's what works for her.
If you really want the masses to use Linux, you can stand to learn a thing or two from that iMac.
i'm sitting here thinking that many years ago, the same arguments and thoughts were coming out of the commi/amiga culture when Windows and MacOS started invading the multi-tasking OS market. i know several amiga people who have the 'live amiga or die' tatoos. fanatics are always a little off-base, but sometimes they add a little colour to an otherwise dull arena; other times they just prove to be pricks. linux zealots drive me insane. several of my friends believe it to be the be-all-end-all of operating systems and that if you are too slow to pick up on it, then you are certainly worm-bait and don't deserve to live. get a grip, folks.
-
incidently, until adobe embraces linux, i will never ever give up my winnt box.
--bc
-----------------------------------------
the amazing bc
latin/funk flugelhorn & trumpet
webnaut, music junkie, sysadmin from hell
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
1) Be Pro- something not Anti-
Its a lot more positive.
(Pro-Linux == Good, Anti-MS == "bad" )
2) AOL box; Why not make something like a Tivo box
for people who want to use AOL.
Tivo runs linux but who the hell cares.
( Have a look at the "Money programme"
broadcast from the BBC with the guy
pointing to the $250 box that does his work instead of the $1000 dollar pc )
3) We should be aiming for a time when the OS is unimportant and people can just get work done. OS bigotry is helping no one.
Why not? You don't give any specific reasons. End users use applications, that's all they need to learn. Are you saying that you make your users configure their Windows machines from scratch? Set up tcp/ip and everything?
I don't think that would be dumbing down at all. Just because a person uses AOL doesn't mean they can't handle a standard ISP or Linux. Just means they made a choice based on what they want (my parents use AOL because it fits their needs just fine and because everytime they go to cancel it, AOL gives them another 2 months or so for free. They learned about Internet usage via me and my brother using Mindspring, so they're familiar with a normal ISP).
I think AOL on Linux would go a long way towards making more people adopt it (we can debate on the merits of mass adoption later). It would give them a comfortable presence amist all of those cold command prompts.
BTW, in responce to your next statement, AOL is an Online Service, not an ISP. There is a difference.
Chris
The people who have, do, and will continue to contribute to Linux never had big business in mind. They spent there own time to make something that they loved better.
Throughout the long road of Linux's development different people have had different needs. Those who needed went out and did. Meaning that they created what they needed because they cared and wanted to.
People who develop for Linux don't have customers in mind. They should never have customers in mind. They write and maintain programs for themselves and those like them.
That's what makes Linux strong. Each individual who holds up a pole in the Linux pavilion.
We owe those people allot. They do not owe us.
First off, I can relate to the article since I just purchased a CDRW, tossed in a 2940 and replaced my IDE cdrom with a scsi. I was so pissed off at Mandrake, (another issue) that I installed another 10GB EIDE hd and installed MS 98. (this is for my personal system at home btw) Before I hear all the crap, this is the "first" time Win9x has been installed on this system. I've ran RH 5.x-6.0, SuSE 5.1-6.0, and then Mandrake 6.1. I did need Win95 and a few applications, so Vmware worked. Obviously, I *will* get things running under Linux, but I don't have the time right now. (and yes, I compiled cdrecord, etc.) My job at work deals with Linux on a day to day basis, and now the management wants me to install NT as a application server, and it took 5 days to get the damn thing running correctly, (ala, even installing NT 4.0) and yet it works fine with RH 6.0. (an example of the switch in hardware support out of the box on NT 4.0 vs RH 6.0)
;)
Regarding a universal installer for Linux, this would be a good thing. Disk Druid sucks, Yast is "ok", and fdisk is your friend.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
But that's just it... the author wasn't talking about how long it takes to learn how to use Linux in general. He was talking about how long it takes to learn a new type of technology.
A Palm is roughly akin to an electronic notepad. Most people already know how to use notepads. No big leap there -- there are some general things you need to learn and some specific things (Graffiti being one of the latter) before you're proficient.
The same goes for word processing programs. They're all very similar -- you type and type and then hit Save and Print. There are some specific tasks peculiar to each, but most of what people I know do doesn't require anything more complicated than New Document, Open Document, Save Document, and Print Document.
Bringing "the complexity of learning how to use Linux" into the equation is a mistake. Half of the people here couldn't find the right mouse button until I stood beside them and said, "Right-click. Click the right mouse button. No, that was the left mouse button. Use the other finger. That's it." If people don't know how to use Windows and still manage to get their work done, why worry that they won't be able to learn how to use Linux, especially if it's already set up for them?
As long as they can find New Document, Open Document, Save Document, and Print Document, they'll be fine. Just watch out for incompatible file formats.
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
We didn't create open source in order for someone else to usurp the power and force us to churn technically questionable features at a rapid clip in order to satisfy some marketing person.
Open source is a rebellion against that sort of thinking. We can build better, faster, stronger, and cheaper. But only because it is a labor of love. We program because we want to, not because the users are demanding the features. My answer to the person who wants me to put 50 features into the code when only 10 should be there?
"Use the source. Leave me alone."
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The only problem with these people chastizing the people who flame linux-bashers (justly or unjustly), is that they rarely contribute more to the 'effort' than the flamers do themselves.
:-))
Sure, they may have the connections to make their voices heard, but they most often do not do so through contributing to open source projects.
Generally they just speak loudly to anybody who will listen to them.
Flaming the flamers is still flaming. Ignore the lot of it.
(don't flame the flamers who are flaming the flamers... like I am
In a sense, this guy has some fairly good points -- Linux is not the final product of OS evolution (merely a high point), and Linux is by no means the most user-friendly system out there. However, I find a few flaws in his reasoning.
First of all, his ideal PC appears to be one which never crashes, is perfectly simple to use, and comes pre-installed and pre-configured. In short, his ideal PC isn't a PC at all, it's an *appliance*. I think he'll be seeing loads of computers in the near future that fit his dream exactly -- and plenty that run Linux -- but they won't be desktop systems.
Second, in one of the articles he cites, he mentions several tips to making a crash-proof PC -- run Windows 98 "because Microsoft has been fixing problems in Windows since 1990." (true, but they've also been creating *new* problems for the same amount of time), and "Once your computer is working well, leave it alone. Resist the urge to install the latest hardware options" -- this guy teaches computer science? Every single thing he says goes *precisely* against the grain of the computer geek.
Third, his comments about big companies leaning on the Linux community to produce features faster just doesn't ring true at all. Someone may want to remind him that Linux beat MS to the punch by several years on minor features like, say, 32-bit processing. And for that matter, no company is reliant upon the Linux community to provide the features they need -- they can simply *add* them, or pay someone to do so. (Bounty system, anyone?)
I really just think that his view of Linux and mine don't agree at all. I use Linux as a server because it's cheap and stable, and I use it as a workstation because it's an ideal hacking environment (well, my ideal anyways. No, I haven't tried BeOS yet...) I think as far as Charles C (or the audience he's apparently aiming towards) is concerned, Linux is never going to be the right answer because what they want isn't a PC at all -- they want a Playstation 2 that runs MS Word.
--
perl -e '$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00";
s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72,
$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00"; s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72, (74..76),(78..80),(82..85))[hex $1]/eg;
And why on earth would you have to know more then one shell scripting language? (That brings up the point why you think people need to know a shell language in the first place.) BTW, sh and bash are usually the same thing. Anyway, I don't know any shell scripting, except the use of for {}. (Windows command line, BTW, also lets you do a for loop, but no one knows about it.
Oh, and explain to me how I can do text manipulation in Windows with one click? For example, let's search a file for all lines that say 'foo', sort the list and remove all duplicate entries:
sort filename.txt | grep foo | uniq > filename.out
Now you tell me how to do that in Windows, with any amount of clicks, or typing, without having to manually compare each line.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
With anything except a version of emacs, that might have been sarcasm... :)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
No, No, No!
GNU/HURD is yet another Open Source project and that is all it has going for it in the eyes of many of the unknowing masses. There is no possible way (unless Linux stumbles hard and quick and GNU/HURD becomes solid even quicker) that the HURD crowd will capture the media attention Linux has as quick as it has. Why? Because it will always be in the shadow of that free Linux thingy that came first. This is the way business people think.
Anyway, the Linux Killer will be something completely different that we probably can't even imagine right now. I admit when I first moved to Windoze '95 at work back in the day I never had a clue that in '98 I would be working on 'nix variant built for the PC. It never even occurred to me. Maybe some of the true visionaries can clue me in on the next big move, but I don't see it being HURD.
ACK
What really aggravates me the most is for people (i.e. lowest scum from behind the toilet, flame-baiters) who intentionally post taunts, jibes, insults, lies, and FUD, knowing that this will agitate the more 'enthusiastic' in the crowd, for the sole purpose of unecessarily stirring up hate and discontent, and then fault them for responding in an emotional, angry manner. These are the kids who are now allegedly adults, who like to throw rocks at hornet's nests, just to piss off the hornets and watch them swarm, then complain loudly when they get the shit stung out of them. ( Certain so-called tech journalists come to mind, (Dvorak, Bray, et al.)).
I don't mean it's a linux killer now...but it very well could be in a few years.. unless Linus decides he's gonna completely redo the kernel as OO once HURD starts gaining marketshare and usablility.
I post links to stuff here
Next stop has been 3dfx.glide.linux (so if anyone on this thread would like to help, a more detailed description is there !)
Apologies for the rather sarcastic tone. I know it /can/ be done, and of course the slow slog to learn stuff so that it will eventually be second nature is half the fun in the first place. All I'm trying to say is, Linux is by no means ready for the general home user, and anyone who thinks differently has never had to do tech support for said general users.
OTOH I /am/ a bit of an idiot sometimes, and the fact that I can be paid to write Perl says more about the ease & power of Perl than my skills :)
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
It would be a simpler world if everyone in the computer industry shared your attitude and tried to reserve computing to competant operators.
But, that's not how 90% of the industry thinks. They sell consumer electronics. They want to put their product in front of as many people as possible. It's the industry trying to gain market penetration, not the lusers clammoring at the gates that are the problem.
(But to address your point about cars -- that's why they invented the automatic transmission, and put drivers education and licencing programs in place, and so on.)
So, while you can hide in some unixy corner of the world and feel relatively safe from the unwashed masses, everyone else in the industry is trying to let the unwashed masses in as fast as they can collect money. (Meanwhile, you benefit from commodity pricing, but I don't hear you bitch about that.) Live with it, or come up with a constructive solution.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
OS/2 actually did have an enormous amount of hype behind. Time travel back to 1989, and pretty much everyone 'in the know' thought that it was the operating system of the future.
Also (for what it's worth), I do have a fawning book called "The Sony Vision" (Nick Lyons, 1976) about Akio Morita and his drive to create Sony and to push the Betamax on to the world market.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
OK, but I still think that you are painting the world darker than it needs to be. Most individuals who cart home an iMac do actual get competent enough to get their AOL or surf the web.
(Now there's quite a bit of false advertising here -- The industry essentially says that iMac, etc. equals Internet+You, but they conveniently neglect to mention that iMac also equals you installing drivers, you upgrading your OS and memory, you troubleshooting cryptic errors and so on. Some people figure these next steps out -- quite a few others give up and the computer gathers dust. My solution was to get my mom a WebTV.)
Now the real problem is at the corporate level -- how many times have you seen an new application or even an entire OS (err, Win95) rolled out with no training budgeted towards it? Or assistants layed-off, with the logic being that computer-illiterate middle managers that have never even used an electric typewriter can type their own memos? These things happen all the time, and I really don't blame the poor users. Even the IT department, which should be savvy enough to believe differently, has bought the line that more and newer computers automatically brings more efficiency.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I think the last thing Linux needs is for AOL to try and force their proprietary network drivers into the OS via kernel modules, to the detriment of other ISPs and TCP/IP applications.
There are a lot of friendly ISPs out there people. AOL isn't the only game in town- they are just the biggest producer of landfill-bound CDroms.
-OT
I don't think anybody's saying that Linux users can't reply to insults, but they have to keep it at a mature level without losing their temper. One difference with the open-source community is that they have far fewer PR and Marketing types than the big business / big media companies.
Whether that's an advantage or a disadvantage I'll leave as an exercise for the reader. :)
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
If Linux doesn't do something you want it to do, why aren't you fixing it?
If arrogant assholes send you tons of angry e-mails because of something you wrote, hey, you're getting noticed, right? Isn't that why you write articles?
Informing people the party is over misses the point. Linux is not a revolution, when we throw the bastards out the GPL doesn't leave us any wiggle room to install new ones.
I often hear these software engineering sheep bleating around here. "We are owned," they baa, "we must do what they say."
"Gaaah" is what I say.
To say the Linux and Free Software community doesn't listen to it's "customers" is incorrect. It's gotten where it is by doing precisely that. It's just that Linux's "customers" are technical users for whom Windows and MacOS are inadequate; and also those who need to deploy stable, secure systems for non-technical users in a traditional office environment.
Part of his point, though, is that there is a large - and vocal - segment of Linux advocates who insist that Linux does meet the needs of your "first group" (the non-technical desktop market.) This segment either needs to live up to what it claims, and meet the needs of that group, or learn to accept that Linux just isn't ready for the non-technical user yet.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Well, maybe not a killer app, but how about a killer use?
With all the talk about smart devices in your house (fridges that call repairmen, washers that know when they're broke), maybe the next big thing will be something to control all these devices.
I can almost imagine a house as a small business, with a single, larger computer sitting in the basement, and all these "smart" appliances connecting to it. Maybe we could even get rid of the self-contained PC and use (gasp!) thin clients as access terminals in multiple places in the house.
It seems to me that an inherantly multi-user OS such as Linux, could be adapted for this type of use.
I want something has to act as a filter between my house and the world, or else we'll be getting advertisements every time we open the fridge, or do a load of laundry.
just a thought.
machwon
pragmatic optimist - I'd be happy if I cared.
What if 4 out of 5 dentists are idiots?
When I first went to install, I had problems finding my monitor. I do not know the exact refresh rates, and tried a few things. After about 20 minutes of playing, I got through the install process. My two goals of linux were to be able to surf the web and use ICQ, and once I had those two things I could learn what I need to know. There was no nice dial-up interface that I could locate (later, I was referred to kPPP after several reboots into windows and back), and managed to set that up. I decided on licq for my ICQ client. I downloaded the tar.gz, and that's about as far as I got. I didn't know how to compile or use it, so I ended up requesting the help of
Technos replied to me, and we set out to install licq. First of all, I had none of the needed lib's installed, so I had to do a reinstall. I went to reinstall, got it all re-configured, and windows had suddenly disappeared from my boot options. I check fdisk, and to my horror, RedHat not only overwrote my linux partition, tables, but my fat16 ones as well. <P>
After a complete format of both my ext2 and fat16 drives, a reinstall of both redhat and windows, as well as my critical windows applications, I was ready to try again. I recieved instructions from technos using 'talk' while i compiled and configured everything. I finally get everything all set up, go to run licq, and it tells me that my qt-gui isn't installed. I goto install *that*, make it, compile it, wait an hour, and then try to run licq again. Same error. I try to run qt-gui, it tells me my path is set to "" although I know damn well (and
The result? I'm still in windows and linux has probably lost a user. I simply don't have the knowledge to do the things that linux requires of me just to set up the basic things that I want to use. And I consider myself knowledgable! Imagine poor grandma who is afraid to turn on her computer trying to use linux. It would be impossible, and this is the main problem with linux. it needs a smooth install process, and a nice friendly newbie GUI that someone who doesn't know linux and is only marginally familiar with windows can use. The average user doesn't know what a com port is, let alone which one their modem uses! Until that is fixed, linux *will* remain the underdog.
Well, considering that what you wrote was a flame, it deserved to be moderated as such. However, since it apparently was marked higher than it deserved (probably in part do to the fact that you announced that it would be moderated down), it needs responding to.
Please produce these developers who say that linux should be hard to use. Name one. If you can do that (I can't), then name 10. I'd be really impressed if you can find someone who wrote a program that more than 1000 people are using who believes that software should be hard to use.
I can find you the Gtk people, and the gnome people, and the KDE people, and the tk people who think otherwise. The enlightenment people do.
About the only fact close to what you're talking about is that the documentation was slower in coming than the tools and the power tools sooner in coming than the newbie tools. This isn't from ideology, it's just the nature of things.
People who make tools that they use will generally always make the tools for power users first, then the simpler tools. These are encessarily exclusive. Tools for power users are streamlined and require that you know how to use them. Thus the help is off on the side, not in front. Short but unintuitive commands are more efficient than longer but intuitive ones, so one or the other must be used (though not always there, check out the GNU standard of long options).
What distribution of linux are you using, anyhow? Slackware 1.x? If you check out a modern distribution of linux, especially one of the redhat based ones, they tend to be very user friendly. True, they're easier the closer you get to common hardware and harder the further away from that that you get, but that's always the case.
Anyhow, the linux world is moving over to being easier. It takes time. I'm currently writing a graphical checkbook register with graphical configuration and online help. I'll be releasing it within a few days. other people are doing similar things. Like everything in life it's just taking time.
If you can't help, please don't complain. Encourage. Give people a reason to care. I want people to use my software. Others want people to user their software too. Give us a reason to think that you're going to and that you'll be polite about it, and we'll be more motivated to write it in a way that you'd like. The world works quite well if you cooperate. Give it a try. You'll be a welcome part of the community if you do.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I'm not sure I agree with this - perhaps demands will be put on Red Hat and the like, but when it comes down to programmers, I don't think so. If it happens, it will likely be ignored. The text that comes with the GPL'd app says explicitly that there is no warranty, and if the free software developer doesn't want to implement 50 features in her spare time, then she simply won't. Is this the kiss of death for Linux in the business environment? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be. Someone who wants features right now can throw money at someone, and get it. Otherwise, it's free, and development terms are dictated by the developer.
I expect the result of this would be distros forking. RH et al are now big money publicly traded companies with shareholders to please. If a big company that has a support contract with RH leans on them to make the types of changes the original author suggested, you can believe that they will make them.
The upside to this is that Linux (and most other free Unices) tends to do "the right thing" and there can't be too many demands to make too many weird changes in the first place.
Thank you for taking the time to completely miss the point and misunderstand even the most simple statements.
I do not refer to the developers when I speak thus, I refer to the individuals who feel that adding a GUI configuration tool, graphical installer, and other user-friendly items is "dumbing down" Linux and making it become a Microsoft product.
Next time, it would behoove you to read the *WHOLE* post, not just slap up a soundbyte then hastily reply to it.
-Jer
That would be a beautiful solution. Reading the responses to my post I've seen the following:
People that agreed: In one form or another. I'm not saying all Linux should be vanilla user-friendly, completely GUI crap. Some people understood what I was saying.
People that disagree: Fine with me if you disagree. Some of the people that disagreed made great points (that I still don't necessarily belive but good points all the same).
People that didn't read it: Or just didn't follow it. I'm not saying Linux is bad. I'm not saying that Linux should kowtow to the masses. I'm saying, if you want mass-market acceptability (which it would seem is desired) you HAVE to make it useable by the public that ISN'T an IT professional. These are the one's I'd like to address.
I realize that the creators of Linux "stuff" should be proud of themselves. I don't, however, feel that it's the developers that are the issue. It's those members of the Linux community that are simply users that are entirely too elitist that are the issue.
The same people that complain "Why can't we get ported to Linux?" or "Why isn't supported under Linux?" or "Why doesn't get off their dead asses and make Linux drivers for ?" are the people that don't like the concept of making Linux something that can be brought to the public.
I use Linux off and on, mostly to play with different releases, etc, and generally pay in full simply to expedite what I want to see happen. I want to see a product that I could recommend to a computer novice as easily as a fellow IT professional. Something where they don't *HAVE* to do everything from the CLI. Something where the GUI configuration utilities are easily followed by a non-technician. Something easier to utilize.
Companies will continue to not support Linux while it's still too difficult for the common person to use. They will still fail to support Linux while it's audience is a select few that wish to spend a great deal of their time learning more about the OS and computers in general.
-Jer
The format that the user friendliness takes is not so important (at this point) as verifying it's necessity.
That having been said, the most important thing from an end user standpoint seems to be the following:
There's no need to completely lose the CLI, or to take away from all of the things that makes Linux as good as it is. There's simply a need to make that stuff transparent to the end user, and unnecessary to your basic user performing basic maintenance and administrative tasks.
Adding and removing hardware and software, security setups, and other things that might need at least some minor tweaking by a semi-computer illiterate need either a very simple CLI or (better yet) an easy to use GUI. The GUI 'windows' environment should be made slightly easier to implement and manipulate, but damn little needs to be done to many of them from a useability standpoint. We're not talking a complete revamp here, we're talking some additions to make this an acceptable alternative to Macs or Windows for a wider variety of people.
Oh, and in answer to the question "Why don't you just do it?", because I am a wonderful combination of a poor coder, asthetically challenged, *VERY* poor at making life easier for end-users, and lazy as the day is long. Sorry, I'll happily support the project in any way that I can, and do so as often as I can, but I'm just not the one...
-Jer
Well, there's a big difference between doing something and doing something right. Personally, my financial advisor does my taxes each year because the tax laws change annually and I frankly don't see the need to learn them. It's not about math, addition and subtraction I can generally handle, it's the laws behind the taxes that I can't and won't deal with. So I guess what I'm saying is..you're brilliant, you're special, if I had your address I'd send you a medal, and a clue, since you missed the point of that statement completely in your brilliance.
Lay off patting yourself on the back for a bit, and spend more time reading the posts.
-Jer
But what happens when something goes wrong with Windows? You're prepared to talk her through fixing a corrupt registry with regedit? Didn't think so... No, but I'd trust my dad to get over there and reinstall Windows... It's a lot easier to find someone who can reinstall Windows than it is to find someone who can fix a bad Linux install, and my dad's not quite there yet. I'm working on it, though...
2. Tell those "wealthy organizations accostomed to getting their way" to take their "schedules" and shove them. We have no time for that. If they want crappy software with lots of features, point them to the borg in the northwest. They'll come crawling back.
No, if they think they need a feature set they pay their own development staff to add those features and send the changes back to the FSF or whom ever maintains the software. Open source works economicly because the money comes from development and support of a commonly availible, 'safe' API (by safe I mean that the company won't go under and it won't care twice as much or require twice as many client licenses as last year). We make our bucks by making it run, and being paid to develop the sooulution specific features, not on the sale of the enviornment. I keep saying, when you make Linux more robust, by creating software or documentation, you keep the pay checks of everyone that maintains linux system's safe.
It's not about our apps are more stable, it's not about our apps are cheaper. Uptime is as much a function of how a sever is run as the OS running, and TCO depends on a thousand things. It's about creating Linux jobs. Hopefully jobs that none of us have to say "why didn't they put this feature in?", or "Why in the heck did they do it that way?", or even "this feature would make this useful for me". We have everything we need to make the bells that the big guys want, if they want us to make it bad enough.
Spyder
A bit of flaming directed at the RIGHT people in the RIGHT amount can work wonders. But as far as Joe Sixpack, flames to this fellow can often be translated as:
"You have an opinion contrary to mine; and since I believe that I am a 3L33T HaX0R G0d and always correct in my thinking, you must, logicially, be a fucking idiot."
Nobody likes being told "you're wrong, and shut the fuck up". NO one.
Now, if one were to say "you're wrong, and HERE'S WHY: (list of facts and not a list of opinions)", now THAT may do some good.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Actually, the other day I was wondering why I had yet to see any articles like this one.
Linux advocacy has reached a high pinnacle of almost religious zealotry. I make it a point, these days, to point out that I am a Linux *user*, not a Linux *advocate*, because I don't want to get lumped into the same category as those who will defend to the death an OS that they probably just learned about last month.
Additionally, I find it odd that these advocates - the angry, mail-bombing knee-jerk reactionary skr1pt k1dd13 types - seem to forget, in the heat of the moment, what Linux is really all about. Hint: it ain't about world domination and Micro$oft bashing (ask Linus whether or not he wrote Linux with world domination in mind, and see what he says.) It's about doing what you want in a stable environment, and it's about the grass-roots Bazaar attitude that got us to that point.
--WorLord
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
Many messages I've read here follow the trend of `Linux is unneccerily complex and confuse the average user'. Well, guess what. Linux was based on UNIX, and UNIX wasn't written for the average user. It's scaffolding for the contruction of scientific applications.
In other words, if you want a vehicle to drive, don't complain to the Harrier Jet engineers that their method of transportation requires learning. Get yourselves a Subaru and please, please leave us the fuck alone.
Redhat 6.1 autodetected my Voodoo Banshee. I didn't have to do a thing to configure it. My best friend has a Voodoo 3 (which uses the same drivers as the Banshee) which was also autodetected. About 2 weeks ago I replaced my banshee with a TNT2 Ultra and when I booted my box up it said that it detected a new video card and proceded to configure my TNT2 to the same settings I had for my Banshee. It was pretty smooth if you ask me.
He gets it just fine. What you don't get is that in the commercial sector (most of the world, outside academia) things run on profits, and on usability. The profit side is a corporate concern, but usability is a concern for everyone.
I've worked with computers and microprocessors for over 25 years, and have had some limited Unix experience, and yet I find Linux a pain to set up. The best Linux distro in that regard (in my experience) is Caldera, but they failed to consider that a user might need the multi-processor kernel, so their install is flawed, too.
I suspect that many of the most rabid Linux proponents may have been breathing for fewer years than I have been writing code. Certainly the tone of their flamse would support that conclusion.
The model for installation, by the way, is BeOS. It's fast, asks few questions, and can even be started from Windows. Linux fanatics take note: if you want to win Windows users away from Windows, make an installer for the OS which can run from Windows.
Unfortunately, BeOS still lacks a few critical things which would otherwise make it my OS of choice. Consequently, I am still looking at Linux.
When puerile flame attacks occur, they have a tendency to draw attention, as you have noted. What you fail to note is that the attention they draw will often turn potential users away from Linux. After all, what corporate suit wants to recommend an OS that has mostly pre-pubescents as its most visible users?
The article was well written, well reasoned, and squarely on target. The problem is that most Linux flamers won't read beyond the first paragraph, and those who do will do so through eyes which have glazed over. Close study of the definition of fanatic is recommended. It's not a compliment.
One more thing. People succeed by creating well and in a novel way something which people want to use.
--- Bill
I find it interesting the proprietary fervor evidenced by so many of the apparently very youthful flamers. Linux is free, after all.
One of the problems with a movement is that sometimes it will succeed. When it does so, and is not owned, then it will evolve in response to the demands of the multitudes.
In this case, the multitudes are users and coders hungry for an alternative. Evolution is a powerful force, and screaming won't slow it.
--- Bill
Next month and the following, as all of the geeks that have to fill out a tax form more complicated than the EZ, I want you to take a look at who you're paying to do your taxes. If you're doing them solo, take a look at the time wasted and the frustration involved in this seemingly simple task. Why is this? Because the IRS feels about the tax codes like you do about the code behind Linux. Job security through obscurity?
:-)
Well, I'm not a huge Linux user. I've got one linux system running, mostly as a server, and to automate several tasks I don't want to always do manually. I still use Windows for most tasks, and I set up the linux box so long ago I've forgotten how I configured it. In any case, here's my thoughts:
"If you can't do your own damn taxes, you are an idiot."
The tax forms are not difficult. They are overwhelming, but the instructions are simple, clear, and concise, to anyone capable of reading and understanding plain English. I sat down and did mine two weeks ago, federal and state. Here's the forms I used:
The main one (1040), itemized deductions, moving expenses, misc income earnings (1099?), and two others the purpose of which I forget at the moment. Also the state form, another moving expenses form, and the state itemized deductions form. Not to mention all the "little" worksheets in the instructions that have to be done to find out what other worksheets you have to do.
Total time invested to do these? Two hours, tops.
It doesn't matter whether you can't grasp the instructions or simply can't do the math. Either way you an ignorant fool if you cannot do your own taxes.
Math is not a luxury, it is a requirement. Personally, I feel that knowledge of mathematics should be required for breeding rights, but most people wouldn't agree with me there.
If you pay someone to do your taxes because you don't have time, well... okay.. I can (barely) see that. If you pay someone to do your taxes because you couldn't do it yourself, through ignorance or stupidity, you should be shot. Certainly you shouldn't even consider owning a computer.
Just my $0.02.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The people doing most of the flaming are not the ones who are doing the work of developing Linux. The latter group (including Linus himself) tends to be supportive of the sort of userspace developments that will be needed for Linux to achieve any kind of mainstream status.
...or NeXT, or BSD, or anything else...Just Win98 and a pro-linux attitude.
It might be just me but I have been running into too many pro-linux types who and run around preeching the benifits of Linux and have never, and prolly will never use it.
-Scott scott@surrealistic.org
OK, yes, you're right and my post was somewhat off-topic. I would say, that based on my experiences, Linux /isn't/ ready for the non-technical user yet UNLESS it's set up and locked down by a Linux Friend.
:)
Basically, my entire post can be summarised by saying "Use the right tool for the job". Sorry that I wittered on for so many paras.
It's been a while since I've done anything with Irix, but I do remember that I was glad I knew a decent amount of UNIX when I was playing with it. Hell, one of my superiors had a fit when I changed the order of the FQDN and 'naked' hostname in /etc/hosts causing the machine to fail to boot next time we lost power. GUIs won't save you from that kind of problem.
/hope/ that it /would/ be easy to use. :)
Oh, and TiVo would be classed as an "Information Appliance" by my standards, so I would
Flames do make us look bad. As this is Troll Tuesday apparently, that seems obvious. One article had 2(!) parents total that were on-topic. This was out of 1100 posts. Most of those were flames, not trolls. All were offtopic, and obviously the result of bored script kiddies. Let's hope it doesn't come to this in email. The last thing we need is a bunch of mailbombings of authors and businesses (see linuxone for an example) to prove "0ur sup3r10r17y t0 j00!"
Flames are bad as a reflection of us.
Lowmag.net
My wife recently changed her Windows NT system over to Linux. She is not a typical user; she is a certified NT administrator. She has worked professionally in the IS field supporting products such as NetWare and NT for several years. At my urging, and her own frustrations with NT, she agreed to change.
I told her to scan the RedHat (6.1) supported hardware sites and build herself a new machine. (She is also a hardware geek.) She did so.
The installation went kind of fine; the networking information screens were not presented and no networking stuff was configured. We did that after the fact.
I use KDE and she opted to do the same so she could ask questions or compare what she was doing against my system. RedHat, despite saying NO to all the gnome stuff, still loaded gnome and made it the default on the system. She was very frustrated with that and had a few choice words to say about their not following the user's instructions. Even with Windows, when you ask to install a product, it doesn't go off on its own and install another. (RedHat did the same thing on my system when I updated from 6.0 to 6.1)
She does a lot of work for other people from home these days and is active in our County's Master Gardener program. This means a lot of printing. RedHat 6.1 couldn't find the printer port. At all. Same thing happened during my upgrade from 6.0 to 6.1; a printing system suddenly became a non-printing system. She installed netscape and used kppp to get onto the internet and started searching for the answer. "The RedHat icons on the desktop are cute, but totally useless", was her next observation. No information about lack of seeing a printer port anywhere on the RedHat site.
Three days later she found a reference to the printing problem on one of the newsgroups and added a line to here conf.modules file that allowed the operating system to see the printer port. The situation left a tarnish against RedHat that remains three months after the installation.
Other issues she has:
Star Office is not even a little bit user friendly (compared to MS Office; which she has used for 12 years and even taught for a couple of years in the early 90s). The commands are not associated the way most people expect them to be. Most people coming to Linux will be coming from a Microsoft environment; the command structure of software on Linux should at least mimic those on Microsoft Windows based products for the common things: like text alignment in the spreadsheet? She also cannot doubleclick to select a directory when looking for a file, but must click on "filter" every time. (Star Office is the only product that this is a limitation in on her machine.) (I'm letting her try Applixware, a product I've used for 2+ years, next week.)
Netscape just disappears. Not cores, just "goes away" every so often. Acroread doesn't work at all and the default PDF viewer shows the top 2/3rds of pages only.
The concept of having to "mount" and "unmount" the floppy was a big obstacle.
There are other issues, but I think this more than supports Charles Connell's point. And this from someone who is more than comfortable with computers; the installation, configuration, and maintenance for hardware and software.
I love Linux, but for the typical end user, it has a LONG ways to go. And I can't even imagine it being an "open the box and go product". (I purchased an iMac the week they were released just to see if the hype about "open the box and go" was true. Less than 5 minutes after opening the box I had upgraded the RAM and was surfing the internet. So it is possible.)
Dave Bennett
Dave Bennett
The article talks about the consumer wanting a system that comes out of the box and "just works". This isn't a bad goal to aim for, but we must ask ourselves, how do we accomplish this without sacrificing security and functionality?
Think about it: Any *NIX, out of the box, needs a root password. Part of this configuration may be what the consumer does not want to deal with. How to avoid it? Do we have distros with default passwords? Instant security hole. Do we randomly generate passwords? No, because random strings are "too hard to remember". This won't make his consumer happy.
What about the peripherals? they should be plugged in and should "just work". Should we now assume defaults for every device config? All printers are local? All modems are accessible by anyone? All monitors have a default resolution and colordepth? How do we handle people who want and/or need the functionality a *NIX provides?
So, what do we do? Perhaps the full-blown *NIX concept is not suitable for end-users. Perhaps what is needed is a very stripped, very featureless kernel, with few if any active services, and a pretty desktop. The only big issues are: Housekeeping and software installation. We create a single-user system with no security model, and try to lock down the network services are strictly as possible, then fill it with as much eye-candy as we can.
I hate for this to sound sarcastic, and I didn't sit down with the intent on writing it in this tone. The questions I ask above are honest ones: How can we satisfy the desires of this segment of the population without completely cannibalizing the entire OS model?
As much as the end-user may hate it, there will ALWAYS be configuration options that must be set, fields to be filled in, and choices to be made before the computer "just works". The question would seem to be "how we can make this exercise as friendly as possible?" while not compromising the OS.
In the end, an OS is not an appliance. At least, not a *NIX, in a multi-user, multipurpose environment. Perhaps the various Linux companies should start differentiating themselves by their ability to cater to this market. But be warned: Do not forsake security for convenience.
.@.
Just on the topic of program installers ... Debian makes this easier than Windows in one respect. You don't have to download and save the installation file, all you have to do is type in "apt-get install ". Bang, it downloads the package from the internet, installs it, and even adds it to your favourite Window Manager menu automatically.
To relate a story where this came in useful: ... a simple "apt-get install telnet", and 20 seconds later, I was happily testing away.
I had to do an on-site visit to a customer who was having trouble with their internet server and updating web pages. When I got there, I discovered that they were running Debian. I wanted to test to see if various ports were open on the machine, but it didn't have "telnet" installed. No problem
You can bet I was incredibly thankful they were running Debian!
You can use a SCSI Orb drive just fine under Linux. It works just like any other SCSI removable drive (think Iomega Zip). I love mine.
:-)
As for mounting server volumes, I'm not sure. Check to see if the Appletalk networking is compiled into your kernel and then check out the netatalk package. I *THINK* using those two items that you can achieve what you want.
Boy, does this ever validate your post
Skippy
"False modesty is the refuge of the incompetent." - The Stainless Steel Rat
If they want a feature, they will pay a uninterested developers to do it, who will do simple scrap, and distributed world wild without asking first. And after that you will got a load of newbies asking on all forums why foo, who works on their rich-company-bar system, no more works elsewhere.
Think of it twice before accepting the $500 fee. May be you'll get all Slashdot's flamers on your track after that.
Fabien Ninoles -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
This discussion strikes a particular note with me because I believe the Linux UI to be the Wild West of current computing - it's not really formed, and it's no place for the uninitiated. Because of this, I'm pointing my career towards UI development and Human/Computer Interaction. In a couple years I hope to be able to do some really neat work here, and the prospect of being able to work with a large Open community effort on good Linux HCI is really exciting. That said, to the point! :)
it seems like an awefully formidible task to try to be all things to everyone
Hey, everyone, why is this such a big deal? Let's look at this like a programming problem (surprise!), because it maps really really well.
Our problem as I see it: There are features in Linux which are not needed by some people, and as such they tend to "clutter" the features they do need. There is no easy model they can apply to let their real-world trained conventions make this problem easier, so they are stumped.
Allow an analogy: A moderately complex C library will probably have features that say a first-year computing student won't need, and as such they tend to "clutter" the features they do need. One easy answer is to get the 101 student to use C++ and slap the C library behind a wrapper C++ class which hides the features they don't need . Now, here's the kicker: If they want to use those features, they just stop peel back the wrapper and access the library.
What we seem to be talking about here is UI, not OS complexity for truly, a user sees the UI and only kernel hackers and other coders (ie, not users but developers) see the real guts of the OS. So why can't we do the same with UI complexity as we can with that C library? Hide complexity in layer upon layer of black box abstractions.
Now a lot of you are going to say "That's slow!", and you've run into my poor analogy there. I'm not advocating acually using layer upon layer of classes or real programming abstractions, I'm not talking about one UI running over another UI etc etc. I'm talking about layers of perceived complexity. Top is the playskool desktop, with three or four big buttons on it ("Browse Web", "Write Email", "Type Letter", "Go to the Window Manager mode"). The last option lets you use the window manager, and from there you can get to something else like a command shell or better...
At each level you can have different complexities of configuration tools. In Windows, there are two levels: Control Panel, and registry editing / INI file editing. For many people, the first is too simplistic and the second is too unfriendly to dig through. In Linux, there's really one level for most things: Edit config files. This is the "all the features, all the time" problem we had with that C library and the 101 student. Surely we can do better than Windows' 2 layers, and I'd love to see it.
We don't have to make an OS that is everything to everyone, because that's not possible. We do have to make it easy enough for people to configure it themselves so they can customize it to their needs - ideally they won't have to but we can make it easy for them. The key is that *our* OS won't make the next step prohibitively complicated, but rather ease the user into more and more configurable options. It won't tell you where you're going to go today unless you want it to.
Linux is useful. Only some of us don't realize that (Hi, Bill!). Let's make it useable, and put that up as one of our major issues, not just a distraction from more features in grep or a prettier desktop environment (pretty != useable).
Is this the only way? Probably not, but it sounds good to me. Is this doable? Yes, but we'll have to junk a whole bunch of stuff, probably including the X windowing system as we know it today. More importantly, what do you think? Is this the way to go? Would you like to use it? Would you like to work on it, because that's how things happen in Open projects? Do you know about projects that do this kind of thing (please post them so we can all bandwagon and make it a success!) or know someone who does?
The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
I don't really want to be flamed on this one but the guy says a few reasonable things. The greatest success of the Mac was that you could plug it in straight out of the box and begin typing. Linux is not there yet.
As long as Linux remains a daunting task (or has any daunt in it what so ever) it will not obliterate the rivals. Setting up a system is not obvious to most computer users (who are not code people) and they will ask for a local expert. Until that person is as likely to be a Linux person as a Microserf, there is room for improvement.
Just because I say things can be better doesn't mean I need flaming. Things can be better, and they are getting there, but . .
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Regarding open source management, if some company wants a change RIGHT NOW, the simple solution is that the company puts some money where its mouth is. If the company (or any user) is not willing to pay the price (or help coding), then they don't have any hold on the open source developer.
Have you ever become engaged in a heated "They SUCK!" "No, they ROCK!" debate over a band, or a writer, or a director? Neither person will ever see the other's point of view. All you can do is hope that eventually, a new band/writer/director will come along, and the debate will fizzle out. Just ignore them and wait.
Yqy...K ecp'v dgnkgxg aqw cevwcnna vqqm vjg vkog vq vtcpuncvg oa uki. Kh aqw vjkpm vjku ku tkfkewnqwu, tgcf oa dkq.
I know there is no one "Linux Community," as people have different ideas about OSes in general and Linux in particular. But reading over the posts here, it's clear that in general, people want it both ways.
1) Everyone should use Linux because it's cool/stable/free/fast/whatever.
2) Linux is *ours*, and we don't want stupid apps like AOL on it.
Yes, it is true that those two opinions are most loud. However, point you are missing is that practically nobody makes both claims at once.
I personally, would mostly fall in category 2.
I do believe that linux is "cool/stable/free/fast/whatever" but I am far from pushing it down anyone's throat.
If you want to use windows/whatever, that is just fine with me, just dont ask me for help when something goes wrong, as I will not help you. If you used Linux, however, you would be quite welcome to ask for help (and get it, too!)
And a good point made by aiken_d. As hated as Microsoft is among many Linux users, they did get a lot of people to buy what they created. This is the basic rule of marketing/producing: Find out what people want, make it, then give it to them.
:-)
And that is fine. Linux community is producing what Linux community wants, and is fulfilling it just fine. The fact that not a whole of humanity is in Linux community is quite normal.
IMHO, a notion of "One OS for everybody" is quite absurd. Does everybody drives a truck ? Why not, it is sooo superior to a car in transporting large masses of things from one place to another.
You can't be successful in the commercial world without doing the above. Linux will never beat out Microsoft unless Linux does the above better than Microsoft.
It can be, but in different segments of commercial world. "Joe average user" is not whole commercial world, you know.
It's simple, really.
If we want everyone to use Linux, we've got to convince everyone that Linux has what they want - otherwise, Linux will forever be the underdog.
Is is simple, yes. Where do you people get the notion that Linux community wants Linux to be the only thing in the world ? Linus's comment about "Taking over a world" was a joke! He really is not another Hitler, you know
a bit more...
So don't get cocky. Stay humble and keep listening to your customers. If you do, you can extend your time on top for a while.
hmm, listen to yourself, o.k. got it.
Maybe his purpose was to focus this statement on the Enterprise Linux crowd, which RHVALC are doing, but I seriously doubt they are the ones that flamed him and I would hope they are already focused on their customers.
--
+&x
99.9% of the time I'm on an M$ OS on an X86. I've had the (dis)pleasure of using Plug&Pray devices, manually configuring DIPs (I'll take that anyday), Trying to get DOOM ][ to work properly with my USR 14400 (stupid connection strings) etc..., Bloatware installing crap & breaking things (See DLL Hell @ M$) Umpteen servicepacks from M$, Hotfixes galore AND different behaviour between software packages on the WIN platform.
But it's *exactly* the same under Linux. Why should the user have to recompile the kernel to stop security problems? Where does the user go get the kernel from? Why should the user have to go hunt for USB drivers, modem drives, sound card drivers? Why should the user have to twiddle with lots of config files to get X to run on a pretty standard card? (Guess why I did last week)
Linux is not an end user operating system. Until it gets to the stage where I can give my brother in law a Linux CD, it installs itself, configures itself, allows my sister to write her thesis in Microsoft Word format, without having to learn a new interface, allows him to connect to an ISP *easily* without me having to do it for him and has an update mechanism which is as easy to use a windowsupdate.microsoft.com it's not going to make inroads into consumer space.
What regular Joe user can track all of that themselves? Why should they?? I am regularly approached by one non-techie friend in particular wondering why "I can't get my new [device]to work in Windows" or, "[device/software] won't work anymore".
And you've never had this in Linux? Why doesn't my USB scanner work? Why doesn't my sound card work? Why doesn't my mouse work if I plug it into a switcher box? These aren't questions I've been asked from Windows users.
You seriously consider command.com and end user application? Or bash for that matter?
Can we define end user here? Personally I think it's different for Linux than it is for Windows.
Command line is all very well, but it's no good for my mother when she wants to type a letter telling me I forgot her birthday again.
For linux to become friendlier to the masses, we need a standard, open, user-friendly GUI. Correct, but then you quote vi and bash as better examples of their Windows equivilants, along with development versions of shells. Personally, this to me indicates that us techies still don't think about the end user, the end user doesn't want command lines, they want something they can switch on, use *easily* and switch off. Unforunately with the mindshare Windows has, in the minds of the end users, it wins.
Zealots bitching off about Microsoft's size/influence, or how Linux is free, or how configurable it is, or how the source code is available will not conver my mother over. Being able to load Word and Excel and get her email easily will.
The moderation on slashdot bears out a lot of the problems that poor author had. If you dare to point out any problems with Linux there's always some zealot ready to scream you down. Thats not they way we should be going, we should be *listening* and not *shouting*.
(Sitting back waiting to see how this gets moderated *grin*)
I've read both articles which he was supposedly viciously flamed for, and I have a hard time finding anything to flame him for.
Not that I agree with everything he said, I think the idea of porting AOL to linux is just plain wrong. AOL is... *shudders* horrid and dumbs people down while locking them into a sub-standard product. But just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean I attack him and try to get him fired from his job. When we attack those whose ideas we don't like in such a way as to prevent them from expressing those ideas, we damage our own freedom of expression. Free speech isn't just something that got put into the constitution because the founders liked the way it sounded. When all ideas are freely expressed in an open forum, the best ones will tend to rise to the top. When ideas are suppressed, bad things happen. Mobs tend to be created when extremists have silenced the moderates.
I've been a Linux user since 1995 and over the years I've become increasingly disillusioned with the Sacred Brotherhood of the Penguin. You know the guys I'm talking about, the ones who speak of Linux in religious terms or at least in such a way that there are religious undertones to what they are saying. This is quite frankly pathetic and a detriment. Linux is an operating system. It is an excellent operating system. But it is not perfect and it is not better than any and all other operating systems in every way. Open source programs and products often tend to be better than ones developed commercially. They are not always like that however. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a fool or a zealot, but I repeat myself.
When people become zealots, the lose their perspective on things. They are out of touch with the way things really are, and as such are not in any position to change things to how they want them to be. If you love Linux the way I do, the best thing to do is see it for what it is and where it is, and try to do what you can to get it to where it can be. That doesn't include attacking someone whose views don't jive with yours. Prove them wrong if you can, but don't launch ad hominem attacks, it just makes you look childish and does nothing to promote or validate your point of view with anyone.
This may not make sense to everyone. Some people just like to flame others because it gives them some kind of psychological pay off. These types are more of a threat to us than Microsoft will ever be. They discourage others from being interested in or in favor of linux. If some person from Group X with agenda Y cussed you out, you'd be less likely to favor either the group or what they stood for. Now imagine if 50 of these people cussed you out, you'd start to think that they were all a bunch of (insert favorite insult here) and who were up to no good. It is like this with anything. Some of our enemies are well known to us. Some are not. Not everyone is our enemy, but flaming someone with personal attacks is a fine way to make them our enemy.
This is exactly what happened to this guy. I'm suprised that he is responding in such a reasonable manner. It is probably because he's older than 90% of the people who come here and knows a little something about being tactful, something some of us it would seem need to learn.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
A good article. I agree that Linux zealots are often Linux's only real detractors. I have worked with UNIX systems for 9 years. I have used Linux for almost 6. That being said, I have developed enough maturity to know the right tool for the job. In some cases, a server running Exchange makes more BUSINESS sense than a linux SMTP server.
As a systems engineer I am very suspicious of people who say they only know Linux, or it is the de facto answer for all problems. It is the axiom of when the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Linux is not a mission critical operating system (not that ANY M$ offerings are either) and people think you are a heretic when you point out the shortcomings in a relatively new operating system.
I just hope that hacker d00dz with their cheesy little 5 whisker goatees and black t-shirts spouting some anit-establishment rhetoric don't prove to be the worst ambassadors of a great movement.
That's what I meant to say
In many ways you could say that Linux uses an OO style of programming, but that's not the most interesting feature of the HURD. I'm not going to get into the Microkernel v. Monolithic debate either, because that's a subjective engineering point of view. The real strength of HURD will be that it was agressively multithreaded from the ground up. Linux is being augmented with things such as SMP, and fine grain locks, but what keeps it behind NT in performance on multiple CPU/Network cards, is that it has proven slow and difficult to work these features in, because it wasn't part of it's inherent design. Also linux doesn't have a threaded TCP/IP stack, this is imporant for multiple network card performance. I've read that the linux tcp/ip kernel code is up to 500,000 lines long, and that it will be an arduous task to make it multithreaded, as only a few people have taken the time to fully understand it. Also if they rewrite it, they will have to coordinate everyone who wrote every NIC driver for a rewrite, don't expect it anytime soon. It's somewhat usable now, if you are persistant. I think that will be the main strong suit of the HURD, that once it's actually usable and people see what it can do, it'll be a more desireable environment for developers in a Multiple CPU/NIC environments.
Not to mention that because it's OO nature will make it easier to rewrite the guts while keeping structures, functions and other naming conventions intact, which is a problem which plagues linux development kernels...
I'm sorry, but since when has Linux been about Market Share? The only people who care about Linux Market Share are the ones selling it to us - RedHat, VALinux, SuSE, Mandrake, TurboLinux, LinuxOne etc etc etc. Let these people advocate their products.
...
Linux is about development on a community level. Take Debian for example. Linux is about being able to have a choice in what your system feels like. Take GNOME and KDE for example. Linux is about being able to run industrial strength software. Take Apache and Sendmail for example.
If you want to talk about Marketplace, please refer to the Cathedral and the Bazaar.
Who cares if Linux becomes irrelevant like OS/2 or Betamax? 4 years ago, Linux to me was a free desktop Unix. It still is that to me now. Sure, I'd like for other people to enjoy using it, but I really couldn't be fussed about it one way or the other.
I'm well aware of what the average consumer wants in a PC and Operating System. Frankly, not much on the market today fulfils that criteria. Other than your console games, of course
.my 2p
And like the original author, you haven't a clue about linux.
It is about what the programmers want. Many of them have day jobs, where they get told what to do, when to do it by, what it has to do, etc. Then they work on what amuses or otherwise interests them.
If someone has an interest in making a nice, simple, graphical interface, they will. If not, it doesn't happen until someone like RedHat comes along and asks Joe Programmer to write one, at which point they haggle over the licensing and compensation.
Your ability to make demands is non-existent. However, you may ask nicely.
James
you started off well then you degraded into mindless grumbling..
ok, linux is too complicated for joe q. user, that's fine. but let's not forget that joe q. user doesn't have a clue what he wants, he is uneducated and inexperienced when it comes to computers. he will take whatever you give him if it seems to work for what he wants to do. look at america on-line. *why* is america on-line popular? because they
the truth is, aol is actually much more complicated, kludgey, slow, spammy and shitty than any regular PPP connection -- in windows
there are problems on both ends, linux needs to set-up more smoothly and easily.. it needs better auto-detection (though, Red Hat 6.1 had no problems with any of my hardware,..), etc. but 'users' need to be less lazy.
if some dipshit crashes his car into a tree and claims 'well the car is too complicated to use, the wheel isn't labeled, the pedals are hidden under the dash,.. i can't see whether my turn signal is blinking or not unless i look away from the road,... i have to take my hand away from the wheel to change the a/c! etc.' he'd still be at fault for crashing his car because he is expected to know how to use the complex piece of machinery that he has purchased and is trying to operate.
the same should be true for computers. yes, doing many things in linux requires knowledge that is more detailed than the casual user should need to know,.. but at the same time, there's a point beyond which it's ridiculous to try to simplify anymore. features which just should not be necessary (like the stupid talking paperclip guy in M$ office).. users need to take a certain amount of initiative to understand the system they are dealing with.
i mean jesus christ, people like you make it sound like it's a chore to use your brain.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
1. We admitted we had poor communication skills, and our flameage had become unmanagable.
2. We came to believe in a root with better communication skills.
3. We became willing to follow that roots path.
4. We made a fearless an moral inventory of our character defects.
5. We shared those defects with root and another Usenet luser.
6. We became willing to let root lart us for our flameage.
7. We became willing to make amends to those we flamed in the past.
8. We made amends to those we had flamed, except when to do so would cause more flameage.
9. We stayed close to root and strived for better communication skills
10. We continued to take personal inventory and when we had flamed we promptly selflarted.
11. We applied these principals in all aspects of life, and life was better.
12. Having been larted by root, We carried the anti-flame with us everywhere in order to help others communicate better.
RickB
Rick B.
I eventually bought a new NIC after reading newsgroup posts about the 3c509b nics form 3com.
I use a 3c509b and have had zero trouble with it in *nix (slackware, redhat, debian, freebsd, netbsd). I did have trouble with the BeOS demo cd, but never in Linux.
This point is just as relevent aimed at Windows zealots, the only thing holding up the platform is the applications...
2. Stability for the desktop is way down the list of priorities for the average user. Is it nice? Yes, but it's not a big issue.
However in corporate environments it isn't end users who administer machines, stability is an issue here as is remote administration.
Name for me one significant end-user application that is clearly superior than the equivalent in Windows. There simply isn't one.
Define "superior" is objective terms, often it's treated in so subjective a way as to simply indicate opinions.
Since there isn't a company, like Microsoft, to use forceful (and not always legal) methods to "eat, think and breath" their product...
One of the reasons I'm trying to move away from Windows to a free *nix is that when I get frustrated with the way something (doesn't) work I can learn how to fix what's frustrating me (I can apply a simple patch and recompile, but can't fix the code myself).
Incidentally, and to be more on-topic, I installed Red Hat Linux 5.1 but quickly moved to FreeBSD because I got sick of seeing messages about shared libraries not being found. So I fixed what was frustrating me by switching to FreeBSD (those ports are nice! :).
Some of the reasons I decided against Linux as a learning platform (read: stuff to improve for the masses):
At this point the only drawing power Linux has over FreeBSD for me is the growing support from game companies. There are only two reasons I still have windows installed: 1) Q3:A, 2) I know how to do what I need to do quickly and efficiently. Can you say gvim? :)
Disclaimer: I want to say that I'm not anti-Linux per se, i'm just more pro-(Free)BSD. I look forward to trying out Linux again in the future, sooner rather than later, and hopefully with more pleasant results.
-Mike
I may ramble, but at least can (usually) spell correctly. My grammar on the other hand...
I presume you didn't notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the article pointed to by his link:
"Note: This is the text of my article, as submitted to the Boston Globe. The published version was edited slightly."
While I can't speak for the author, this indicated to me that the modifications were performed by a Boston Globe editor. Don't know if this makes any difference to you, but there it is.
Kinda tough to 'force' people worldwide to get cracking on a problem you have that no one else cares about... they can hire people or contract out the work - like you said, open-source...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I disagree that Linux has to be dumbed down if it wants to become a desktop OS. It has to become much much easier to use, but that ease of use doesn't have to come at the expense of power.
/exchange/.....
As a mac user currently attempting to learn Linux, I find it dizzying how much more I need to know just to operate a Linux desktop. I don't mind reading all the documentation because I find this stuff interesting, but I'm the exception. While I don't think highly of the UI in either GNOME or KDE, I don't think that's the most pressing issue.
Last night, I finally grew sick of using un-excelerated X and decided I'd attempt to install an excelerated X server on my Yosemite G3. I downloaded the necessary file no problem and printed out the instructions for installation.
The first thing I had to do was download and run a specific version of Xconfigurator. Okay, no problem, I know how to do that.
rpm -hvi --force
I then got an error about missing libraries with not so much as web site to look for more infomation or the names of the necessary files. I pressed on anyway and typed the cryptic commands as the insturctions told me to. Suppose there was a GUI tool that could auto-detect your hardware (if you wanted it to) and install the corresponding files and then restart X-Windows. These are the kinds of things that new users would like to see. It's not that we're lazy, at least, I'm not. But a GUI tool that could automate the whole process would save a lot of time, without dumbing down the system. There are countless other things that I'd change if I could code, but I'll save those for another post.
-Dan
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
Yeah, but do we have to put up with *all* of them? :)
This space for sale
I agree with you that OS-X will be significant developement but.
So far we don't know how free it will be. The server will be somewhat free but what about the client? Right now people who want and need a nice GUI buy windows and people who want power and fun get Linux. Who is OS-X gunning for? power users who want a gui?
War is necrophilia.
Bang on. For most people it's:
Do they have the apps/games I want?
Do the apps work?
Are there enough cool things that I can go to a party and not get dissed for using this OS?
Shallow? Nope, it's just perspective.
Killer apps? Yes. I know all the gcc gurus are totally worked up over Corel/Borland/Inprise doing a Borland C++ Builder: Why do you need an IDE? Why do you need to make apps with a GUI when you can hand-code the C++ yourself?
But: that's where the bucks and the apps are.
So stop flaming people who point out the obvious - figure those are weak spots and rebuild them. We have the technology, we can make it better.
And, no I don't contrib code for Linux - I'm way too busy doing database stuff and making apps. I don't complain about what you do. If I do contrib, it will be docs, which are a sore spot for me.
Will in Seattle
But he despises computers and dislikes engineers. If you mail him a letter, he can keep it forever unless the house burns down (frequently called a "disaster" and "Act of God"). If you email him, he'll print it out or make a paper notation, because, when a computer crashes, it's called "cumulutively inevitable" and a "[important, wishlist] bug." (He owns a PowerMac, BTW.)
Engineers at the plant seemed to refuse to see problems as a part of a continuum from design, through production, marketing, use, maintainence, and discard. My father's true job, really, was not so much managing the plant as convincing the engineers that the customer had a legitimate gripe that, say, though efficient, sticking the compression kill switch next to the windshield wiper control was NOT optimal.
Most of the software he sees on his computer was designed by engineers thinking like the ones he knew. Not Their Problem. The Product Is Right; the Goal the Customer Has is Wrong. No One Should Want to Do That. Linux needs a near error-free install and desktop for the poeple who, God help them, don't WANT to know how to make their box jump through hoops. Let the would-be wizards comment out the dotfile lines themselves! Or like Lynx, choose your skill level, during the install. Wizards and users (I'm in the latter category, let me emphasize) know how to delete files. We can trade delete scripts on the Net to rid our boxes of stuff that Debian or RH should have known better than to include. :)
Have you ever used the K desktop enviornment, by itself, with all KDE apps?
It doesn't solve all the problems of creating a usable and intuitive user interface the same way that Apple does, but it solves them cleanly and in a way that will allow a new user to become an experienced user without sacrificing power at any level.
And the Mac OS has its own problems:
Mac OS X will merely add more problems to this.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
If you think that someone should make a "Newbie Linux" Linux distro, then *do it*.
You're somebody...
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
I have noticed several things:
:)
1. We as a community need to act more mature, and not flame people for using Windows, other unices, or different programs. To be honest, Windows is much more easier to initially set up, and much harder to lock down. There needs to be a medium like that with Linux. I think Mandrake, FreeBSD, and Caldera have at least the beginnings of user friendliness down.
2. AOL 5.0 did what it did for a reason. There are at least 10 different versions of the Winsock libraries and Networking libraries across the many different versions of Windows out there (95, 95 2.0, 95 2.1, 95 2.5, 98, 98 SP1, 98 SE). By forcefully implementing libraries that WORK instead of Microsoft's, they did what they had to to ensure that users were able to connect and not have to debug every PC that was sent it. Considering their user base, I don't see much of a problem. However, if you choose to connect to a network, you will have some issues. That's why I still recommend AOL 4.0 until 6.0 comes out.
2b. AOL for Linux (which I am convinced already exists in some form) would not have that issue. Linux has socket and network libraries that are actually backward-compatible, and the same code will work despite what revision of *ux you are using, unlike Windows. AOL runs their internal applications on Sun, so I don't see a disconnect in their running an AOL Client on Linux. Matter of fact, it would run better than their Windows or Mac ones, and probably would use Mozilla, which is a good thing
3. The user-friendly part definately needs some work. Also, it would be good to start releasing training videos for Linux starring television stars or other famous non-geeks. That was a big reason why 95 hit so big, because they showed people like Jennifer Aniston using it. The applications just need a little interface work, and they would be great. Especially Mozilla and StarOffice.
Several columnists have written about their experiences dealing with the OS/2 community in the 90's. The experiences went somewhat like:
1. Write a somewhat positive article about OS/2, but point out a few minor problems with it.
2. Get massive flames from OS/2 enthusiasts because of the few negative things that were written.
3. Stop writing about OS/2, as the hassle from zealots is unwanted, and write about, say, MS Windows, because it doesn't have people who object to hearing bad things about their OS.
4. No one writes about OS/2, and it disappears due to lack of interest.
The same scenario could play out with Linux if we aren't careful.
Best Slashdot Co
Know your users and potential users, not everyone who is a potential Linux user is willing to eat, drink and breathe Linux.
Know your history, otherwise you may end up in a musuem, like DEC.
George
I've downloaded (and am running), the Red Hat beta. It seems to me that most of the issues with QT have been resolved. I got licq (and the qt-gui plugin) to compile and run without a hitch. There are a few programs that I've seen that still seem to have library problems (the first one that comes to mind is kicq), even though I checked "kde" in the installer. Other than that, I think things are being patched up with QT.
You're right, quality differences between open source and proprietary code are often negligable -- particularly when you find out HOW some commercial software is constructed.
I think his perspective is legitimate, from where he stands. But that's from a commercial vantage.
I don't think anyone is seduced by the ease of use features of FreeNix (Linux/FreeBSD/Hurd/Whatever), as they are with MS-Windows. Therefore these issues are not important right now.
Linux is popular because technically-minded people end up liking it for other reasons, like versatility, network culture (yes, an OS with culture), intellectual engagement, and economics.
These are the same reasons geeks and hackers were choosing DOS in the early 1990's over Apple for recreational, technically-indulgent home computing. Remember the BBS?
DOS and 386 hardware was cheap, bulletin boards were easy to find, and whopping piles of hackish software accompanied a giant online messaging culture.
(Oh yeah, and there was the reactionary anti-Apple Corporation sentiment. e.g. The smug sensation that this dubious, console-based technology would one day break Apple's market dominance.)
I think the same thing is happening today with Linux, FreeBSD, and all the free Unix variants.
Bright, self-taught, technically-minded people have been attracted to the complexity, culture, and cost of these systems. Anti-Microsoft sentiment seems to be lingering.
History will probably repeat itself.
I agree (damn the flames full speed ahead!)
And in reference to getting programs like AOL ported to Linux and the other OSes should be the goal of all of you anti-ms people. When the AOLs of the world feel that Linux is easy (and friendly) enough for their customers to be able to use it as an OS, then and only then will we have a real revolution.
The majority of the computer buying public today has no idea nor care what OS comes with it, their only question is: "Can I check my email?". The open source community has been getting a lot of press lately and new strides are being taken everyday. But until the people who don't happen to know everything about computers are able to use another operating system, they wont!
And that's about all I want to type about that...
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
did you try:
licq -p qt-gui
?
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
"Linux has soft-spots (e.g. documentation)"
Could you be more specific? I thought this was an interesting statement, considering the large amount of information available through the linux documentation project. Do you feel that the LDP is inadequate? Or maybe that its organization is unsuited for beginners? Not a flame, a serious question. Anyone else have issues with linux's documentation base?
...disciplining the ronkeys since 3/2000...
People expect computers to work like TV's, phones, cars and light bulbs. Is this reasonable? Remember Linux has only been around since '91 (i'm guessing, I wasn't there) and Windows 95 since 1995. Cars, lightbulbs and phones are close to 100 yrs old technology wise (dont bother flaming me over the exact date) and TV's are around 50. I think that people should give the tech community a break (esp. Linux community). In another 40 yrs come back and complain if your computer can't JUST connect to the internet (or whatever they have) or JUST recognize the lastest thingamabob. People have to be pushed to THINK and READ! If you're one of those that doesn't want to think and read and explore, your problem is MUCH MUCH deeper than Linux vs. Microsoft.
Do keep FreeBSD in mind if you decide to split. We'd love more non-coders (since all of us freely admit to being less than vigilant in keeping documentation up to date.) :)
The production of an enterprise class Web browser is a amazing feat and the Mozilla team is doing an amazing job. But as the first commercial project developed in the opensource limelight, the time that it has taken to produce a enduser capable and stable browser has been unreasonable. they have had to skip the 5.0 cycle just to keep up with IE. I know 4.7 is the best web browser for linux (and the mac) but it is desprately falling behind on Windows, the platform of the common user.
They (netscape) are losing users to IE every day. Good, hardworking, M$ hating people are using IE because it works better and is newer than Netscape 4.7. I'm not critising the Mozilla project, just wondering what the OSS community can learn from the need to keep releases of enduser viable products constant to keep up with the closed development process created software that can churn out pollished, not bug free, but enduser polished (complete interface and installer, working features, etc) software in slave driven schedules. Endusers don't want to install a pre alpha build of software that may or may not work. and they want all of the new features and the newest bells and whistles.
What can the OSS movement do keep the end user happy?
macbert@hcity.net
http://www.hcity.net/mac
Also isn't the whole idea that since we(programmers) have the source, we can
add the features we need for our(coporate) enterprise. For example, say I need a certain feature ohhhhhhh like super-deduperty ABC support (picking a random TLA). I can add it and then when I have that up and running I can say to Linus, "hey here is my ABC module, do you want it?" If Linus says no, I do a fork for my company until the "official" kernel supporting ABC comes out. A good example of would be TurboLinux's changes to the kernel to support clustering.
While I think that this guy (I've never heard the name before) has some good points, the lax nature of Linux Project Management (LPM) has gotten it where it is today.
Oh well, everybody makes mistakes.
Myddrin
I would hazard a guess that most Linux users are IT professionals. Working with computers is our job
I'll have to disagree with you here. MOST people I know who use linux are NOT IT professionals. Quite a few guys in my department (integrated logistics support to a radar company) use Linux - for FUN. And I think THAT is the key word. We use Linux because we enjoy 'playing' with it. We ARE technically inclined people, who like a challenge, but are NOT IT professionals
Still, your point is mostly valid. At this point, Linux is not ready for a-technical people who just want to use the thing. I have faith that within a few years, it will be, though... Will it be in time?
Derk
Linux is UNIX on Intel CPU's.
No UNIX user has any problems with this.
You mean no UNIX system administrator. I don't use Linux to replace Windows. I use Linux because I have a specific need to run some sort of UNIX system at home. Linux is good, and it's affordable. It's also been a bit frustrating because I've been forced to deal with a lot of sys admin type tasks that I would prefer to leave to a professional sys admin. I've learned a lot, I'll grant you that, but I can see where many people would just as soon not have to learn all the ins and outs of UNIX system administration. Most of these people should probably stick w/Windows, at least for the moment. For my part, I'm grateful to all the vendors such as Caldera and Corel that have put such an effort into making Linux a painless install. I just want to use Linux, not learn it.
I suppose that depends on how you define success. If you define it in terms of code merit alone, I might agree with you. If you define it in terms of broad acceptance and use, I couldn't agree less. When I got my first taste of Linux, by downloading the Slackware distribution from ftp.cdrom.com in the early 90s, it was definitely by and for "gearheads" -- yet finding anyone who had heard of it, much less would consider using it for anything remotely important, was difficult (to put it mildly).
In terms of broad acceptance and use, what little success I've seen in Linux recently has only come from the "commercialization" of it, i.e., strongly advocating it to the non-gearhead corporate world. Sure, it's still by and for gearheads -- and it's also a relatively-obscure OS for the "man on the street." The code may be great -- and that can be a valid definition of success for some -- but without qualifying what you mean by success it's virtually impossible to prove that Linux has been successful at all to begin with.
Other gear...
No Laughing Allowed!
"Linux isn't for the non-technically-literate masses"
Why? Because it has been so historically, or because it "should" be? And, if the latter, why do you think this? Is it a case of "it's my toy, let me play with it how I want" or is there some more logical reason?
"Apple has 'ease of learning'... down pat."
Why do you believe this? Because it's a "given" or because you have empirical evidence to support it? My empirical evidence denies it, actually -- and I'm not talking about my own use of a Mac, but from my assistance to Mac users struggling to perform basic functions like storing files, installing software, etc.
Also, to answer:
"Furthermore, what's this business about the 'Linux killer'? ... Technology that would make Linux obsolete would have to be pretty darn spectacular, IMO."
Yes, that's the idea -- something spectacular, compared to what we are working with now. Consider the desktop PC explosion compared to DEC's mini computers mentioned in the article -- that's the level of difference that could make Linux a "technology of yesteryear." This doesn't mean that nobody will be using it (hey, there are VAXClusters still in use too), but it will eventually look like old tech, and his point is that the wise developer will look outside the current in-vogue thing for the next "killer" technology.
To borrow a quote from today's InformationWeek e-mail: "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." (Western Union internal memo, 1876)
Don't send a telegram, send a postcard...
No Laughing Allowed!
So basically you're saying that you don't WANT Linux to be used by anyone other than the people that developed it?
You can make an operating system easy to use without losing any functionality. All you need is to provide users with all the information they need when and where they need it (instead of making them have to read through pages of documentation in order to accomplish a simple task) and to give reasonable defaults. (I'm still waiting for a UNIX distribution that properly maps my keyboard by default.)
Yes I have handed a non techie a Win98 CD after he asked asked me how to backup his files to my computer through FTP so he could re-install Windows. How can you say non-techies don't really matter? Microsoft _depends_ on them, that is why they they have such a large market share. Software that works vs. Software that non-techies will use is going to become a big issue as Linux continues to grow
As Microsoft has demonstrated pleasing non technical users gives you a huge market share, which Linux will have a hard time taking over unless changes to reflect the large market share of non-techie users
This article was about the weaknesses that needed to be improved before linux could become a major contender against Microsoft on the desktop. Which is what I am talking about.
No, I think they were saying that the "Linux zealots" have some uncalled for anger, not the author of the article.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
Windows is an extremely irritating bit of code, and in my case, anyway, I still have to deal with it at work. Hardly a day goes by without my having to deal with some unbeleivably stupid or downright malicious code surprise from our friends in Redmond.
Yeah. there's nothing more embarrassing (or frustrating) than trying to install some new piece of hardware or software on my girlfriend's Win98 box, only to witness Windows freeze on boot or throw up a bluescreen. It really makes me look like an idiot, mumbling something about "crazy bugs in Windows" and unable to get the system to work as it should.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
Good post. I'm not sure what I want Linux to be when it grows up, but I hope it doesn't become "Just as good as Windows or Macintosh."
I think the keys are OpenSource and different distributions. First, build a dominant position in the enterprise server market on the basis of reliability, security, reliability, scalability, reliability, and speed. Robust SMP support, journaling file systems, Firewire support, Ultra3 SCSI RAID device support--focus on these first.
Linux's opensourceness enables a wide range of distributions with different strengths--we're getting pretty close with Caldera's OpenLinux and Corel. RedHat seems to have cleaned up the buggy graphical install since 6.1--I just installed 6.2Beta and it was not challenging at all; it just worked. The GUI is still not what it needs to be but has come so far in the past year that I'm optimistic...
Finally, follow the Crusoe into the web appliance market. I think Linux could have a real edge here, where the UI can be designed from scratch, not depending on current paradigms.
---
Well, I'm not so sure he's the one who missed the boat here. The way I understand it, he wrote some stuff that described some very real defficiencies in Linux and got lots of mail of the order on "Stop s*cking Bill Gates d*ck idiot Lunix rules!". Any boats missed were missed by the mailers.
It should be obvious that if you truly believe that Linux is written, first and foremost for the Linux community you wouldn't be all that driven to criticize someone who said that Linux wasn't very good for the novice end user.
The cake is a pie
>Who are these regular non-techie computer users.
>Do they really matter? Do we want them in the
>Linux community?
That's the 99% of computer users who pay our salaries! That's my mother, and most of my friends. That's practically everyone who uses Windows.
It's the masses, man...
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Have you looked around for help with your video card? There's plenty of information on how to get VooDoo cards to work under Linux in both 2D (Banshee/VooDoo3) and 3D (VooDoo2/Banshee/VooDoo3)... My VooDoo3 works just as well under Linux (both 2D and 3D) as it does under Windows. If you need help, just ask
Adam K
adamk@voicenet.com
I agree in the fullest. I've seen a lot of GUIs, and a lot of them make life easier for simple tasks, but none of them let me do a "cp *.c *.h local; diff server local > patch;". This is an operation I perform all the time on a piece of software I work on (Maybe I have the syntax wrong, I put it in a shell script ). Some may say, "Yes, but [X] utility does that for you!" but I'd reply, "In Linux, I don't need [X] utility installed - it's part of the Gnu binutils and part of the shell". I run in console mode, not X...I like the speed and saved memory. I don't have a swapfile. If I'm in XWindows, I generally need one.
So the question seems to be...do we want a majority-user OS, or a programmer's/network-admin's OS? Or both? It seems obvious to me that since it's programmers and admins who use Linux now, it'll stay targetted at them.
Right now, Linux systems are highly customizable. I set up a Linux system on a 486/66 with 8MB of RAM on a 50MB hard drive as a MP3 player with no monitor or mouse and a minimal boot/shutdown time. It can still compile, it still runs bash, but there's a LOT missing. You can't do this in Windows. The tradeoff is that in Linux, you aren't guaranteed to get the same functionality from one setup to another. As a result, you see software advertising "Requires: RedHat 6.1". Perhaps we need a standardized "Home Linux Specification"? I still want the option to make a 50MB Slackware install, but a "Standard" installation option would be great.
Excellent article. well said. I can think of an additional reason to push forward; two more "markets" in need of Linux. The two that come to my mind are the schools and the technologically/ecconomically disadvantaged. Many schools "benefit" from cast off computers donated for tax deductions or simply because people can't bear to throw away something they paid so much for. I also see them in thrift stores and the like. An efficient operating system ( Linux ) can restore value to these old PCs. But they need to be more "dummy proof". The youth in our disadvantaged areas MUST be allowed to become technologically competent. They need PCs. They need access to the internet. If they have games and/or whatever to get them started, we need to provide it. I think all of us know it's that first step which is the hardest. We need to help them make that first step. More & more cheap or free ISPs are showing up. Even a 14400 line would be great for these kids. Linux would be especially good. As they become more comfortable with our proposed comfortable fron end, they would get more adventerous. Linux is an operating system where they can begin to explore the "back end". Bright kids, some of whom are virtual prisoners in their own kids, could begin to flower & grow with the right opportunities. They could be a brighter tomorrow for us all. just another flaming liberal ranting
Connell makes some really good points, especially concerning the user, and how they perceive a computer. I think it's important for us to remember back to when we first started working with computers (for me, it was a 286...others have been at it longer ;-). Most of us didn't have a clue at first, but through trial and error, we figured it out. What most of us forget is that most people don't have time for trial-and-error. Sure, we whine and complain that Linux could be used on the desktop, that nearly everybody, if they really, really wanted to, could use Linux for all of their computing needs. However, in order to do that, we are asking these users to basically forget most of what they know of computers, and re-learn. From a pragmatic point of view, this isn't going to happen.
Perhaps then, the Linux/Open Source community needs to focus on how to attract first-time computer users. Focus on kids coming up, wanting to use computers. Form LUGs that give away old computers with Linux pre-installed, to make use of old equipment that won't run the latest and greatest from Microsoft. Before long, these will be the ones clamoring to have Linux everywhere, who won't have to unlearn years of frustration and backwards-thinking in order to do things right.
Bryan J. Casto
bryan.casto(a)gmail.com
Learning how to use Grafitti does not require technical ability. Comparing that to learning how to set up Linux is a poor comparision. As for the point regarding switching to StarOffice, I agree with you somewhat in that for the average user, learning the basics (which is all most users need) is overstated. I think the issue of converting files would be a biggest pain in the ass of moving to another platform.
Having said that though, I think that user level has a long way to go with stability. I have redhat 6.0 at work. It crashes all the time (well every couple weeks.) Actually, its either Gnome or Enlightenment that crashes, I'm not sure which. But its all the same to me, I lose my work, have to restart all my programs. Usually I reboot the computer just to make sure, too. The stability of linux isn't just the kernel anymore.
After having dissed enlightenment, I have to say that its far better than its windows equivelent. When I use a windows computer I feel so contstrained be the single desktop that I'm presented with.
> I wonder what the Linux Killer will be? Any suggestions?
Game stations like Dreamcast and Playstation. The new and upcoming models play CDs and DVDs directly, and have internet access. For the bulk of home users, what else do you need?
If some basic applications like word processing and such become available for these platforms, with most of the rest being supplied by the Web, say bye-bye to the PC, at least in the home market.
One thing about open source is that anyone who wants to write the code and post it can do that. No one is going to sue them for copyright infringement or disclosure of trade secrets. There is no one preventing the use and modification of the code.
The flip side is there is no one controlling the "message", as they say in the PR biz. No one is going to get fired or lose a promotion if they rant to a reporter about something that is "off message". In a big company, only certain people are authorized to speak to the media. In the movement, there are no such limitations, and everyone is free to say what they want. The advocacy HOWTO is just a guide, and there are no penalties for ignoring it, except maybe some bad press for the open source.
Flamers are going to be part of the package in an environment that is as inclusive as this. What you can do is show that there is more to the open source world than just flamers. But you don't have to if you don't want to.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Ditto. Good luck to all of you, my own strides away from blind evangelism over the last few months have been... painful :-)
One potential path is that linux will become a standard for servers, embedded devices and desktops. It might not be a "use linux or don't" attitude, but a "how can we use linux to do this". So linux might not be "killed", but just become less advertised.
The reason for this will be based on a balance between quality and availability. Why reinvent the wheel? One nice feature of this is that it makes sense to both big and small developers.
Or maybe linux will revert back to being a craftsman's/hobbyist's tool...
I will be happy either way...
I suppose I'm not too threatening, presently, but wait till I start Nautilus
I agree completely with you on Wine. I'll never forget the first time I got it compiled and working (few years ago) and got Solitare to work. I love that feeling when dealing with Linux. I may not have written Wine, but the hours spent setting it up were rewarding. That was what got me hooked on Linux in the first place.
How does an interesting comment like this get moderated down to zero. We're commenting on much we enjoy Wine. This makes no sense.
I believe that there may be a Linux Killer on its way. It may even come from within the Open Source Community. Its name might be HURD!
I can attest to this, after a (laughable) attempt to dual-boot RedHat6.0 and Windows95 unceremoniously dumped me into a shell prompt (or whatever the jargon for it is). I suppose playing around with no GUI would've been fun, that is if Windows hadn't stopped working...
Anyway, new users are all-important, and while I was competent enough to get it working in the end, grandma would probably be overwhelmed if she had to make user accounts and delete lock files (or whatever) to get Netscape to work, when all she wanted was to check her email.
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
What needs to be carefully watched is the hijacking of the software. There is nothing currently preventing a large corporation from taking the software and branching away from the current devlopment efforts and developing it faster (with more bugs) and hyping it more than the community built version.
With proper marketing and gimmicks it could become the standard distribution leaving the original package in the shadows, to be harvested periodically for bugfixes and innovation.
Corporations have the capability to be arrogant and insensitive to the fates of individuals.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Even in a worst case scenario, what you'll get is a GNU Emacs vs.X-Emacs type split. Doesn't sound like a problem to me...
I suppose what I a saying is that corporate development has the potential to outpace the community development, and bit by bit, through developers getting frustrated at receiving no credit (a la sun and blackdown) and the users (yes there will be the original community that will stay with it, but they currently represent about 1% of the total market) ignoring the original development efforts and buying into only the commercial and well hyped products, could stand to push our efforts into the background, and possibly render them invisible.
I'm not saying it will happen, just forwarding it as a possibility. (who would want poorly developed code thats covered under the gpl that would take as long to fix as to write from scratch?)
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
I don't think Linux itself will (or should, or can) die off. But, for the Love of God, when will someone murder X-Windows? I'm sure everyone will agree with me that the biggest obstacle facing Linux is the clunkiness of the X-Windows/window manager situation. I for one would be more than willing to give up X-Windows compatability to have something as slick as the BeOS UI. Besides, how many really cool X-Windows appliations are there? And by cool, I mean that really embrace the concept of a GUI? Many of the X-Windows apps I've used are just pretty interfaces on top of what are essentially command-line driven programs. End of rant.
My experiences with installing Linux on various hardware is that when it identifies the hardware and has a driver for it then it works great. I've found that there are times when Linux is much easier to get to work with some hardware (video cards) than Windows. I have a nVidia TNT and when I try to install it in Windows it never works no matter what I do. Windows refuses to work with it in more than 640 x 480 16 colors. But in Linux Red Hat identifies it immediately and correctly and the resolution and colors are the way they should be without having to mess with any complicated settings. However I have had problems with getting network cards to work, they just plugand play with the driver disk in Window but they don't work in Linux. (They're tulip clones)
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
IMHO AOL should be steered clear of. It has long been a major DRAG on system resources, and in my experience, only the most illiterate of users actually runs it. I also think that the reason they use it is fear of the unknown. I have known/been an AOL user/s (in my less literate days). They fear the configuration that comes with getting a real ISP. Although once seen, they realise there was nothing to fear, that fear was real enough to keep them there for however long it did. I admit, one of the things I like about Linux is that AOL won't run on it. Therefore users must get past that part of their fear in order to use it. I also agree that Linux needs to be more user friendly to the newbie. So I guess it's now up to the Linux community to come up with an AOL look alike that can ease people into the OS without scaring the &*^$ of them. And preferably something that doesn't hog system resourses and make even the best of systems crawl.
J My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely.
I don't fully understand how it is the Linux community in particular seems to attract so many of these people that have so much anger. I guess maybe it's the technology industry as a whole that attracts them. One thing is for sure, Linux would move forward even faster if it werent't for all the flames sent everytime someone even hints at something they don't like.
Unfortunately I can't think of anything to do about it. Those people are part of the Linux community and I guess it's a package deal, take it or leave it.
Maybe we can start some open-source anger counceling?
I disagree. They don't care - about *anything* (to do with their computer) (some debate on how much they care about anything else). They want to get paid, and do the least work needed for that.
And applications/OS aren't really an issue - but stability is - when it crashes, they can't do their job/get paid, and have to do more work.
2. Stability for the desktop is way down the list of priorities for the average user. Is it nice? Yes, but it's not a big issue. [Proof: If it was, the Mac would be dead, and Windows never would have dominated.
True - but the "average user" didn't make the choice of Windows.
As has been quite well documented, Microsoft's dominiation was with preloads. Businesses bought PCs, they came with Windows, chicken comes out of egg, etc.
Windows retail sales aren't all that spectacular. I think it was only relatively recently that they surpassed OS/2 sales.
(And the OS/2 machines had paid for Windows).
Users had very little say in this, overall. The trick was winning corporate IT divisions to Windows from OS/2 or DOS. Users had some say, and Microsoft did press that hard, and the big upsurge in Windows _was_ _partially_ due to home computers (preloaded with Windows) being sold.
But overall - it was corporate IT that stuck a computer with Windows and Office (for a long time, quite often preloaded, or preloaded for very low cost) in front of users.
Users we put new Windows machines in front of hated them. Same users now can't imagine doing something else. They're used to it, now, they'll have to learn something new.
People are notoriously shortsighted in the American (especially) culture (and some others).
The fact that a short learning curve now prevents a longer, slower, more painful one is overlooked by easily 70-90% of the "average users" out there.
Biggest problem I always identified: training. Not that we didn't have it - we couldn't get anybody to come. "I'm too busy". The class took a day. Meanwhile, in a normal month, the would lose more than 8 hours productivity waiting on the help desk to call them back to tell them how to mail merge, or come clear a printer queue...
Linux will never go anywhere on the desktop until it gets some decent applications that are at least comparably to Windows. Right now they are way, way behind.
They're just slightly behind, and I think most of that is due to the X interface.
WordPerfect on Linux I find to be very fast and good. Xess as a spreadsheet is far better (IMO) than Excel.
What it will require - is a PC plunked down in front of them, with some training classes (mostly ignored) tossed in, by corporate IT. Then Linux will start to pick up steam.
And I think its there, now. Just don't have the IT departments YET doing it.
Addison
That's not what he said. He said:
You have been allowed to develop the system at your own pace, put in the features you want, and release it when it is ready. The reason for this is that, until recently, Linux has not been mission-critical to many important organizations. But that is changing. As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list."
This is different (at least I read it far differently) than what you're talking about.
As a matter of fact, what looks like will happen - there will be *many* places putting "out" Linux - some will have pressure. Some will have promises. Some might fall under those sorts of pressures.
Does that mean that "Linux" will? No. That means that "SuperReliableNoDowntime Linux" will.
A _more_ likely possibility will be that the proliferation of distributions - and various good/bad points may cause issues with choosing and/or recriminations with choices.
Should I install RedHat? Or Mandrake? Or Corel?
No, I tend to think he doesn't "get it". Problem is, he's in the majority, most people don't "get it". They don't count the years they've spent "learning" the Windows interface, the Office interface, they overlook that when you show them something new, and say "its too hard, I want my old stuff back, its _easier!_".
Never mind whether it _is_ easier, or it _is_ better. People resist change. Microsoft counts upon this. Why do you think they essentially gave away Office until they had 80% of the market? Why do you think they let Kinko's sell Office 97 for $5? Because it got everyone onto Office 97.
Are they doing that with Office 2000? Why not? Because you're hooked, they know it. They don't need to entice you anymore.
Some of us look beyond what we're used to. Some of us think we do, and say we do, and don't. :)
Some look for what works, and insist on using that.
Does Linux need work? Surely. Do these hotheads need to calm down? Certainly.
But honestly - someone expressing what he just did in print - would have had his boss have a visit from Microsoft, most likely. And were he in the press - there would CERTAINLY have been pressure exerted. The fact that someone in a nice expensive suit would have done it notwithstanding, its a very similar viewpoint.
He's got some slight points - but he doesn't get it.
Addison
Leaving aside some other points - that still means the "user" didn't decide - corporate IT did.
And "best" I disagree with.
I think the issue was "cheap". OS/2 wasn't. Applications for OS/2 weren't. For a while, OS/2 required more hardware than Windows. Besides, Windows was _included_ with all these PCs.. why toss that and buy OS/2, then buy more expensive apps? Look, we can get a deal, and MS Office included for (sometimes free) almost free! At a certain point, it becomes a chicken and egg issue.
As for OS/2, that proves my point. IBM used to sell PCs preloaded with both OS/2 and Win 3.1 (that's 3.1, mind you). It booted up to OS/2. The user had to actively click on an icon to remove OS/2, and switch to Win 3.1. Guess what they did?
No, it doesn't prove your point, because you've forgotten a very important contextual issue - the Timing of that. They didn't do that until (I forget exactly) but it was at LEAST late '94 - (I think early '95) the IBM 330's (486 DX2-66's, PCI/ISA bus) were the first to do that.
At that point, it was OS/2, and "not OS/2". Wasn't a compatibility issue - (I tearfully wiped out many an OS/2 config on the 330's (quite snappy, too)) - it was that "Windows" had been decided for our "Standard".
Again, corporate IT - not the "user". User's didn't reconfigure them. Some people who bought home machines did - (and myopically, the install program didn't make it easy to keep a dual-boot, it was pick one, NOW, delete the other) - but that was because "Windows was the standard"
Which leads me back to the issue - its not even the application - its what corporate IT sticks on the desk that becomes important.
People use applications, not operating systems.
And both are currently mostly decided by IT departments.
The users have precious little say into that.
Addison
My background is as an IT person in a small company. For business reasons I recently had to install Linux on a clean box. Here is a summing up of my thoughts.
First off I have about 2 years testing with Microsoft and about 1year development with the Window's platform. So I am not your average at home user. I also have a Windows 98 Internet connection at my desk for resources, a large hardware supply and the ability to order any PC equipment I might need if there is good enough justification. I also have a small herd of geeks to ask questions of. None of who are Linux-centric. I am not overly attached to Windows or Linux but since I am installing this as a work related task that does color what I want to happen. I do not have a vast amount of time and my boss would frown on me spending too much 'mess around' time on the company clock.
The Good - My previous failed attempt about 6 months ago was with Linux red hat 5.x. Due to time constraints I finally gave up after about 2 weeks of about 30 minutes a day of messing with the install when I had the chance. I got XWindows started but the monitor was only displaying about 25% of desktop. From a conversation I gathered that this version of Redhat (which I got from a book CD) was very out of date. This time I am using Mandrake 7 (or 6) and was much happier with the install. Again from a conversation I gather that the Redhat installer is as easy now. Besides the stuff listed below I would say this was much closer to just slapping the Windows 98 CD in and walking away. It was about even with an NT install where every time I try to install NT there is some wonderful new cryptic error message to deal with. I did like that I felt that it would be easier to track down why something was failing with Linux (because the install process was out in the open) then with NT (where you kind of achieve a working truce with what errors your willing to live with)
The Bad - I had to switch out the video card because the display was being so horribly drawn (I could see the vertical lines across the screen.) The display is still not nearly as clean as my windows box (they are on a switch box). Xwindows took about four hours of configuration before it would come up. Another four hours to configure the network.
The Ugly - After messing around with the KDE GUI for about 6 hours it seems to have some issues. First it did not seem to have any cut and paste between applications. I tried to cut a line of text from a text document and paste it into the command window. No luck. Xwindows is based on the old dos/win 3.11 days of a GUI riding on top of the command prompt. I think the Windows 95 approach of having the Operating System built from the ground up to be a GUI is a much better approach. (I know that this not totally true of Windows either.) Without a dedicated Internet connection and a supply of hardware to switch out I would of never gotten Linux installed. My final thoughts -
At this stage is I am trying to keep in mind how long it took me to learn the Windows interface (about 2 years) and how many Song and Dance tricks I know to get things to work. Linux just requires a different set of Song and Dance tricks. Many of the KDE features seemed to be trying to copy Windows. Many of the articles (including the above) say the only way to beat Windows is to implement Windows and become Windows. It would be interesting if someone instead sat down and said what do we need to SURPASS Windows and take computers to the next level , not just aim at having the same GUI feature set as Windows.
Humans.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Last time I checked Linux distros from the local computer store were running about 79.99. That's 10-20$ cheaper than Win98 with about 1/100 the software to choose from.
You need to check the aisle where SuSE is then. Last time I was at CompUSA and BestBuy they had more shelf space for SuSE than RedHat, and SuSE was selling for $29.95 including support and 6 CDs worth of programs.
Go figure why RedHat is so popular... too damn expensive for me, and it doesn't come with very many programs.
Ratboy
*and I know they are all only $3 or so from cheapbytes.com
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
And if you want to buy it via the internet, our friends at www.chumbo.com always seem to have the most recent SuSE (6.3 as of today) in stock for $29.95 plus shipping. Standard SuSE package - comes with full online support, although I haven't needed any yet, and I expect that such non-usage is the real money maker for all these distros.
Find it at:
http://www.chumbo.com/info.asp?g=108&a=P&s=6488
Good luck, and stop paying $80 exorbitant prices for Linux. Better yet, just FTP the whole darn thing - ftp.suse.com does wonderful things...
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
I think the entire concept is a fallacy. Wealthy organizations can make as many schedules as they want, but software rarely comes out ahead of schedule. Sometimes it seems like an "on time" release is rare, and this is with in-house programming.
He's also confusing "Open Source" with "contract employment" and his particular combination isn't pretty. It's also not likely to be reflected in the real world.
Open source programmers who are not gainfully employed (to the complaining party) won't be responding to "hot lists". Any corporation, wealthy or otherwise, that demands impossible schedules will be ignored. This is the nature of the software and any business model that can't deal with this aspect of open source will not use the open source model.
Even the borg doesn't do this kind of software. When was the last time Microsoft made customized Word features for a wealthy company? What he's talking about is contract niche software.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
And yes you can get a distro from cheapbytes for $3.00 (or $1.99) but they also range all the way
up to $86) Like I said I'm already well aware of the facts/arguments.
If you're aware of the cheaper ways to acquire Linux (Cheapbytes, LinuxMall, etc) why are you making such an issue out of the price? You said the "Lemmings" are the ones out there paying full price, you seem to be clued in to the alternatives, but you still are bellyaching about the cost of the boxed sets.
Get yourself a copy of whatever distro you want online, and stop worrying about what choice the Lemmings (your analogy) have the the Best-Buy.
Editors might change the story around, but they usually give it back to the author to make sure their changes didn't affect anything major.
/.
.02
He's claiming to be technical, would you allow an editor to change a major point on "Why Linux GUIs suck" from configuring a display resultion to resizing icons? Come on.
Also, in the conclusion on his link he says something along the lines of "If you're technical or willing to learn, Linux is a good choice", the "edited" (sarcastic quotes) version lacks that point, leaving a negative light to Linux in the conclusion.
I'd have never let them done that to an article I wrote. If you look at his origional story on LinuxToday, most of the flames were for the stupid icon statement and the negative spin. I think he doctored up the article, blaming the editors, and then sent along his little sob story to
Just my
Well, what are you doing about it? Personally, I've given away probably 20 Linux CDs to friends and coworkers who were interested in Linux but didn't know where to start off. They're cheap, 99 cents on LinuxMall, 20 or so bucks ain't going to break me.
I've helped most of them install and configure the OS, and told them that if they liked it, they probably should toss a few bucks to the FSF or buy a boxed set, but that was completely optional.
I think Linux is extremely attractive to employers since they don't have to pay a per seat license. Wait until you work for a company that has thousands of NT 3.51 boxes because the costs are phenomoinal to upgrade to 4.0 or worse yet, 2000.
They're ripping hundreds of fileservers out and putting in a Linux/Samba mix. Also looking at SAP R/3 on Linux for sandboxes to our HP-UX N-Class production boxes.
Buy Linux once, and you can install it as much as you want. Compare $99 with a half a million dollars. Unless you're working for a large company which has a few hundred million in technology, I think you're just rambling on a topic without much real world experience.
The redhat 6.1 install went great for me. I have a voodoo3, and an amd k6. No problems at all. Make sure you choose the correct monitor, though, as the other poster pointed out.
I write this because my last attempt at using linux was redhat 5.2, and I must say the 6.1 installer is FAR superior. It took me hours to get my mouse and monitor configured properly with 5.2, 6.1 did it for me.
is GNU/HURD to being as usable as linux?
honest question. i like the OO aspect of it, but last time i looked, it didn't seem like it was very usable.
for instance, i'm using the emu10k1 module for my SB Live! and i compiled it separately (i think you have to).
If the kind of people who perpetuate this behavior would expend their energies on more productive causes that help the movement (Writing senators, joining the EFF, organizing campaigns) as opposed to flaming people while sitting on ther collective asses, perhaps we would see some REAL change in the way this industry (is this an industry, or a society in itself?) is heading.
Another point: When Microsoft parades Win2K, and you have hundreds of Linux advocates who plan to "attack" with Linux distro's and literature, be sure that people are watching. Big People (well maybe small minds) but the corporate "Wallet" carriers. Linux advocates make it impossible for the likes of myself to "sell" Linux to our bosses, I work for a global fortune 500 company, and although they may never make the right decision to change to Linux, they certainly won't if they percieve Linux advocates as a bunch of kids with a wild hair up their ass, and a "cause". They (the radicals) tend to make themselves look more like "Linux Nazi's" than advocates of a better server/workstation O.S. Let Micro$oft have their day in the sun, the sun eventually sets on everyone. Let people interested in Micro$oft products, explore what M$ is offering. Origionally Linux advocates were a voice of an alternative OS, and free beer..I mean software, or at least open-source and GPL. Now a few are giving Linux the look of a Radical Neo-Software-Nazi, hellbent on kicking anyone thinking of staying with M$, a kick in the ass. As a "peaceful" advocate of Linux, I find it harder and harder to prove to anyone (important), that this is not the movement of some radical group with no other cause. If it doesn't stop, and you dumbasses who are responsible know who you are, Linux will lose it's image of a superior OS, and take a seat in the anal's of history, in the it-was-great-while-it-lasted 'till some one %#cked it up dept.
Does a jock itch?
That article is just waste of the author's time.
The people doing useful work in the Linux community already know all those things, to a greater or lesser extent. Sure they argue about the details, but they are reasonable enough to understand that different users have different requirements, and that Linux does not currently fulfil all those requirements.
The people who the article is for, the linux weenies with their new found zealotry, are either not going to read it or they're not going to understand it. People that stupid and that fanatical are not going to change their worldview based on reasoned argument.
The Linux collective community doesn't need to understand the things listed in that article, it already does. What it does need is a way to shut the fanantics up. Unfortunately I can't see it happening.
PS. I like Linux but it's getting embarrassing to admit it.
Before I get flamed as pro-MS, let me rephrase that in a way that hopefully even the most rabid anti-MS types will let slide: At the *very* least, they pretended to care about what consumers want and set about marketing windows as if it met those wants.
And a good point made by aiken_d. As hated as Microsoft is among many Linux users, they did get a lot of people to buy what they created. This is the basic rule of marketing/producing: Find out what people want, make it, then give it to them.
You can't be successful in the commercial world without doing the above. Linux will never beat out Microsoft unless Linux does the above better than Microsoft. It's simple, really.
If we want everyone to use Linux, we've got to convince everyone that Linux has what they want - otherwise, Linux will forever be the underdog.
Eruantalon
The Annals of Middle-earth
Hence as evil as it seems, AOL, and MS lookalike software is a good thing, to bring users into linux.
True. To do this, we need programs that look familiar to people who have used nothing but AOL & MS. That's not to say the lookalike programs should also be "performalike" programs. They should have a similar GUI, but perform the way an OpenSource program is supposed to. Maybe, just maybe, a working Linux version of AOL is the thing that would get a lot of people to switch to using Linux for their everyday AOL'ing tasks....
Though personally, I think that Linux isn't for the "normal" user. Linux seems to be more for people who want their computer to be personalized for their own wants & needs than for people who want to chat with their friends. Linux seems to be much more fit to be used by businesses interested in having a reliable internet presence, and semi- to very knowledgeable people interested in having their computer set up the way they want, tuned for the tasks they perform on it. Though that may change.
Maybe if the developers of the various forms of Linux could come together and figure out some new way of making the transfer from MS or AOL to Linux easier and less scary, then Linux would start to become a competitor in the PC (as in personal computing) sector. First, though, we'd need to decide if that's what we want; and if we decide it is, how to accomplish this becomes the next question.
Eruantalon
The Annals of Middle-earth
Mac Advocacy has the SAME problems that Linux 'advocates' now show.
Flame mail if you do not agree with the unwashed advocacy masses.
Example: Old InfoWorld Columist Stewart Alsop. He wrote that the NeXT deal didn't include the most important part of NeXT - Steve Jobs. He was flamed at the time. Yet, history proved Alsop right, and he *STILL* gets flamed by parts of the Mac community whenever he says anything about Macs.
If one wants to take the time to see how little such flame-based advocacy helped the Mac, you can see the future of the Linux OS, if one bases advocacy on flameage.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Yes, I did take the time to read it through (well, skim it through, I'm a fast reader but not that fast). The question behind all his points, though, is "what do we want out of this?" This isn't a new question by any means, either. I've seen it before enough times that I'm sure this will be moderated as "redundant". If we want Grandma to have linux as her desktop, it's got to be not just bulletproof, but devoid of surprises. I get a rude shock still every couple days, when something doesn't quite react like I expected, and I've been futzing around with UNIXlike O/S'es since 1990. Hell, my father's a comptroller at a major Canadian oil company, and he gets confused by Win98, which, like it or lump it, is generally easier on the novice user than Linux. And re: project management - Open Source manages itself while the participants are really interested and excited. So many projects fall apart when the main coder gets bored, or distracted... and that's where you need the management, the rewards, and the requirements. And flamers... get a clue already. Screaming bloody murder at those who disagree with you never works, makes you and the rest of us look bad, and smacks of facism or similar intolerant philosphies. If somebody really wants Windoze, LET THEM HAVE IT. Just be smug at them every time they complain about crashes. :)
The interesting is that after this summer every major OS will be multi-user, I believe. Look at Mac OS X and Windows 2000. But I imagine there default configuration will be set up to look like single user systems by default. I would imagine that IP addresses and such would be changeable and applications will be installable through a gui by the single user, but to do stuff like edit config files by hand a "root" password would be required.
OS X server is already something like this, you supply the root password when you want to change something like network settings, but you do not have to log in as root. It would be good if a Linux user never had to log in as root to do anything involving setting up the system, as long as they used a GUI interface, but could if they needed to edit files directly or do things that could mess us the system.
Well, Win/98 gives a bit more stability, but there are more features than you think. Some that come to mind are USB support, Multi-monitor support, and the task manager is much improved. It's mostly a lot of small improvements, but it's significant.
--
Moderators: If this appears twice, moderate one of them down to 0. Slashdot 500'd on my first attempt and I'm not sure it went through
Assuming the 'average' user knows how to insert a floppy into their computer and can press the 'reset' button, Windows 98 can be installed pretty much unattended. The only real challenge is making sure the CD-ROM drive is accessible from a boot floppy. Once the setup program is running, there is literally nothing to installing 98. It even reboots by itself :)
The Linux install procedure is truly something that needs a lot of work. What I'd like to see:
- A windows-based installer that will, bare minimum, automatically generate any needed boot floppies. A complete Linux installer that does everything (partitioning, ext2 formatting, LILO installing, etc) from inside Windows would be cool too.
- An autodetect program that can detect video, audio, network, scsi, ide, etc. devices and automatically configure the system to load the drivers on boot.
- Some way to keep the boot messages from being displayed on the screen unless it's an error or kernel panic.
Nathan"I suspect that some of the people who do the flaming are actually not advocates. Some of them are just trolls. Some are likely anti-Linux." Actually I think the term you're looking for is "Astroturfers"(?) and you're right on the mark...
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
> No, no, no. The correct response is "I'll be happy to make this change for you. My fee is
> $500/hour". Those are wealthy organizations after all.
Actually, they're both correct responses.
// TODO: fix sig
> Hmm, that's the attitude that will keep MS in business, I think. I don't know what the
> answer is, but when I tell my customers (I develop IC test applications) what my schedule
> is, if they don't like it, I *can't* tell them to shove it.
> Giving them the source code won't work either. They are coming to you for your expertise.
> If they want source code, there's lots of distributions.
I believe grappler was refering to demands on the Linux community as a whole. Obviously the correct response in that case is "Here's the source. Have a nice day". The Linux community as a whole has no other obligations.
Obviously, if an individual programmer enters into a contractual agreement to create new or modify existing software, then that's a completely different situation, and, you're right, neither response would be acceptable.
// TODO: fix sig
Mmmm, you seem to be saying if a user demands changes in a program at no charge and the developer (commercial or open-source) declines, it's the user that's getting screwed. That's an... interesting point of view.
// TODO: fix sig
Every time someone publishes an article critical on Linux, the Linux community tends to take the wrong attitude. They are too eager to look for the knife in the back, and not interested in looking for helpful criticisms. Yes, there are articles out there that are little more than propaganda. But not all of them are.
This article has several good points. He isn't the first person to mention them, and he isn't the last. Linux has a long way to go to get to mainstream, and his complaints are valid ones.
Some people don't want Linux to be mainstream. But the simple fact is that the more computer-ignorant people that use Linux, the more likely it is that the next time you sit down at a strange computer, be it your new job, your friends, a customers, or what have you, the more likely it is going to be running the OS that you like the best. The more people who run Linux, the more applications there are going to be for Linux, and the greater chance that the next app that you _must_ have will be designed, developed and implemented for it.
Every time someone writes an article critical of Linux, be it too difficult to run, slower or less featured than a competitor, or just too small of an installed base, don't flame. Instead spend your time thinking about how you can improve Linux so that when someone writes an article a year later on the same topic, they won't have any complaints. The free OS is getting free suggestions on how to improve it. Is anyone listening?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Market things to customers, then make outrageous demands of 'em? Sounds like Computer Associates!
Yes, that's really my e-mail. Don't change a thing.
programming for the fun of it is "Groking" the code. Programming for money is called "earning a living".
He failed to consider the Win95/Win98/NT PC's when comparing your ease of use MAC system to Linux. There is a larger X86 Joe User base.
99.9% of the time I'm on an M$ OS on an X86. I've had the (dis)pleasure of using Plug&Pray devices, manually configuring DIPs (I'll take that anyday), Trying to get DOOM ][ to work properly with my USR 14400 (stupid connection strings) etc..., Bloatware installing crap & breaking things (See DLL Hell @ M$) Umpteen servicepacks from M$, Hotfixes galore AND different behaviour between software packages on the WIN platform.
What regular Joe user can track all of that themselves? Why should they?? I am regularly approached by one non-techie friend in particular wondering why "I can't get my new [device]to work in Windows" or, "[device/software] won't work anymore".
You cannot tell me that changing from MS Office to Sun Office would be such a difficulty of immense proportion than going from vX of MS Office to vX+1 taking into consideration menu layout & features between MS Office versions as well as layout/feature differences in other S/W such as: IE4, IE5, Netscape, Outlook, Pegasus, etc... THEY ARE ALL INCONSISTENT. Sure, they each have a File menu and probably a Help menu but Some use HTML help while others use the .hlp format. In Notepad, "Alt-S, F" searches and finds text. If you do that in Outlook, You've just sent your e-mail to the boss before replacing "Dear PHB," with "Dear Sir,".
The jump from W95 to W98 for network was different (comparable to MS Office to Sun Office in your world). Within the first 15 minutes I couldn't get her system to see my W95 system (by setting up the devices, services & protocols the same) BUT I had NO problem getting Slackware to work with my NE2000 compatible NIC on the wave over 2 years ago in that same amount of time. I did something regular Joe users don't do: research & reading. You should know something about the system you are using. Only then will it actually be useful for you.
Anyway, lucky for me my GF is very smart and had the patience to travel down each winding path in the Windows help so that she could further config the networking and get it working.
Also, The first attempt at installing it pooched her system & it couldn't boot. Tell me, how does JOE User fix that without taking it into the shop? They know nothing about boot disks, DOS based CD-ROM drivers, SYS C:, etc.....
Every 3 months I need to re-install W95 because it has become unbearably slow and choppy. How does Joe user fix that him/her self?
OH, and I must be the ONLY ONE that has had the Win95/98 auto HW finder lock my system(s) right? Ya, it is oh-so user friendly to Joe User to see that "If there is a long time of harddrive inactivity, press reset". Does Joe User know what the HDD is or what that randomly blinking light really does besides mess with the cats mind? Do they know what is a long period of inactivity?
As was previously mentioned, I REALLY doubt that Joe User sits down and spends HOURS learning an application. <SARCASM>None of us S/W geeks have ever been used as a helpdesk by our friends to answer questions ...no...not ever.</SARCASM>
AND (also mentioned before) why must I conform my handwriting to a palm device? What makes industry so sure that is what people wanted? Sure they are selling, but that magical "device around the corner" he is so fond about is really what I wanted but all industry could offer me was a Palm pilot. I certainly don't want one. Personally, I want a cheaper, Open Source, patent free laptop-like device. I want a large screen and image projection so I can play life-size Quake with a (almost) full sized keyboard. I want that device to handle my wireless voice/LAN/Internet communication, my entertainment (movies, music, LAN GAMES), my GPS AND I want this ALL to fit in my pocket running whatever OS I choose WITHOUT the "Blue Screen of Death". I do not want some $700 electronic notepad with a crappy display where an "upgrade" means buying another one.
I am sick of being a victim of PHB's and "interests of Shareholder's". I want what is good for me (and my fellow consumer) and I want control of it. Will I get it? Not likely so I have to settle for what is offered. (ya, ya, I know, "so then why don't I go build it myself").
--Clay
This article really hit the nail on the head. I love linux....I have friends who love linux... and then there are these zealots that I hate for loving Linux. And flaming is how they show their love. Kinda a like a boyfriend who completely neglects his girlfriend until someone looks wrong at her... Then he gets off his fat ass and unconstructively shows her how much he loves her. If you are all so confident next time you feel like flaming someone for having an opinion sit down and write that code for that device driver I have been waiting for...Be CONSTRUCTIVE!!
Hmm, that's the attitude that will keep MS in business, I think. I don't know what the answer is, but when I tell my customers (I develop IC test applications) what my schedule is, if they don't like it, I *can't* tell them to shove it.
Giving them the source code won't work either. They are coming to you for your expertise. If they want source code, there's lots of distributions.
What I can do is to politely, but firmly, tell them the facts, that I can develop so many lines of code a day, and if they want it faster, better, and cheaper, that two out of three is all they can get.
If I tell them to get lost, they'll go to someone who says that 'faster, better and cheaper is fine', the customer will get ticked off at them when they fail, but meanwhile, I don't have a job with them. They won't come back to me, most likely. Maybe they'd give the OS another try, but it's not going to be business coming back to me.
BTW, another thing that will help Linux get ready for primetime is a more complete set of printed install documents. I'm doing a Readhat install at home, and while they want the netmask, the term is nowhere defined in any of their manuals (nor Oreilly's Systam Admin book). Picked it up from the web, but that's lame.
God, you just descibed where I work in perfect detail. I for one, am sick of talking to customers on the phone after the support people (who get paid for this shit) don't have a clue about anything.
And this very attitude is why the Linux community will get blindsided by the Next Big Thing (no reference to NeXT intended), in *exactly* the same way Microsoft is getting blindsided by Linux.
"What we are doing is the coolest thing ever. Nothing can be cooler than what we are doing! Nothing will ever supplant us, we are going to Rule the World!"
So, where do you want to go tomorrow night, Brain?
Scott Taylor
We are in a desperate race between Stupidity and Transcendance; Don't pick the wrong side.
Alright, I just installed rh 6.1 about a week ago and I haven't managed to figure out how to get my printer working. It's a HP laserjet II compatible. I've tried the printtool utility and tried to follow the directions on the redhat homepage but the computer isn't talking to the printer. Any suggestions?
No. The correct response is, "Here's the source, have a nice day". That's why it's called open-source, isn't it?
User: I need this feature, can you do this for me?
Commerical software company: Sorry, no, that's not on our release schedule.
Open source software developer: Take the source and fix it yourself you idiot!
The end result in both cases? Same. Both say : Screw you, the user.
"One of God's own creations, some kind of high powered mutant. Too weird to live and too rare to die"
I thought the same thing when I read this. Who are they buying from? Who are they complaining to? RedHat? RedHat != Linux! There is no "Linux Company" to complain to! And if RedHat wants to give that kind of support, they can do it. So what's the problem?
Second, his article goes back and forth between two different groups of users. "People" and "Corporate". I'll be the first to admit that Linux isn't the easiest thing in the world to get a handle on, but if we are talking about people with no experience then neither is windows. He even says it in the article: "they often bring the box home from the computer store, and then let it sit on the bedroom floor for several days as they screw up their courage to open it. When they do open the box, they turn on the computer fearfully and hope that it starts up correctly."
So that's with any operating system, not just Linux - even Macs.
And as "K." clearly points out, Mr. Connell obviously does not understand what Open Source means when it comes to the corporate environment.
There are lot's of legitimate gripes about Linux and the "average" user, and slamming this guy won't help, it'll just make him write more articles about how we don't "get it." But I say, given the proper context, it can be shown that someone learning from scratch would probably not have a much more difficult time with Linux than Windows, and none at all if it were a pre-installed system.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
A few years ago, when Linux was just beginning to gain popularity, winmodems, motherboards with built-in everything (ethernet, modem, video, sound) were a wet dream.
Linux was developped to run on what can now be considered ancient hardware - 386s with Sound Blasters (if you were lucky) and 2400 baud modems...
Technology took a step forward and decided to incorporate these extras into motherboards, leaving Linux behind to play with standard chipsets.
While I agree with you that it probably costs more to build a box that includes a real ethernet card, a real SB and a real modem instead of getting it all melted into a pretty motherboard, the box will probably cost you less than a comparable box 4 or 5 years ago. (as much as 386s can be compared to pentiums. ).
All the cards mentionned above have dropped in price, the almighty MHz has shot way up and RAM has dropped in price (even with the recent surge).
Linux doesn't need the latest hardware, and it doesn't need the best hardware. It just needs hardware that it has drivers for... which is probably its biggest downside. After all, not everyone can write their own X server.
Cheers,
Bart
I very much appreciated and enjoyed your letter. It was well thought out and your points are, in my opinion, mostly accurate. However, I must add these thoughts (my own two cents, take it as you like).
Linux and OSS are not in the same paradigm as other projects. I must disagree with this section of your letter.
"As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a 'wish list'; they will go onto a 'hot list'. You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect.
Some readers have suggested to me that the open source method of software development causes project management issues to evaporate; that the projects manage themselves. This is a fantasy. The open source method, while it does solves some problems, raises new ones. You will be managing a large public programming project with conflicting demands, tight schedules, and the need for high quality. You have to figure out how to do this well. Hopefully, you can invent and master new techniques for software project management within the open source method. But if you don't, the complexity of this task will sink your whole endeavor."
Yes, as corporate users begin to need these projects instead of just wanting them, their demands on OSS projects will change. But, as I see it, these two schools of thought (corporate v. OSS) will come to head and instead of one simply squashing the other (the current reigning corporate mentality of customer first through the latest and greatest) as you postulate, there will be a middle ground. I don't know where that is, but there is too much momentum on either side for either one to simply pass away. And then, the corporate mindsets that refuse to budge on the 'We are big, you are not' mentality will suffer and the OSS projects that say, 'We are in charge, leave us alone' will see their projects ignored and passed up for the more flexible competing projects and even some of the non OSS projects. As is always the case in the free market, flexible lives while rigid or static dies. Survival of the fitest so to speak.
I just thought that I would write and tell you that I appreciate your letter. Many people only see the extreme and forget that the majority lives somewhere in the middle. Most Linux advocates want to see something better than the status quo in computing. Linux was the bandwagon to jump on, but it isn't the end of the road, you are right. My hope is that Linux is the stepping stone to something even greater and more exciting whether that is Linux, HURD, BSD, Solaris, Be, or even a product from an evolved Micrsoft. But for now, one must look beyond the fringe and focus on the strongest parts of this new way of thinking.Bah
However, I didn't see that as the main reason for writing the article. The MAIN thing he was trying to say is that HE had been attacked for saying that linux was hard for newbies. Newbies having a hard time setting up their machine and people being attacked for writing negative articles are two different things.
My experience as a Linux Newbie (from last October) is that it's a lot of fun. There are people out there who are willing to help you. I didn't have one person tell me to RTFM. Sure it wasn't easy at all and some stuff is fairly hard to get set up. Some applications are less intuitive than in windows. In fact, my opinion is that Linux won't be ready for the AOL newbie until 2003.
offtopic: It could really be neat trying to set up one of those computers than the user can use out of the box. When you buy a Distro CD your software is not really optomised. If you controlled the hardware you could make much more specific assumptions about the user. You could tweak the kernel to be super slim and fast. Set up X and sound etc. All the user would need to do is plug it in and answer a few questions about time zone and usernames and so on.
The articles that people flamed him for weren't that bad. He just said that Linux was going to be pretty complicated if you weren't very good with computers. I think it's true right now. You'd be surprised the number of people who don't know how to tell if they are using Gnome or KDE. Give it a year or two.
Maybe 900 comments per Slashdot article will be trolls. But most of us are decent folk.
On the one hand, comic strips like User Friendly always piss me off with references to "lusers" and equally obnoxious inside-jokes. People who write software might want to receive feedback from the people who use it, and especially those who are paid to support software should understand that not everybody knows or wants to know how things work under the hood. It took me several years to realize that computers are, in fact, deathly boring, and the root (pardon the pun) perversity of the geek community (which I adore) is its appetite for them.
On the other hand, I've always thought of Linux as an anti-corporate entity -- you get it free, you figure out how to set it up, you reap the reward of a stabler, faster system, but at the same time, nobody's bottom line but yours is riding on the fact that you're satisfied. The open source community is doing YOU a favor by writing free, fast, and infinitely portable software, and anything more than that is a bigger favor. Businesses who need someone to blame if something goes wrong should not be running Linux. Microsoft has plenty of machinery set up if someone wants to blame them. Linux is a gift horse.
The fact that nobody can actually look it in the mouth may be the Linux-Killer as mentioned in the article, or maybe only a kind of paralysis. Linux will continue to run darkly on hidden computers on the dark side of the planet.
His confusion on the issue of linux not being a company was also evident in his comments about how linux needs a very simple installation.
Perhaps Redhat or Caldera will succumb to a linux-killer at some point, or will die on the vine for lack of a simple installer or easy-learn apps, but linux itself is larger than any single corporation.
What linux has done is show that there is a market for an OS that's more capable than Windows, even at the expense of ease of use. If the result is a dual OS world, with Windows for the average user and linux for those who feel like learning and doing more, I don't see where that hurts anyone.
Look, I have no use for AOL, either. But it is very, very popular.
And, guess what? If it's popular, that means that it is doing something right! Have you ever actually used AOL? It's been years, but I did use it for a little while, and it was very simple and very non-intimidating. There's a market for that.
You seem to think that anyone who likes AOL isn't cool enough to be a Linux user. I disagree. I will be happy, not sad, on the day when Linux is polished enough that even the most timid users do not fear it.
There is a saying: If it's stupid but it works, it isn't stupid. AOL isn't stupid. It's not the right choice for the typical /. reader, but that doesn't make it stupid. Adding newbie features isn't "dumbing down" Linux; the cool features of Linux will still be there, and some of the users (not all, but not none either) will learn Linux more and grow into it.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Do we really need to write drivers for $50 "WinModems" or $200 "WinPrinters"? Some things just aren't worth doing.
Linux is worth the trouble it takes to learn, too!
i love linux, it and NEXTSTEP are the only operating systems that I use. But Linux users (for the most part) bug the heck out of me. The majority of the ones that I know are self-righteous people who use it for all the wrong reasons. And they bug me for answers when it doesn't work. But, when someone mentions that it has flaws, they attack with a knee-jerk, rabid reaction that boggles the mind.
Charles is right--Linux is hard to install. I am quite comfortable with it now, but I still have the chance LILO frustration, or partitioning oops. The first time I did it, it was mind-boggling.
His other technology specific point--that good project management is important--is very true. Due to the programmer-orientation of the OS, there are tons of little apps. Many of them work very well. Some are dreadful. Very few of them have consistent interfaces. While that doesn't bug me very much, when I compare it to my Mac or NEXTSTEP, I am reminded of how ragtag the effort is. That makes things difficult for Joe-user.
Things are maturing, and while that is both good and bad, it must be kept in mind that nothing is perfect, and one's choice of an OS doesn't always make him a good or bad person.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
AOL 5.0 while a horrible piece of internet connectivity software does have one Huge benefit over the crap that Netscape and Microsoft offer... free money.
Yes we all could get very rich if they port AOL 5.0 over to Linux. I for one sure as hell would like a piece of that $5 billion class action lawsuit going around. And if anyone makes for of me for using AOL on a Linux box, I'll just run over them in my new Rolls Royce. I saw screw getting new users on Linux, we need more lawsuits on Linux.
Mordred
The next cool thing to do in the computer field might not be perceived as a computer. It might be the small OS that you don't know the name that is inside the smart phone or inside the set top box or powering your wearable computer. It might be a stripped Linux, a stripped BeOS, a PalmOS-like, or a new design. But given the speed of this field, Linux will not be the *hot* new technology (even if for some of us it's a *hot* old acquaintance) for many years to come. Maybe the pressure from magazines, journalists and hipsters will fade away and we'll happily keep doing it, maybe we'll move to something totally new taking Linux and its teachings in the baggage. Who knows?
The reason that I decided to try linux was that I had to reinstall Win95 on my laptop (Dell Inspiron 3200) after the Win98 upgrade supplied by Dell caused repeated problems. That was a nightmare! I spent hours on the phone with Dell technical support, and finally was so disgusted that I decided going back to a command line would be better than windows. So I tried linux, and everything just worked. I have installed linux on my laptop twice, now, and a couple times on other machines, and it's smooth, fast and painless (knock on wood). It still takes me over two hours to reinstall windows on my laptop, counting the time it takes to upgrade all the many drivers by hand that linux takes care of automatically. That sucks, because I seem to need to reinstall two or three times a year, since the registry gets corrupted (I think... you never quite know what's up).
To add insult to injury, I'll probably never be able to run any of the newer windows on my laptop, since Dell doesn't provide drivers which will run with them. And Miserysoft certainly doesn't! Oh, there are drivers on the Microslime installation CD, all right... but my screen is 800x600x16 colors, and it goes downhill from there. Of course, starting with DOS 1.1, which I remember well, Microstuff's software has gotten bigger, slower and flakier. Not being able to "upgrade" may be a blessing.
We have certainly had very different experiences. My laptop was about a year old when I installed linux, so that might explain a lot. I found out afterwards that RedHat6.0 was the first to include support for my neomagic graphics, so I got lucky on that one. If I had tried it a few months earlier, I might have gotten a very different first impression. I have heard many horror stories about X, but haven't experienced any problems myself. The neomagic on the laptop, and the ATI card at home both were set up just fine, automatically, during the install.
I'm not sure that I could install linux to run on a Jaz either, but did you look at the linux-on-a-zip HOWTO? I think that they must have covered some of the same issues you faced.
See what I've been reading.
Our secretaries have learned this stuff, and are very productive, and don't want to use Word etc. They do have that option, too; their unix terminals are PC's! Don't say that "Unix is hard to learn", say that folks haven't learned it yet. I think that it may well be easier to bring someone up to a given level of productivity on a CLI.
See what I've been reading.
1)People set up computers alone
2)Learning new applications is hard
3)Open source still requires good project management
4)Humility is a virtue
add to this
5)The sky is *NOT* falling
Turn off slashdot, go outside. Take a few deep breaths. The world does not move so fast you need to react to every possible threat to Linux, OS, and free speech.
-- no sig
I should prefix my comment with this clarification: It was not written with the intent to sound angry. I have this problem when I write. I mean the following comment in the most cheerful of ways. Ok, read on.
This article makes some good points, and Charles Connell is not a pawn of Satan^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft just because he questions the viability of Linux as everyman's OS.
However, to be perfectly honest, it is not my mission in life to convince as many people as possible to use Linux or [Free|Net|Open]BSD, or any other free operating system. As I recall, these systems didn't start out as commercial ventures, hungry for customers. It was the industry that came to Linux (i.e. Red Hat Software, VA Linux Systems, etc.) and it is those companies who stand to benefit from Linux becoming the desktop of the future, not me. Perhaps Mr. Connell's article should have been addressed to them.
Admittedly, I do benefit indirectly from a free OS succeeding because it means that there is less risk that I will be forced to use an annoying, buggy, proprietary OS at work. However, I chose to use a free operating system for my own reasons, and it isn't really my business what the rest of the world chooses.
Having said that, I should also say that I am perfectly happy to help people switch to a free operating system (in fact I looove to do this). I have helped friends install both Linux and FreeBSD, with varying results. But it was their choice, and they knew what they were getting into in advance, because I told them up front. Linux (and any flavor of Unix for that matter) is not for everyone, and I will not try to convince those people for whom it is not the right OS to switch to it.
# echo 'SboPshAeaM@rSicPocAheMt.SnePt' | sed -e 's/[SPAM]//g'
I agree with most of the comments on how a linux box should be easy to configure and how we need a Word-impersonator (a small and robust one would be enough I think). As for the AOL stuff I have no idea.
I completely disagree on the project management aspect though.
One of Linux main strength, at least as far as the kernel is concerned, is that it's todo list is not issued my a marketing department but more by developpers and users (as in sysadmin users).
And that's the way it should be., that's how it will remain more robust, more efficient and more secure that its bloated competition from Redmond
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em. (Terry Pratchett)
> I'm sorry, but since when has Linux been about Market Share?
I have to say I agree 100%, as far as I'm concerned, Linux won the war back in 1992 when I brought up X on my 386 40 with an ET4000 video card.
The only advantage I see in more people using Linux is if it makes the game developers release their games on Linux natively.
This guy just doesn't know when to re-examine his position. Linux is (thank ye Gods!) NOT Mac OS. It will never be Mac OS. It's a powerful tool creaded by gearheads for gearheads, and that's what has driven the community to such success. If that tool happens to have become good enough that it is being packaged and sold to Joe Clueless, it does not mean that we should have to stoop to the level of the least common denominator. I would hate to see good functionality projects fall by the wayside because everyone is busy worrying about how to make a little paperclip buddy for gnome. (viGor here we come!) This guy needs to realize that maybe the clock on his VCR should stop blinking 12:00 before he starts analysing server operating systems.
What people need to see in the Linux community is that Linux is not an Anti-Windows. Linux is a great operating system on its own merits. It will get to the desktop. It will take a couple more releases. the 2.4 kernel will help alot. KDE is a better environment than Windows on many levels. But there are things that need to be done. Easy switching between 8, 16, 24 bit graphics, more support for hardware. The application situation is fixing itself already, and should get better over time. WINE will provide a bridge while we wait for more apps to get ported.
Calling up someone's boss is just plain nasty. IBM used to do this if you recomended mainframes other then IBM's. They sure don't do that now. That sort of action is just downright dirty.
> for me one significant end-user application that
> is clearly superior than the equivalent in
> Windows. There simply isn't one.
enlightenment? (customizability, as opposed to next to none) -- especially in devel versions
emacs/vi -- they really are *everything*, and customizeable.
In fact, when you get down to it, almost any powerful command-line, network-related, techie, whatever application that you can imagine. The only ones that I can think of that fail this test are apps that try to copy the Windows interface and functionality.
Not that I'm saying these programs are user-friendly; they do have a steep learning curve. However, the Windows UI is not perfect, nor is that of MacOS. I dare you to come up with a GUI system that is perfectly intuitive for every end-user and has succeeded on the desktop based solely on that.
What I'd like to see is to have some sort of open-content conference for UI. Have all the experienced UI designers, all the app programmers, the XFree86 designers, etc. come together and hammer out a rigid set of standards for a good user interface. This might include toolkits, window managers, configuration tools, integrated applications and functionality, etc. The implementation details wouldn't matter, but the fundamentals would. This would have the effect of letting competing products compete, and yet still have a solid paradigm for the interface of a GUI.
We're getting there with stuff like the drag 'n' drop protocol, GNOME/KDE cooperation, etc. but they are all far from perfect. For linux to become friendlier to the masses, we need a standard, open, user-friendly GUI.
You can get those for Windows.
Yeah, but have you tried them? The DOS/Windows versions are just ports -- the native linux/Unix applications are a lot nicer.
As for enlightenment, well, maybe the newer versions are better, but the last time I tried it was RedHat 6.0 and enlightenment was a buggy piece of crap.
It's not buggy for me... just a bit slow. Could be the theme I'm using, but it might run a little faster. However, it does not crash or produce visual artifacts at all; it looks stunning.
But even so, you can clearly find a feature here or a feature there that you might like better. But on balance, any desktop on Linux is light years away from Windows' GUI. You mention drag and drop, but how about cut/paste? I can copy cells out of Excel, and paste it into Frontpage, and it will convert to an HTML table automatically. Let's not even get into OLE functionality.
You missed the point. bash/emacs/vi are better than their Windows equivalents. They are not user-friendly in the sense we're using the term here. What I was saying was that all current GUIs -- even that of Microsoft Windows -- are not as good as they can be. I don't remember the URL, but there is a site dedicated to pointing out UI design flaws, and they have many, many systems listed there, including Windows, Linux, Mac, etc. My proposition was to get a forum open so that we can collectively make a GUI that is good, and open-source, so we can take any criticisms and fix them.
Most coders don't consider UI when they write their programs; the people who do are seperate, and paid for what they do; it's not an enviable task. But it is an important one.
By the way, there is OLE within some Linux applications like StarOffice, and there will be more in the upcoming versions of e.g. KDE, so we'll see how things improve by then.
Linux has gotten this far with the attitude you dispise. There's no objective reason why doing things for "ourselves" should be in conflict with what a majority of users want. Also a bug and a new feature are two radically different things. The free software model has been proven to be much better to produce high quality low-bug software. Features we can live without, and bugs too!
I find quite ironic that a /. editor would dare critize flaming Linuz zealots. Basically, it's a question of not hitting the hands that feed you. /. would be nothing without them. The original article looks to me to a big whine. Some corporate monkey crying because his lame consulting is not going to cut it for free software development. I'm actually insulted. How dare he talk about corporations "demanding" deadlines and accountability? If you want something doen either do it, pay somebody to do it, or wait until is done. Quite simple.
How much do you want Linux to succeed?? If you want Linux to remain second place in the desktop OS market, then porting AOL 5.0 is not an issue. But you have to face the fact that a HUGE chunk of basic computer users use AOL. As an avid Linux user (4 years) who spends lots of time working with organizations with lots of generic computer users for whom Windows is a challenge, I can tell you that Linux needs some work as a desktop OS. I think there is no question of Linux's success in the server market - but it still takes some convincing of those generic computer users. We have to step out of our shoes, and into the shoes of those for whom installing software on a Mac or Windoze is major trauma.
Well, I'm not sure where you're from but over here in England, most cathedrals are now just overblown tourist traps filled with gift shops and fat priests rather than houses dedicated to the glory of God and most towns still have thriving markets which whilst admittedly having changed from being the exchange of livestock are still basically about local people selling goods to local people over temporary stalls.
So (as we say) put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Rich
One of the reasons Linux (and anything else) has such a large window of opportunity is that even though MS claims to focus on corporate users (and they do, they do!), even so-called wealthy and powerful corporations can't force MS to clean up its act. Those who realize there are bugs, and call attention to them, are brushed off just like the lowliest home users.
I've already written somewhere (probably here at /.) how Toshiba couldn't get MS to fix a utility program it had custom-written, back in the early- to mid-80's. It doesn't help that those who understand just what the major problems are with MS products are the techies segregated in low-ranking IT positions, of course. Just try explaining to some high-level IT or managerial personnel why idiosyncratic, hidden, embedded formatting is not a good idea. I can do it, but it takes several minutes, and most of them forget all about it in a few seconds.
Finally, even when IT personnel review networks/packages/OS's for installation in a corporate environment, they tend to read the blurb on the package (or the brochures) -- meaning, usually, just the features list. Then, it's usually a shock to discover half the features aren't implemented, or are misleadingly worded. One example: a bank for which I was consulting switched from Freelance to Powerpoint for presentations....
I personally spent about 3 hours reading manuals, calling tech support, and experimenting (searching for work-arounds) before concluding that Powerpoint really was not "integrated" with any form of WP file... work for which my client was charged rather a large sum of money... also, of course, they had to pay for my time cutting and pasting the text I'd already prepared using the MS WP (as requested) into Powerpoint.
They usually do it without being completely insulting. Ie, they aren't flames. We're talking about flames here, not about discussion, dissention, or criticism.
But I believe it IS an effective form of advocacy.
No it's not. What does it do? It gives the other side a greater reason to just ignore you completely, muttering about how we're all loonies and assholes. Which, if we flame on in email, we pretty much are.
Nothing has ever been accomplished by a screamed "Hey you dumbf***!" other than get one or two heads to turn for a moment or two. Rational discourse and argument actually gets things done. When you scream, you do little but shut yourself down, and you find yourself left out of the loop for good reason.
I don't deal with flamers, no matter what they might be trying to convince me of. Why should I bother?
You're claiming that it's his fault that 509b doesn't work in Linux in PnP mode?
"The solution for everyone else isn't good enough for me"
Exactly. It's a kludge, not a solution. If the driver were better, it would be able to handle the card in PnP mode. But it doesn't. This is in no way a flame of the driver developers. But the poster here shouldn't bitch when the workaround for a flaw isn't good enough for someone.
This would only work if operating systems interoperated well. They don't. Companies would then have to make 8 different versions of a game or application, with each version probably costing more and doing less than software does now. If there were completely common, powerful, high-level API's that were the same across all these platforms, then maybe developing for all of them wouldn't be so hard. But I think having eight equal-strength operating systems would be even more of a nightmare/headache than the current situation.
Correction: He DOES get it. The points about project management are entirely valid.
esr and his premise, that the bazzar produces better product than the cathedral falls down when you approach very large scale projects, and mission-critical applications. Look at the cathedral for a moment. How many medieval markets are still in existence, as they were when first built, and that still perform their intended purpose? Cathedrals 1100 years old still serve their original purposes. This is true in the IT world as well. COBOL engines crunching financial, manufacturing, and distribution data are still at the core of our industry. These systems were built with project management, not collaboration.
I am not saying there are no successful large open source projects. Obviously, there are. But the biggest success stories, so far have had one or a handful of champions, working very closely, and driving the project with a personal fire. Perl has Larry Wall. Linux (kernel) has Linus Torvalds. In the early days, anyway, gcc and emacs had Stallman. Who is really championing Mozilla?
Without a personality with a vested interest in a project, projects don't get done. Most open source contributors work on the stuff that personally appeals, and that has sex appeal. Witness the sad state of most Open Source documentation. Perl stands out as an exception. TomC, among others has taken that task personally.
While I agree with Charles that Linux is not there for the average user yet, I'm worried about some of the points that he makes about project management and open-source development.
The arrival of Mission Critical applications is here. Right now, Apache is probably the top application contender but there will be others. And that is not to neglect the Linux kernel itself. With Mission Critical software, all of a sudden you get situations where companies (possibly large companies) lose money as soon as their server goes down or their processing cluster dies. This might have put huge demands on the development community. But along with the arrival of Mission Critical applications has come the involvement of the big software companies, and here the small developer can benefit as well. Where companies are betting big on Linux, you can guarantee that they will want to be able to deliver any requirements that a customer wants too. This means that any support they offer on Linux has to be backed up with an experienced Linux development crew, and the nature of the licensing on much of open source software (GPL, LGPL and others) means that the open source community can reap the benefits of these developments.
There will be more large projects. The development of the KDE and GNOME desktop environments are huge projects in terms of potential scope. For one, I hope that we will not see a flood of MS Windows-lookalike applications - part of the reason I like Linux is that it as the opportunity to rework some of the user interfaces we currently struggle with, and I see so many inconsistencies in the MS Windows user interface I could cry. But I appreciate that average-Joe-user may not wish to learn a new GUI paradigm from scratch, so if someone wants to skin a UI in such a way as to not intimidate a former Windows user, fine. As long as I can still exercise some choice!
I also hope that the open source community does not get to a point where deadlines start appearing left, right and centre in public forums and software appears according to schedule. It's fine for the developers to set themselves targets for development times - in my opinion it helps keep a project moving forward - but especially for software which is developed in someone's free time, tight schedules lead to botched and buggy releases. Just because we can fix these later doesn't help the 'now', and this brave new Linux world where not every user is an Unix guru will not be helped by 'official' releases which die at an errant mouse click.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
But his last points regarding project management and humility are way wrong.
To whom will these "wealthy organizations" present their list? That person doesn't exist. What newcomers don't realize is that they're getting a fantastic bargain, and if they insist on harassing the worker bees, they won't get any more honey. It's hard to put aside the litigious urge.
The open source movement is now so firmly entrenched, it can only grow. Someday, linux will be overtaken by something better (although I suspect that "something better" will be linux morphing into something new, akin to the 1 -> 2 kernel change). But so what? This is a good thing, not a bad thing! We like stuff that is better! Mr. Connell should send an extra-large humble pie to Redmond in a couple days.
Hello! Companies are already doing exactly what this man says. Redhat, Corel, SUSE, Debian, Slackware, all these distributions are starting to cater to what the "wealthy organizations" are "demanding" not to what "Joe-User-downloading-for-free-off-the-internet" is asking for. Albeit they are reaping the rewards of "Joe's" 3 am coding efforts, they are still migrating towards the same mindset as every other company out there... "how do we get BUSINESS".
Last time I checked Linux distros from the local computer store were running about 79.99. That's 10-20$ cheaper than Win98 with about 1/100 the software to choose from. So you tell me if I can pick up win98 for about $100 and play all the games people tell me about, or I can pick up Linux for about $80 and get two of the games people tell me about, as a newbie which would I pick. How does this fit? Corporate honchos are regular people too. They visit Best Buy, they have computers that they play games on and do accounting, etc. And for the most part they will recommend the easy, the popular, the product that "everyone" is familiar with. This is the reality of corporate America.
I've already heard all the arguments "moron, $5.00 and you can get a CD burned with your choice of distros!", "your actually paying for the book and extra's...", "what intelligent person goes to Best Buy...", "if everyone jumped off a bridge...". Truth is most people are lemmings/sheep. They'll do what their boss tells them to do or what their friends say is cool. They'll vote for Gore or Bradley because everyone else seems to think "he's fine" or "sincere". Everyone knows someone like this, and if you don't, guess what... that's right... you're one of these people. Be honest this is what the Linux movement has become, same thing with the Windows movement and any other movement before that. There are really only a few leaders and trendsetters out there doing "the right thing", marching to the beat of there own drum. But see that's the problem with trends. Eventually a trend becomes trendy and everyone wants in on it. "Joe-user" on up to "How-can-we-milk-this-Corporate-America", which disgusts the trendsetters since they got in on it to be different from everyone else, to "change the world". Hence a new trend will come. Count on it!
While some corporations are adopting Linux it's still a minority. While the press pushes the point that "linux is on the rise", they fail to point out that the majority of adoptions taking place are in test cases or divisional. For example NASA might buy a bunch of new laptops with Linux installed. Where will they be used, how will they be used, will they stay in the default configuration, are these for managers;programmers;engineers;techsupport,was it simply a cheaper way for purchasing, or was it a linux advocate simply pushing his own personal choices. Rumor and speculation abound "oh they could be used on the shuttles, wahoo!"
Don't get me wrong I know companies that are going all out with Linux, but again it's still a minority case. I'd love to see the statistics of Fortune 500/1000 companies adopting wholesale Linux use especially compared to mom-and-pop business and startup use.
If you honestly think "wealthy organizations accustomed to getting their way" are going to "take their 'schedules' and shove them" your dreaming and you'll end up like all of the OS/2 users out there. Holding the bag using software with no support and no future. Some companies already know they can make a$$-loads of cash catering to these same organizations and there's nothing you can do that will change that. Linux advocates already bitch about some of the distros that are being put forth because of how "crappy" they are and how many useless features they've added. But ya know what... the organizations asked for it, and bing-bang-boom someone delivered. Fast if not effectively. You can almost guarantee that they didn't rely on the Linux community to decide their development schedule either.
Just my two cents, thrown from way up on top of my soapbox.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Duh that was an obvious enough thought.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Anyway, the problem I'm really referring to is an article posted in the news about NASA purchasing linux laptops and what they "may or may not" do with them. So I'm really speaking more about the speculation that happens about where linux is to be used as opposed to actual facts about where it is used.
*i've been quietly living out my years under a rock, somewhere on to of a bigger rock, which revolves around an even bigger rock that some dumbass set on fire.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
And yes you can get a distro from cheapbytes for $3.00 (or $1.99) but they also range all the way up to $86) Like I said I'm already well aware of the facts/arguments.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
I apoligize for lumping Debian into the mix. It was an error.
While I appreciate your view point on how Debian behaves. I think you would agree that not all companies or organizations behave similarly.
I don't understand why if Debian is not a company it holds www.debian.com? (just my personal thing though)
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
That being the case my point was that there are distributions out there that are going for relatively high prices (even given the feature set). And these distros and the companies supporting them are targeting BUSINESS. Hitting the consumer is just a way to get a foothold to help move the marketing up the food chain.
For instance (on pricing) the barebones Redhat 6.1 your talking about goes for 29.99 while the Deluxe goes for 79.99 and the PRO goes for 149.99. And while you or I might go and get the 29.99 version set it up, then download all the extras and be all shits and smiles. Average Joe User is not going to know to do this. He'll look at the 79.99 version that the sales clerk is helping him with or go and find SUSE 6.3 that someone told him about with the new GUI (for about the same price). He won't know to go to mom-and-pop, he won't know how to set it up, he won't know what to tell the tech support if/when it fails to install correctly, he won't know how to get to his old files, he probably won't even know that those files got wiped out when he installed the OS.
Now there are people who go through and research what they are going to buy. And they call around and they talk to friends. These are the same people who read the manuals and know what they are doing before they insert the disk. These people are not Average Joe User.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
I guess you completely missed the article that this was about. We're not talking about you or I going out and ftp'ing a copy of SUSE or Mandrake here. We're talking about the average computer user getting a copy of the software. Which means that they will go to Best Buy or CompUSA and not through the "normal" channels that you or I do. We were also talking about corporate america putting there hooks and marketing machine into Linux distro's and the effects that it has on price and changes to the distribution itself. For instance I can go through the marketing/distribution machine that is BestBuy and pick up WIN98SE for $199 full version and $49.99 for Plus98/or I could go to mom-n-pop and get an OEM version for $90 that give me 98SE and PLUS98 and then use the extra money to pick up a 13gig hard drive. Most average users don't know to do this. And that is the point. Most average users are using Win98 or some other version, it's what they're used to and therefore employers are more likely to use that as the desktop at work than they are Linux. Because it's "easy to use" and "familiar" where as Linux is not (at this point).
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
again people are missing the point. Of course I know where to go to get a cheap distro. This is not about you or me it's about the average user getting a distro and getting it set up easily. The point was that Linux was not to that point yet. There are companies that are trying to get it to that point but they are also the ones jacking the price up for the average user who buys it off the shelf at BEST BUY. My point in all that was that if the average user had a choice between Win98SE for 99 bucks with the ability to use almost every software package in Best Buy or get RedHat (which happens to be the biggest seller and the most prodominant on the shelves) and be able to use 2 of the software packages in Best Buy, which do you think the average user would choose. Do you honestly think he'd say "well Linux is super stable and secure, I think I'll get that". Bullshit. He'll pick up the win98 box and take it home and it'll hold his hand through the upgrade/install, and all his old files will be in the same place that he's always gone and all his old programs (well most of them) will still run. And he'll sit and smile and pat himself on the back for telling that software engineer at the company he runs that they would definitely NOT BE MOVING TO LINUX because Windows works just fine for him.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Oh just out of point. Normal computing and REALLY hard mathematics can go hand in hand with the more newer of the mainstream technologies.
I personally specilize in audio compression. If you work through the stuff regarding the mathematical process with the design of filter structures it can get really intresting and bizarre.
Wavelets are good ones to work through if you want a mathematical challenge. Theres quite a lot of tie back into finite functional analysis and nice finite maths.
Personally I'm going through the DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) because of its use in mp3 technology. But certainly when it comes to the discrete side of things - don't under-estimate it as being easy - it get really complex and hard when it comes to mapping a continous functions through to discrete - that fun part.
:)
Yup I couldn't agree more. I lost alot of my liking for M$ products through the process of being made to look like an idiot.
I mean I've spent my entire life working with computers. I know them inside out and know how to make them do nearly anything.
Yet I had to spend my time in my last job going out to customer sites trying to get their systems working. And nearly 100% of the time when things went wrong was simply because M$ product did what ever it liked - throw out errors, refused to do what it was told etc etc etc etc.
In the end I looked like some ameutor who did no the first thing.
When I started working with Linux - I could control it very precisely, it did what it was told, and when something did go wrong it could be traced and fixed. In the end for me Linux simply worked.
This is not true. Option-zoom box fills the screen with the current window. Also, I find the zoom box to be tremendously useful. WHY in HELL do you need a maximize button in the Finder? To take a window that has three icons in it and fill up the whole screen with it?!?! No thanks. (Individual applications, I can see. QuickTime, for example. But there should be an option in that program for maximization, then, such as Command-3 in QuickTime. Don't add a useless feature to the Finder just because some people might need it in a few applications!
Instead of having two mouse buttons with two functions they have one mouse button with two functions (single and double click) - that gives new users more trouble than two buttons from what I've seen.
I have never, EVER seen a mouse that had the right button set to double click something. How is this useful? To open programs THAT much quicker? No, this is a waste of a perfectly good contextual-menu button. BTW, I use a Mac on a daily basis. I also use contextual menus on a daily basis. I love CMs. I use the right button on my trackball. However, teaching a really new user about right-clicking is not in the cards. Let them learn to use the menus first. Then, if they feel comfortable with it, let them find out about the CM, or mention it in passing. They can get a new mouse if they want. The point is: 1 mouse button means far less confusion for grandma. That's where Apple has always stood on this issue.
In order to switch between running programs, you have to use a menu in the upper left corner. There's no convienient way to "minimize" a running app.
This is ALSO not true. Apple has had Command-Tab for program switching enabled since 8.5, I believe. It might have been 8.0. (I don't like Apple's implementation of this feature as much as M$'s, though. You can go forward [Cmd-Tab] and back [Shift-Cmd-Tab] through the programs, but it's alphabetically. Tacky, IMO. M$ has it right, where you go to the last program you were working on.)
As for minimizing a running app, simply click on the other app you want to begin working with while holding down the Option key. Presto, the new app is foremost, and the one you left is now hidden.
Mac OS X will merely add more problems to this.
Mac OS X will be something. No one yet knows what that will be. While I understand that your general opinions about Apple and their OS' are negative, I think most people agree that X is a great idea if they pull it off. "The power of UNIX, the ease-of-use of a Mac." I'm confident they will get it right, but then I'm an Apple bigot. ;-)
Only time will tell. For Apple's sake, I hope they do the right thing and only cover up the ugliness of UNIX so that the end user will never be forced to see it if he doesn't want to. C'mon, /. is full of Linux people. It's all about choice, right? Give the newbie a cool-looking GUI that gets things done consistantly with the minimum fuss, and give the Power User the ability to use a Command Line. OS X is supposed to be both. If Apple pulls this one off, it has the potential to be a SPECTACULAR success. It will afford the newbie a state of the art OS that he doesn't have to learn much to use, and the hacker the meat that makes his life easier. The Holy Grail! Two faces in one OS...
In the future please double-check your facts before posting them -- I would almost think the last release of the Mac OS you had used was 7.5.5 or so....
---Wouldn't you like to be a Pepper too?---
If Corel wants to sell a Linux with a Win98 or MacOS GUI, that's fine: I don't have to buy it. If Red Hat or Caldera want to sell "LinuxNT" with an NT-like interface, that's fine: again, I won't buy it. It would be great if everyone would use Linux, but it would also be great if everyone could code. In the end, I won't lose any sleep if millions of people choose Windows2000 over Linux as long as Linux is still around for me to use (and it will be).
This guy needs to realize the difference between Linux and a particular Linux distro, and he needs to realize that most Linux users like it the way it is because they get to control it. If I wanted an easy to use interface where I have limited choices, I'd buy a Mac. I installed Linux because I wanted to know how my OS worked and I wanted to be able to control the CLI and GUI manually.
With enough time and effort, I'm sure someone will make a Linux that does everything for you and is super easy to use. Then I'm sure this guy will complain because there will be five different super-easy distros and each has a slightly different GUI, and he'd rather have just one so people would know which one to buy and learn. He just doesn't get it.
Linux has the potential to be all things to all users, but not at the same time.
Ever hear the old saying two wrongs don't make a right? Linux users are likely to be more respected if they are rational and not assholes about it.
Project Steve
This is MUCH better than TeraTerm+SSH! And it comes with SCP! And it's all one file, instead of 12!
:)
Really, thanks very much. I was unaware of this program.
Litestep I've used; my home machine is dual-boot. Odd that I don't use AfterStep in Linux, though, isn't it?
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Without help this average user might mannage to get Win9x installed, with:
no sound
no modem
running VGA 16 color.
That is as far as the average user gets without help.
Now sit this average user down and get them to install Linux, a recient distro..
I'll tell you what they get:
No sound
No modem
X running at VGA 16 Colour
Looks like exactly the same thing to me, so lets file the dificulty of install argument.
Not everyone deserves a 320i
everyone keeps talking about the linux killer being some new tech geek thing that nobody will even notice is there. i disagree. there will not be a linux killer. heres why:
linux is (out of the box) compiled for a 386. what other os can say that ?
i collect old 486's just to throw linux on there and throw up a quake server, or a web server, or whatever i want. itll handle it just fine. the same box would keel over if i even held a windows cd up to it.
the problem with a seamless "next big thing" is the internet. as long as there is a network, there has to be someone to admin it. a robust and configurable OS is an adminds best friend.
so unless someone invents a self-repairing internet that can run on a 386, make mine linux.
i didnt say linux would dominate forever, i just said it wasnt going away.
god i love the hunt for red october...but here's the point:
What most linux advocates seem to overlook is this, linux's popularity will be a double edged sword. FACT: for linux to get extremely popular, it will have to be very user friendly. This means that products like KDE and GNOME will become the paradigm. Plug and Play will be a must. This is going to be a huge problem for people who, like myself, like things to be "really hard."
I'm a guy who likes to break stuff and then figure out how to fix it. I like to delve into complex problems that don't have a single solution. 99.9% of the people using any piece of software don't. YES - even the majority of linux users. The sad truth is that the masses of linux users out there use linux because it's the HIP new OS on the block. They flame those who say linux isn't perfect because they're afraid to discuss what's wrong with it, or because they don't KNOW enough to debate the mater.
FACT: if linux is to keep its underground hacker ethic and overall complexity, it will never become an overwhelmingly mainstream product. You can't have your cake and eat it too my friends. this is a sad but unavoidable fact of life. It's either user friendly or it's not. Because when stuff breaks - Joe Schmoe isn't going to want the techie on the other end of the phone line dictating vi commands to him. That makes Joe feel dumb - and he isn't going to stick with a product that makes him feel dumb.
The point is this: You must decide - is linux going to be an incredibly popular/user friendly OS. or is it going to stay underground and highly technical? You can argue that it can be both, but i ask you to name another OS that is as nearly as popular as Windows with the complexity of a *nix based OS (if your answer ends in "inux" then you're one of the aformentioned hipsters who REALLY doesn't know d!ck about market share).
Myself...i'd like to see linux stay right where it is. On the fringe. The great majority of the world can stick with MacOS or Windows....that doesn't mean they're stupid or that they're lemmings. It just means they've opted for ease of use. Me? I feel like it's time to break something again.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
There is nothing new under the sun, or so I've heard. Open Source development has a parallel in the computer industry. All you have to do is look at the development of the PC in the 70's and early 80's. PC's started out as homemade custom toys for electrical engineers and hobbyists. They were made to be functional but not pretty. Then somebody said "Hey let's get everyone in on this, maybe we can even make some money on it too." The next phase involved a lot of small companies marketing there own machines and arguing over standards. Lot's of money was made and then lost because the ideas were good but the marketing and business plans sucked. Then Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak came along and said let's make a user friendly machine. Average people got interested and more money was made and this time kept (for a while). IBM woke up one day and said "Hey there might be something to this PC thing, I think I'd like to take a crack at it." So the company that everyone thought of as The Computer Company got into the act. Now IBM looked at what was going on and realized that the thing that was making Apple strong was the ability for third party developers to write software for there machine. So it came to pass that the veil of secrecy that IBM had kept around most of it's projects was dropped. The PC would be open to other developers and peripheral makers. But a clever young boy named Bill came up with another hook. A hook that would allow his company to dominate the industry without controlling the hardware as IBM had. He was able to keep control of DOS and yet initially leverage IBMs name to become the foundation of the PC industry. So what is my point? Linux is right now passing out of the hobbiest stage. It is evolving at internet time into the small start up stage. Now the push is for a user friendly environment. Already the big boys are starting to notice it's potential. In time maybe even MS will want a piece. I really don't think this last bit is terribly far fetched especially if the applications division is split from the OS division by the DOJ. With the PC, IBM (and others) started out with the intention of an open system (at least from a hardware and API perspective). But a clever little man found a new way to control the industry regardless. Maybe it will be MS, maybe it will be Corel, maybe it will be a startup that doesn't even exist yet, but someone will find a way to corner a large section of the industry and take it away from the hobbiests/gnu hackers. That someone just needs to find the common denominator, something everyone needs. In this case it probably won't even be the OS. More then likely it will applications or an IDE. Now I am being expository here. I am not offering solutions or really even stating there any of this is a problem. It is just the way it is, the Zen of capitalism. Anything new and cool, be it clothes, music, culture, or technology, that goes mainstream looses the original flavor it held for it's creators. It stops being exciting and starts being commercial. Even the people who are responsible for Linux's original growth are growing up themselves and they want to make money now. What the author of this article is telling the Linux community (and what I am elaborating on here) is that you are getting your wish. Linux is being adopted by people. Now here is what it is going to cost you.
Way to go !!! :)
thanks for this comment, this was exactly which I had in mind for a long time, but couldn't express very well
indeed, Linux is _our_ OS, we should keep it that way...
now my bit in this story:
What I see and what you see too apperently is a reaction which happens over and over and over. This reaction can be put into three parts:
-1- 'hack into it' part
-2- 'look i'm doing it too' part
-3- 'everybody is doing it, so i do it too' part
you can put this stuff into many things, from Linux to cellphones, from a new carradio option to airbags...
part 1 starts mostly non-commercial or very low-budget... it is fun!
part 2 starts when the big commercial companies get in, they still don't put a bet on the horse...
part 3 starts when the commerce has enough confidence to put huge lot's of money in it, the people from part 1 start looking for something else to play with, because they hate commerce...
the problem here is, can we stop part 3? (which is already started)...
another problem is, how does this work out along with the GPL?
this is what I have seen many times lately, your comment?
This is a replacement signature.
It's actually written in geek, not greek. HA! Thank you, thank you...remember to tip your waitress...I'll be here all week, folks...
Something he didn't say, though, that I think is important is this: There is no One-Best-Operating-System. The best operating system is the one that works best for you. I have friends who just want to play games, so they use Windows, since it has the most titles available. I have other friends who are art students, so they use Macs. I have other friends, who for some reason, think the Amiga is still going to have a comeback... ;) My point is, Linux is a great OS. I love it. But when I was learning it, it was the most frustrating thing I've ever gone through. I had minimal help, and nearly gave up numerous times...I think the only reason I stayed with it was because it became a "thing" for me to conquer.
My point is, if we linux users would, as a whole, stop acting like we all have some secret handshake that windows users and AOLers can never learn, maybe someday we'll hear people say "Yeah, back in the 90s I used Windows too...until my teenage son taught me Linux...I wonder what ever happened to Bill Gates?"
"Linux has gotten this far with the attitude you dispise [sic]."
OK, define "far" for me. Is getting "this far" mean that Linux is now on the desktop of Mr. and Mrs. Computer Newbie, or does it mean that more and more technically inclined people (nerds, geeks, etc.) are using it?
I think Linux has gotten far, but it's not far enough. Charles Connell summed the entire argument up perfectly....that Linux still has a way to go before Mr. and Mrs. Computer Newbie embrace it. Until then, they're still going to use Microsoft products. They may be buggy, but they're still easy to use, and Microsoft does listen to what customers want. You may not like some features Microsoft sticks into their software, but judging by their value on the stock market, most people do.
This is the point I think everyone's been trying to make all along. The more that Linux grows, the more demands there will be on the programmers. And if these people decide to be cocky and say "Hey, Linux isn't for customers, it's for us," then Linux will not even come close to exceeding Microsoft in the market where it counts most: the home desktop.
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
This guy doesn't know what he's saying... Linux is not about satisfying our customers. In a way, the members of the open source community are their own customers. If I can download a complete and robust operating system and burn it onto a cd for free, I don't consider myself a customer of the open source community. I consider myself a user of open source software. We users of open source operating systems aren't about satisfying our customers... We're about satisfying ourselves with a competent operating system. If anyone out there wants to use our operating system but doesn't want to contribute to the open source community, then by all means, they should be able to. But they aren't our customers. We do this for ourselves.
"Sometimes Truth... is stranger that Fiction." - Bad Religion
Remember nothing beats free except "I'll pay you"
How many regular non-techie computer users actually managed to get their C64 or Apple II or original PC computers up and running?
remember Load "$",8,1; or BRUN?
Who are these regular non-techie computer users. Do they really matter? Do we want them in the Linux community? Linux has been amazingly successful without listening to marketing featurebabble, and instead focusing on making software that works.
What market are we trying to share? Can Linux survive without the non-techies? Well in point of fact it has. It has thrived. I would love for Linux to be the dominant operating system in the world; but I don't think it is a necessity. Maybe OS's should be like cars. Some people want a family sedan; maybe that's windows. Others want a five speed sports car maybe that's Linux. Now maybe its not such a good idea to make linux "easier" to use. Easier for whom? The novice user? Then what about the techies. Whats left for us.
As I have said before in other posts, its time for these Linux users to grow up and realize that yes, Linux is a good operating system and that people can say that Microsoft is better, but they (linux users) don't have to listen to it. Just ignore it. Its like the best solution when you were in school and the big bully was picking on you. Just ignore him/her.
"Convince Steve Case to let America Online's engineers port AOL 5.0 to Linux. A Linux computer with these two pieces of software would be a great home system. " OK, so maybe I do not understand the situation, but my impression was that AOL 5.0 was a user screwer -- certainly not a piece of software that makes a "great home system". Furthermore I believe that when the "average" user plugs in his computer he would prefer assured security over a few added moments of ease. I do not understand how asking Steve Case to commandeer your computer's hard drive or, for that matter, attempting to imitate Microsoft's sloppy unintuitive programs, in any way helps the user in the long run. Granted, Linux can become complicated to newbies, but hasn't anyone heard of... who was it?.. oh yeah! REDHAT????? alright thats it. If this guy expects the linux community to take his suggestions seriously, maybe he should take us seriously and actually use the software he recomends before promoting it just so that he can sound like he's up-to-date on current technology.
----(o)----
News Flash - this just in:
According to my sources (who must remain nameless) LinuxOne will soon be announcing their new product line: Linux for Ordinary Users - Special Edition Revised (affectionately referred to as LOU-SER by LinuxOne insiders). This totally-new-from-the-ground-up distribution will incorporate state of the art, cutting edge user friendliness features, have rock solid stability, international character sets for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Israeli, Lakota Sioux, British-, Canadian-, Australian-, AND American-English users, and there will even be a Playstation2 version in Q1 of 2001!
B-)
If appearance and essence were the same thing, there would be no need for science -- Dr. Michio Kaku
. . . and that includes developers. Most developers have knowledge specific to their problem domain, and that domain usually does NOT include making the OS work. That's why it took something like Visual Basic (. . . gag) to produce enough Windows apps to make 3.1 hit critical mass. Sadly, you may have to "dumb down" Linux to some degree. Make the fun stuff accessible but don't require it. Believe me, you're not going to get the mass market, which has trouble programming VCRs, to buy Linux. You can (most likely will) conquer the server market entirely. But which program is your Mom most likely to use . . . emacs or Notepad?
I was of course talking about the 3D support "coming soon" to XFree86 :p
I understand it's hard to get things absolutely correct in an article, but I am not a journalist, he is.
I'm a firm believer of making sure even if you are explaining to a non technical audience what you say must be correct, make it as simple as possible but no simpler.
personally even if I'm reading a physics story or something else that I know practically nothing about, I'd rather be technically out of my depth, and have to do further research into whatever aspect interested me, than to be patronised by a dumbed down version. It's amazing how quickly you can pick stuff up if you dive in at the deep end.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
D BREAK - CONT repeats
Most will like we did. It just takes time and pain on the part of the others who have to participate.
;-)
Fortunately most of the world can use common sense to filter the worst. I don't even notice the grits remarks anymore ( I also set my score higher
sed 's/commun/terror/g' mccarthy > bush; sed 's/terror/saddam/g' bush > bush_wacked
Wasn't that one of the main points of the article? Users shouldn't have to adjust to use a computer, the computer needs to adjust to them.
A car is far more complicated (and requires real-time feedback from the user, unlike a computer), yet most people are comfortable with that technology... why? They have either grown up with it, so it doesn't seem strange, and they are willing to take a risk (ever driven on the NJ Turnpike? Far more dangerous than trying to get a dual NT/Linux set-up working).
You failed to mention that real-time feedback is something users (humans) are inherently good at, in fact, most life is. As a matter of fact, real-time feedback is how the real world operates, so why shouldn't a computer?
Danger aside, we are talking about a large population of people who are fairly intelligent, receptive and aggreable people. The fact of the matter is that they don't have the time, money or desire to change their computer habits when what they have works more or less well for their needs.
It doesn't matter that what they have doesn't work well for OUR needs. We've found alternatives that do.
Its not a holy war, its just a computer.
Can you imaging a war over which brand of hammer someone uses?
This may sound elitest, but hey - it's the truth.
Finally, yes, your statement was elitist, and it wasn't the truth. If you believe it is, you may have missed the entire purpose of computing for the masses. A tool. Remember?
My opinion, abuse it as you wish.
Sakhmet.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Ban the Nukes! Save the Whales! Screw it. Nuke the Whales!
Consumers want computers that work like the TV and the telephone. i.e. Absolutely no technical knowledge required. Preferrably, computers should be provided free by the phone company as well. This is the future.
Programmers want an open flexible OS that is cheap- Linux is perfect.
The reason Linux advocates are so paranoid is that they are scared of Microsoft breaking their OS and deceiving the market for another decade. Don't worry- it's not going to happen. Phone companies, Intel, AOL, IBM, SAP and every other industry giant will ensure that Linux succeeds.
People are starting to put linux fanatics in the same light as religous fanatics. How would you feel if you said something along the lines as "religion is bad" then to have 100 fanatics denouncing everything you say and do after that, flooding your mailbox with hate mail and threating to burn down your house. Im assuming you'd get just as aggitated as the people who state their, not-so-positive opinions on Linux.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
yeah, it's a 509b. the problem is, when I disable pnp, the card doesn't work properly with '98. They weren't badmouthing them per se, but disabling pnp is not a solution for me. I use '98 more often than linux.
BTW: There is more to this story, too... The 509b I have was purchased used from a used computer store and has not been the most stable piece of hardware I've ever owned. I've had no real trouble with it in '98, however.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
The Tricorder.
cat
I would like to add some thoughts along some of the lines in your comment. The concept of a "easy-to-use" computer makes absolutely no sense to me. Even a Mac is a sophisticated piece of equipment, and I have seen users dumbfounded by the user interface. Ever seen the horrified look a newbie gives you as you tell them to put their floppy or zip in the trash to eject it? I like Macs, but I think it is incredible that the Apple and its masters of the Jedi Mind Trick (tm) have convinced the masses that there is such a thing as an easy to use computer.
Second, want to expand on "why not be OK with your own os/computer/chick/car/house/lifestyle of choice instead of tearing down somebody else for their choice?". In my experience, 99% of the time, it is a person with low self-esteem that goes on the offensive as a result of someone else's choices. I do not say this to attack my fellow geeks. Far from it. I believe low self-esteem is a common component of many geeks' personalities. Maybe a result of getting beat up by the jocks one too many times, I dunno.
Anyway, I say it to suggest a possible explanation of why we see this kind of behavior within our community. To speak a bit about the solution: Be OK with being you, and the fact that the rest of the world runs (and possibly even likes) Windows will be OK too.
Before flaming, I suggest a re-read of paragraph #3.
cat
Well, this has winkled me out and no mistake! The reality is that Linux is a minority and back-office interest. Fact. No modern enterprise (non-IT) is going to allow its integrity to be compromised by installing a "free" OS on its servers. It's going to go for something it pays for and gets support for - businesses *like* doing business with other businesses. As far as Linux on the desktop, or as a mass OS goes - as long as people mistake a computer OS for a religion and hold out against heresy, not a chance. Linux is no doubt lots-of-fun for a geek to play with and certainly, any of my 5,500 or so users could be taught to use it... but why bother? Once you factor in the time it takes to train the adminsitrators, the time it takes to decode the peculiar install routines for the various hardware fits you may have in your organisation, the time it takes to train the trainers, the time of the trainer and the trainee and multiply it by the number of users and then end up with a bunch of people who can't use Word or Powerpoint and hence can't swap files with people outside the company, the cost/benefit analysis looks very shaky indeed. Let the Linux taliban type their line noise (deliberate troll!) - out in the enterprises, people have their needs adequately catered for by M$, I'm afraid. Elitist talk of people being too "ignorant" to own a computer is nonsense. All our livings depend upon giving the *user* what he or she needs and, vitally, *wants*.
Henrik
Let me begin by stating my bias is much the same as Charles Connell's, and I have a couple of points to make. One, I think the Linux community is incorrect in one assumption. They assume they take over the networking, and then business, followed by the home will fall at their feet. I tend to argue they need to take the home market, and the business will follow. Most computer savy employees are computer savy from home. In order to take the home market Linux needs to be easier to install as you mentioned. Btw, Corel Linux, despite its flaws has made enroads in this area. Second, it needs to capture the pre-teen market a little better. I have not been able to find any good applications for my 3 and 5 year olds under Linux. Thus, my home system remains dual boot, Windows by default for my children. They can start and play their Reader Rabbit and Fisher Price software themselves from turning on the computer, inserting the CD, and playing. Haven't got them to shut down properly yet, but my wife says she expects that about the time I put the toilet seat back.
You do not know how much I agree. VALinux Systems is an efficient venture, though, I think they are trying to pull and act of Satan^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft, trying to put together something for everyone, indirectly monopolizing the entire OS field.
I remember when the first American distribution of linux came out, with its logo penguin. I believe I knew not more than 3 people that knew what linux, wait, even UNIX was. I was a compulsive spaghetti programmer with heavy dreams and ambitions, and found this program to be one of the most innovative ways of putting together an operating system. It reminded me much of DOS, except more powerful and effective. I made a few strong linux programs in it, and then found a small archive of programs for linux. It was a dream come true. I uploaded my files to my (now closed) web space under my semi-psychotic friend's WinNT server. I decided to convince him a UNIX server would be more effective than an NT server, and he switched. The burnt altar server was closed and we registered fallenroof.org and installed a UNIX server on it. This was the prime of my life.
I remember the times of Satan^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft rule (still lasting) when Windows 95 came out, the entire nation had fallen. All people had been taken control of. People would pay hundreds of dollars for the window manager upon DOS. I was a dedicated Unixtarian (Becoming a Linuxtarian) and would not leave my post.
My friend sold the fallen roof, and got a job in the pits of hell^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H at Microsoft, and I have never talked to him again. He was a great mind, the mind behind WinG SDK, now known as DirectX. I did some Windows programming for a while, but thought something was missing. I did some DOS programming, some Internet programming, but all was not right.
My point being, people should not sell Linux. People should not sell anything. It is a nice fascist way of controlling all online actions. Instead, we should stick to what we believe. Those crappy NetZero commercials have a point. We should be giving it away.
~the prophet ibuki~ http://trap.cx/ibuki/
Well I think he is right but we have to think in the youngest people need for learning good practices of making software, after all when we have problems with anything we can translate in opportunity, but for the people who think is to much problem to use it, Well I think is time for devices with embedded systems, where linux must to go for the vast of people.
Graffiti took me all of a half hour to learn... about as long as it takes someone to figure out a DVD player or a fancy microwave. You can't compare that to Linux... it's a completely different (and infinitely more complex) beast.
I've been a mainframe programmer for 10 years now, and I'm heartily sick of the poor project management inherent in my industry. It's time there was a more successful model based on quality and functionality, rather than the CEO's latest whizzbang idea. Remember the rush to client-server by large organisations. It was a dumb, badly-implemented idea, where middle-managers were put under enormous pressure to deliver something that didn't work, and then took the blame when their boss's dumb idea didn't work out. As for documentation in large projects, there is very little, and programmers end up acting as a help desk whenever the user is confused (which is a regular thing). No, the bazaar is a far better idea, giving the users early input into the system they'll have to use, and everybody involved having a say without clueless individuals being in control. Of course the bazaar will never catch on, because a lot of the people in charge will have their shortcomings shown to many more people.
The reason why you had so many problems is that RedHat have effectively broken KDE/QT in order to push GNOME as a better alternative. I have real problems compiling apps I download from the KDE site, which require the complete removal of QT-2.0, and even then they sometimes don't compile. I am quite frankly furious with RedHat over this, and am seriously considering Caldera or SuSe as an immediate replacement. Why couldn't they have installed the basic KDE 1.1.2 with QT-1.44? Now they have lost a customer (OK so I haven't paid for it, but I won't be recommending RedHat to anyone who is planning to buy it). The worrying thing is that to many people RedHat is Linux, and a broken version of KDE is not going to impress new users. I could use GNOME, but I am happy with KDE and don't feel a need to change just to suit RedHat's agenda.
So many people here are complaining about how hard it is to set up their X server, and how it doesn't work straight out of the box, you have to hand-hack XF86Config. Have any of you heard of XF86Setup which comes with XFree86? A very simple GUI that allows you to configure all the basics required for an X server, the mouse, the keyboard, the card, the monitor, and all the resolutions, colour depths, etc. It then fires up an X server to make sure you haven't screwed your config up. Not exactly difficult, even for a newbie, and the help screens are more helpful than windows ones. So try using that before hand-hacking a very complex text file, and stop complaining.
Doesn't sound like you ever used it to me. Choose your resolution and depth, click done, it starts an X-Server to make sure it works, click OK, and then go into X. Not as simple as Windows perhaps, but close enough. As for Mandrake not having it, presumably they have something better.
You can run it from the command line and it starts up in X.
At the O'Reilly Open Source Conference, the Keynote Speaker, Guy Kawasaki, described "killer apps", and told of a woman who finally decided to get a computer so she could use the Amazon.com website. For her, the killer app wasn't a program, or even the Internet, but a single web site.
I use a unix box for about 95% of my daily work, and Star Office is perfectly satisfactory for what I do. It has most, if not all the MS Office features I use. I have a full-featured web browser, I have a fairly complete suite of gnu utilities, what more do I need?
I went through several operating systems before I got to where I am, and each one of them had their zealots and evangelists. I can't remember the name of the Byte(?) columnist in the early 1980's who refered to "MacTribesmen" and their penchant for reacting to any slight, real or imagined. When the IBM-PC came out, their partisans were just as obnoxious. And there I was, trying to make the best of CP/M while all those mean people were saying bad things about my measly 8-bit Z-80 processor. Sure, I dug in my heels, but eventually I had to grit my teeth and move on.
Another thing Guy Kawasaki said was to make evangelists, not sales. Connell is right; you don't succeed by irritating the very people you are trying to convert.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Computeri non cogitant, ergo non sunt
"Linux" is not a company. We don't have to fear the things that sank all the companies he mentioned. Linux did fine when it was just a plaything for hardcore hobbyists, and it will continue to do fine even if our 15 minutes in the spotlight ends and all the corporate support ceases to exist.
Today, all the big companies supporting Linux could stop and run to FreeBSD instead. Does it matter? Not really. I'll still be able to download Linux for free, modify the source code, redistribute it, etc.
Screw Micro$oft.
Well, gee yeah, that was my first thought. If they need a feature that badly, hire some programmers to contribute. If it's a widely needed feature that makes sense to put into the Kernel, submit it. Maybe the think they want isn't kernel-space anyway so then it makes even more sense to hire programmers to do it themselves.
The image of a greedy corportation trying to crack the whip to get the global contingent of kernel hackers to prioritize development for their own specific interests is absurd.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
The stuff he says is really quite true..
Unfortunately, it won't have much of a positive effect (besides stating what many think and many don't), IMHO, because the people that agree already know what he's said is true and the people that don't are so entrenched that they are going for a war of attrition anyhow. Finally the flamers that just need an excuse to explode don't read the article anyhow, they just flame.
But then again, I guess it is important to keep it going.
How can the supposedly most intelligent people be so rigid? I think a reevaluation of the importance of conventional intelligence is required. Oh, we are sooo proud at being able to hack a linux kernel, but can't even engage in an intelligent discussion, or *gasp* take criticism. Get real.
The best attitude is like water,
Which benefits all things, and does not compete with them,
Which flows to places that others disdain,
Thereby, it is in harmony with the Dao.
Linux is the OS, not a goddamned user interface. Companies like Red Hat, Caldera, etc can do the things this writer is calling for, ie, make it pretty and gentle, if that is what they think their customers want.
I disagree that Linux has to be dumbed down if it wants to become a desktop OS
I think it's unavoidable, though. Software engineering is the fine art of being crushed between immovable objects (like deadlines) and unstoppable forces (like market pressures) with grace and wit. The comsumer market, as pointed out in the article, is relentless and unforgiving in some very particular ways. Ease-of-use is one of them, bugginess apparently is not (as proven by MS). What I think would happen is that the design of programs would be compromised in favor of rapid development and ease of use, rather than the current bias towards functionality and flexibility.
Here's another scenario...maybe Linux will fork, into a hacker version and one that the general public can use, with many of the same compromises of Windows and MacOS.
=DP=
HERE IS WISDOM:
.... that's why it would
/. for quite a while, since I believe, that nearly all Linux users/admins/gurus here lost contact with what people really want.
>
> be/is tough to teach people about Linux.
NEW COMPUTER USERS have to learn, no matter what OS or application they use.
That's a fact.
NEW LINUX USERS -
they need not - NOT - learn about the OS.
They want to USE the box, running APPLICATIONS.
They didn't know how MW Window managed "EXCEL" or whatever - they USED it.
DON'T ANYBODY TRY TO TEACH SOMEONE LINUX !!
It would mean to teach them UNIX.
That would mean they had to go thru 6 years (2136 days !!!) of classes.
A layman
wants to drive a car,
not to be able to repair or even build it.
A layman
wants to make a spreadsheet,
not to be able to trace system calls or program the spreadsheet application.
I've two kinds of customers here:
Spreadsheet "freaks" and furniture designers.
I myself have NO idea about these two things.
Now I start X on one machine, give them Staroffice, Applixware, WP, half a dozen CAD programs, whatever.
I'm using AfterStep in a unique configuration (took me more than half a year - I offer installation and support) so please don't take KDE or GNOME as "what naturally is on a Linux box".
They grab my chair and start clicking, typing and then they call me:
"Look, now you can make this table (in a spreadsheet) in 3D"
- click-click-click -
"Easy, hey?"
- and I don't understand anything.
They do, because they work with APPLICATIONS.
After 15 seconds they have already forgotten, that they work on a powerful *nix machine.
And I can NOT follow them - that's why I still use a pgm I wrote to keep track of my money (if any),
because I HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD WHAT A LAYMAN TOLD ME.
The point here is,
that "Linux" is not the problem.
Making a big deal about it is the problem.
I'm sure I will point this out here on
I want a new car.
I don't care about the brand of the valves inside the engine.
A customer wants a MINI-CAD application.
He doesn't care about system calls.
> The fact that you've been in the business that
> long gives you the edge in the computer
> situation and indeed makes you an almost
> automatic exception to the rule.
I'm familiar with computers, yes.
But that means: MAINFRAMES.
> You're at least *comfortable* with a computer.
I'm familiar w/ these PCs for 5 yrs only, but I'm a very fast learner - okay.
I spend almost my entire day in front of my machines - okay.
later, george./
I ment UNIX *** USERS ***.. UNIX is the OS at most big sites. Next is IBM /370 to ES9000 etc.. Under X, they do not see a difference to MS Windows. I experience that almost every day. You just have to configure X in such a way, that they (the users) have everything handy. (And that's what I provide.) I completely agree with you that the point is to USE *nix, not to learn it, when it comes to the average user. I've just posted a long comment on excatly this at here
Are you all INSANE ???
Linux is UNIX on Intel CPU's.
No UNIX user has any problems with this.
Put an MS Window user in front of an IBM mainframe and he's more lost than if you'd place him in front of a "Linux machine".
If you really wanna make Linux a Windows-look-and-work-alike, as GNOME, KDE etc do,
then save your time and install MS Windows !!!
Hell, I don't get you !!!
> Windows user... without having to seriously
/370 world for over 15 yrs, so I have some gaps on UNIX.
> re-train or coddle them? No. No way!
WRONG !
I'm 22 yrs in the biz, and I still have to learn too. (*1)
But EVERYBODY how enters my lab starts clicking on (X System) apps and uses them better than I do.
Just don't present a ncurses screen to a MS Window user.
Under X, everybody used programs [I didn't used] to show ME how to make a spreadsheet or whatever.
(*1)
I lived in the IBM
I never used a spreadsheet pgm - I made my own pgm to calculate what I need.
george./
...which is exactly what will happen if linux is marketed as a desktop OS for first-time Internet users.
linux succeeds because it is a stable, efficient, free unix-based OS that usually comes packaged with lots of stable, efficient, free unix-based software... great for developers and sysadmins who are comfortable with unix commands, config files, compiling software, etc. adding bloatware to make linux friendly to users will undermine the reasons linux became a success. unix was never meant to be warm and fuzzy. it was designed by and for software developers.
as Charles Connell pointed out, there are already OSs out there with nice, friendly GUIs and autoconfiguration tools for users who prefer not to research, configure, or know how their OSs function. these folks are free to purchase macs or windows PCs, leaving linux and other unixes to perform as the development and server platforms they were intended to be.
I had already typed this up once and cancelled it, but re-reading some posts has caused me to try again. Sorry if I'm repeating statements written earlier, I just had to write how I felt...
For a good chunk of computer users, the underlying OS is pretty much important - it's just a nuisance keeping them from running their applications. They don't care if their OS has a super-spiffy 64-bit journalistic file system or built in support for SMP and multiple users. They just want to be able to connect up to AOL / the Internet, type up documents, and play games with a minimum amount of fuss. That's what keeps a lot of people on Windows - it's pre-installed, kinda does what they want it to do, and it has a large software base.
What am I trying to say? I'll summarize in two points:
1. Applications ARE important.
Despite the fact that AOL is extremely resource-intensive and bloated, that's what people want. And people aren't going to have any motivations to switch OSes if what they want to run doesn't exist anywhere else. Linux, BeOS, and other OS advocates: this means requesting ports of anything and everything that the general public uses, even if it is (by most standards) sub-par. It also means developing innovative and creative applications to lure people over to your OS. All too often, I have seen hundreds of knockoffs ported from one OS to another. If all you have is knockoffs, what incentive is there to switch OSes? A truly innovative program, however, will tempt users over to your side.
2. Keep it simple, stupid.
Remember that the OS is their so users can run their applications - they don't want to go through a hassle in order to do what they want to. Despite Microsoft's millions of dollars invested into UI research, I think their interface is still too intrusive and unnatural. Why do I think this? I've noticed that a lot of novice computer users tend to place shortcuts to programs on their desktop - not in the Start Menu where they're supposed to be. Why? It's much simpler and quicker this way, even if they do end up with a screen full of icons. If the point of a OS is to run to run apps (like I've been arguing above), the OS should be almost transparent to the end user.
Oh well, that's my rant. I personally think applications are the driving market behind OSes, and not vice-versa. In order to coax people to your OS, you must deliver the apps and a minimal amount of fuss.
ok, This is my first post to slashdot, so go easy. Linux isn't really the issue at the heart of this article is it? It's more about how people on the internet, be it newsgroups, slashdot, email or whatever, say things that they wouldn't say in real life. Very few people, even the most avid linux 'advocate' would run around the office yelling at co-workers about how thier operating system is inferior, or thier car sucks, or thier suit is from K-mart, or whatever. People often go overboard in thier views when they put it in an email or post. Linux will be around for a long time. Unix has been here longer than any operating system, os/2 came and went Dos is gone, and windows will go as well. But unix will always be here. Linux(or BSD) will always be here because it's the only affordable unix based operating system that home users(i.e. nerds like us) can have, and freely develop for. So why people complain about how will linux will survive seems fairly silly. I mean just look at the history of computers and you will see that linux is bound to survive as long as somebody wants it to. But it won't get mainstream approval unless people stop acting like it's the be all end all in OSs. Sure linux is cool and all, but some people don't need that kind of power.. they just want to surf the web and make spreadsheets.. and for these people there will always be some macrosoft producing systems that are not great for software development, but great for users. Alex
>> last thing we need is a dumbing down of Linux to this level!!!>>
:(
...and it can be all of those things and end-user friendly. We will still have Debian to satisfy our eccentric desires. These things will not disappear simply because someone makes a desktop market distro. ~_^
>>...which is exactly what will happen if linux is marketed as a desktop OS for first-time Internet users.>>
This is not at all the case. I've seen this permutation of the 'Camel's nose' argument many times in response to suggestions that linux should make in-roads to the desires of end-users. It does not hold water. Linux is unusually capable in being 'all things to all people' because it is only the kernel; the core of the OS. The OS that you build atop that core is limited only by your imagination and dedication.
Apple has demonstrated this principle perhaps most succinctly with MacOS X. They have built a MacOS look/work-alike atop a BSD core; and despite my ideological misgivings, I have to begrudge them some admiration for it.
Linux can be made marketable to end-users by creating a distribution that is designed to be easy for them. The GNOME and KDE projects continue to make progress on this front, along with many window managers. The work by Bastille and other security projects are invaluable to an end-user linux flavour. Many of the resources necessary for a "dumbed-down" distro already exist or are in development. All that's needed is a group with the motivation to make it happen.
Unfortunately, that's not me. (yet)
>>linux succeeds because it is a stable, efficient, free unix-based OS that usually comes packaged with lots of stable, efficient, free unix-based software... great for developers and sysadmins who are comfortable with unix commands, config files, compiling software, etc. adding bloatware to make linux friendly to users will undermine the reasons linux became a success. unix was never meant to be warm and fuzzy. it was designed by and for software developers.>>
"Everything is as it is, and what is, is everything."
When you believe your opinion is absolutely correct, pause to identify the logical fallacy inherent in that belief.
After reading this...I think the guy is right on.
I use Macs...have used Macs ever since I stopped using my C-64. I've been trying to work with Linux on IA-32. Right now...I'm at the point, 11 monthes later, where I feel comfortable using Linux as a Server. It's just too much effort to retrain myself to use Linux as a desktop OS. I've found the documentation for Linux to be less than helpful for the most part...there is no central place where I can get information. I'm used to the Macintosh world or the Novell...where I get help from fellow users...not told to RTFM.
I've been trying to find out if there is a way I can mount Sever Volumes on my Mac like I can with AppleShare or Novell...for eleven monthes I have been looking and have found nothing that says yea or nay. I don't have any Linux friends to ask, I'm on my own here...and it's not that easy of a path. I want to put an Orb Drive in my dual boot NT/Red Hat 6.1 box...but where the hell do I get a yea or a nay about this? No where that I see.
Great article, and great conclusion! Hopefully the fanatics who can't grok the basics of a shell prompt but seem to think they can speak for our entire community will read it and think twice next time they start to act like a spoiled child.
Linux is a great operating system, and it's getting better and better every day. It's not the best tool for everyone's needs, but it suits mine and I'm happy. I enjoy being part of a community that fosters sharing and open ideas, and despair when zealots give us a bad name by acting foolishly.
The author hit it right on: Linux will not be around forever. Something better will come along, or Linux will evolve into a different beast entirely and make itself obsolete. What won't change is the community we all build around it and the ideals to which we hold. The recent influx of corporate influences into our community has proven that we can grow and prosper beyond our hobbyist beginnings without compromising our integrity. With a bit of luck, some patience, and a little less fanaticism we'll keep our community throughout the coming years. Good things are in store for us all!
--
Mr. Connell makes a number of questionable assumptions:
1. "People set up computers alone."
Actually, they seldom set up computers at all. They use preloads. If customers actually had to install Win98, let alone WinNT, on a blank hard drive, we would cease to hear these foolish, context-less complaints about Linux being "difficult to install".
2. Further, he assumes that consumers won't accept any other sort of setup regime. Never mind the fact that they already do (i.e., preloads): Why should we believe that OS setup/configuration cannot be a salable service, just because Connell can't imagine it?
3. "To address this reality, new computers with pre-installed Linux should work fully and completely the first time they are turned on."
The above appears to assume that such is not the case, which is a fearsome insult to the painstaking work of ASL, Tuxtops, Cosmos Engineering, Cobalt, PromoX, Rebel.com Inc., etc.
However, he goes on to (one assumes) clarify what he meant:
"When the user plugs in a standard option that they already own -- printer, network, external storage device, etc. -- those options should be recognized and configured automatically." By way of comparison, he cites MacOS running on Apple hardware.
But that begs the question: Isn't the ease of installing peripherals on MacOS made possible by the carefully controlled standards of Apple-compatible hardware?
If you'll pardon the expression, "Apples, meet oranges."
4. "Unfortunately, most people don't know a computer expert of any kind, much less a Linux expert. It is important for the Linux community to keep in mind that most users will be completely on their own when setting up or installing Linux systems and software."
Again, this assumes that the only way the world can run is the way Connell is familiar with.
5. "Learning new applications is hard.... Several Linux fans wrote to me stating that the 'application problem' is actually a 'user problem'. Users are incorrectly resistant to change, the argument goes, when they should be accepting something that is new and better. This is backward thinking."
More to the point, the entire dichotomy Connell poses, here, is a red herring: The general (proprietary-OS) computer population already learns new applications on a recurring basis -- every time their vendors' upgrade treadmills crank up another notch, and also often when a change of management (or of employer) means learning the new local "standard": If the management team du jour says you're going to use Groupwise instead of Exchange, you'll learn it. If the local standard is Microstation instead of AutoCAD, you'll learn that, too. And when the next revision of your cherished office bundle shuffles half of the functions around, you'll learn that, too.
The point is that, if you're already contemplating a forced upgrade to your proprietary-OS package (or between two such packages), maybe the real question isn't whether learning new applications is hard, but rather whether learning new applications on Linux is significantly harder than what you're already considering.
6. "It is not the job of the masses to adapt to your computer system. The history of business is carpeted with extinct companies that did not understand this."
This seems to assume that Linux is a business. Of course, there are businesses based on Linux, but Linux itself will not live or die according to market acceptance the way, say, OS/2 did. If every significant Linux-based firm were to close its doors tomorrow, the open-source developer community, the user base, the Internet-based community mechanisms that create and nourish them both, and all the $1.99 CD-ROMs would go on with barely a jitter.
Connell's spectre of "extinct companies" is a mirage.
7. "Consider focusing your immediate application efforts on the few key pieces of software that receive 90% of home and office use.... You might create a native Linux look-a-like for MS Word."
Connell's assumption, here, is that this is or should be a task for the Linux community at large (or at least for Linux developers collectively). Which begs the question: Why? Those who want such software will create it or pay for its creation, if they want it so badly.
It's surprising that Connell should raise this argument, since obviously he's been around Linux for quite some time. The community's tradition is well known, and eminently pragmatic: If you want a piece of software created, you're free to take out your copy of gcc and hammer it out -- or give someone else a personally compelling incentive to create it.
8. "The Linux community has been on a honeymoon as it has created the Linux software.... As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase."
The Linux community has ignored clueless demands before, and it no doubt will again. "Pressure" and "demands" from third-party companies are a no-op, per se. Of course, they can "pressure" and "demand" coders they pay adequate salaries to (if they can retain such), but that is a different subject.
The assumption, in any event, is that such "demands" are a problem. That is a claim without substance.
"Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect."
Ditto.
9. "Some readers have suggested to me that the open source method of software development causes project management issues to evaporate; that the projects manage themselves. This is a fantasy."
It is also yet another red herring. Those who need and want legal accountability and fiduciary responsibility will hire (and otherwise pay) people who wish to agree to such relationships. But that occurs distinctly from the regular community-based open-source model.
10. "You will be managing a large public programming project with conflicting demands, tight schedules, and the need for high quality."
Connell fails to state what hypothetical assumptions would lead to this situation, but one gathers that he means something like what AOL/Netscape's project managers for Netscape 5.0. Indeed, Netscape might have a project-management problem -- but, if it decides it doesn't like limited social contracts, it can at any time have exactly as many programmers on staff as it's willing to pay for (thereby buying into an entirely different collection of problems).
Connell also begs the question of what constitutes "good project management". If community-based open-source projects can't always be counted on to meet milestones and deadlines, it's equally true that they're largely immune to shipping in bug-infested condition just because some butthead executive needs to doctor the end-of-quarter books.
11. "Humility is a virtue. If Linux succeeds in a significant portion of the computer world, and it looks like it might, your time in the limelight is short." Connell then tells the cautionary tale of his former career at Digital.
However, again, Linux is not hostage to corporate fortunes. Linux cannot "go out of business", or "take a nosedive".
Connell's suggestion that Digital's fate can befall Linux is thus illogical.
12. "The same thing will happen to you. The Linux killer is just around the corner. You don't know what it is, and you won't recognize it when you first see it."
The assumption here is that this would necessarily be a bad thing, and that we have some reason to cling to Linux in the face of this "killer". Suppose the "killer" is something better than Linux. Why would we not welcome it?
"The next generation of techies will understand it and will consider you old fogies for having your heads buried in the Linux sand."
Begs the question: Aren't we on Linux because we're early-adopter types who chose it for various technical advantages? If so, wouldn't we be the ones adopting and understanding this new thing, and looking back over our shoulders at the reactionaries?
And, lest we forget: Connell seems to assume throughout his essay (but here, particularly) that one uses just one operating system at a time. Yet, it should be obvious that diversity serves a purpose, and that no one OS fulfills all roles well.
Connell is obviously a talented writer. It would be good to see him cease arguing bogus positions resting on doubtful premises.
-- Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
It's not about dumbing down Linux. It's about putting some suitable resource sucking eye candy on top of Linux for dumb users.
Who cares what software people want to run on Linux. Don't be so small-minded.
I've never submitted a kernel patch or wrote *anything* that made it to metalab, so don't feel so bad..I would probably fit into your second and third categories; I pushed for and got the chance to implement Linux at work and I advocate it wherever I can, but I try not to be pushy, arrogant, or rude.
I do agree with the importance of working together on Linux instead of taking the `ivory tower' approach or becoming the proverbial Catherdal.
I know "Animal Farm" analogies have been flying left and right lately, and I don't agree with them at the present moment..I hope I can say the same in a year.
"Fundamentalist forces are undermining the integrity of liberal and democratic political structures."
This article on slashdot, and last weeks rant about Loki/Blizard ports on LinuxGames shows that people DO pay attention when deluged in hate-mail.
People pay attention to drive-by shootings, too, but that doesn't mean they're effective at anything.
This guy didn't just get flame mail -- people wrote his boss suggesting he be fired!
Sure, he needs a clue or two (see comment about wealthy customers and schedule pressure) but *nothing* he said justifies atempting to interfere with his livelihood. For that matter, he seems reasonable enough -- why flame?
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Name for me one significant end-user application that is clearly superior than the equivalent in Windows.
The argument is a self-fulfilling one. 90% of apps are written for Windows because it's the dominant OS. Nothing is as good when it is ported or copied to another OS (look at Microsoft's own trouble with Office on the Macintosh and the ire it has provoked from those die-hard users). Since applications for Linux are invariably either ported or copied from existing Windows apps, yes, their quality is going to be lower. But I think there's one that at least comes close.
The GIMP. This may be highly debatable, but I run the GIMP on my 40 MB RAM, Pentium 120 and it never crashes, has all of the features I've come to expect from Photoshop, many many many more default filters, and a much better interface (no large single window). And that's just the development version (Adobe won't let me use their development version).
Photoshop is a good program, but it frequently crashes and is a huge memory hog (relatively speaking). I use both regularly and I find myself saying, "Man, I can do this in the GIMP," a lot more than "Man, I can do this in Photoshop."
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
But what happens when something goes wrong with Windows? You're prepared to talk her through fixing a corrupt registry with regedit? Didn't think so...
Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything else you said!
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
"People set up computers alone."
His text relating to this point is not based on "the difficulties people have when installing an operating system for the first time." Rather, it is based on setting up a newly purchased computer for the first time.
Currently, there are several scenarios for someone buying a new computer and getting it usable in order of user complications. Please note that for the vast majority of users "usable" means able to complete a basic set of tasks. And those tasks are not playing with the computer itself. They are: word processing, email, games, web access.
- The Macs. Take it out of the box, plug in the electric, monitor(if it's not an iMac), printer and phone line and turn it on. You can do all of the tasks on my list. You may need to pull out a credit card to set up your ISP, but other than that you're up and running.
- A Windows box. You take it out of the box, hook the hardware together, turn it on and it autodetects most of the hardware and sets it up. Depending on whom you bought it from, all of those tasks are ready to go, same as the Mac.
- A preinstalled Linux box. The primary hurdle in this is finding one for sale in mainstream distribution channels. Even then, you still get to try to manually configure virtually all of your hardware (and since you just bought your first PC, you don't know what any of the specs mean), then you need to dig to figure out how to do most of those tasks.
/tangent/ My biggest complaint about command-line based software is that you have to remember the command names (even to be able to get a list of the switches). In a GUI, you can explore to find what you're looking for./tangent/ - A Windows box converted to a Linux box or a blank box waiting for either Windows or Linux. This is the only setup that requires installing an OS from scratch. You're quite right. An average user would have difficulty with any OS from scratch, but he was talking about the entire system being bought and set up, not just an OS being set up on an existing box.
Re: the manual in most distributions. The biggest problem is that they assume you already know enough to install the thing. Also, manuals (in general) as an only resource during a technical process are notorious for making users scream "BUT". As in, "but my monitor isn't listed, etc." Manuals can't deal in exceptions and the exceptions are what stops most people dead in their tracks."Learning new applications is hard."
In this section, you make a subtle assumption about "Linux" that seems to permeate discussions such as these. That a change in one incarnation of Linux changes all incarnations. This is simply false. Just because Caldera includes a simple install, with a limited version of DiskMagic(or whatever it's called) and a copy of Tetris to play during install, doesn't mean that Debian, Slackware, S.U.S.E et al need to include it. Nor does it mean that a decent Word clone will overwrite your copies of emacs and vi. Why should it matter to you if one version of Linux is "being dumbed down"? For most users, the computer is not the end; some kind of work is. Ergo, needing to know what is going on in the computer is a waste of time to them.
I know that the majority of Slashdot readers do not own a high end camera. Most likely, if they own one at all, it's a simple point and shoot. A photo geek (and many do this by the way) could be decrying all of the amateur people taking bad pictures without so much as minimal knowledge of film speed, apeture(sp) settings, shutter speed, lens length. After all, in order to get a decent picture, you need to know what's going on with your camera, film, printing process, etc. But, if you can take pictures of the annual drunken bash with a point and shoot and you're happy with them, why do you need to know all of that?
If indeed, someone decides to buy an OS (and not just a PC with the OS on it) BECAUSE it's an alternative, your mindset makes sense. However, some people are buying boxes for the first time and being told they need to buy a Linux box because it is more reliable, more stable, cheaper, etc. not because it's an alternative OS. In those cases, the user is approaching the computer to get something done, not to be a rebel.
"Open source still requires good project management"
I'm not going to quibble with you on that point. I don't necessarily agree with either side of this issue.
"Humility is a virtue."
One of the factors that is being brought into play by the companies is that of evolution by proxy. Up until now, the user base for Linux has been able to implement their design ideas. That allows it to truly be democratic and to evolve according to its users' wishes. However, all along, there has been a group that wishes they could get a simpler interface or other features they'd like, but being unable to code themselves, they are unable to get their ideas into the evolution. Now enter Red Hat, Corel, et al. Those companies will only develop, evolve or improve something that provides a profit margin. You argue that that is a limited vision. It is no more limited than a developer only vision. A company will only see a profit potential where a section of the current or projected user base will spend the money. If those changes wouldn't have been implemented by a developer only vision, that means that the company has found a group of users that had needs being unrepresented in the current democratic development process.
Just remember, because all of your interests/features are included in the current vision, doesn't mean mine are.
Any spelling/grammatical/coherency errors are due to no editing, lack of sleep, and a desire to finish posting while it is still a relevant comment.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Overall, this was a very good article, highlighting many of the already-known weaknesses of Linux and it's corresponding community.
However, there are a few issues where Mr. Connell is, IMHO, mistaken:
"People set up computers alone."
Mr. Connell talks about the difficulties people have when installing an operating system for the first time.
For the 'average' user, trying to install Windows 98 from scratch is _just as hard_ as trying to install Linux from scratch. Installing an OS from scratch is _not_ something that today's "average" user is an any way capable of doing on their own.
He also speaks of the manufacturer support line being the only resource available to the customer. Again, this is not entirely true. Nearly every 'boxed' distribution comes with a printed manual, and from personal experience I know RedHat's manual to be _extremely_ thorough in covering not only a step-by-step install process, but in also dealing with any problems that might occur both during and after the installation.
"Learning new applications is hard."
In this section Mr. Connell talks about the argument that users are resistant to change, and that software should be tailored to work exactly how the customer is expecting it to.
While he makes a very good point for 'classical' computing methodology, this is simply not the case for Linux. Linux isn't about dumbing itself down to the 'average' user's level. It's about raising the average user to a level in which they can understand the things that they're doing on their computer.
By deciding to purchase and use an 'alternative' OS, a user has already made a decision to learn something new. That means they should be expecting from the beginning to be learning and adjusting to a new way of doing things. You don't honestly think Microsoft and Apple sit down and discuss the UI for their programs and how they should make them compatbiel do you? Linux will have it's own, unique user interface, just like Apple and Microsoft each have their own, unique UIs.
"Open source still requires good project management"
This section, while well-written, argues from the incorrect assumption that the Linux community is/will be at the beck and call of the corporations selling it. Things are, in fact, exactly opposite from that. The Linux kernel itself dictates what features are possible, and it is the responsibility of the _corporations_ to provide the neccesary resources to get the features they want. For an example, see RedHat's sizeable list of on-staff developers, including one Alan Cox.
"Humility is a virtue."
Humility is indeed a virtue. However, the problems Mr. Connell describe in this section stem from a lack of vision rather than a lack of humility. Linux has the potential to become the best computer Operating System, period. Why? Because it is designed and evolved by _its own users_. It goes in the directions its users want it to. Not the directions the limited vision of a corporation out to make a profit dictate. The Linux development model cuts out the 'middle-man' of profits and share-holders, and goes straight to the user instead. It is truly democratic software. Anyone is capable of contributing to the whole if they make the effort.
Linux isn't just an Operating System, it's frame of mind.
Charles is right that Linux, even with KDE or Gnome, isn't suitable for SOHO environments where the user doesn't have a 'Linux Friend' handy. And I don't see this changing without us ditching the UNIX underpinnings.
I disagree. IRIX seems to be fairly user friendly last time I tried it. MacOSX comes from Apple, whose fortunes live and die by UI and ease-of-use, and they seem to be pretty happy with a unix-based infrastructure.
The point is, it doesn't really matter what you're running underneath as long as it's flexible, stable, and efficient. Linux is (or can be configured to be) that. What you need for ease of UI and ease of use is for motivated developers to create that interface and libraries. It's happening as I write this.
Personally, I believe that Linux will eventually make serious desktop inroads for many reasons (price, dollar-magnet of UI inevitably drawing commercial interest, international nature of linux, power on old platforms, driver support) and that the areas which are weakest (ease-of-use in the UI, ease of configuration, desktop apps) are being worked on.
Don't forget, TiVo is a Linux-based solution that is extremely easy to use...
It can be done.
It SHALL be done.
Be patient.
Your Working Boy,
Are you sure it was a 509b, or did you mistype and mean a 905? I've never had any problems with 509b (once pnp was disabled), and I've known dozens of Linux boxes with them. (Including two in my home firewall.) I can't imagine that anyone would be badmouthing them on Usenet, because they've been stable and recommended since I started using Linux in 1994.
If Linux et al. are content to be modest niche hobbyist OS' on the desktop, rather than taking in a sizeable market share, we will not present enough critical mass to persuade content producers to distribute media in formats we can read. We will cede the web to QuickTime, the Windows Media Player format, and versions of RealMedia for which Linux players are unavailable. Others will exchange files that we can't read, and wonder at our curmudgeonly disinterest in communicating with them.
This is already the status quo to some extent (it is one of the main reasons why I have a Windows machine.) Arrogance towards the 'great unwashed' will exacerbate it; growing the ranks will make it unteneble to keep content in closed formats.
As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list." You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect.
Here's one point I take issue with. While I don't take issue with its clairvoyant validity, I do take issue with the idea that this should be accepted practice.
The idea that anyone should say yes to an impossible schedule, over-promise, kill themselves to work inhumanly sustainable hours is just ludicrous. But we've been doing it.
It's time to stop it.
Just got this in my mailbox, and I think it says just about everything I want to:
Gold Rush Mindset Undermining Programming Field
Think about it, if you're 20-30 something now, and working 90 hours a week, do you want to be doing that into your 40's? Should you even be doing that now? Why do you accept it?
If we're so valuable, and in such short supply, it's time to start maybe from the grunt programmer on up to put a stop to the acceptable practice of demanding the impossible and change it into delivering the sane.
Now, I don't know what direction Linus, Alan, RMS, RedHat, et al want this to go but I'm not particularly interested in making Linux an appliance OS for non-technical users to just plug in, autoconfig, and start word processing and web browsing. I guess that's the value add-on that RH is betting the farm on, but it's all the semi-automatic stuff in Msft that semi-works that causes me untold headaches, over-complicates and frankly just gets in my way.
f or-it's problem. They created the 'buy a PC or else...' gangster bullying mentality. They're not getting any sympathy and free support from me! Maybe they'll learn next time and just get a Mac.
The model for this ease-of-setup is the Macintosh system, which truly is user-friendly.
So, why don't the laity buy Mac's? Why do a lot of appliance folks who may be better of with Mac's end up with broken Msft systems? That's Msft's oversold-PC-marketing-and-the-customers-who-fell-
This is what I beleive: If someone wants to open up a box, plug it in, have printers autoconfig, start wordprocessing and web browsing, get a Mac. If you want something fairly automatic but sometimes quite challenging, buy Msft. If you want access to all the nuts & bolts and enjoy learning how computers really work, run Linux.
To me, the value of Linux is twofold: (1) as much control as I can learn, and (2) easy licensing. Certainly #2 is as appealing to the non-technical user as the technical, (witness how many non-technical types want to run unlicensed copies of easy to use Word, Excel, etc) but a central contradiction exists - if your willing to do a lot of work yourself, the licensing can be free and easy, but if your not willing to do a lot of head scratching and puzzle solving, then you'll probably have to pay someone to do it for you, either directly on site (designer Linux!), or indirectly in lots of autoconfig type software development, Mac and Msft style, which, as I said, kinda turns me off, but as long as I can turn IT off I guess it'll be ok.
CSMA/CD race driver
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I guess RH & Co. can make software anyone's grandmother can use, but it seems like an awefully formidible task to try to be all things to everyone; yes I'm happy with a niche 'programmer's OS' and have no prob w/ keeping a MS box for things MS is good at. But if Linux continues to steadily evolve to a human-friendly cross platform compatible level, so much the better!
CSMA/CD race driver
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Linux zealots do not want to hear about alternatives. I have a Masters degree in Computer Science with concentration in Human-Computer Interaction. Whenever there is a news story regarding interfaces or usability, I often post my educated comments. Guess what? Most of the times people laugh at my suggestions. Most Linux zealots say "Who needs usability we have QT and GTK widgets that already work. Don't like the" look? Change the window manager." This approach is fundamentally wrong from an HCI standpoint. Anytime I try to explaing why, I just get marked as flamebait. Oh well.
Another issue the irates me is the "Free" issue. Linux zealots the world around chant "Linux is free, Micro$oft is expensive, convert, convert!" They do not understand that for a business to convert OS would require a large amount of money. The price of the OS (~$300) is chump change with respects to the amount lost on user productivity.
Now that I have written this, I await the moderation to mark my post down, and the zealots to start "correcting" my viewpoints.
Note that I use the term Linux zealot not user. Cheers!
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user: bite me!
--weenie NT4 user: bite me!
"Computers are nothing but a perfect illusion of order" -- Iggy Pop
just a guess, and I'm wearing absetos jockey shorts, so flame away, but...
GNU/HURD
I post links to stuff here
Which is my point. If a corporation wants a
feature, they hire somebody to add it.
K.
-
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
I'm pretty sure there's enough masochistic stuff in there to keep me happy for a while yet -- the next thing I want to learn more about is low-level TCP, sockets programming etc :) It makes a nice change from AIX, anyway, which doesn't have man pages let alone Perl ...
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
> in 640x480, I had to mess around with the
> X86config file,
Ha ! Count yourself lucky !
I've been trying to get a fucntional Linux system for /two years/. Before activating flamethrowers, let me point out that my job title is "Perl programmer". I've tried Debian, RedHat and now Mandrake. Alas, X has screwed it up every time. Currently I'm trying to get it working at something greater than 200x320. Whoops, it's a Voodo3fx card, course I can't expect that to work, can I ? I mean, it's /only/ 18 months old, right ?
The only reason the machine hasn't gone back to NT is that I'm bloodyminded (masochistic ?) enough to keep sweating over the wretched thing.
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Interesting, thanks ... perhaps the problem is something to do with the box being a strange generic model with possibly dodgy or cutprice hardware (apart from the Voodoo that is.) Also, I'm on Mandrake 6.0 -- perhaps it'll be fifth distro lucky :)
--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
1. Putty
3. LiteStep
Not that either of these makes Windows perfect, but definitely a lot more usable.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
People setup computers alone: true. Nope. People at home setup computers alone, but in the workplace a great number of people do not, and that's a huge market. What then becomes important is automated setups and the ability to keep users from breaking things; Linux excels at these.
The big leap in Linux desktops is going to come when medium-size companies decide that per-seat licensing for Windows is absurd just to give everyone e-mail and web access.
Learning new applications is hard: true Yes, but notice that in the last 10 years the MS market has gone from DOS to Windows to Win95, significantly different interfaces. And everyone's gone along. More importantly, MS has established a standard of changing to enforce upgrades, forcing people to change when they don't want to. Eliminating that is a big win for everybody.
Open source still requires good project management: very very true. Well, yes, but the point that's being missed here is that MS, the monopoly-holder on the desktop, has terrible project management. OS's arrive years late and incredibly buggy; MSOffice has traditionally added features to attract new users while ignoring the features that current users want and need. Marketing runs the show on many many desktop products.
Now, there's an area of software where marketing input is very important, but there's also places where marketing influence does nothing but hurt quality. There's a lot more to be said on this subject, obviously, but the answer isn't simple on either side.
Humility is a virtue: true. Oh, true enough, but the 'Net isn't virtuous. Complaining about flames is nice and everything, but it's never really accomplished anything. Filtering input is always going to be a high priority.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but somebody installing AOL on their system won't affect my system performance, right?
Why should I mind if they want to run AOL software, as long as it doesn't affect me? Isn't it their choice? Shouldn't Linux be about choice?
Hold on while I tell my friend to stop using xemacs. Who knows, when xemacs has sucked up all his resources, it might go after my system.
Je ne parle pas francais.
That middle ground is also keeping around a diversity of operating systems, together with open protocols. Being locked into Linux is no more fun in the long run than being locked into Windows, no matter how nice Linux may look right now.
There are a few good points in the article. The ease of set-up and configuration, the addition of peripherals and automated integration of new software... These are things that make a computer easier to use.
The point about the purpose of computers being to make tasks easier - instead of forcing people to do things the way the system dictates, is very valid. But down this path lays the animated paper-clip and an application named Bob.
My question to the author is, Why do you address the open source/Linux/GNU community as a company?
Why should the people responsible for GNU/Linux be afraid of the fate of DEC and Linux? We do this for free, and few of our paychecks depend on the number of bugs fixed in the next version of the Apache.
I'd be curious to see what would happen if a powerful corporation who embraced Linux suddenly started dictating 'hot list' items...
Sure, that would suck for people who are on that task, in that company... But trying to dictate features to 'the community' would be like trying to herd cats.. "You want WHAT?! WHEN?!"
Linux exists in it's present form because millions (are we there yet?) of developers made these things a priority instead of those things. Companies made some things harder to do (i.e. closed specs) so development proceeded along the path of least resistance.
I pity the project manager who tries to dictate policy and priorities to a bunch of competent volunteers. Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth.
You can ask, you may suggest, and your request will be considered.
You can offer free hardware and services, and that might make the minds of the able a little more willing to see things your way. But you try strong-arming people who do charity work to work harder, and they'll take their toys and go home.
Here kitty-kitty...
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
the author has a perfectly valid point, it seems no one can be critical of Linux without a thousand kids emailing them and being immature. Even saying Linux users are immature in this post is seen as some kind of posturing that MUST be a flame. I've seen dozens of articles linked to /. that people whined and cried over because the author of the story didn't hail Saint Linus and keep a copy of the Cathdral and the Bazaar under their pillow. The same thing happens when you go into a Linux IRC channel or usenet group, people make fun of you and become smart asses when you ask a simple question. The collumists are not hurting Linux by giving it free airtime, the people hurting Linux and the validity of Open Source are the whiners that flame authors up the wazoo. Never trust a zealot, they're in it for themselves.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
We need to convince new computer users to run Linux? I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a viable option at this point.
/etc/passwd to fix something.
Consider the case of my grandmother. A couple of years ago, she bought her first computer. Running Windows 95, I configured her computer so that she could dial up to an ISP, check her e-mail, and even use Netscape.
When the computer boots up, she sees a nice friendly screen with the Windows logo. She can even play some games on it.
There's no way I could do this with Linux. If I was willing to put in a great deal of time, I probably could have come up with a setup so that she could do everything in X. But I'm her resident Linux expert, and I live 400 miles away. What happens when something goes wrong? I'm not about to tell my grandmother over the phone how to use vi to edit her
I have no problem telling my friends who live down the hall in my dorm to run Linux; I don't think it's reasonable to expect people like my grandmother to run Linux. I think Linux is great, but we've got a long way to go before we can get people like my grandmother using it, and that's the kind of thing that this article's talking about.
We don't need to get new users to "learn Linux"... We need to get it so that they don't have to. While there's been a lot of progress over the last couple of years, it's just not there yet.
I believe grappler was refering to demands on the Linux community as a whole. Obviously the correct response in that case is "Here's the source. Have a nice day". The Linux community as a whole has no other obligations.
:-)
:-)
Yup. I wholeheartedly agree. Rereading my last post, I realize I was in a strange mood when I typed it. I was thinking of companies that would try to treat the "Linux Delover collective" as if they were a company that existed to serve the needs of the market, which it of course it is not. Companies that want something developed have 3 choices:
1. Pay someone to do it (M$ or anyone else)
2. Ask the Linux people to include it, and show that there is a need. If they agree, they'll do it.
3. Do it yourself. If it involves modifying the source to a GPL'd product, or if you just feel like it, rerelease the source to the public.
"Here's the source, have a nice day" pretty much sums it up perfectly
Obviously, if an individual programmer enters into a contractual agreement to create new or modify existing software, then that's a completely different situation, and, you're right, neither response would be acceptable.
Couldn't agree with you more
People, let's not forget that Linux is something most of its developers do in their time off.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
However, both OS/2 and Betamax did not have overwhelming market and lay-person support at the time. Did you ever see an OS/2 VAR going public and setting first day gains records? Howabout article after article in major paper publications dedicated to the creator of Betamax? The primary difference between Linux and other technically superior failures is the amount momentum behind them.
Linux's enemy at this point is not all of the loud-mouth bigots; nearly any company would kill for that amount of hype. Remember that age old attage, "There is no such thing as bad publicity."
-AP
Yes, we need newbies (ie. more users, who will all be newbies for a time) for the Linux movement to progress, but the last thing we need is a dumbing down of Linux to this level!!!
Eric
The GNU/HURD was started before Linux, yet Linux has rocketed past it. I don't expect HURD to ever be widely used. There are few userspace advantages for the HURD over Linux. Plus Linux has reached huge critical mass. Expect Linux development to speed up, not slow down! :-)
<I>the "Linux killer" is likely to be some sort of advanced AI interface that recognizes natural language (spoken or written) and learns about the user well enough to anticipate most requests. Of course, the PC as we know it will be considered old-fashioned; we'll have wearables, pocketables and smart appliances </I>
These are all applications. There is nothing preventing Linux from running new AI or natural language interfaces. Linux is so modular and free, expect it to <I>help</I> information appliances, not to be killed by them! Remember how much Linus has been talking about PDAs over the past year.
cpeterso
While there are certainly plenty o' valid points in the article, I doubt most of us will want the changes that are talked about. Yes, a few things could be changed to be more user friendly. However, there are lots of things with steep learning curves I for one would like to keep that way, because it keeps the functionality optimal.
Luckily, open source is a democracy/merritocracy. Those who code, decide where it goes. So as long as enough people agree with me, I think I'll be happy (Of course, having powerfull tools does not rule out having easy tools).
Yes, one of the things that killed OS/2 and Betamax was that they came to late. If you already have a VHS and a collection of tapes, you aren't going to invest in a new VCR, specially not if your current equipment still works fine. And if you are buying a VCR for the first time, and many of your friends have VHS, the interoperatibility (exchanging tapes) is more important than a better quality.
Technical superiority isn't important for most people. Browser plugins and the ability to send word documents by email to your kids are.
-- Abigail
OK, I'll bite. Charles is right that Linux, even with KDE or Gnome, isn't suitable for SOHO environments where the user doesn't have a 'Linux Friend' handy. And I don't see this changing without us ditching the UNIX underpinnings. If we do that, then Linux isn't Linux anymore. These users aren't interested in learning UNIX. Maybe a SOHO OS will be derived from Linux for precisely these users. Good for them; they'll end up with a more stable platform than Windows is right now.
/most/ office users would be happy with that, especially once Star Office's import/export filters are perfected.
:)
/volunteer/ development community should be /required/ to target the first group I listed and attempt to make Linux easier to use by them. If a corporate wants to sponsor that work; fine, let them. That's what the GPL is all about and the rest of us /might/ get some benefit from it.
Now, this doesn't mean that non-technical users can't make use of Linux; it just means that their boxes will have to be set up by a Linux Friend and locked down so they can't break anything. Imagine a KDE/Gnome box with Netscape, Star Office (or KOffice for the more radical amongst you) and a big red button on the desktop that says 'shutdown'. I think
Finally, for technical users, Linux is probably fine as it is. Usable, reliable and easy enough to set up. If it was any easier, it wouldn't be fun, would it?!
I see no reason why the
To say the Linux and Free Software community doesn't listen to it's "customers" is incorrect. It's gotten where it is by doing precisely that. It's just that Linux's "customers" are technical users for whom Windows and MacOS are inadequate; and also those who need to deploy stable, secure systems for non-technical users in a traditional office environment.
Perhaps Windows (and MacOS) does suit the first group best. Perhaps it will for a long time. But I think the best fit of all would be "none of the above", but some kind of information appliance. Look at what Nokia/Intel are doing with their Linux-based box and Sony appear to be planning for the PlayStation 2 to get an idea what I'm on about here.
Linux isn't for everybody and doesn't need to be in order to "win". This isn't about dominating the market like Microsoft does, and Sun would like to do. This is about making computer systems that don't suck (Thanks ESR).
Re: Gimp...
There is no question that GIMP can do a lot, but... let's face it. It doesn't have nearly the feature set that Photoshop has. Granted, if you stick to basic bread-and-butter stuff, then you can get by with GIMP. But don't kid yourself that it can do what Photoshop can do in the hands of a professional.</i>
You have sparked my curiousiy. What does the Gimp lack?
Whoops, it's a Voodo3fx card, course I can't expect that to work, can I ?
;-\
hmm, I've gotten both the Voodoo1 and 3 working fine. You might want to go back and try from scratch or mess with your monitor settings, they caused me the most headaches (any recent distro should have the voodoo drivers). If you get the masochism down you might someday get to develop sendmail (or at least configure it fulltime)
Patience, persistance, creativity, and luck. No wonder we think we're 31337.
--
+&x
I hear your pain ZuG, and you make valid points. The root problem is that Linux was designed as a server OS, and has been programmed as such. In this capacity it competes well with billion$ OSes. The usability features for desktop performance (games, web browsing, simplicity) are not up to par yet. It will take time. Only now are desktop users invading the Linux space. Only after they fully understand the system can they improve it, and make it do the happy desktop things that Grandma likes. Try again in another year, maybe it will be ready for what you want then.(or at least easier to get there).
--
+&x
Well, to be honest, I don't think the problem is unique to Linux..
:o)
Every OS has/had it's own rabid zealots..
I remember back in the Amiga days, the flames I got when I mentioned something positive about PC's or Macs (I was, and still am an Amiga user - I migrated from a C64 to an A1000 in 1987, and I still have an old A3000 connected to my home network, and I still use it regularly - however it's seeing less and less use compared to my PC's, which mostly run Linux - although I keep one around which dual-boots into Windows to keep my wife happy.)
When Lightwave came out for Windows, I was severely flamed by several idiots who had switched, and were calling my trusty old A3000 "useless", and that I should get a P100, which would run circles around it (I actually HAD a P100, and with the A3000's processor upgrade, speed was pretty much the same..) These were the same people who flamed PC users just a couple of years before. They knew nothing significant about either operating system, except the one they used was "best", and that they had to flame anyone who disagreed, or had a differing opinion.
And today it continues with Linux. It's just the latest in a long line... I've seen Zealots of the Mac, OS/2, Windows, Amiga, Atari, C64, and even SuperNintendo (and, to a lesser degree, Sega)
In short, there will always be idiots with low self-esteem, who's only means of feeling good about themselves is to bash people who don't agree with them. There's nothing (really) that we can do about it. You can't reason with them, you can't shoot them, and you can't stop them from being stupid; this is a fact of life on the Internet - if you're posting an opinion, be prepared for the nutcases who think you're challenging them.
ZZZIIPPPP (this is me donning my flamesuit
When I suggest people try Linux I often get asked about AOL.Last month I wrote AOL and asked if they planned on adding Linux support. This is the reply I got.
Hello, my name is Pam and I am writing to you on behalf of America Online in response to your recent e-mail.
Please forgive my delayed response to your e-mail.
I want to personally thank you for taking the time to write with your concerns about using the America Online (AOL) software on the Linux operating system.
America Online for Linux is currently in research and development.
AOL Member Services is currently "collecting the data" on requests for AOL for Linux and I assure you that your feelings and input are being used to help AOL make the best possible online experience.
I am excited about any improvements to the service and will be able to answer questions about AOL for Linux as soon as information and a possible release date are made available.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Thank you for writing America Online. I hope you were satisfied with the service you have received. Please feel free to write anytime you have questions or concerns. Have a great day!
Pam M.
Customer Care Consultant
America Online, Inc.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Commerical software company: Sorry, no, that's not on our release schedule.
Open source software developer: Take the source and fix it yourself you idiot!
The end result in both cases? Same. Both say : Screw you, the user.
The big difference is that there isn't just one person/entitiy capable of making the code changes in the open source case. You can pay/pursuade any of thousands of individual developers (quality and price may vary), infuence/pressure the company you buy releases and support from, make your case to the general community or fix it yourself.
If the changes are truly general and worthwhile, a big/wealthy company who $pends on support should be able to get fixes/features from distributors like RedHat, and the fixes would be done responsibly. If the features/fixes suck, no one will adopt them and the user can keep their crappy code.
The small, idependent and/or poor will have to rely on the interest/kindness of others or learn to do it themselves, but at least they've got more options than trying to get the one owner of the closed source to hook them up.
- bridgette
I suspect that some of the people who do the flaming are actually not advocates. Some of them are just trolls. Some are likely anti-Linux. There are, of course, some quantity who are just clueless Linux bigots who don't understand that they're huring the OS more than helping.
Either way, it won't change the facts. Linux has soft-spots (e.g. documentation) as does every OS. Those need to be addressed and those who write well thought-out, clear articles about those problems will get MY paise.
Would those be the people working on KDE, GNOME, XFree86, the various office suites and graphical installers? Please go grab a copy of Red Hat 4.2 and try using it (I'll dup my CD for you, if you like). I suspect you will detect an OS that has not remained "as-is".
Then again, perhaps you're refering to the kernel, where video, USB and IR support are being added for easier integration with consumer electronics; or what about those "elite Linux gurus" and their hard-to-use games like Myth2 and Heroes of Might and Magic III; there' always things like Mozilla and Knoqueror, which clearly are aiming at making the desktop harder to use....
No no no! You want these companies to demand unreasonable things. The the support companies like Linux Care and Red Hat will have to hire more programmers to do the things that the projects don't want to take on. In the end, this will serve everyone. Of course, some things simply don't make sense, and those will end up not being accepted back into the core projects. Open Source development really does work, why are people still doubting that after so much evidence?
But isn't the point of running Linux (or any OS, for that matter) having something that can do *your* tasks reliably, and with ease of effort? There are many improvements going into just about every OS now, and we should be thankful that there is some competition to provoke more of this. The point about some company setting a deadline is bogus, and shows a lack of understanding on the author's part, though he does make several valid arguments in other areas. What I think he doesn't understand is people, their attitudes, perceptions, and capabilities.
/.) would probably qualify in the upper ranges of intelligence. Most likely, the majority of the people here wwould rank highly on IQ tests and other standardized tests. We often take for granted the amount of work it may take us to learn something, and often assume that other people are at all motivated about learning. The author sees an opposite view of things, and doesn't concern himself with people's apathy toward learning, which is the real problem. People are lazy. That's all there is to it. They act scared of technology because they don't want to take the time to learn about it. I've met people who find AOL too complicaed, and some of these people are fairly smart people, who earn good grades. They just aren't willing to explore and learn. "I didn't want to try to turn that paperclip guy off because I thought I would break something." is a bad attitude to take. Likening computer usage to other everyday tasks: "I was afraid to use Broil on the oven because I've only used Bake before... I know that's what it says in the recipe, but what if it doesn't work" or "I didn't want to adjust my rearview mirror/seat position beacuse my turn signal might not work anymore".
Many of us here (on
Computers are like books - you need to look at them, open them up (either literally or figuratively - maybe both), and get involved in them. Learn the ideas, get to know it.
Dive in, learn. Whether it's a Mac, Windows box, Linux box, pinball machine, or whatever - take a few minutes to learn about what you are using. You will be happier with yourself (conquered another hurdle), ease your everyday life, and end up learning more about more things than you ever thought possible.
My significant other had very little computer experience before we met, but she was more than willing to learn. Her friend had used computers for over three years before, but was 'afraid' of her computer enough to only use freecell and a word processor. Result? 2 years later, My S.O. is finishing her (non-computer related) degree, and has taken the time to explore things like QBasic, Macros in Word/Excel, and isn't scared when she sits in front of KDE or Gnome. She may not be efficient, but she pokes around and learns what she needs to know and asks questions with the aim of not having to ask that again. Her friend still knows how to type a paper, maybe make some of the text bold, or change a font, and asks the same questions all the time with no intention of trying to learn anything. The difference is apparent - attitude toward learning.
The choice is up to you. Find the tool that makes your life easier, and learn to use it. If a CLI is too tough for people to learn (and I suggest that it is not), then people will use the graphical login managers. Linux grows and improves via the people who use it, so it will not immediately add all sorts of neat little things that many consider "needless eye candy", unless someone really thinks that it is worth *their* time to do it. Use Windows or a Mac if you like - I will use whatever platform suits my needs for the task at hand. I am not afraid of knowledge.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
IMHO, there are different visions of the future of Linux in the community. There are some who want Linux to stand for something and then, there's the camp who envisions Linux as a platform. Supposedly, on this open, free platform a whole buncha companies can contribute and/or base their products on.
/. is thinking, but I am with the second camp. I hope some wealthy organizations (i.e. big companies) want to implement features in Linux --only, they won't ask for them, OSS means they will go ahead and build them. And OSS means, that if their implementations suck, the source to fix them would be/should be there.
I dunno what you, or most of
I for one, do not consider OSS a political platform, but an engineering approach --one that brings the transparency of mechanical engineering systems to software. In the mechanical world, your designs are still patented and/or commercializable, but the design is open for everyone to learn from and/or modify. This is what software "engineering" needs, now.
I mostly agree with the article: if Linux wants to become friendly to end-users (a big if), then we need commercial-level engineering practices. Which means deadlines, project management, etc., etc. There are bad things (such as the feature creep you mention) associated with these practices, but the positive aspects outweigh them.
engineers never lie; we just approximate the truth.
What he says are true but I'd like to offer a viewpoint.
I think he was addressing both Linux users and Linux developers in this article. Now these two classifications overlap but they are not mutually exclusive. They aren't mutually inclusive either.
The developers do work on projects they like. True, as Linux might face more and more demands from end users then the work pace might pick up. But I have to sit back and see if this is necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps it's just my optimism but having the ability for talented and motivated people willing to jump in and contribute is a beautiful thing.
The users don't necessarily sit back and start flame wars either. I have to marvel at their efforts towards documentation, creating graphic icons, creating themes, and positive advocacy.
As to his points:
- People setup computers alone: true. Personally I hope to be around to help anybody interested in Linux.
- Learning new applications is hard: true. But I found that I jumped applications over the past decade or so as one bloomed and another faded into the twilight. I think this is just 'evolution'. What we have today necessarily won't be there tomorrow IMO.
- Open source still requires good project management: very very true. But this is dependent on if the various projects are under time deadlines and end user pressures. Probably will improve in the future IMO.
- Humility is a virtue: true. I'm sad that the author had to suffer undue and undeserved attacks. But I hope he doesn't let a few bad apples convince him the entire crop is bad.
ed
What's the problem? If the software is GPLed, they have to release the code of the work that they do, and the origional maintainers can fold any useful changes into their version after bugfixes when and if they want to.
Even in a worst case scenario, what you'll get is a GNU Emacs vs.X-Emacs type split. Doesn't sound like a problem to me...
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
"Linux" doesn't "want" anything.
If Commercial Company Incorporated (TM) wants to make a Linux based OS with X feature (Where X may be user friendlyness or whatever), they can do that.
"Linux" isn't going to do that, it's just a kernel, and no-body's subitted the AI patch to Linus yet.
Linus Torvalds probably won't be doing that, he's got a kernel to maintain.
The KDE Project, or the Gnome project, may do that. That's what they're currently working on. If you want them do do it faster, go bug them... not everyone else.
Remember... the "Linux Operating System" is an extremely complex set of projects, mostly run by volunteers. You can't look at "Linux" the way you can look at "Microsoft", they're completely different things.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It seems to me that Linux is not just a piece of software. Open Source and Free Software philosophy come with it. A user doesn't gain a Linux system - the community /gains/ a Linux user. To propose that AOL port its software to Linux so the mass market can more easily shift over to Linux is missing the whole point. IMO, if you are going to use AOL, stay the HELL away and keep using windows, and keep paying up to Microsoft. It would seem the AOL mentality would "taint" the philosophical purity of the movement. Linux is not just candy. Running Linux is also a mutual acceptance of the community, Open Source, and Free Software. If you just want a piece of hardware to run AOL, you already have it in a Windows box. The community gains nothing from a mass migration of exploitive users that just want to run AOL. Yes, computers and software are designed FOR users and not the other way around. That doesn't mean, though, that we must pander to the lowest common denominator.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Well, I'm guessing that a substantial number of people pick up Linux as a way of dealing with the frustration that comes from having to cope with Windows.
Windows is an extremely irritating bit of code, and in my case, anyway, I still have to deal with it at work. Hardly a day goes by without my having to deal with some unbeleivably stupid or downright malicious code surprise from our friends in Redmond.
So I do have a certain amount of frustration that could give rise to some stupid flammage. But I'm an adult, which means a certain degree of self-control. So I don't do it. And I don't excuse it. But I do understand it.
People who don't have a problem with Windows are less likely to use Linux - they just stick with what was on the machine when they got it.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad
We apologize for the inconvenience.
- Everyone should use Linux because it's cool/stable/free/fast/whatever.
- Linux is *ours*, and we don't want stupid apps like AOL on it.
The reason (well, one of the reasons) Microsoft has been successful is because they studied what consumers want and delivered it. To some degree, anyways.Amen to that. I think the problem here is fundamentally related to the way a lot of development for Linux gets done. Many projects get started when a programmer wants to scratch his/her personal itch, and programmers are by nature very different from ordinary users. They want intelligent, general-purpose tools and aren't scared off by arcane interfaces. As a result, the market for AOL-type software in the Linux community is barely being served at all, though it seems like RedHat/Caldera/SuSE/et al. are trying with graphical installations, included support databases and FAQs, printtool configuration programs.... The great strength and weakness of Linux is that there's really no central authority who can tell everyone How To Do Things or What Software To Develop/Sell.
As long as that attitude prevails, Linux is going to have a hard time with nontechnical people.
IMHO, the main reason Linux isn't taking off more than it already is is hardware support. WinXX detects and uses all the hardware in your system right out of the box because--surprise--the manufacturers either wrote their own WinXX drivers or gave MS the specs so drivers could be written. Linux often doesn't have that advantage, so people say, "What good is it if I can't use my FooCard 7000?" And sometimes I can't blame them for that...
As for the flaming thing, if people in the Linux community can't take constructive criticism, they should try to grow up a bit. One well-reasoned, polite defense or critique is worth a thousand flames, if only because it's more likely to be read. It's easy to call someone a f!@#ing piece of s*-t just because you don't agree with his/her statements, but that creates smoke, noise, bad feelings, and nothing else. You'd think people would learn.
Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.
But... I know I wouldn't have as many problems if it was a Linux box, came with Linux pre-installed and came with a Linux rescue disk. I finally got my Soundblaster working, but still no luck with the modem. I expect to get it working soon, though, it's a realmodem(tm).
Linux has two curses right now it needs to overcome, the evil Winmodem and Web browser problems. (Of course, there is also Opera for Linux and others.) Most people want to be able to use the Internet, I've come to believe that soon the browser problem will be solved by Mozilla. As to Winmodems, well, people who manufacture computers without the accursed things ought to be encouraged to emblaze "contains a real modem" on the box.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
the cathedral falls down when you approach very large scale projects,
and mission-critical applications. Look at the cathedral for a
moment. How many medieval markets are still in existence, as they were
when first built, and that still perform their intended purpose?
Cathedrals 1100 years old still serve their original purposes. This is
true in the IT world as well. COBOL engines crunching financial,
manufacturing, and distribution data are still at the core of our
industry. These systems ere built with project management, not
collaboration.
Have you read ESR's latest essay The Magic
Cauldron? He looks closely at a lot of different kinds of
projects, especially ones like the one's I suppose that you are
talking about: infrastructure projects used mostly internally. I
think for a lot of such programs, open source will work. ESR doesn't
say open source is always right, but rather open source is right much
more often than people think.
I recommend to everyone the book The Art of Happiness. It was written based on many interviews that the author conducted with the Dalai Lama. This was a very insightful read and I am finding applications of his advice in all areas of my life.
One of the ideas he suggests, is to consciously attempt to identify with your "enemies". They are just trying to be happy, just like you, right? So if someone angers you, then try and see why they said what they did. There is probably a good reason. They might be frustrated, or feel overwhelmed, or even have a personal issue with someone who likes Linux!(for example). Every one of those flames should have said something like: I understand that you think linux is too technical to approach. . . . If you think any other OS is better then perhaps I could point you to some information that shows otherwise . . . We would appreciate your help . . . etc. Every reply should have been positive and humble.
I think many people are more interested in protecting their fears and beliefs than truly trying to expand Linux. I also believe that a person who is afraid or insecure often responds to the criticism with anger. This is not the face Linux wants to put forward. If you are incapable of expressing your anger anyone but your precieved "enemies", then leave the advocacy to people who are.
Linux is not an exclusive club. We should all try to help people "get it", and if you flame other people for not getting it then you probably don't either.
I know dumb questions and bad press are annoying, but yelling at the press will only alienate them and cause them to have a personal stake in writing more bad press to vindicate themselves. Your flames only make things worse.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
It's the same way with cars: it disgusts me to see high-performance cars like 328iSs in the hands of silly little blondes who got their daddy's to buy them so they would have a pretty little car to look pretty in. Then they drive them at 3/10ths and forget to change the oil and if you've ever pointed one of these cars down a twisty back road and thrashed the hell out of it only to have it come back for more then you'll hate the pretty little blonde for letting these gorgeous machines go to waste.
And I'm gonna hate the Linux-AOLers for not knowing what they have. But you know what? They'll serve a purpose. They'll be the reason for pre-configured $200 midrange Linux boxes. And with the prices that low, I'll buy a whole stack of 'em and put one in every room of the house. There'll be a server and the one I'm using at the moment and the other four'll be cheerfully cracking for distributed.net and I can afford it because of the five million silly Linux AOLers who aren't putting $80 each in Microsoft's pockets.
Then, even if they're a big thundering herd of cluelessness you don't want to get anywhere near, it'll be nice to have them out there somewhere.
--
This is not my sandwich.
-DEC did not simply "cease to exist". They were bought out in 1998. The company was still very viable, mainly for one reason: Alpha.
-Lotus was not struggling because they failed to see that Windows was more popular than OS/2. First off, according to retail sales figures OS/2 was more popular than Windows 95 in 1995-1996. Second, they really failed to see that GUIs were more popular than CLIs, much like WordPerfect.
He makes other ridiculous comments, like "applications are hard to learn", and that there should be a Linux close of Word. Well, it wasn't all that hard for people to dump 1-2-3 and WordPerfect for MS Office, now was it? And how long do you think that Word clone is going to last on the market (if it even makes it there) before MS sues the vendor's pants off for copyright infringement?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Linux will never dominate the world, but I believe Open Source will. Look at all the open source projects currently being developed, Mozilla, AbiWord, GIMP, etc. These projects are all open source and can easily be recompiled on different platforms. Therefore world domination is not a dominance of One operating system, but rather freedom, through open source, to choose which operating system you prefer.
Linux is making great strides in the desktop (Gnome, KDE, etc), but I don't believe it will ever make it to Joe Dumbass's desktop. However, there are a few windows-superior candidates that ARE designed for Joe Dumbass: BeOS and MacOS X come to mind. Once open source projects reach a critical mass (I'm keeping an eye on Mozilla, Jabber, and any office suites myself), by virtue of being open source, they will be ported to any number of platforms, including these excellent desktop environments. Hell, even the Amiga might make a comeback when applications are no longer OS-specific.
Let linux remain as a server and workstation for power users. Don't try to make it do everything at once. That's what ruined Windows. Rather let the road of cooperation, currently being paved by the open source revolution, enable other OSs to fill the niche.
(Damn I just set a personal record on the # of times I said buzzword "open source" in one post).
Find and share links to celebrity profiles on MySpace! http://www.myspacecelebrities.com
True to a point. However, Linus and several speakers at LinuxWorld Expo made it a point of saying that standards evolve as a result of markets and users. At this point in the game, we have de facto standards already accepted by the users:
- the CLI rule that says "command first, then switches, then filenames"
- keyboard shortcuts for cut/copy/paste/undo in GUIs
- the convention of single-clicking on an icon meaning selection and double-clicking meaning activation
They are already part of the established language of interface. The language of interface is very much like the language of conversation or writing -- you don't go around inventing new words without a very good reason or need, otherwise no one will understand you.Hopefully, Linux app developers will make sure that their apps follow some kind of sensible convention. This means that CLI apps should follow the convention of switches first, then filenames, and that GUI apps should follow the de facto rules. Consistency is not a bad thing; while a developer is free to break the rules any way s/he pleases, s/he'll find that unfettered freedom brings its own tyranny with it.
As for M$ and Apple not sitting in meetings, talking about UI compatibility issues; they did -- Windows used to have it own keyboard shortcuts before they switched to a more Mac-like set, and the MacOS has adopted the convention of control-clicking in order to approximate right-clicking in Windows. Both languages of interface borrow from each other, just as human languages do. It only makes sense that Linux interfaces do the same.
____________________________ Accordionists squeeze harder
It's just an operating system.
So who cares if so-and-so has a few criticisms of it? If you're going to get angry and rant, get angry and rant about something that really matters.
A short list of suggestions includes:
* At least they told me it was a woman wearing the costume at the time...
I would guess that in most cases, delayed software does not cause catastrophes -- at worst, it's an annoyance, something that makes the news reports say "tsk, tsk," but nothing worse.
There is something that I like to call the "Law of Conservation of Development Energy" -- a given piece of software will take a specific amount of effort to create. You can put in the effort up front and allot the time needed, handling schedule slips by either dropping features or extending the deadline, or hit the arbitrary deadline no matter what and release patches later and hope that the patches get around. I prefer the former.
I also want to maintain a semblance of a life. Going home at a decent hour, being able to go out with friends (even on weeknights), indulge in my punk rock street accordion hobby, whatever. I don't want to be locked away in the software gulag and grow to resent the work I love. You'll get 100% from me, but you won't get a software kamikaze.
I strongly suggest books such as Ed Yourdon's "Death March" or Steve McConnell's "After the Gold Rush," "Rapid Development" and "Software Project Survival Guide" if you're interested in being a geek with a life. To get those useful negotiating skills, check out Donaldson and Donaldson's "Negotiating for Dummies" and "Getting to Yes" by someone whose name escapes me.
And now, let me end with a number I performed at LinuxWorld expo with Slashdot's very own emmett...
Should I Sleep or Should I Code
sung to the Clash's Should I Stay or Should I Go
Darlin' you gotta let me know
Should I sleep or should I code?
If I sleep I'll fall behind
If I code I'll lose my mind
So you gotta let me know
Should I sleep or should I code?
It's always grep, grep, grep
And running 'round in single-step
I need to nap before I hack
Please get the client off my back
So c'mon and let me know
Should I sleep or should I code?
Should I sleep or should I code now?
Should I sleep or should I code now?
If I sleep I'll miss the milestone
If I code I'll break my headbone
So you gotta let me know
Should I sleep or should I code?
Or, in certain cases in RedHat's Xconfigurator, make sure you choose the wrong monitor.
Seriously. I had serious problems with the video, up until I stopped telling it I had a MultiSync XV17+ (which is what I have) and told it I have a MultiSync XV15+ instead. Now the video is lovely. However, if the XV17+ driver doesn't work as well on the XV17+ as the XV15+ driver, why the heck is it there?
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
XF86Setup isn't included in some distributions, like Mandrake. Also, I recall from using it on Caldera that its interface is horrible and that it doesn't give you any clue what you're changing when you use it. (Example: I choose the 1024x768 and 24bpp buttons. I click OK. The screen doesn't change. I restart X. It's still in the same resolution. What did XF86Setup just accomplish?)
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Having marketing push bloated, untested products out the door is why you have so many angry people in the first place. If you insist that open-source software replace close-source software in this manner, you have gained nothing. You will end up with a large, bloated, buggy, over-hyped software package...along with the source code. Whoopee.
No, the open-source model is about distributing the workload across volunteers and shipping a product when it is ready, not when marketing wants it shipped. No one is going to be able to force a group of volunteers into an artificial time line. The model will break down.
The author is just another one of those closed-sourcers that think that open-source is just a fad and that in order to be accepted, we will have to do what they did. Wrong. That's not how anyone has ever succeeded. You succeed by doing things the way no one else has done it.
"...history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi
Technical superiority means little in the marketplace, and a huge dose of loud-mouthed platform bigotry will surely do Linux harm despite its merits.
How much of a clue does the average Linux user have as to what the average consumer wants in a pc or operating system? This article does a good job at pointing out what too many miss.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
I've talked to fellow Linux users about some glaring user-non-friendlynesses of Linux, and why Windows is better for many people - only to have them reply, "Yeah, but Linux is BETTER. If they just learned the OS and dumped Windows, everyone would be HAPPIER." Some people don't realize that people don't -want- to learn a tricky OS, even if it is faster, smaller, and stabler. They want to turn on their computer, surf the web, and write a letter to Aunt Nancy.
/usr/local/bin may seem like a nice place to keep your stuff, but installing everything to the same place gets messy fast. When programs are just one file (like a lot of Linux stuff is, fortunately), it's great. But as software gets bigger, it requires data files and configuration. Something akin to the "c:\Program Files" directory might clear this up, especially if /usr/local/bin then becomes a repository for symlinks to the actual binaries. Maybe something could be done with the mass of .* config files in my home directory too - a ".config" directory, in which each app creates its own directory?
I consider myself a fairly experienced Linux user - I've been using it for a couple years now, and I started from a Slackware installation that's now quite customized. I'm running a local caching DNS server, and my network runs off a cable modem plugged into a Linux IP-Masquerading box. But it wasn't easy. Slackware's netconfig doesn't seem to support two network cards, so I had to set the second one up manually. It only took me half an hour, but it required a login as root to muck around in the config files. My system didn't let non-root users mount and unmount the CD-ROM and floppy, so I had to edit fstab. This kind of operation is trivial to me now, but in the beginning it took me an hour to find out that fstab existed, let alone what it did. To a neophyte computer user, it's essentially impossible.
Some of the best areas I see Linux improving in are:
- Package management. RPMs are nice. Slackware's TGZs are nice. We need something standardized, however, and something that everyone uses. RPMs seem to be approaching that goal. This brings up the topic of:
- Software installation. If it's not a precompiled binary, you need to compile it yourself. A "source package" would be nice - something like an RPM where it configures, compiles, and installs programs for you, and provides uninstall and "make clean" mechanisms. One of the best things this could do is resolve compile errors caused by libraries. Bringing me to:
- Library management. My lib directory is apporaching the disaster of the DLLs in Windows\System. I've got libraries installed there without knowing what programs need them. There's symlinks galore to resolve problems with programs looking for old versions of the same library. As a whole, I'm not certain what I can do to that mass without bringing down installed software. I still haven't managed to get the latest Netscape Communicator installed, so it's a good thing I normally use Lynx.
- Directory structure.
- Configuration. There's a -lot- of config files out there (/etc/* !) that need to be modified to customize your system. I know some programs out there provide a nice front-end to these, and I'm considering writing one myself, but I don't know of any that do it all. This is probably related to the various distributions putting certain key files (rc.*) in different places or under different names.
Now I'm not talking about hardware recognition and driver support. I'm not talking about installation. I'm not even talking about software availability. These are known issues, and issues that a lot of progress has been made on. I'm talking about maintenance of an existing system to stop it from becoming the administrative nightmare that it might be (Or, for that matter, that Windows 9x is, with system\ and the Registry). Some of these problems may already be resolved, and maybe solutions are being worked on for the others. If so, I'd love to hear (madhobbit@geocities.com).
I use Linux daily and love it. I'm also an extreme Computer Person. Linux needs a lot of work before even an unexperienced-but-willing-to-learn person has a good shot at it, and more yet before it's -really- mainstream. It's doing great in the network market...now let's see it hit the homes!
I think every Linux user, heck, computer users in general should print out this article out and stick it where they can see it sitting at their desks.
I wonder what the Linux Killer will be? Any suggestions?
Matt
None of the things he suggested are incompatible with why I want GNU/Linux, but no of them directly further it either. I need an environment that I can tailor to my own needs. Programming is a way of capturing knowledge in a form in which it can later be used. I automate routine tasks with shell scripts and Perl and Emacs Lisp and I forget the details. The reason is simple. GNU/Linux has a programmer interface. It is as important as a user interface for my style of use.
Any environment that cuts me off from not only the tools that I have built over the years, but any mechanism for building more is going to decrease my productivity. I can walk up to nerly any Linux system anywhere and expect to find bash and perl. Half of them at least will probably have either GNU Emacs or XEmacs. Most will have gcc and g++. My tools can travel with me in the Unix world and even more so in the Open Source world.
In the headlong rush to make Linux more approachable for the average user, there has been and will be a concentration on the user interface. This almost always means the GUI. This is not a bad thing. GUIs are excellent for anything you are using for the first time or that you use very infrequently. They can turn the task of remembering commands into one of recognizing them on menus or icons. But for tasks that are done dozens of times a day, there is no user interface that can provide greater leverage than being able to script them, and if they are automatic enough, make even the task of launching them disappear by handing them to cron.
Don't ever abandon the true power of GNU/Linux for GUI glitz. If the power of the programmer interface ever disappears, so will many of the people who are the strength of the open source community. The people who build it must have the tools to build it with. And those tools should be available on every installed system or no farther away than the CD it came on.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Enlightenment is probably the cause. The version that came with RH6.0 (15.3?) had a couple of hang issues and a issue with window properties. You should at very least install the 'Errata' RPM from RedHat, and I'd install 16.3, but thats just a preference!
.sig: Now legally binding!
I'm 22 yrs in the biz, and I still have to learn too. (*1) ;-)
Yes, but just by the fact that you've been in the business that long gives you the edge in the computer situation and indeed makes you an almost automatic exception to the rule.
You're at least *comfortable* with a computer. Most new users aren't. And that's why it would be/is tough to teach people about Linux.
(I'm not even going to mention that the amount of training material for Windows is much greater than what exists for Linux. Although Linux is catching up rapidly. Heck - QUE has a nice beginning book out for Linux users that comes with a copy of Caldera and color pictures
I've taught users how to do things from scratch and the biggest gradient for them is not that they have to learn something new but that they have to learn at all. (This is also an extremely sad comment on out society at large but that's another topic.)
I still maintain that sitting a Windows user down in front of a X-Windows box, even with KDE or GNOME, will present a significant enough challenge to most users that they will gladly give up the linux box in favor of a Windows one.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
The "second story" the author provided is not the same as the one that was published
;)
The author doctored out the outright dumb comment about resizing icons in the link he provided to the second story, and some other points were modified as well..
Here's the real article that was published and which drew the flames. I think it's unprofessional for a journalist to write an article critical of the Linux community's flaming and not provide a link to the real article which was published.
I certainly don't agree with the flaming, but there's trolls in all aspects of discussion, take a look at the talk.* heirarchy
To classify the actions of a few idiots as the norm is ignorance at its finest.
For example NASA might buy a bunch of new laptops with Linux installed. Where will they be used, how will they be used, will they stay in the default configuration, are these for managers;programmers;engineers;techsupport,was it simply a cheaper way for purchasing, or
was it a linux advocate simply pushing his own personal choices. Rumor and speculation abound
"oh they could be used on the shuttles, wahoo!"
Umm, Linux has been going up in the Shuttle for *years* now. Where have you been?
Windows 98, for example, is a high-quality product, because Microsoft has been fixing problems in Windows since 1990.
outlines the very reason why he is not credible as an editorial source of information. He fails to mention that in 1990 Windows was 8-bit (I think) and pretty rudamentary, but with constant enhancement (cough) and advances in hardware is now (3)2-bit and much more usable for Joe User.
Please note I am not in any way advocating Microsoft. I believe each OS has its own place. For me, Win98 on my desktop, with Linux and Netware for servers keeps my headaches to an absolute minimum.
People advocating Linux need to pick important battles and win them. Going after somebody who destroys his own implicit credibility as an editorial writer is not one of them.
Just my opinion.
sl
The business community acceptance of Linux is a side effect. Probably an undesireable one. It's our OS. If you don't like it, See Figure One and go back to Windows.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You're not thinking. He's saying that it doesn't matter what software is ported to linux, cause if you don't like it, don't run the damn thing. Its not going to dumb down linux. If anything, its going to prove to people how linux can be as easy or even easier to use than Windows and can be as robust as high end Unix. What's your problem that you think only your version of software should be run on your os. Sounds like Gates to me.
The key point that this guy is missing (and alot of these critics do) - is that Linux is not a commercial product.
Sure there are companies and commercial products build around it. But Linux itself doesn't go there. Redhat's stock price could go through the floor[*] but Linux will still be there. And as that next "new thing" catches on, the Linux developers tend to mold Linux into whatever people are asking for.
Anyhow, this author's little seed of doubt is misplaced IMO. Whether Linux is in the limelight, or obscure, doesn't matter to alot of us. It wasn't written FOR corporations - these corporations right now, just happen to like what it has turned into.
Best regards,
SEAL
*It's already going that way. Damn I should've sold right after the split.
*sigh*
/., a dependable group of ./ers come out and post whitty comments like "BSD sucks". You are "sick" about when "big media and big business to disparage Linux", so why do you tolerate BSD oses getting the bums rush?
Linux is all about choice and OpenSource. Yet, when BSD is mentioned here on
BSD doesn't have any hi-flying billion dollar IPO's. BSD has people like ESR saying "BSD should be getting more press than they do". BSD is an underdog, just like Linux. So why then tolerate the Anti-BSD people in the OpenSource tent?
>Linuxer gets angry and vocal in reply to said insult, he/she becomes the bad guy? I know all about the Advocacy HOWTO, and I personally am not a flamey mail-bomber. But I believe it IS an effective form of advocacy.
Then you are as much to blame as the 'flamey mail-bomber' for the view that the OpenSource world is a bunch of lusers.
Take for example THIS classic bit of advocacy:
From: Joe Barr [joe@pjprimer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:02 AM
To: sales@mindcraft.com
Subject: Industry Scum
Hey, Mindcraft
I am writing an article about asslicking whores in the industry.
You know the sort, they bend over for folks like Bill Gates by
producing totally false "benchmarks" based on liess, mistests,
biased hardware and software, and scores of other unethical,
deceiptful, dishonest, duplicitous means.
Like your reviews of NT vs Novell and Linux. Classic cases of professional prostitution.
Cock sucking the geeks in Redmond.
The question for you maggots, whores, whatever you prefer to be called, is: how much does it cost to buy one of your benchmarks?
tHANKS,
Joe Barr The Dweebspeak Primer
Joe Barr holds a very public position at LinuxWorld. And, if people you are trying to convince that OpenSource is *NOT* a bunch of immature hot-heads, exaclty how does Joe Barr's letter help you convince others that OpenSource is ready for prime-time?
600+ people commented on Metcalfe's latest article. Most of them got down on him for his view of OpenSource and Linux. But, if you were an outsider looking into the OpenSource tent for the 1st time, wouldn't YOU walk away with a similar impression?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Re: Gimp...
There is no question that GIMP can do a lot, but... let's face it. It doesn't have nearly the feature set that Photoshop has. Granted, if you stick to basic bread-and-butter stuff, then you can get by with GIMP. But don't kid yourself that it can do what Photoshop can do in the hands of a professional.
I also might add that Photoshop might be a memory hog, but it's very, very fast. GIMP is dog slow. (enough with the animal metaphors)
--
You can get those for Windows.
As for enlightenment, well, maybe the newer versions are better, but the last time I tried it was RedHat 6.0 and enlightenment was a buggy piece of crap.
But even so, you can clearly find a feature here or a feature there that you might like better. But on balance, any desktop on Linux is light years away from Windows' GUI. You mention drag and drop, but how about cut/paste? I can copy cells out of Excel, and paste it into Frontpage, and it will convert to an HTML table automatically. Let's not even get into OLE functionality.
--
As one who has struggled with installing and using Linux as a new user with nobody around to help, I agree with him that it is difficult, though not impossible. No ordinary user would go through that kind of experience just to get a functional computer.
I do disagree in one aspect.
It is not the responsibility of the developers to implement all of these new feature ideas and bug reports and whatever other demands that wealthy organizations make! The GPL makes the stipulation that no warranty is provided with the software, and the developers are under no obligation to continue work on the software.
Not only are the developers under no obligation to code, but if these wealthy organizations just make demands of the developer, they are missing an enormous benefit of the Open Source development model. That they have the source enables them to improve the program themselves, hiring programmers to add the necessary features, fix the annoying bugs, and satisfy their needs! This is the main advantage of Open Source software; you have the source. (How did the author forget this?)
Admittedly, individual normal users usually don't have the resources to hire programmers on their own to fix bugs, add features, etc., but individual users do not place the same type or amount of pressure on developers as "wealthy organizations" do to satisfy their wants.
Daniel J. Peng
The thing that struck me most about this article is that the writer seems to have missed the boat on the whole open source community issue. First and foremost linux is written by the linux community for the linux community. It is not as the author assumes written and aimed as a weapon against Microsoft.
The writer makes some valid points though, linux is more difficult to setup and administer, and this statement is nothing new. I could go on for hours about stuff that could be better, the point here is that when I get the chance I try and make it better instead of moaning about it, this is the spirit of the linux community.
RedHat and other linux companies are part of what I like to call the 'second stage'; they are taking linux and trying to sell it into the market place. The RedHat installer for example can make things far easier for the installation process. The open source community is about exactly this, the kernal hacker sees a need for support for some piece of hardware and he knuckles down and does it, RedHat sees a need for ease-of-use features and that's what they are starting to do/
I have no intention of flaming this poor guy, sometimes I feel sorry for the guys who get flamed over stuff like this (the email to his boss was downright out of order). The message we need to get out is that the open source movement is a totally different method of development from conventional software development, it can't be judged in the same way as conventional software.
Good lord! Read what you just wrote, buddy: "Who cares what software people want to run on Linux. Don't be so small-minded." What are you, an idiot??? Why SHOULDN'T you care what kind of software people want to run on an OS! That's what an OS is FOR! What do you do with Linux all day, just sit there and type 'ls' over and over, marvelling at how much more efficient Linux is at listing files than Windows NT? Good grief... talk about "small-minded."
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
So according to you, the only people that help Linux are code writers.
Thanks for nothing from those of us that QA, document, or any of the other million unnamed tasks that help Linux just as much as you coders.
Thanks from those of us that got our employers to buy into Linux.
Thanks from those of us that got one or more other people interested in Linux.
Thanks from those of us who saw in 1991 what Linux could amount to and started working with it.
Yes, I fit in each of those categories, and I've written exactly one package that made it to metalab. I'm not a coder by any means. This assumption that only the big names and coders are important to the future of Linux is insulting at best.
What's going to kill Linux? A class war. That's what. This assumption that a non-coder has no status in the Linux heirarchy is what's going to kill it off. Us non-coders will go somewhere else where the developers are actually appreciative of the non-coding help.
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
This article stated - "Open source still requires good project management..."
I firmly believe that if Linux had been developed under the control of product management, as commercial products are,it would not be what it is today.
As one who has been a project manager, as well as a victum of product management, at a couple of large, well-known, and even disliked, commercial software companies I can assure everyone that project management,as described in this article, tends to kill the creativity, developer morale and intrinsic drive that has allowed Linux to excel.
You're right, but the response on /. to people who point out problems, or would like to see feature X in open source software often seems to be: here's the source, fix it yourself, if you don't know how to do that (99.9% of people), you're an idiot, so shut up.
But yes, this is just the Slashdot mentality speaking - real open source projects I'm familiar with are much more responsive.
That's easy to say. But it's just not easy to make a gradual learning curve. By putting a GUI in place people learn to expect to *always* have their GUI. Before you know it they won't use anything else. Unfortunatly easy means having GUIs, wizards that do all the work for you, etc. Basically all the lower level stuff hidden out of view. This really defeats any type of learning.
You're approaching this entirely from the viewpoint of a technical person. I don't see how it is important that most people learn how to use a command line interface - it really is of little fundamental significance, unless you're a computer person.
I started off on an XT with DOS and am glad of it. I had to use the command line. I had to understand how it worked. If I didn't start off like that I really don't think I'd have had such a easy time learning the more low-level stuff.
It may help you learn more about the low-level computer stuff, but will it help you learn more about racoons?
Time spent learning how to use the arcane syntax of the command line interface means less time to do what you're using the computer to do in the first place (e.g. surfing the web learning more about racoons); the computer should help you do what you want done as efficiently and transparently as possible, and for most people, this can be better done through a good GUI - there's no reason to force them to learn how to use CLIs.
Just by using the term 'dumbed down' you defeat the point of a Newbie's Linux. It shouldn't be dumbed down. Either it has a very smooth and gradual learning curve, which is one thing that Linux, CLI, and Unix in general doesn't deal with, or it has a flawless level of useability.
That's easy to say. But it's just not easy to make a gradual learning curve. By putting a GUI in place people learn to expect to *always* have their GUI. Before you know it they won't use anything else. Unfortunatly easy means having GUIs, wizards that do all the work for you, etc. Basically all the lower level stuff hidden out of view. This really defeats any type of learning.
I started off on an XT with DOS and am glad of it. I had to use the command line. I had to understand how it worked. If I didn't start off like that I really don't think I'd have had such a easy time learning the more low-level stuff.
As an example, Apple's OS and hardware have demonstrated levels of proficiency in both tasks. As much as people criticize the design decisions, a single user interface is ideal for people who
Ahh... What *isn't* a single user interface? Do you mean a single-user OS?
are figuring out information flow, computers, tasks, etc. A single mouse button, so people don't have to fear that if they do an incorrect action, something irrecoverable can happen because there is only one action. A single menu bar, so people *always* know where to look for info and stuff, without having to figure out what app has the focus.
The Mac-style menu bar isn't one menu bar. It's just that each menu bar you would see at the top of the app window appears at the top-left hand corner of the screen. When you switch apps the menu bar changes. I'd say it's harder to figure out then Windows style menubars. But it's much faster as you can just flick your wrist and your cursor is instantly there.
Somone moderate the above article up!!
I think it points out something that a lot of people miss when they debate about whether Linux should cater to the masses or stay true to its idealism (for lack of a better word). Why can't we have both?? After all, the same hardware runs both Windows and Linux --- it's silly to debate whether hardware manufacturers should make their hardware easier to use --- just change the software! Similarly, why are we debating whether Linux should be dumbed down? Just add an optional layer that provides an easy, user-friendly GUI -- you don't have to compromise the power and flexibility of Linux for it! Expert users can still bypass the "easy interface" and use the command-line if they so wish; but that doesn't mean we should develop an interface that makes the system usable by those who don't care about how things work inside.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
Why is it that I post fact not opinion and get moderated to a one, while someone who has something as useful to say as 'hope not' and 'companies should go stick it' gets moderated up to "(5)INSIGHTFUL". I've been said companies should "stick it" many times and no ones ever said I was insightful. Is /. suddenly allowing people to moderate there own posts and I missed the news?
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
OK, someone else already pointed out vi, and the fact that bash beats the heck out of command.com. Here are a few more obvious examples:
1. Telnet: I use mutt, and vim. When will MS get a terminal program that actually displays color? Or works reliably with backspace?
2. FTP: if nothing else, at least the command-line ftp tool defaults to "binary"...
3. The whole UI: sorry, but AfterStep is about a zillion times better than WindowsUI. It just makes a lot more sense. Or with KDE (for those that want something "closer to Windows"), I can set up nice big buttons on the panel for the apps people use the most. This is a lot better than the Win98 tiny icons next to the Start Menu. Just because people are used to Win9x interfaces doesn't make them better. Why do most artistic people like Macs? WindowsUI == YUCK.
And I don't really want to get into discussions about the underlying OS (symbolic links compared to "shortcuts"?)
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Frankly this guy has a good point. And I'm surprised I haven't seen Jon Katz write an article on the psycology of 'kiddies' online that rant, rave, flame, etc. anything that says "Maybe Linux needs work."
I get contacted quite a bit to fix problems in software, and design/implementation of server environments where possible. I can tell you from experience, that while Linux is definately great, there are areas that just really need work. I for one need a fully Word9x compatible word processor. I'm hoping to devote some time working on Abiword, but currently StarOffice just doesn't cut it. Simple things like anti-aliasing fonts (or the lack thereof) is one thing that will keep WinX on my systems at work and at home. Games are fine, cause I can play under Linux, Win, MacOS, N64, Dreamcast, or whatever. Gaming platforms for me is just whatever is available at the moment. But I digress...
The fact that someone would stoop to finding this guy's boss is not only pointless, but I hope this person can get some counseling. This is a serious malfunction in thought processes and needs to find out why time was wasted in the manner and not constructively like debunking whatever was disagreeable in a forum such as Slashdot. (Hint, it's why we can all post here...)
I can say it, but the words tend to fall on deaf ears. "If you can't say or do something constructive, keep your trap shut." It only makes you look worse, and frankly no one takes you seriously anyhow when garbage falls out.
I don't particularly care for M$, and would be more than happy to see them produce only Office and wheelie mice (Intellimouse). I thoroughly use both products regularly, and until an alternative that I like just as well pops up, I'll keep using them.
Now for the new users mentioned in the article. I agree that the OS should be as friendly as possible, but people are not alone on the basics. My neighbors are all testiments to that. Unless you live in the hills of Kentuky where there's no one for miles, people have plenty of contacts where they work and where they live that can and do answer such questions like:
"How do I get the CD back out of the drive?"
"What's a 'Dial-up adapter'?"
"I can't get my printer to work. Do you know how?"
The difference at the moment is that your neighbors and co-workers have already learned a lot of these beginners problems under 95, and very few of them have used Linux yet. In 10 years that may very well change, but as it stands, people WILL have to learn some new ways of doing what they consider 'really easy' right now. That's the hold back. All we can do is continue development like we have and hope that as companies produce shoddy software, Linux will be a brighter alternative for us all.
-What have you contributed lately?
Trolling on Slashdot is fun at times. It's part of our culture here and I don't think we will ever get rid of it entirely, If we did, I beleive Slashdot as a whole would lose out, Trolls bring humor and off track insight into many of our threads and a good percentage of them are on-topic. But because of our moderation system they get tagged as trolls from the start. First posts and the always present early posters will also never completly go away. Again, this is part of the culture of the site.
I beleive an easy fix would be to lightly adjust the moderation system, not can it entirely, not ban AC's, not lock out IP's etc. These tactics will only hurt the site, much more than us trolls are. I'm sure Rob and VA have already had discussions on troll-control, with the recent racial slurs, hitler rantings and pron laden trolls, I also agree that something needs to be done.
I proposed the following:
- Don't ban AC's, they are part of the site and the AC mask has been used by all of us at one time or another.
- Modify the moderation engine to only moderate UP good posts and leave the trolls at 0. This has a two fold benefit. One is the trolls sink to the bottom, down under the bridge, and the other is that comments will not be marked down just because they offer an opinion other than the moderators.
- Make the "Flamebait" tag into a "dump" tag and rewrite the rules so that it is used responsibly. This should carry a -2 or worse to insure it goes all the way down. This should not be used for I love NT comments, just the posts that are way out of bounds.
- Set AC and account defaut browsing to +1.
- Leave the rest alone.
With this modification to the way our threads get moderated, the trolls, the flames and the useless AC posts that do not get marked up will stay at the bottom and out of sight. I someone chooses to change to -1 viewing that's their choice, and with this they remove their basic argument that the site is filled with trash. This also covers Rob and VA's issues with public (casual visitor) viewing and perceptin of the site, they will see good content, technical discussion and the good side of Slashdot.
Thank you
.
Trollmastah
.
Take all good things in moderation, including moderation.
Pheonix makes an excellent point about the closed circle the the Linux community has become. There seems to be no place for neophytes within this "exclusive club". The biggest appeal of Linux for me is the dependability of the system. Shouldn't every computer user expect the same?
When I was a Linuxling (baby Linux user), I had to learn every aspect of the system from scratch. The famed support of Linux user groups is useless if no one is willing to "dummy down" responses to help newbies.
I would hazard a guess that most Linux users are IT professionals. Working with computers is our job. I think we tend to forget that for the average computer user, their desktop machine is nothing but a tool. Controls should be as intuitive as possible, and accessing any feature should simply be one click away.
Those who claim that we do not need corporate involvement in the development and advancement of Linux are doing the operating system a disservice. If you want to be a Linux hobbyist, then develop your own kernel, and run it at exclusively at home. If, however, you wish to contribute to the eventual dominance of Linux on the desktop market, let demand lead the way. The market will drive the direction of Linux. Let ideas flow from every direction and do not stifle dissenting voices. As Linux users, we often claim to be "oppressed" by companies like Microsoft. Why then are we oppressing others by flaming those we may not agree with? Maybe it's time we let others play with our toy
Yes. Open source projects I'm familiar with are very responsive too ( asking for sensible things does help ). But I feel very uneasy when I see users believing that those developers have any obligations towards them.
Many of those developers are happy to add some features from their users' wishlists. But it's important to point clearly that they do that just because they feel like it, not because they should.
If you ( or me or whoever ) really want/need a feature implemented you can:
Fund the development total or partially ( there're companies trying to make some bucks on commisions for contacting pools of prospective contractors willing to pay for the work, with programmers that can do the work and later give their contribution back to the community ).
Get your software from a distributor and ask for the feature to them. Most of the commercial ones are willing to (or at least should be) add some value to the product they are releasing.
Do it yourself ( aka Use the Source, Luke ).
Wait until someone decide to do it, for fun or whatever. But in that case, remember: They don't owe you anything, so you're not entitled to command anything, just ask politely and hope to have luck with your request ;).
DiegoIMHO, the problem lies in the self-esteem of the average geek or haxx0r dood. "I can't dance, I'm too skinny (or fat), I'm too afraid to talk to girls... But boy-o-boy can I hack!"
As the technology becomes more and more accessible, the average dood becomes less and less 31337. While they know something the average person doesn't, they can justify their shortcomings. Nobody wants to be average at something and below-average in everything else.
- - - -
Anonymity allows some people to abuse others because there is no accountability. Anonymity requires more self-restraint, not less. Unfortunately, we live in a culture wil very little self-restraint.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
If you want a PC that you can just take out of the box, plug in, and type your report/spreadsheet/letter/whatever and sign onto AOL and check your mail/chat/whatever, get a Macintosh. The new iMacs and (especially) the G3's provide a lot of power and are very easy to use for the technically-unenthusiastic. Apple has "ease of learning" (NOT THE SAME AS "EASE OF USE"!) down pat.
If you want flexibility, (almost) limitless possibilities, cool toys, interesting software to play with, excellent free programs, including compilers, graphics applications, etc, and you're WILLING TO READ LOTS AND LOTS OF DOCUMENTATION, you want Linux. And even then, if you're coming from Windows, you'll probably have to change your whole philosophy: shells, X, window managers, LaTeX, etc. Hey, guess what? That leaves NO PURPOSE for Windows 95/98/2000/whatever. It's mediocre, it barely works (I thought it worked pretty well until I started using Linux back in '95), the software is bloated, mediocre, and expensive, and I simply don't understand where people get off on this stuff. Purchase of Windoze is Not Recommended.
My real purpose here isn't to start a war about the usability of various operating systems, because it doesn't matter. File formats (and games = ) aside, the bases are covered between Linux and the Macs. Think about that. What the article says is that Linux won't ever be anything for the masses unless it adopts certain ease-of-learning techniques used by other OS's. What do we care how many people use Linux? Linux isn't for the non-technically-literate masses; that's what the Mac is for.
Furthermore, what's this business about the "Linux killer"? Last time I checked, there was no company you could buy out to eliminate Linux from the market. And New Technology that would make Linux obsolete would have to be pretty darn spectacular, IMO. = )
Take care.
The more things change, the more they stay insane...
I should know, I am one.
I've installed and tried to pick up/learn linux 5 times since I bought my first copy of Redhat 5.0 a while back. Every time was a complete disaster.
I'm not an idiot by any means, but I am a working professional, and don't have time to learn how to edit config files with vi or compile things, at least, I didn't before. I'm currently taking several months off from some of my duties just to learn linux (both on a consumer level and a admin level).
I wouldn't be able to do anything with *nix at all if it weren't fot my linux friend, who has so dillegetly tried to teach me linux the first bunch of times, and keeps coming back to try every time I found time to pick it back up. This time, my linux education is going much better, I can actually install programs now. Don't laugh. Windows, be it easier or buggier, is a crutch that the average user relies on, to suddenly be thrust into a OS where all the important stuff is done in a text window and your start button has been replaced by a giant foot, is hard to get used to for a lot of people.
Plus, it doesn't help that linux documentation is written in greek a lot of the time.
Be gentle, it's my second post.
Bo Bankson
Da-hah, I am the hand of fate, I will crush your dreams.
Although the author has some very valid points, it seems to me that these points are somewhat misdirected. Most of the issues he raises should be aimed at the Linux industry, not the Linux community. Although the former has a direct reliance on, or more specifically a symbiotic relationship with, the latter.
Linux, as it stands, is without question a techie OS, and I would like to see it stay that way. I believe that it is companies like Caldera, and Red Hat I suppose, who need to "grok" the concepts the author is proposing, but only if they wish to make as much money as possible. There may be a need for a Microsoft Word look-and-feel-alike, however it is NOT the duty of the Linux community to create one. It may be a good idea for Red Hat to do so.
What I particularily dislike is the author's feeling that the Linux community should answer to the customers and the businesses. To me it seems patently obvious that this will never be the case. The Linux community will go on doing what is does best, which is serve itself, and encourage others to adopt Linux and open standards. If anyone needs to dumb down Linux, it is companies like Red Hat and Corel.
--
X (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is an important part of any UNIX-like operating system in which GUI-based programs are used; without it, you lose network transparancy for GUI-based programs, which, believe it or not, can be quite useful in a multiuser environment.
New XFMail home page
But I don't think that OS nirvana has yet been reached. Capability based systems sound very cool.
On the topic of flame... I'm actually starting to wonder whether some of the flaming (and possible the ridiculous number of trolls on /. for the past month or so) is not being subsidized by someone who would rather Linux not succeed.
I mean... seriously. I know that I don't know any Linux users who act as stupidly as a lot of the trolls act.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list." You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect.
Here's one point I take issue with. While I don't take issue with its clairvoyant validity, I do take issue with the idea that this should be accepted practice.
The idea that anyone should say yes to an impossible schedule, over-promise, kill themselves to work inhumanly sustainable hours is just ludicrous. But we've been doing it.
It's time to stop it.
Just got this in my mailbox, and I think it says just about everything I want to:
Gold Rush Mindset Undermining Programming Field
Think about it, if you're 20-30 something now, and working 90 hours a week, do you want to be doing that into your 40's? Should you even be doing that now? Why do you accept it?
If we're so valuable, and in such short supply, it's time to start maybe from the grunt programmer on up to put a stop to the acceptable practice of demanding the impossible and change it into delivering the sane.
"Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect."
First of all, who will they complain to? There is
no LinuxCorp. Linux is not a product, it's the
result of a community effort. Several entities
sell it as a product, and contribute to the
development effort, but they're not under contract
to anyone to, say, deliver USB in the next month[1].
Secondly, if a wealthy corporation wants a feature
right *now*, there's nothing to stop them hiring
a few programmers and adding it in. The
development process allows for this. It encourages
it. Try getting a custom feature added to a
closed OS and see how far you get.
This is a fundamental misconception in the
article, and in others that claim that Linux isn't
ready for primetime. Linux does what its users
want it to do. Its users mostly want low-to-mid
range servers, so Linux is perfect for that. Some
users want high-end servers, and the design allows
for extension to fill that need. Not too many
people worry about luser-proof desktops, and so
work needs to be done in that area.
But the fact remains that Linux is adaptable to
a host of applications, precisely because it
isn't a traditional product and doesn't have
a closed development process. The open development
process is not a weakness, it's a strength.
K.
-
[1]And yes I know it's in the 2.3 kernel, so don't
bother pointing that out.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
First, the notion of a CD-installable general purpose operating system is itself outmoded. The consumer market is moving towards embedded and specialized devices. Linux will play a big role in that market, but making it user friendly will be done by the for profit companies that make the devices. Even in the PC market itself, most non-technical users never install applications, let alone a whole operating system.
Second, open source efforts like GNU and Linux worked because users/customers were also developers: they could make intelligent suggestions for how to improve software and often even supply and share the enhancements themselves. Non-technical users contribute nothing to this ecology and it is debatable whether the open source community should expend a lot of scarce resources on such user communities.
Third, the world needs an operating system for technically savvy users. The idea of one operating system for everybody is Microsoft's, and if I wanted to use that kind of system, I would (I have licenses to all the Microsoft software). World domination by any operating system, be it Linux or Windows, is bad because it means trying to make one system fit everybody's needs, and that cannot be anything other than a mediocre compromise.
Let's aim for open standards, open protocols, and open device interfaces, not world domination by Linux or any other system.
Just by using the term 'dumbed down' you defeat the point of a Newbie's Linux. It shouldn't be dumbed down. Either it has a very smooth and gradual learning curve, which is one thing that Linux, CLI, and Unix in general doesn't deal with, or it has a flawless level of useability.
As an example, Apple's OS and hardware have demonstrated levels of proficiency in both tasks. As much as people criticize the design decisions, a single user interface is ideal for people who are figuring out information flow, computers, tasks, etc. A single mouse button, so people don't have to fear that if they do an incorrect action, something irrecoverable can happen because there is only one action. A single menu bar, so people *always* know where to look for info and stuff, without having to figure out what app has the focus.
Now here's the problem, if you want to be a Linux advocate.
Apple will be releasing MacOS X. It will feature all of the above useability functions. I don't know if it will also feature a gradual learning curve for newbies, but it will definitely have all the power features Linux has touted over Win9x and WinNT. The CLI, the GNU tools, the scripting and networking and robustness, unless Apple screws up majorly. If they do throw in a gradual learning curve, all the Newbies will be flocking to Apple because of their strengths, and Linux's weakness
Consistent, useable, useful UI. I'm not talking about themes or skins. Consistent drag and drop functionality. Patterned interfaces among all applications. Their menu bar. Their single window mode, for new users. The graphical interface for system management. Consistent behaviors among all applications. Transparent windows, for example, to indicate which windows own which dialogs. Animated minimization and maximization so people know where the windows go, that they don't disappear.
Advertising, focus, and attention for the new users. They will have the nifty industrial design, the nifty desktop graphics, the nice effects possible through display PDF.
Control. Because Apple hardware is under Apple control, they can design the software and the OS to just work. If they haven't in the past, it's their bad, but they have the resources to provide excellet support and coverage.
A lot of these things Linux just cannot control. At least until someone does a Linux box, akin to the iMac. Plug in, power up, and use. Until people start focusing on UI, instead of themes and skins. Until we stop thinking of new users as 'dumb', and things for them to be dumbed down. New users are just that, new, and they have their own ramp up and their own distinct needs. We can ignore them, of course, and that would just leave the door open for Apple, or Be, or someone else.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Linux Advocacy Mini-HOWTO
http://linux.com/howto/mini/Advocacy.html
What busy people should read is the Coles Notes version of Section 6, the Canons of Conduct:
As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
and
Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
Have a I seen similar attitudes from Linux users? Unfortunately, yes, and it makes me cringe every time. I advocate Linux regularly (ask my boss!), but I try to do it in a positive manner. Obviously, Linux isn't alone in having zealots causing 'bad PR' -- I've had problems with OS/2 zealots, as noted above, and Macintosh zealots -- but it is so unnecessary and so unfortunate, for any operating platform. Did I stick with OS/2? Nope. Was the negative experience from OS/2 zealots the only reason? Nope, but I would be a liar if I said it didn't play a part.
The next time you feel like flaming somebody for being (in your eyes) "anti-Linux" remember the old saying: You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar!
Journey to Yandol
No Laughing Allowed!
The trouble is that many of the flames are self-deluding. They complain about any criticisms Linux, even when the criticisms are completely justified. If this happens too often, people will stop listening to all criticisms, assuming that they are all unjustified.
I remember back in the early days, the biggest flamewars were "Apple ][ vs. Commodore 64". In many ways, the participants there were the same sorts as the worst flamers here. Usually it is someone young and niave, who has only really seen one system. They get themselves invested in that one system and feel the need to prove it in order to prove that their investment wasn't unfounded. And so they flame anything that even looks like a criticism of their favored OS.
But despite their loudness, the majority understand that every system has its strengths and its weaknesses. Unfortunately, if the idiots are too loud, and burn people too often, those on the outside will shut everyone out, idiot and otherwise.
Every system has its weaknesses. So does Linux. Sending blizzards of mail to correct something that was incorrect is good. Sending blizzards of misinformed mail pretending that black is white because otherwise your OS isn't perfect makes everyone look bad, makes people ignore criticism and is just generally counterproductive.
Even Linus Torvalds says that someday something better than Linux will come along. Don't be one of the fools that is so blinded by partisanship that they get left behind when this happens.
The cake is a pie
Yess! Thank you, Chromatic. I was not the slightest bit impressed by the article that spawned the flames. I don't approve of angry flamage as a rule, but that article was particularly redundant and lame. None of the self-appointed pundits who say 'Windows is easier' acknowledge the fact that the public have been suffering from Windows for a long time, therefore there is lots of pseudo-experience out there. Windows is only 'easier' because of long experience (enforced by monopoly). Your comment succintly summarized this phenomenon. Think about all the PC columnists who whine about Linux (*nix) being 'hard' -- they've all been hacking at AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS for over ten years! If they'd been studying /etc as hard, they'd be *nix gurus!
Just my USD2.00E-2.
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off."
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
*donning asbestos full body suit*
/. at a lower level!) /.!
Anybody look at the last 10 posts or so on this thread?
This is exactly what the author was talking about!
A set of flaming comments on the author being "a M$ pawn" and "Grok? Crock!" and so forth. (Especially if you browse
In spite of the man having some good points about the state of Linux in relation to "newbie" users, i.e. the public in general, he is automatically attacked and flamed as if he was Bill Gates posting on
As a user of Linux for about two years now I can honestly say that it's not ready for prime time quite yet. Close? Yes! Absolutely!
Can we just give it to a Windows user and have them use it without having to seriously re-train or coddle them? No. No way!
I have 10 years of OS/Network experience under my belt and there are still quite a few things about Linux that I don't understand.
If I don't undsertand it then there's quite a good chance that a new or converted user won't either.
I'm just as strong a promoter for replacing Windows with Linux as anyone else but as members of the Linux community we have to face facts - we're not going to replace Windows any time soon.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Two other things Linux advocates need to learn:
1. 99% of users don't care about the operating system. The only thing that matters is the applications.
2. Stability for the desktop is way down the list of priorities for the average user. Is it nice? Yes, but it's not a big issue. [Proof: If it was, the Mac would be dead, and Windows never would have dominated.
Linux will never go anywhere on the desktop until it gets some decent applications that are at least comparably to Windows. Right now they are way, way behind. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Name for me one significant end-user application that is clearly superior than the equivalent in Windows. There simply isn't one.
--
"New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list." You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect."
Everybody gets hung up on the thought of a big corporation requiring programmers to add whatever features to a program.
But, with the GPL, if a company needs a feature and the primary developer isn't able to add it (either through lack of time or ability), the company can add their own features. Or, they can pay somebody to add their features. Or, they can use the existing program as a framework for their own version that has the features they need. Point is, they have the flexability if they need it, and the primary developer isn't obliged to listen to anybody (although it's a good idea, sometimes it's not practical).
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
I am sick of the negativity towards to more outspoken (and angry) sections of the Linux community. Why is it alright for big media and big business to disparage Linux (and by proxy Linux users)? Then when a Linuxer gets angry and vocal in reply to said insult, he/she becomes the bad guy?
I know all about the Advocacy HOWTO, and I personally am not a flamey mail-bomber. But I believe it IS an effective form of advocacy. This article on slashdot, and last weeks rant about Loki/Blizard ports on LinuxGames shows that people DO pay attention when deluged in hate-mail.
Windows has Win9x and WinNT. The first being for your average joe who just wants Office and the Net to work and the second being for servers. Why shouldn't Linux do that? We already have Caldera Linux for the newbies. If you want "power-user" system you can use Debian among others. There is no reason that all the distros should look and act the same. What's good for a newbie is hell for a power user after all.
It only makes sense to have different Linux's for different people. You can't please everyone. We don't all run an identical kernel. Nor should we run identical distros that are all dumbed down for new users.
What's needed isnt a dumbing down of linux in its existing form...what's needed is a covering up of its (relative) dificulty.. Let me explain:
MacOS X, designed to be stupidly easy to use by the guys at apple, yet underneath, its a unix based operating system (hey, linux is unix based too!). What linux needs to get into the avg user market share is a opensource/freesoftware equivelant to the MacOS interface. You don't need a command line that understands human style sentances (dumbing down) you need a GUI that is simple, not overly complicated, and allows the user to do what they need/want easily, like type a letter, or surf the web (covering up).
Are there any projects out there working on a GNU-Bob? =]
Better (as in simpler) hardware support is needed too. Woz once said the ideal computer would have peripherals that upload their drivers to the computer when they are plugged in, making them truely plug and play. Most distributions have made proggress in hardware support. HOW-To's from a few years ago tell you to write down all information about your computer before installing linux, including IRQ assignments, chipset type etc...
These days you don't even need to know what an IRQ is to install RedHat or Caldera.
Linux is moving in the right direction, it is just important to realize that, to avoid stepping backwards.
-NH
A good, well written and well reasoned piece. I think I almost entirely agree with it.
And if you look at the comments here, you can already see that its point is being missed (by some at least). Look at the "What? Port AOL to Linux? Never!" posts.
I know there is no one "Linux Community," as people have different ideas about OSes in general and Linux in particular. But reading over the posts here, it's clear that in general, people want it both ways.
1) Everyone should use Linux because it's cool/stable/free/fast/whatever.
2) Linux is *ours*, and we don't want stupid apps like AOL on it.
The reason (well, one of the reasons) Microsoft has been successful is because they studied what consumers want and delivered it. To some degree, anyways.
Before I get flamed as pro-MS, let me rephrase that in a way that hopefully even the most rabid anti-MS types will let slide: At the *very* least, they pretended to care about what consumers want and set about marketing windows as if it met those wants.
But many in the Linux crowd revel in the elitism of an OS that is by and for smart, computer savvy people. And then they don't understand when the masses don't rush to embrace it. That was the whole point of this very good article. As long as that attitude prevails, Linux is going to have a hard time with nontechnical people.
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
Linux itself isn't a commercial product. If everything collapses tomorrow, the kernel will still be there, the GNU software will still be there, and an awful lot of stuff that has been either GPL'd or Open Sourced over the last couple of years will still be there.
But think about what the commercialization of Linux has brought us. We have games being ported by more than one company because there are people buying Linux for the desktop. There's major commercial software being ported. Virtually every major brand-name add-in card (video, sound, whatever!) is getting a Linux driver, and in many cases the driver is Open Source, too!
All these riches are not being bestowed upon us because the companies like the way we dress, the way we talk, or because of the Politics Of Linux. They're in it for the money, and they see Linux as a revenue generator, whether now or down the road a ways. All these development resources that have been turned over to us come with a price, friends. The bargain we strike in excahnge for the goodies is the implicit agreement that We, The People, will build Linux into a commercially viable operating system that Joe Schmoe can buy in a store, take home, and install. That's where the development resources are going.
It doesn't matter if you were running Slackware in 1995 and remember hand-installing applications fondly. It doesn't matter if you prefer the "pure" days when you used Linux because it was Free, and Cool. It doesn't even matter how you pronounce it (I've been using it since way back when, and I still pronounce it "Lie-nux",). It's still being pushed in this new direction regardless of what we think or want. How else are you going to get to World Domination?
Keep this in mind whan you speculate as to a Linux without all the commercial backing. The developers will still build things the way you say - but there'll be a heck of a lot fewer of 'em.
I prefer trying to make it the OS for the average luser.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I'm not sure I agree with this - perhaps demands will be put on Red Hat and the like, but when it comes down to programmers, I don't think so. If it happens, it will likely be ignored. The text that comes with the GPL'd app says explicitly that there is no warranty, and if the free software developer doesn't want to implement 50 features in her spare time, then she simply won't. Is this the kiss of death for Linux in the business environment? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be. Someone who wants features right now can throw money at someone, and get it. Otherwise, it's free, and development terms are dictated by the developer.
Some readers have suggested to me that the open source method of software development causes project management issues to evaporate; that the projects manage themselves. This is a fantasy. The open source method, while it does solves some problems, raises new ones. You will be managing a large public programming project with conflicting demands, tight schedules, and the need for high quality. You have to figure out how to do this well. Hopefully, you can invent and master new techniques for software project management within the open source method. But if you don't, the complexity of this task will sink your whole endeavor.
Again, I think the Free Software community has demonstrated that their project management (or whatever you want to call it - their development process...) works very well. Perhaps it's not what people are used to, but it provides robust, feature-filled software. What may be lacking is that most software contains features for programmers, rather than for users. But I don't think I agree that a fundamental change is needed. Perhaps it boils down to the goal of Linux - is it acceptance in the business world, or is it a robust, free, operating system?
Other than that, I think you make some excellent points, and I hope the Linux community can grok them. :)
----
I have to disagree with a couple of points regarding end users and applications. The author states that people have invested hours and hours into learning the ins and outs of their Office Suites. Yeah, some people have. Most of the people I know sure haven't! They've spent hours and hours doing the same things over and over again because someone showed them how to do a simple task. If they moved to a different program, they'd scramble for a few weeks and call someone over to show them how to do two or simple tasks and then they'd be okay.
I'm pretty sure this is a representative group, here. They don't want to learn the ins and outs of everything. They certainly don't want to sit down with a manual and learn what options they have and might use in the future. When they try to do something new (perish the thought) they might poke around for ten seconds and then either give up or try to find someone else who might know how.
So the time spent in learning a new application is a lot smaller than the author estimates -- if the people I know are representative.
Of course, then he talks about the Palm being a revolutionary device because it did what people wanted to do, as opposed to making people adapt to a new system. Right. I'm willing to bet at least, oh, 95% of current Palm users had to learn that Graffiti language. Granted, Palm users may be more technically adept than the rest of the population, but they learned something new and it became a fantastic success.
I suspect the truth is closer to my experience than the picture the author presents. :)
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
> you simply can't call Linux advocates elitist or snobbish and be expected to get away with it, eh?
/they/ want than what /we/ want when it comes to /our/ OS?!
/our/ OS. Let's never forget that.
Ah, but then there are those of us who are elitist and snobbish about Linux, and who admit it and even revel in the fact.
I used to enjoy using an Atari 8-bit computer. It was great. You could get the source code to its OS from Atari. You could also get the source code to its DOS and its BASIC language. They would send you programming tip sheets for free if you asked them to. And, as a 12-year-old, I called Atari Corp. with a programming question, and a couple of weeks later an actual progammer called me back. Me! A little 12-year-old, talking to a big-time programmer about my completely inconsequential problem!
But, the masses chose IBM Compatibles, which were horrendously expensive and which didn't offer graphics or audio as good as that 1979-vintage Atari until more than two decades later. Even so, the masses chose this broken platform, and before long, almost the whole world thinks the IBM Compatible's operating system of choice (Windows) == Computer. Pretty soon, just about all the hardware and software available in stores is only available for "IBM PCs and Compatibles." So I ended up buying one, and suffered through programming that closed OS for longer than I care to think about.
But, hey, at least I found Compuserve at about the same time as I adopted that crappy platform as my own. It was a nice online community, populated mostly by people who knew a thing or two about computers. I mean, you at least had to have a modem and know how to configure your terminal program to get on there! I had a lot of fun on Compuserve (and paid the huge Visa bills to prove it), and even met the woman who became my wife on there.
But The Masses wanted AOL, so Compuserve made itself more and more like AOL, and eventually AOL bought out Compuserve and made them virtually one and the same.
I could go on and on with this sort of thing, but I'm sure you've gone through the same sorts of processes.
The bottom line is that I'm sick and tired of having what I love ruined by the will of the masses.
If they want to use Linux, that's great. In fact, I'd prefer if everyone did. But if Linux has to be adulterated beyond recognition before they'll accept it, then fsck 'em. I'm not going to lose yet another of the great things in my life just because most people are lazy and ignorant.
While I'm ranting, I may as well rave about the original author's crack that we'd better all watch out or the Big Bad Companies will get upset that they're not getting what they want from us.
OH REALLY?!
I'm completely fed up with people telling me that I'd better do X or the companies will be mad, or I'd better NOT do Y or the companies will be upset.
These are the same entities who are ruining our lives. They're the ones who register software patents, who buy our politicians, who send 16-year-olds to jail for having the audacity to view legal copies of movies on their OS of choice. These are the monsters in our nightmares, immortal, all-encompassing, and growing more powerful by the day. And we're supposed to care more about what
They can all go to hell in a handbasket, and so can their cronies who think we should do their bidding.
Linux is
> 2. Tell those "wealthy organizations accostomed to getting their way" to take their "schedules"
> and shove them. We have no time for that.
No. The correct response is, "Here's the source, have a nice day". That's why it's called open-source, isn't it?
// TODO: fix sig
Let me just say that I installed red hat 6.1 over the weekend on a Jaz drive on a computer that is primarily a windows box. It went HORRIBLY.. I had the worst time with it, I eventually bought a new NIC after reading newsgroup posts about the 3c509b nics form 3com. I bought a NetGear nic, which eventually worked, but has made boot and shut down freeze a few times (I fixed this). It is not easy to set up Red Hat linux (I've never tried caldera or corel), that much is clear to me. It is FAR FAR easier to set up Windows 2000 from scratch (I've done that 25 or 30 times, in a testlab). It is the easiest install I've ever seen. Once it's up, I never have any problems finding drivers for my up-to-date hardware. Again, drivers WERE available in Linux for almost everything, but they were very difficult to find (Diamond MX300 sound card). When X first came up, it would only come up in 640x480, I had to mess around with the X86config file, where i set my refresh rate of my monitor incorrectly (it is a used monitor, and I don't actually know it's specs), so in one or two resolutions it was impossible to figure out what the hell was on the screen.
Now, After about 3/4 hours of work. It works great, and I'm ready to start messing around with perl and CGI. I personally don't mind the 3 or 4 hours lost, it was for a "good cause". I wouldn't even know how to begin getting CGI stuff set up in '98 (my other os, for gaming). But I have a fairly good idea about it in Linux.
I've been using Linux since the major distribution was slackware 2.0 (at least on the east coast). So I know somethng about it. I actually had fun setting it up on the Jaz drive. Though I can't actually get the Jaz Disk to boot, I can always pull it out and put another OS on another disk.
Now. I would never expect my mother to be able to do what I did, or even many of my friends. There is a gap between Linux and windows that is closing rapidly, but it is there, and it's not technology, it's usability.
Anyway, I thought I'd share a semi-newbie's experience. (I hadn't touched linux in 2 years).
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
won't be the ones reading. They'll be the ones skimming and then flaming.
What kills me about the Linux movement is this: It is composed apparently entirely of people that have never been USERS in their lives. They've never dealt with something that they just don't have the time or ambition to learn. They've never dealt with something that is unnecessarily difficult.
These people make statements like "Lets not dumb it down THAT far..." about porting AOL to Linux. Linux advocates seem to have forgotten that putting the software that people want on their PC isn't 'dumbing' anything down, it's called customer service. I like Linux. I wish it could gain the market share and market approval necessary to start getting the software development that we need for it to prosper.
Right now, Linux has no place on the desktop in my company. There are limited places where you could put Linux on the desktop and make it work. Why is this? Because the 'elite Linux gurus' want Linux to remain as-is. A club that only people with the computer and programming know-how can join. An exclusive club from which they can look down upon the [L]users that DARE to ask for user friendly software and configuration tools.
Next month and the following, as all of the geeks that have to fill out a tax form more complicated than the EZ, I want you to take a look at who you're paying to do your taxes. If you're doing them solo, take a look at the time wasted and the frustration involved in this seemingly simple task. Why is this? Because the IRS feels about the tax codes like you do about the code behind Linux. Job security through obscurity?
Well, it's a good thing I don't collect karma, because I am confident this is going down in "flames"...hell, you simply can't call Linux advocates elitist or snobbish and be expected to get away with it, eh?
-Jer
I thought this article would be about how we need to clean up our advocacy act, lest we turn off those we try to convert.
Instead, he's insisting he's right about the things he wrote about linux. I agree with his assessment of what end users expect and need, but this part caught my eye:
As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list." You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect.
I have two responses to this.
1. God, I sure hope not. I hope it never comes to that. Let's make sure it doesn't.
2. Tell those "wealthy organizations accostomed to getting their way" to take their "schedules" and shove them. We have no time for that. If they want crappy software with lots of features, point them to the borg in the northwest. They'll come crawling back.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni