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.
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.
You're making the same mistake the author of the article did - you're ignoring the critical difference that open source makes. While MacOS 10 has open-sourced the BSD backend, but the bit that differentiates the Mac certainly isn't.
Without completely open-sourcing MacOS, the platform will *never* have many of the advantages (lack of vendor domination, speedy bugfixing etc.) that Linux and the real BSD's do.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure that Linux could get very sick and old. But it has to many hardcore advocates to just disapear.
Advocates don't keep a system alive. Users and developers do.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I respectfully disagree.
:)
I'm not a Mac Zealot by any stretch of the imagination, I rather loathe them, but I have to use them here at work, there's a G3 sitting next to my NT and Red Hat boxes here as I write this. However, I think that Mac OS X could be BIG, very BIG. Here's why:
1. It comes from somebody consumers already know, Apple, and they have a history of making things easy to use. It's a horribly closed platform, but easy to use because Apple controls both hardware and software ends.
2. It runs existing Mac apps. Now, granted, I'll put on my Windows hat here, and say that ain't a whole lot compared to Windows, but it's something.
3. It'll run Linux/BSD apps. Sure, it'll take some recompiling and tweaking, I'm sure, but once it's done, that gives you two of the three big end-user OS's. Why run Linux/BSD when you can run Mac OS X and use Linux-ish apps AND Mac apps? Now throw in WINE and you can run everything! (Okay, I'm getting too farfetched here)
4. It'll run Microsoft Office, the dominant Office Suite. I've used WordPerfect and StarOffice, and they're great products, don't get me wrong, but end-users are terribly stubborn about switching, no matter how little difference you or I see between graphical word processors.
5. It has a flashy user interface, I gave a Professor a new laptop yesterday, nifty new Sony VAIO, she was the most excited about Desktop Themes, yup, not DVD, not that it was twice as fast as her old laptop, not 128MB of RAM or 100Mbit networking, but that it had Desktop Themes.
6. You'll be able to just plug stuff in and it'll work. I can't stress enough how this is important, I reccommend USB devices to people all day long, since I know I'll eventually have to install them. I flatly refuse to install parallel port scanners and zip drives anymore. Sure, I can get them to work the majority of the time, but they suck, and when they don't work, you're screwed. My mom and dad, and yours, want a system they can plug something in, and it works, they don't want to track down text files to edit or re-compile a kernel. If Mac OS X delivers on the promise to keep the console completely hidden for 99% of things, this should happen.
Now what are the downsides?
1. It's not free, Linux is free, that's nice for those of us who are poor, but we're used to an OS coming with our new computer anyhow, and most users don't change that over the life of their computers, so this will be irrellevant to all but those who get fed up with windows and want to switch to something else without buying a new machine.
2. It comes from Apple, who tends to screw users from time to time, they abandon hardware standards arbitrarily and without warning. Anyone remember NuBus? ADB? SCSI? Floppy drives? You'll probably have to have an Apple computer to run it, and they're not cheap, despite what Bytemarks and selected Photoshop benchmarks compare PowerPC chips to Pentium III's at.
3. Apple keyboards and mice suck. This really isn't related to the OS thing, but I really hate them, and wanted to say so, again.
Will Mac OS X kill Linux? I doubt it. Will it convert Windows users to the Mac platform? Possibly. I don't think it's going to be the Holy Grail of operating systems, but I think it'll have a lot to offer to people who are like me, people who don't care about open-sourciness, they just want something that works well, is easy to use and support, that runs the software that users already know, as well as having the power and flexibility to satisfy advanced users. Don't forget that this will bring all those things that Linux has, Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking, Protected Memory, etc. to the masses that are the Mac community, all with (hopefully) an easier-to-use paradigm in software and hardware installation.
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
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
Did you actually READ the other two articles he was referring to? He did exactly what you suggested, installed and used RedHat.
And as to your points about what the "average" user wants -- what you "believe" is probably not what is (hey, I don't mean this as an insult, it's true for most people). It's a good point -- there are 20 MILLION aol users. More than any Linux users I can count. For some people, it is the SOLE REASON THEY HAVE PURCHASED A COMPUTER. Scary, but true. I wouln't be so dismissive.
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
No, I'm *JOKING*.
Good God, you'd think no one on Slashdot had ever seen sarcasm before!
For what it's worth, my mom uses a NetBSD laptop, which I built and continue to support.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
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
completely redo the kernel as OO once HURD starts gaining marketshare and usablility.
No way. I mean, I've liked OO as much (or more) as the next guy ever since I discovered Simula back in the late 70s, but you really don't want or need heavy OO in an OS kernel. Too much unneeded overhead.
Besides, we've had OO OS's (sort of) before -- MacOS, for example -- and while they've been popular in certain domains, they're hardly "killers".
Given the level that that the hardware is at these days, 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 that all talk to each other behind our backs. (And yes, some of that software may well be OO.)
-- Alastair
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).
All we have to do is wait for linux to go really mainstream... Then they'll all move to FreeBSD. Just look at the freeBSD users right now, there so bitter. Those people are the flameyest people out there.
/me sits back and waits for the BSD community to prove me right :P
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
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
I find it more agreeable that certain Windows-based "killer-apps" need to be re-created or ported to Linux. Word/Access/Excel is certainly one of them. Star Division took us part of the way, but they're still a little off -- I look forward to seeing what Sun will do with the Office Suite. AOL, on the other hand, should definitley be ported to Linux. Case and co. have *got* to be thinking about this -- it's just a matter of time until they go for it. And I say, more power if they do. 25 million people are on AOL, right? That's 25 Million people who previously were locked into one of two operating systems.
As for your other point: I don't think 2.4 will make much of a difference in the desktop arena. Why? Because hardware isn't really our weak-point right now. It would be nice to have better USB support, granted, but I would hardly place it at the top of the "wish-list". What I would like to see is software like KDE and Gnome working together to build a better desktop. XFree86 4.0 looks nice, and that should help out with gaming, but I think the desktop environment is more pressing right now. We need a consistent (themeable for sure) interface that users can depend on for ALL their applications. People say how diversity is one of the great strengths of Linux, but it's not necessarily true. Consistency is much more important in getting people to accept a new OS for their desktop system.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
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
You seem to have missed what I was trying to say. I was comparing the K desktop enviornment with the Mac in the context of ease of use for newbies. (Note that when I refer to KDE, I'm talking about a K only enviornment. I do realize that Xlib only apps need three mouse buttons to even use a scroll bar)
[Maximization]
KDE solves this problem by giving every window a maximize button. You click that button, and it maximizes, click it again and it returns to normal size.
The Mac on the other hand, does not provide this functionality as such. It can be accessed through a hotkey combo, but we all know how much newbies hate hotkey combos. On the other hand, the Mac does offer a feature called the "zoom button" which allows the window to toggle between two arbitrary states. From what I've seen, this just confuses newbies. (They hit the zoom button to maximize, then they resize the window, then they hit the zoom button to maximize - oops, it's not a maximize button)
[Mouse buttons]
The K desktop enviornment makes use of two buttons (although some K apps want three). Left click activates something, while right click provides a context menu. This is always true. It doesn't matter if it's a icon or a button or a hyperlink in KFM. Left click activates, right click provides a context menu. Oh, and if you want to select something, you drag. That's also consistant throughout.
The Mac on the other hand is designed to use one mouse button. To activate some things, like buttons, you single click. To activate other things, like icons, you double click. This confuses the crap out of newbies. I don't know how many times I've heard "Do I single click or double click here." and responded "Uhh, that depends.". In some apps, you can get a context menu by doing an 'extended click'. Uhh, I think it's a hell of a lot easier to deal with two mouse buttons than it is to deal with three different operations on a single mouse button.
[Minimization]
In KDE, you get a nice minimize button on every window, and when you press it you see the window shrink and place ittself in the taskbar at the top, just waiting for you to click to get it back.
On the Mac, there is no minimize button. You can apparently hide an app with hotkeys, (hotkeys don't cut it for newbies), but when you do manage to hide it, it just disapears - leaving no evidence that it's running or how to get it back. To get it back you must eithor use more hotkeys, or you have to access a little menu in the top right corner which provides no visual indication of it's function.
[OS X]
I was referring to a previous slashdot story. Bet you can find it if you search the archives.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
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
While I have certainly seen my share of ugly exchanges between Linux users, a lot of what comes off as anger is ideological zeal.
Some people who use and develop Linux do so because it is the right tool for the job, or because it is efficient, or because it doesn't cost anything, or other equally valid reasons. You cannot forget that there is also a large population of people who use and code for Linux because they feel it is the *right* thing to do.
Other platforms don't have this, and it is a huge difference. Can you imagine a Windows user saying that running Windows is morally superior to other types of computers? Even smug Mac users (and I speak as a longtime smug Mac user) feel a deep technical superiority and a sense of oppression from the MS juggernaut, but I don't think any of them thinks using a Mac makes one a better person.
Some of the people who have slogged away for years bringing Linux to its current level have this sense of occupying the moral high ground. RMS is the obvious example.
Linux means a lot to these people, much more than Windows does to an MCSE. It is unavoidable that they are going to have strong feelings and that, sometimes, this will look like spleen venting. Maybe there is a parallel with religion. Some religious people might respond to a precieved insult to their beliefs very badly. It doesn't excuse rude behaviour but the motivation is much deeper than a simple flame.
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!
"Furthermore I believe that when the "average" user plugs in his computer he would prefer assured security over a few added moments of ease."
Actually I think you're wrong. I'm sure if I asked the majority of non-techies I know they'd choose ease of use over security, every time. Try asking your friends and family who aren't computer users and see which they'd rather like.
"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"
It doesn't help them at all actually. The author never said that. What it does is give the users a familar environment to work in. The users know it already so they can be productive in it right away. People like what they're using, even if it is crappy. Asking them to switch to something knew takes a lot of convincing.
It has to be remembered that "average" user is next to clueless when put in front of a computer. They are going to look for what they know. If its different they're not going to want to use it. Hence as evil as it seems, AOL, and MS lookalike software is a good thing, to bring users into linux.
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!
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.
I think most of what you're saying can be summed up by that paragraph. You're both right and wrong -- Yes, Microsoft won by winning at the corporate level. However, they did that by getting the best applications written to Windows. Microsoft pandered to developers like no one else (particularly Apple who spat on developers right and left). Businesses wants solutions, and solutions means applications.
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? You got it: people blew away OS/2 in droves even when it was given away for the clearly inferior Win 3.1. Why? Because OS/2 wasn't completely Windows compatible.
People use applications, not operating systems.
--
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.
> I have wanted to install it on my computer but
> have resisted because of the time and effort it
> takes. I think a lot of the Linux community
> believes it should take this much effort, and
> that is what makes it such a good OS.
It is similar to what a co-worker said today
when describing a piece of software that was
rejected for use as something...
"Its main feature was that it was really super
flexible and you can do ANYTHING with it. The
main drawback is that its really super flexible
and you can do ANYTHING with it."
A Unix system (no I don't care about trademarks
or source tree lineage...it IS a unix in my book)
is VERY flexible. It can be setup in infinite
numbers of configurations, from desktop machine
with every option under the sun, to XTerminal,
to simple server with ssh and httpd and nothin
else running.
The problem is the install process. It has to
be designed and setup. On one hand you want to
have it work on as wide a number of machines
as possible, and on the other, you want it to
be as flexible as possible.
This is not an easy task necissarily. To get a
good system up really requires alot of input and
help from the user. Windows sacrifices alot of
flexibility to attain its "ease of install" (which
still isn't always easy) and so on.
The ease (or lack thereof) of install is on the
heads of distribution maintainers. Its all about
target audience and how much work they can put
into it. Makeing an easy install is ALOT of
work, not the least of which is sorting through
litterally thousands of files and programs and
decideing what to install, what not to bother
with etc.
In many ways, this is one area where a comparison
to microsoft is unfair...they have LOTS of money
to hire programmers and make sure that time and
energy are spent on these things.
It is Unix...Unix install never was a real
normal user task...someday..it may be.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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
This quote shows a serious lack of understanding about software development. A little education on the subject.
First of all, project management is not a function of marketing. It is a function of any project. That means whether it is baking cookies, build software, or constructing bridges. Project management means managing the schedule by which you get your intended goals accomplished. It has nothing to do with the source from which you derive those goals, except insofar as you need a process to help determine how to derive those goals. In other words, getting those goals from a team of coders is just as valid to project management as is getting them from a marketing department. All project management does is to say, however you derive those goals, make sure you understand how you derive and prioritize those goals.
Secondly, I have to highlight this comment:
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).
OMG!!! The entire point of computers and software is to get stuff done, not to engage in computing. The todo lists for a computer should be dictated almost entirely by the people who will be using it to get stuff done. That means not the developers and sysadmin users.
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.
huh?
AOL, on the other hand, should definitley be ported to Linux. Case and co. have *got* to be thinking about this
I really don't think they are. There isn't really a "killer" market for this if they port it. Who would they sell it to? Not the geek community, the AOL market is kids and soccermoms etc., just joe average household users. Not power users. The Linux environment I don't think will ever be a Win competitor in the average household. AOL makes it's money off of spam, co-branding, and general stickyness of the shell, Linux users wouldn't have any part of that environment.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
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?
"We do this for ourselves."
This statement exactly proves why Linux will never be considered a major competitor on the desktop, unless some attitudes are changed.
Think about it.....you've got some business using Linux, and they inquire about a bug fix. You say "Hey, you're not a customer, you just use it." And the business goes back to using Microsoft products.
Unless attitudes are changed, Linux will always be considered as "that thing those nerds use."
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
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 suspect that every young anti-establishment movement attracts these angry types. Look at the anti-war movement, the anti-abortion movement, and even the civil rights movements had its share of firebrands. To make things worse, the Linux/Open Source movement encompasses several current anti-establishment trends at the moment; anti-globalism, anti censorship, anti corpratism and so on. In one way, these sorts help keep the movement in the limelight and bring attention to it, but the question is: what kind of attention. You also have to keep in mind, we've all been stuck with such an abysmal OS for so long, that when a viable alternative appeared, you had a lot of people flock to it out of anger rather than evaluating its pros and cons.
Anyway, Linux isn't alone in terms of having its zealots. Just work in a big institution to see this. You've got the Mac zealots, the Winfidels, and now the open source nuts engaging in open warefare. They're usually divided into physically separated fortified encampments and don't see one and other, let alone talk to each other except at meetngs where the accusations, insults, and sometimes the furniture flys.
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.
Interesting, I had a different reading of the article. I think he was saying that if a community of users is telling you that Microsoft (or Apple, or Sun, etc), is better because of x, maybe you should think a little bit about that and see if there is any truth to it -- NOT just write them off as a bunch of ignorant neanderthals. They might be telling you something VERY important, or giving you a clue as to the next important feature that Linux should have.
And before you cut me off at the legs, think about how not too long ago (like a year) writers like this would complain about how hard it was to install Linux, and that Windows installation was easier. Now the reviews are getting more positive in that respect -- we have simpler installers and pre-installed computers.
"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.
There is some self-interest in Linux. A Linux user is either a Unix user who adopted this new flavor, or is a non-Unix person who decided the effort to test and learn Linux was worth the trouble. Those who convinced themselves that Linux was worth the effort to try it had to convince themselves that it was worth doing so. Some of those people will be advocates, and some will be defensive about their present O.S. choice.
You're less likely to hear from those of us who aren't passionate about something. You get to hear from those who most strongly agree or disagree...and those who agree may simply think that you're as normal as them and see no need to comment.
The Linux killer is going to be something that doesn't look like an OS. People want to be able to fire up a machine and work. They don't want to do system administration; they don't want to focus on customization. Right now the biggest "non OS" is what's running on the Palm.
Advocates see Linux as a techie operating system with a command line prompt and an X interface, but if Linux ever get somewhere then that's not what's going to be visible. Linux will be buried under the hood to the point that no one cares it's there.
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!
I also program because I want to and I can. No argument there, compadre.
But I also remember that the user is the reason the program exists. That's the spirit of open source -- to meet the needs of users by putting th users in control of the software. Open source is not about replacing a clique of proprietariness with another clique of I-am-a-better-hacker-than-you.
Now if the user base consists of yourself, go ahead and program as you see fit -- you will naturally program to meet your needs. However, if the user is someone else, I do my best to find out what their needs are. If their needs can be met by a feature they demand, then I implement it. Sometimes you have to say "no" to a feature either becuase it's impossible, there isn't time or there's a better way, but if your software is for someone else, I think you should listen to them.
Not everyone can pick up a programming language and fix their software -- even those of us who can can't afford to patch every piece of open source software they wish had some feature or another.
Saying "Use the source. Now leave me alone" to a non-coder (or even a coder) is like having the chef of a restaurant telling you to cook your own damn steak if you don't like the way s/he does it; s/he may be right, but will s/he be a chef for much longer?
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.
A "killer" might be a little strong, I find it hard to beleive that Linux could just up and die. Don't get me wrong I'm sure that Linux could get very sick and old. But it has to many hardcore advocates to just disapear. The Linux base is at it's start not it's end. - But if I could point a finger at a possible threat it would be to another Unix base. And a very good user interface; - MacOS 10.
I know this is a streatch, but think about it. Mac definitly has the whole "out of the box" situation down. And their new OS, with a BSD backend, is a stable, smart idea. It will be backward compatible with all Mac software and compileing software for it that was written for other UnixLike systems will be a brease. Oh and don't forget MS will keep suporting Mac so the big office suite that everyone and ther uncle already knows will be on the system. -- and yes even AOL will be there.
Scarry!
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