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.
snip
While I'm all for the spread of Linux as a desktop OS, I'm afraid it will never happen. Most people just want a computer that they can turn on, click on icons, and chat/word-process/etc.
Not to incite bad mojo, but don't you see something slightly contradictory with that?
AOL represents the end-user client, the appliance in the computer, the thing that ma and pa can install by themselves and begin using without having to go through an arduous learning process. (recent 5.0 mishaps notwithstanding)
The Linux glory days are for the most part gone, unless you roll your own. The future is uncertain, but it may be something that is just as good--but if our ideals don't adopt to the changing times, we'll be left with crust. It's a choice: play the game, even if AOL is on the lineup, or take your bat and go home.
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.
I very much want Linux to succeed, but I do think that there are certain ideals that need to be maintained. Avoiding AOL is one of them. I have no experience with them, but friends of mine who do have complained that AOL does nothing more than mask the *real* internet (their words).
:) In linux, there are no such "user-friendly" graphical installers (except for some OS distributions) ... at least no widely used ones. Most of what a redhat user does is rpm -ivh foo.rpm, or some such variant. Additionally, this must be done as root, which opens the machine up to all levels of clusterf**king by the user.
Since you shared some of your experiences, I'll reciprocate... I also have been using Linux for about 4 years, mostly as a portal to remote supercomputers (during grad school) and somewhat on my home system. During college and grad school, I was continually exposed to *nix environments, and consider myself a fairly adept user. However, when it comes to system administration, at times I still need a good thwacking with a large clue stick.
IMO, the real problem is that, currently, Linux (which is inherently multi-user) requires a goodly amount of administration compared to Windows and MacOS (inherently single-user OSes). Consider software installation: in Windows, you download a file, extract it (typically through an install wizard) and click ok several times, and *poof* it's ready to run (after the obligatory reboot, of course
While I'm all for the spread of Linux as a desktop OS, I'm afraid it will never happen. Most people just want a computer that they can turn on, click on icons, and chat/word-process/etc. An inherently multi-user system, such as linux, *BSD, etc. adds a level of complexity that this type of user will never want to navigate.
I guess I see the spread of linux in the light that there are millions of people out there who actually want to learn and understand more about how their computer works. To me, that's more important than which company comes out on top.
Nb: M$ aside, of course... THEY don't want computer users to understand what they are doing: they might stop paying for crappy software then!
Eric
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.
I wonder what the Linux Killer will be? Any suggestions?
There is no Linux killer, or at least something newer and better may come along and replace the Linux kernel but there will still be a huge body of free software available and it will only grow and improve.
One reason, there will always be academics and volunteers forming a core of developers, wether they believe in a moral crusade to make free software available, or whether to scratch an itch.
Another, it makes no sense for a Large company that makes the bulk of it's money through services embracing a business model that produces less reliable software, thus diminishing the value of those services, this is perhaps less certain than point number one, but I believe it will hold true.
On a side note, what the author needs to grok is that if he posts technically ill informed details about something people believe passionately about, he is bound to meet some resistance, "Red Hat ships Linux with a Windows-like graphical user interface (GUI)" What??? in what way is X "Windows like"?? "the Linux GIU(sic) does not cover many tasks" whatever.
Another thing, why does Linux need a Windows emulator? surely a more complete version of WINE would be a better solution. And in what way is X incomplete (apart from the "coming soon" 3D support)?
Whatever, Later
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
D BREAK - CONT repeats
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!
Unfortunately, if Linux really wants to succeed as a desktop OS, I think it'll have to dumb down to this level. Most people are not that smart, particularly about computers. Most people have no urge to develop their skills in this area - they'd rather do whatever they do and have the computer as a friendly, transparent, no-brainer assistant to that. Thus the success of Windows and Macintosh - one a testament to the power of marketing and monopoly, the other of why it's called human interface design and not computer interface design. I'm less sure that Linux really should become a commercial desktop OS. Usenet went commercial, and look what happened to it. Maybe the development/server/hacker niche is where Linux should remain - an OS that can do anything, one that users graduate to when they begin to acquire a deeper knowledge of computers. Here's a little bit of flamebait: perhaps the correct destiny of the Linux OS as an advanced development/server/hacker system has been hijacked by those who would see Microsoft taken down at any cost? =DP= ...Amiga faithful to the end.
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
This is exactly the kind of thing he's talking about in the article. Most users are NOT like us. They do not want to learn new ways of doing things. They will not learn new ways unless forced to do so. Getting them to Linux REQUIRES these kinds of apps (AOL, Word) and not just look alikes, but work alikes.
--jeff
> 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