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.
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