Slashdot Mirror
Connell Replies to "Grok" Comments
Charles Connell writes "Before heading home for the weekend (and tearing myself away from Slashdot), I thought I would respond to some of the comments made about my recent Linux article.
First, thanks to everyone who posted or e-mailed a response. The vast majority of comments were friendly and thoughtful. I especially liked the reader who wanted to paste the article in every programmer's cubicle. *grin* More substantially, here are some specific responses to major points raised by Slashdot readers.
"
Bragging about your ignorance and using that ignorance as self importance is amusing but foolish.
I recall the CEOs of several ex-companies bragging that "no real executive would have a computer in their office". That's why their companies are now "ex-"
Really, the inherent *ix tone is that everybody less dedicated to this OS is the enemy. MS gets singled out as the enemy really because they want everybody to be able to use the computer and that waters down not the OS but the status of the "elite".
Well your rant was ok until you got here.
"I see the problem being that eventually people will not want to develop apps for linux and we will have a real classy OS for real smart people that dosn't have any r3ael new and fancy apps."
The above statement is based on the *assumption* that commercial entities are the only ones who can create "new and flashy apps". Also the *assumption* that people will not want to develop apps for Linux is false. People will continue to develop apps (free and otherwise) as long as it benifits them (and hopefully us) in some way.
Well your statement seems ok on the surface. Problems start when you factor in certain truths.
1-People have different "pov" on what is or isn't a deficiency, same with usability[1].
2-"The masses"(homogonized for your thinking pleasure) will pull and tug Linux in all sorts of directions, not all of them desirable. Who will pick and choose the good from the bad?
[1] Most people's "perceptions" can be misleading, or downright wrong. Optical illusions bring this point to the forefront. The same applies elsewere.
"In some sense, i have to agree, linux, as it is today, i would not ask my mother to use. And Mom used to code in pascal on macos." Not to get personal or anything but have you ever asked?
Your point about the right tool for the right job is indeed correct. *But* until the attempt (of some kind) is made, One will never know weither the right tool is indeed being used for the right task. Most people on this board who use the statement *assume* that Linux isn't the tool for the job without even trying.
"You say that as if having dummified and geek-friendly interfaces are mutually exclusive."
:)
Aren't they? Evidence anyone? Pro or con.
Remember start with your "definitions" (dummified.geek-friendly,etc) and work from their
And remember I will not tolerate any fruit throwing
>I managed to start top, and watched with
/usr/bin/gcc/cc1
;)
>interest as the used swap space climbed to 256M,
>when the system ran out of memory.
I can do that by re-making a kernel, if I run it
with: make MAKE='make -j'
This launches, oh, 500 copies of
Not pretty. Didn't crash, but I killed the master before I was a minute into the re-compile (but top wouldn't launch perceptibly, no memory/CPU left at
any priority
IMHO, I find that it is always best not to take ourselves to seriously.Besides being dogmatic
m l
just doesn't lead to anything very productive
or innovative in the long run.
refer to the below URL for some supporting arguments.
http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/login.ht
THANKS
"By day, I am a technical writer who must devote his time to his job. By night, I have a wife, compose and distribute music, do a comic strip on the net, and write for another web magazine."
Completely OT (moderate accordingly)
Have we heard any of them?
URL of the strip please.
Write for what magazine?
Thanks ahead for your reply.
Elite? Go to Mexico or anywhere in Central or South America and see if the average citizen has $200 for an operating system. Only the "elite' can afford these prices. But hey those people don't even speak english like me or you so who want's them on-line anyway (wink, wink).
He estado con su hermana y madre.
the beauty of linux is that you have that choice. no one will force you to use their dumbed down GUI. the source is open dude :)
6
9
I don't use Linux yet because it's a little too hardcore for me. I hate M$. I hate windows. I do not want to use windows. what are my alternatives? shitt mac? no offense mac heads but macs ARE inferior to pcs. i do admit macs are better in some ways, but overall pcs are better. so enough mac bashing, I really want to use something that doesn't suck, that isn't superdumbified for the drones, but is still easy enough that I CAN USE IT. Linux in about 1 year looks like this to me.
The Open Source model is clearly superior. Much like the pc is overall superior to the mac. Open Systems just make more sense in the long term.
I'm one of the ones who wonders if we really want one click installs and easy setup. Seems every dist that has gone that route causes me to spend hours afterwords cleaning up and optimizing the "simple install." I'd rather spend more time to begin with than have to deal with "expert" installs such as Mandrake 7.0 or Corel that sure don't seem to offer "expert" level choices. I kinda thought "expert" meant more choices in configuration, silly me. I like the freeBSD and older Linux dist model better, you might really have to know your system, but you also know exactly what you have installed and set up. My two cents.
yup yup. most of us tend to forget this from time to time - we get caught up in thinking M$ must die...M$ must die... M$ must die...oh. sorry. i got caught up. well anyways, this post did originally have a point.
The companies going IPO or whatever the technical jargon for that is, are becoming pillars of competition to M$, but that's not what Linux was originally about. Or i think.
Thanks ..
based on the new 70seconds between post rule, you spent a total of 8.16 minutes posting that (10.5 if you really posted 9... where are posts 7 and 8?)
I expected trolls to have join troll clans and compete for first posts, then do a summary, which clan has how many first posts.
Anyway, I want news dammit.
I don't think our objective should be "Total World Domination." After all, aren't we all rather upset at Microsoft for having the same goal?
When I think Total World Domination, I think Total World Domination for free software not for linux. I want all of my software to be free, free would be cool too, but I don't mind paying if I get good quality free software.
The reason I am interested in linux for the masses is a somewhat selfish one. I am tired of having to support my friends and clients with their feature ridden windows software. If windows was really as easy as MS advertises, I wouldn't mind. Evereything would work peachy and they would not need my help. They could be happy with windows, and I could be happy with linux. As it is, I am happy with linux, but they are unhappy with windows and I AM TOO! Ouch!
Bob Clip - friend of A Nony Mouse.
Bango!
If a little old one person business like I have can assign an employee (me!) to add needed features to linux, (ok - the system, not the kernel) a fortune 100 company could most likely do the same.
Note, they could even pick a distro, write the needed changes, offer them to the community, have them rejected, and still go ahead and use them for their own internal needs, or distribute them as a fork, patches, etc.
Just think, they could hire 1,000,000 programmers for $1,000.00 for a day and get any program they want written in a day for $1,000,000,000.00 - oh, wait, I guess they can't do that, can they?
They could make a great contribution though, an more than likey save money vs. spending for outside licensing.
Everyone keeps missing the point that linux is FREE SOFTWARE. The users have the POWER. They can do with it what is best for them. They do not have to wait on others to do for them. They do generally have to exist within the bounds of reality, however. See the 1,000,000 programmers above.
Bob Clip - friend of A Nony Mouse.
HURRY LEET MODERATORS!!! THE DELCHI'S ARE COMING FASTER THAN I CAN TAG THEM. HURRY!!!
YEPY
Hey there,
when I see people talking about no linux for the masses, it is usually in response to others saying that linux, as it is is too hard for the masses, and that the masses do not care about the freedom thay have with linux, and will not, in fact, are incapable of, excercising that freedom. They also point out that we are not obligated to help them, especially if they do not care to help themselves.
I do not necessarily hold with that view, but I think you are addressing something different. I have never heard anyone wanting to prevent anyone from using linux as it is or working on improving it, or working on it purely to scratch their own itches.
Bob Clip - friend of A Nony Mouse.
That's actualy pretty funny
MOderaTe That Shit down!
(Yes, I enjoy the bandwagon)
dood 2 u 23rc5 113w but what is this delchi stuff??
Heh. This was utterly offtopic, but I enjoyed it anyway.
MOO FUCKAZ
And of course it is not elitism, it's about having a system which is usable and not just userfriendly. Typical example: the simple commands that build up Unix (and Linux) such as sort, cat, cut, find, etc.
You don't have to use them, you don't have to know everything about them even when you use them, but once you've learned how to use them you'll find them easier to use than the 20MByte userfriendly graphical program which does the same thing but nothing else.)
My .02
All computer commands are arbitrary whether they are GUI or CLI commands. The user interface of a computer assumes a great deal about the user. Sure things like language and localization have been dealt with (partially), but still that doesn't take into account that programs are written for one "common denominator" end user. CLI's can certainly be very difficult because a user must memorize options or must take time to read documentation on programs (and know how/where to get said documentation). GUI's can be equally frustrating in my experience. For example, my girlfriend was having trouble with Word97 when she was writing psychology papers. These papers were expected to be in a certain format for all of her classes. The trouble was that she didn't know how to set up an option having to do with the format of page numbers. There was no obvious solution clumped together with the other options for page numbers. She knew that other programs could do what she was trying to accomplish, because she had used WordPerfect to do this same thing before (and ironically a Microsoft program over a decade old, some archaic version of Works). What ended up happening was that she never figured out how to do it, and we both wasted at least an hour of time reading documentation, scouring option menus, and randomly trying different options. This doesn't reflect poorly an either one of our intelligences. She's one of the smartest people I've ever met and I program on computers all day long. Either Word97 couldn't do what we wanted it to do (unlikely), or we just weren't in the common denominator at which this program was aimed. PS, this isn't anti-Microsoft or anti-GUI. Just pointing out that computers will be very difficult to use for many years to come.
lkasjdlksdklsajdlksajdlksadj
WE MUST BAND TOGETHER TO STOP DELCHI FROM SPAMMING SLASHDOT! MODERATE THIS PARRENT COMMENT DOWN
IF WE DON'T STOP DELCHI, SLASHDOT WILL BECOME A HAVIEN OF PEDOFILIAC COMMY PINKOS
MOO FUCKAZ
ONE TIME i BAUGHT A NETGEAR FA310TX (FAST ETHERNET CARD) AND IT CAME WITH LINUX DRIVERS ON THE DISK. IT WAS PRETTY COOL
BUT, YOU ARE DELCHI, AND YOU MUST BE DESTROYED. MODERATE DOWN PLZ.
not as much as your mother enjoys my dick up her ass......
3 /. stories, all common sense, just so this guy can say "I'm right and you're wrong"
Did he say anything we didn't know? Anything that wasn't already dragged out of the closet by MS and every damn other Linux critical author out there?
This isn't thought provoking nor is it new. I expected to at least agree with him on something and say yeah that's how it is, but I got really sick of his "I'm right and you're wrong because my opinion is that I am right."
actually, yes
I however don't worry about everextending my linux box. I beat the hell out of it and it simply won't die (preaching to the choir here).
I managed to crash my Linux box by overextending it once. I (stupidly) ran that program the FBI made available to detect Trinoo, etc. It was working fine, when the disk began thrashing horribly, and the system responded as though it was nearly frozen. I managed to start top, and watched with interest as the used swap space climbed to 256M, when the system ran out of memory. For some reason, VM tried to kill the FBI prog, then killed init, then a kernel panic ocurred (I was running a dev kernel).
The other time I crashed my linux box, I was blowing dust out the case with a can of compressed air while the system was running.
hey dipshit, were talking about LINUX, L I N U X, not Microsoft. This isnt a competition. MS isnt our mortal enemy. Look I know you're a troll and you think its cute to be a contrarian but grow up, mmkay?
NT
If the subject looks familiar, its intentional. This issue has been addressed, rehashed, and readdressed over and over again.
Linux was created for coders, by coders as a replacement for costly commercial Un*x implementations. Linux on the desktop is a pipe dream best left to those who stuff their pipes with funky stuff. Why do I use Linux? Why do I code Linux? Because its the right solution for the current problems. Most serious Linux users don't give a rats arse whether Linux competes with Windoze on the desktop.
Once the community recognizes this, we can move forward with MEANINGFUL work instead of trying to create a windoze workalike.
I agree! DOS HAD the freaking up-arrow. Win98 has it too! Learn before you post such irreverent nonsense... have you ever heard of DOSKEY... next time you are at a win9x or dos prompt type DOSKEY ... it gives you the up arrow, command history, etc.... and it's been in DOS for god knows how long!
If you want everybody to run the same software, think the same way, have the same goals, you know where to buy Microsoft Windows.
I don't need conformity, even conformity to my own preferences. In fact, I really enjoy it when people use some of my software in a way that I never intended or thought about!
Yes! The difference that makes a difference is that Linux rewards answer-seeking behavior. Windows punishes it - they bury the clues with the body. People conditioned by the Borg are fearful of their machines (obvious if you've spent any time training staff on Windows workstations). When things go wrong, they rarely are fully resolved. Support staff bullshits to cover that they can't really fix the OS, either. And they in turn are bullshitted by the telephone support of the software vendors. You generally end up feeling stupider coming out of a Windows work-around-the-bug session than going in.
With Linux, you learn to learn. You learn that the solutions are often accessibly documented. You learn that you can find the clues to build your own solutions. You learn that a community of intelligent people is generous, and wants to help you become brighter, too, rather than reduce you to the status of stupid consumer of their more-hype-than-substance 'product.'
If people were fatally conditioned by Microsoft, were terminally in consumer mode, that would be one thing. But Linux reconditions you. And as Pavlov and Skinner clearly proved, a positive feedback loop is more effective for producing desired behavior in animals than a negative one - reward works better than punishment; Linux rewards a willingness to learn, to be part of a community of common goals.
Of course some people just love to be punished. In capitalism, however, especially in technology, intelligence, on average, wins out. Firms embracing Linux as compared to Windows, starting out with workers of equal average intelligence, will end up with workers who are more competent, more effective, more willing to encounter challenges - because Linux is so much more rewarding for those who challenge it. It's a positive loop. The baseline, anti-learning behavior of our consumerist society is less adaptive to the ecology of the marketplace, and will be superceded.
HEHEHEEYY FUCKERS!!!
nithing to see here move along......I said move along........I SAID FUCK OFF WHAT ARE YOU DEAF???
WTF? yes you heard right...WTF!!!
[ re: the previous subject line ]
:-)
Okay, now THAT was funny.
"We" as developers... people who code the kernel. Too many people are wasting their time trying to support Winmodems and the latest AGP 10X 3D enhance obfuscator instead of working on the core kernel. This fascination with playing catch-up with the Jonses bothers me greatly.
Linux is a house of cards, Kimosabe. When the foundation is not well refined, the house can fall at any time.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! LOL! You should make a comic out of this!!
So you're saying instead of just buying a product I need to hire people to write a product for me?
That's just stupid.
The Linux community has ended up with "A computer on my desk and my home but not for those lusers who aren't as elite as me"
That is a key difference that will either be addressed or Linux will remain an intellectual toy for bored ex-academics.
YES.
You're not going to get past a certain point of simplicity without castrating the installer. A good example of this would be the Win98 OEM CD's practice of just grabbing your first disk and making one huge partition on it.
Sure, this is 'easier', but it is also less functional.
Past a certain point, certain bits of functionality will have to be removed and the software will have to make some major assumptions that could be WRONG.
Certain core concepts just can't be avoided.
A general purpose computer is NOT a toaster.
If this kind of self-proclaiming arrogance (If it is good for me, it is good - if it isn't good for me, it is bad) doesn't scream out as a problem then you've missed the point of the last 35 years and probably want to go back to white coats and raised floor glass box computer rooms.
And that isn't a free future as in beer or speech.
a) Actually, I have some binaries that are still running from when I compiled them under Slackware. The last version of Slackware I used before defecting to Redhat was Slackware 96.
b) Devices CAN be made available to a limited number of users. As far as gaming libraries go: they are good enough to do production work NOW. The mother of all media libraries (GL) started on Unix.
This is GAMES we're talking about here, not Lightwave 3D.
c) 'No market' is true of any alternate platform anywhere from any time and it's a lame excuse that
really stiffles the free market. Not everyone can manage to ship and sell 1 Millon or 5 Millon copies. There needs to be room in the market for smaller players, even on the Win32 side of things. In an early adopter market, a company could sell more units than they might expect to sell going up against the likes of Blizzard or EA.
if youre the type of guy who needs flashy applications.. linux is not for you. stick with win or mac and stop trying to bring your lame apps to linux.
What's wrong with an install fest? Maybe somebody feels Linux would be best suited for them, and would like help installing it. Install fests are about choice - Windows isn't the best operating system for everyone either, maybe they just want to try something different.
Linux is varied enough where we could have targeted distributions... some for the power users, some for grandma. There's no reason that every distribution has to appeal to everyone. But if it does... we're going to get some seriously bloated code. So you want to be able to compile every program individually and optimally? Well, what about me, who doesn't? If there was a generic way to create a wrapper install, that add's that nice easy functinoality for those who want it, but still keeps the underlying complexity there for those who want access to it, that would be cool. Just my $0.02 *i
A pox on both your houses.
:)
I, for one, am happy I learned my "unnecessarily arcane, arbitrary computer commands".
And I'll tell you a few other things.
* At times they can be necessary, but if you don't know them, then they can't help you.
* Arcane is a matter of perspective, like "User-friendly". If you LEARN them, they aren't so arcane anymore.
* Arbitrary is unjustified here. Many of the commands share common syntaxes or conventions, and again, if you LEARN them, they don't seem so arbitrary. Rather, their consistent interface is helpful.
So remember:
grep '' -b $x | tr : '\t' | uniq -f 1 -w 3 | expand | cut -c 1-10
You never know when you might need it. I used this the other day, because I didn't want to write it in C. And it helped me test out an approach to a problem. I wouldn't want to do that in Excel or Access or whatever Windows program purports to replace this functionality. (Perl?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
GUIs make things prettier, and occasionally easier to use. But there should be a way to get what you want to do done with the existing GUI tools, and not have to make or buy a completely new one, as is often the case.
And there are many tasks where a CLI / text environment is easier *and* more efficient. I can select a portion of a document and stick it into another application with everything preserved with my favorite text editor. Or I can just use text files and filters. Nothing could be simpler.
CLIs are suitable for automating any repetitive task, *especially* interactive tasks. Nothing could possibly be more repetitive than a GUI, and there are powerful tools that can optimize interactive tasks. (expect, GIMP's script-fu... whole languages made for that job. I'm learning Scheme now, and it's interesting.)
Some simple things are simple in GUIs, but sometimes the metaphor is just plain broken, or there logically aren't enough options. Too many icons for different choices get hard to manage.
And I'd kill for a GUI environment that made "difficult things possible". Especially anything like the example I posted. (you'd have to build a "binary offset per line" function into your GUI text editor, and give it the power to do something a bit more powerful than global search and replace. And then add that to your other applications. Maybe an environment that shares GUI object thingies would work better for this...)
Everything I needed to know about CLIs originally came from a MS-DOS 3.3 manual. Back when the manual came with the OS and the computer, and it contained vital and detailed information. Ah yes, those were the days...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
How is it an "impassible" barrier? I certainly managed to get beyond it - it's called DOCUMENTATION. There are HOWTOs, man pages, and other online documentation, including assorted Web pages. There is also a wealth of information in books (O'Reilly books, for example, have been a MAJOR source of useful info for me).
There's not an "impassible" barrier to entry of the Linux world - the only thing holding anyone back is lack of desire. It doesn't have to cost anything, the docs aren't that hard to find... So, where's the problem?
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I won't talk too much about the carelessness and complete lack of reasonable research that accompanied the "experiment" in the first article (No mention of Wine; No mention of Linux ports of popular applications such as Netscape, WordPerfect and Quattro Pro; the fact that Red Hat was chosen rather than a more desktop-oriented distribution).
No, what annoyed me was that the former article contributed nothing. It didn't tell us anything we didn't know before. Thank you very much, but we know that none of the Linux-based distributions can currently be installed or configured by non-technical users. We know that the current GUIs are a lot harder to use than MS-Windows or MacOS. We know that less "productivity" applications are Linux-available at the moment. Hundres and perhaps thousands of people, and huge amounts of resources (both corporate and from the community) are invested into solving these problems. You said absolutely nothing new.
But even though the article wasn't one bit helpful at exposing our unknown weaknesses, it was written as a warning and as a rebuttle of the "myth" (which no-one claims to be true) that Linux-based distributions can currently compete on the desktop. Putting Red Hat 6.1 against MS-Windows or MacOS standards in terms of non-technical usability is not helpful or informative but simply teasing -- putting it as a feature on Slashdot is the equivalent of carrying a big sign in LinuxWorld saying "Na-na! You don't have desktop!"
So you got flamed. I'm not surprised.
- Adi Stav
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
So you're saying instead of just buying a product I need to hire people to write a product for me?
That's just stupid.
No, I'm saying that if you get something for free, and it doesn't exactly meet your needs, don't expect it to be tailored to your needs for free.
----
The 4DOS/4NT/4OS2 command.com/cmd.exe replacements from JP Software have offered tab completion for many years. So there is no excuse for M$ to have left out this useful function for so long.
How's this for an excuse: "Average people will use our new, spiffy Windows 3.1 point-n-click interface to select files. Only power users will use the command line now... and power users aren't a significant portion of our target market for DOS-Win3.1."
Yes, it sucks, but it's the logic of the (overrated) free market: if we (think we) won't get an acceptable ROI, we won't do it. It's not a valid excuse, but an excuse nonetheless...
--
--
#define private public
... you're welcome (even though I did not yet participate in the discussion :-)
I think you've discovered the right approach to Linux: It can be a different thing to everybody. You like the directness of the command line (as do I), but there are others out there intimidated by that. Just let them have their kdf GUI version of df (even though I can not understand why that's
neccessary, but it certainly has it's place).
I'm personally using KDE, just because I don't care what kind of borders my vi running in an exterm has. Linux gives us the freedom to have a command line
We need the masses to make things happen. I'm trying to get information from a manufacturer. About half a year ago I tried the same thing without even a response. Now I've received an email, a contact address and a draft version of a document. This only happened because Linux now is something the mainstream media is reporting about.
We really have nothing to lose if we can invite the world to our Linux experience. Let's just not scare them away with an attitude that does not tolerate any window managers that look like some Microsoft products.
Linux currently meets your needs. That's wonderful. DOS met my needs in the 80's. The good ole commie 64 met my needs before that. However, they don't meet my needs now. In reference to another /. article on Bluetooth, if Linux doesn't "keep up", in regards to hardware drivers and support for things like Bluetooth, when I win the lottery and replace all my appliances and PDA's with bt enabled gadgets, if my OS can't speak to them, it no longer meets my needs. And the computer industry changes to often and too quickly for this not to be a valid concern. That is what people are afraid of happening.
I find it amusing that people talk of UI and suddenly get into fights about CLI and GUI. The problem with Linux is NOT its interface. How many years did completely non-technical people use DOS for their every day jobs? Plenty. Linux's problem lies in the fact that it lacks something Windows and MacOS both have. Both systems have a single guiding influence, they have control over all the utilities and interfaces and all of that stuff that gets packaged into their OS. I have yet to see a Linux distro release an entire distrobution with the only reused code being the code in the kernel itself. Distros just repack a bunch of utilities written by various people or groups and maybe write some software themselves to include. Just look at the difference between vi and emacs, they can both do many of the same things but they act almost completely different. Regular users like a single style of interface, a square will always be a square and always act like a square even if it's put on top of a circle. The community OS and the corporate OS will by definition always have to remain separate. That has been my major criticism of Linux, it has excellent capabilities but it lacks a common style throughout. For Linux to become a permenant part of the business world it will have to go from being a community OS to a corporate OS which no one in the community wants. This might be off-topic but it does have to do with what people are responding to Connell with.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
That's one thing that kills me about RH installs these days (or at least on 5.x, and 6.x) is that you can't *not* install at least some component of flippin' XWindows, which I have absolutely no use for on my machines. I usually spend a good five minutes BSing around with rpm until I've killed off the last vestiges anything X windows related.
I would love a distro that would *just* install kernel, kernel source, libs, gcc, and basic networking support. I'll add my own stuff to that. Instead I get everything and the kitchen sink. No wonder Joe DSL is hosting DDoS zombies, he's kind of been duped into it.
I wasn't particular concerned with the applications per se, but the general lack of consistancy even about the system. My first distro (ca. 1996) was Slackware included with some awful SAMS book. I switched to Redhat not long after, and each subsequent RH upgrade was always a "what are they going to change next". I use it as a server/utility OS, not a desktop OS, so the intimate familiarity just never got there for me.
One thing that I've grown to like about Freebsd is that they've got a complete system. Sure, many of the userland applications are different in look and feel, but the overall operating environment seems much more coherent to me.
Red Hat 5.2 is still available, if that's the version that you prefer. I understand that one can even still find copies of earlier versions, but 5.2 is the first that would run on my hardware, so I never followed up on those.
Or one could just choose not to install X Window.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The way around this is to build a distro that gives you an absolute "minimal" install, kernel, modules, gnu tools, and from that system, install selected components - X, TeX, Emacs, rather than install the lot in one go. This has two advantages.
1> If you have a working system then install pagcakge X, the set of possible things that have been broken are much smaller.
2> Faster time to get a working system up and access to troubleshooting documentation.
/usr/games/fortune > ~/.signature
Wanting computer games to be ported to linux isn't quite the best of reasons to want linux to become more popular, but think about it this way:
How many quake addicts would boot to linux to play instead or running it in Windows if the could get even just 1 or 2 more frames per second?
How many gamers do you know who return a game if it requires more then 5-10 minutes of setup time to get started?
How many gamers do you know who *aren't* willing to reboot their computer to play a game?
That last reason is why few companies have started to switch to Linux, but could be a reason to have Linux games widely available in the future. Because linux is free, it can come with a game. Even a bootable system on a CD so that, in theory, a developer in the near future could have the option of shipping a game where you can put it in the drive of you computer (PC or Mac or Alpha or whatever) turn it on and play. Also, I don't know if you're a programmer, but if you were to try, you'd find it much more pleasant and easy to write a game for linux. Game programmers are idealists (as far as I've seen anyway) They'll code where they want to, and they'll come to linux in flocks as soon as Linux offers the gaming hardware support and gaming performance that windows offers. When the game companies come to linux, the gamers will follow. It'll never happen the other way around.
I have to strongly dissagree with his thinking. Most of the criticism of Linux of late is that its hard to install. Well of course its hard for an average user with limited computer experience to install
The fact is that any OS installation is pretty hard work. It's just that 99% of Windows users never have to do that because their computers come with it pre-loaded. At least Linux installers offer to format your HD for you-- Win98 expects your drive to be already formatted when most drives I buy aren't these days.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
About this .1% number..
.1%, 90% dont know how linux works.
The percentage of the population that is illiterate and lives in mud huts is probably around 90%
Of the remaining 10%, 90% dont know what a computer is.
Of the remaining 1%, 90% dont know how a computer works.
Of the remaining
.1% sounds plenty high to me.
Whats the problem?
While I was trying to be humorous, I still stand by my numbers (vaguely) =)
60 million people might well be a nice round number for computer literacy (perhaps "knowing what a computer is" was a bit too pessimistic).
One level down:
Most people don't know how a computer works. I'm talking basic computing concepts here, not transistor/gate level.
RAM. Registers. I/O. This is not rocket science, but I doubt if 6 million people could satisfy my criterion for knowing how a computer works.
One further level down:
Knowing how to use linux != running a Red Hat installer. To me, knowing == adminning, because anything less is a disaster waiting to happen.
What's wrong with asking for a modicum of competence from Linux users? We already know what a nation full of unsecured DSL/Cable modem subscribers and RedHat CDs can do to global network security.
Frankly, I really don't think Linux should be the Macintosh of the 21st century, just as I don't think reading a "Brain Surgery for Dummies" book qualifies you to open up somebody's skull and dig around inside.
Nice attitude. Exactly what we don't want, and don't need. Why don't you take your distro of linux, go into your closet, and have a ball. We'll see how long you like being so elite and secluded.
Meanwhile, linux users in the real world want to see more applications (I was using games as an example; video players like Quicktime and many other apps are needed) developed for linux.
I simply can't understand how people think linux is going to compete with, let alone defeat, windows when they don't want it to grow commercially viable. Linux needs support from software vendors, the more the better. Software vendors want numbers, the more the better. I'm sorry if the idea companies charging money conflicts with our utopian "free FTP for everything" system, but money is what makes their world go round.
"More organs means more human." - Zim
The ease-of-install issue is something that customers and end users demand. If all of Linux development were under some sort of software engineering regime, it would be identified as a needed feature and resources would be assigned to it.
However, installers are fairly dull from both a programming and computer science perspective, so we've had to depend on the commercial Linux companies (e.g. RedHat) to provide even a minimally acceptable install process.
Even with a community of thousands of contributing open-source programmers, there are some tasks no one has volunteered to do. It is my hope that as Linux continues to spread, more programmers with an interest in usability (e.g. Andy Hertzfeld of the Eazel project) or commercial programmers with experience in the various consumer pieces missing from Linux will contribute to the endeavor.
Listening to customers is important. Programmers on their own will produce products that are technically brilliant but appeal mainly to other programmers.
If the open-source world is serious about taking on Microsoft, we should refocus programmer resources away from the already-great kernel and point them at the install process and desktop, where we're weakest.
. The percentage of the population that has the skill and time to use Linux (as it currently is) is extremely small. I would guess about 0.1%.
I find this to be an odd statement, personally. Although I would certainly consider myself to be a 'technical' person, I found installing RedHat Linux 6.1 to be pretty much plug and play (Well, actually, the first time i tried it, Lilo wouldn't work, I just had to use a boot disk. The second time I didn't even bother with Lilo).
It even worked with my network and Graphics Card OK. Not perfect, but I would say that it wasn't any more difficult to install then windows 95 or 98 (Way easier, if you consider window's upgrade check)
If he's talking about setting up things like KDE or Genome manually, I could understand, but Just installing, for the most part, isn't really anymore difficult then win98/95.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
. Too many people are wasting their time trying to support Winmodems and the latest AGP 10X 3D enhance obfuscator instead of working on the core kernel.
Despite what ESR might say, the rules laid down in The Mythical Man Month Still hold true. Simply adding more people will not speed up development. You might think people are wasting there time, but people who enjoy 3d games might not, you know.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I guess I was assuming the guy was talking about the US population, not the whole world's. I guess that was a little short sighted of me. But I'm sure that if he didn't mean the US specifically, he was only really talking about industrialized 'first world' nations, where people can afford computers
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I know some users of Linux who do not even know how to program in assembly language,
:P
You mean, they don't even know assembly programing!? what are they doing in front of a computer to begin with!??
Ok, that was sarcasm, but I just found the idea of you even needing to say that kind of funny
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Very true, but the "down with Microsoft!" is not coming from Linux (or *BSD) users, but from us Microsoft users who are looking for a way out.
For evidence. There is a lot of good technical information about Microsoft software hidden in the threads (but never from the Microsoft astroturfers). Microsoft bash fests seem to draw an inordinate amount of interest, but there is a strong impression that the heavy Linux/BSD/Unix users consider it a waste of bandwidth.
The reason I would never advocate Linux for commericial games is that it makes a horrible platform for such software. It has nothing to do with elitism, it's just that Linux isn't the right tool for the job, at least not now. Let's look at the problems:
My advice to the Linux gamer is to purchase a nice console for the newest games and for their computer gaming enjoy the current selection of native open-source software like FreeCiv, QuakeForge, MAME and many other smaller projects.
This is one thing that people don't seem to understand. A *nix box with a full set up has all the tools you need to get ANY job done. Word Processors and Spread sheets just take those commands and package them. You Don Really Need Them, sure it will save you time but that is not the point.
Too many people are accustom to other Os's which basically have no functionality with out extra
boxed applications. *nix is not just an OS, it is a fully functioning symbiotic relationship of lots of small programs, the result is a TOTAL SOLUTION unto itself.
yes, it's been around for a while. Something that I found a quick love for, though, was tab-complete (which I never found in DOS, although I didn't look). My insides got all soft and squishy, VIVA LA CLI!
--
+&x
> Even more unix like: you can now mount a Hard Drive in to the directory tree of a different Hard Drive
IIRC it has been possible since DOS 3.30, using the assign.com in the standard distribution, but Windows {2,3,95}.x never liked it.
I ask you: is Windows for the masses an acceptable solution? Wouldn't that be rather cruel :-)
nosig today
I agree, some people do feel that linux is not for the masses, and they want to keep it that way. I would rather have it in use by more people so we can finally give microsoft a run for their money on the desktop market. How can we shout, "Down with microsoft.", while we say that linux is only for the "elite"? Isn't the idea to provide an alternative for everyone?... Including the average user? Just a thought.
No todo lo que es oro brilla
I seriously doubt the W2K command.com is going to compete with bash. Until I can do a ^u^o or tab completion forget it.
War is necrophilia.
What is the point of this. I am still right you are still wrong? What the hell is that!. How come this arrogant bastard gets to be a headline story?
War is necrophilia.
Actually a significant minory is good enough. If linux got 20% market penetration that would probably be enough to make hardware manufacturers write drivers for it.
War is necrophilia.
Many of the users at the LUG I attend from time to time use different OSen to accomplish different things. Many of us gathered around to help somebody out with a FreeBSD install! And there was no flamage of any kind either........
Most of the people there are pragmatists who would agree with you: use the right tool for the right job. Maybe your local group lacks zealots as well.
The point was/is:
Is Linux versatile enough to make anybody happy with every part of it.
As far as the install process goes, I would never dream of going back to the level of Corel/Mandrake or even RedHat, those are too simple for my use.
It would be impossible though for my roommate to use Linux if it weren't for Red Hat and all of the assistance he is getting. With these things he is happily using Linux and rarely reboots to Win.
As Corel and others come out that make the install/maintenance process even simpler, there will still be dists like SlackWare that dont care about ease of use because they are made more for our type of user. And if worse comes to worse, why do I need a new distrib anyway? I can just dld it all...
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
You say that as if having dummified and geek-friendly interfaces are mutually exclusive. Linux as Linux doesn't have an interface (except for the API, obviously). IIRC, all interfaces are run in user space, even the CLI shell. This means that the interface can be replaced more easily than in any other desktoppy OS.
Modern linux dists only have one windowing system but they have, about two `desktop environments,' four or five CLI shells, and even more window managers than that. The idea that there is only one interface allowed per operating system is an artifact from the MacOS. Even in Windows, there are things like LiteStep to allow virtual desktops, etc, and the DOS shell if you feel like you deserve some abuse.
Linux advocacy cliche #17: Choice, control, malleability - slack, if you will - is an advantage of Linux.
Anyway, I see KDE moving in the direction of dummification, and things like NextStep tending toward what you want. GNOME is kind of schitzophrenic in the sense of who it's targeted towards. But I suppose I use it because I'm not sure whether I want to be a dummy all the time, or a geek all the time, and GNOME caters to all the voices in my head.
No it isn't the Linux community's responsibility to meet the needs of companies. However, as far as I know, most of the Linux community wants Linux to be used as widely as possible. If Linux doesn;t meet the company's needs, then they won't use it. One less computer running Linux, possibly one more running NT.
As I said when the first article first came out, Linux is part of the Open Source movement and is NOT part of the standard Business As Usual(TM) marketing world.
I'm amazed that he isn't being roasted alive with flames. Let's say I build a hovercar. It goes vertical, it uses a fusion drive engine, it only has to be refueld once a decade, and the collision avoidance system warns me whenever I get too close to something. This guy comes along, pushes a few buttons and says:
All the other cars have those round rubber things, this one should too.
It goes up? The other cars don't go up.
Why is it yelling at me when I do something dumb? My car doesn't do that.
Then he writes up an article saying that my invention is inferior because it doesn't fit into the vision of what he thinks a car should be.
Tough, bucko. Linux is based on a different model, a distributed model. By trying to force it into the vertical software development mold breaks the model. You can't build Linux like you build Windows and still have Linux. It would be completely different software.
"...history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi
Being a powerful full-featured OS means that necessarily it must be hard to install? Come again? You don't need thousands of options to install for the handful of general configurations that first time users require. When their needs extend they could have tools to add those features to their system again without having to dive down into the guts of the thing. Believe it or not, not everyone likes to play at the lower levels.
I agree about shipping Linux preinstalled though.
The community is not relevant particularly to users who simply want a good dependendable OS and working environment. They aren't out for a "community experience" but simply to get their work done in a more efficient and useful way than they do today. To try to impose some community mindset on these people would be to utterly miss the point.
Linux most certainly can fail. It can fail to be a viable alternative that displaces MS on the desktop. It can fail to live up to its current high expectations and start being refused as an alternative in settings that it is at least beginning to be fully acceptable in. That a lot of the traditional community would still use it in those circumstances is irrelevant to whether it failed to live up to its promise in the larger world.
We who would like to do all our work on Linux care. We care very much. We who would like to see a decent alternative to Micro$oft care. I don't need a "hobby". I need a good dependable basis for software systems that isn't polluted beyond recognition with greed and stupidity. Given that system I want to use it everywhere including in the paying world and I want to see it spread.
Who cares if Linux can cut it in the real world of business computing? I care. Don't you?
"As soon as the community of developers starts attaching a high priorty to corporate demand, the fun, hobbyish aspect of Linux will die."
I agree with this statement but I think it is in dire need of elaboration. I believe that it is quite possible for Linux to fail--be it by treacherous corporate baddies or by terminal disorganization. However I believe that the community behind Linux can not die. The "fun" and "hobbyish" parts of Linux are within us. Our love of coding is impervious to corruption. Not only this, but thanks to large scale open source movements like Linux, we know that this type of sharing of ideas can work and it is great. If we had to start all over again, we would know exactly how to do it. In fact, if Linux was indeed destroyed, I believe the knowledged gained from its demise would aid us in building a much stronger manifestation of our community.
"Perspective is lost in the spirit of the chase." -[I have no clue who said this]
The swing and the sway of corporate involvement is just a magnifying glass of the true linux "movement".
The movement will do what it will, but there is no reason that corporate america cannot profit on that movement -- think of how power can be extracted from the tide. The waves certainly don't care, but there is value in tracking and harnessing the motion.
So -- carry on. Nothing to see here. It's still cheaper to tweak the tide for your purposes than maintain the ocean.
Mojotoad
Two of the replies he got stand out:
"The Linux community is not a business, so no one can demand anything from it."
This strikes me as just ignorant, though he was too kind to put such a label on it. As he points out it is irrelevant that there is no "Linux 800 number"; business decisions by Fortune 500 companies used to having Compaq/Dell/Microsoft/IBM ready to make sure things work as advertised and desired.
"We don't want Linux used by the masses."
This is indeed unanswerable, and it saddens me that he actually got a response with this statement in it. You *better* want Linux to be used by the masses, because that's where the games/apps/hardware support is.
-- "Vote Democrat. Because the current crop of conservatives are just bugnut crazy."
I keep seeing a billion text editors. A billion HTML editors. A billion irc... well nevermind irc rules.
But my point is not that I hate "variety" (it ain't the spice of life just a side effect of it), but that there's a billion people out there creating a thing and they honestly thinbk it's going to look different than the last one.
I'm not so dense to think innovation is something our universe is compatible with. It isn't. This goes beyoind the classic new and improved hype.
There's rules and there's limits. If anybody tells you they've found a shape with equal length sides that you can put side to side to build a three dimensional object perfectly closed with no irregulasrities and the number of sides for the shape is more than 5, they're full of shit. The rules of geometry prohibit anything over five. You can't fight it. I love that about sciences. you can tell who's full of shit by whether or not they accept the concept of limitations.
Need to go back to basics and go even where Unix can't. Unix laid the ground work but didn't finish it. Whereas Windows is a giant tower made out of pebbles, rocks, stones, and boulders. Only they put the boulders at the top and a couple of grains on the bottom to hold it up.
'Course all bets are off 2000 cuz it's starting to display Unix-like behavour. Not exactly done right, though it's nice that the shell they use for command.com now allows you to use your up arrow instead of that stupid F3 key. I wonder where they got that from?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I thought GUIs were the standard? Or wait didn't Gates say a while ago that mice and menus are obsolete and Voice rules them all. I'll be damned if they invented the up arrow. Why hide it if it's available the code is already made so the don't do more work than you have to clause doesn't apply.
I do not believe it is even a Unix invention.
I kinda doubt it's a u~1 invention, they tend to be very superficial and moan and groan when it's time to invent. Look how long it took before NT came out on Alphas even though Alphas wipe the floor w/ PCs and even though it took not too long for a Linux Alpha port to be avbailable.
If u~1 invented the up arrow, that's totally out of character for them. Not a bad thing to have invented it if they did, but very doubtful.
Nevermind NDOS4 had it too w/ other great history features that u~1 shell can't touch. Like picking out a command from an on screen menu in commandline mode. Unices don't have that, how could u~1.
Try this out with me por favor:
Many Unix shells available. Developed for Unixers needs since way before DOS was around. Yes, you dodo, MSDOS was ages behind. You're going to tell me a shell that has history, current dir command autocomplete(now used in browsers) and pattern match history recall, is going to miss a fundamental thing like the up arrow when in fact Unix got there before the rest of them? Puhlease
Oh and by the way to talk of fragmentation... Why doesn't Win98 interfacewise suffice for NT. I certainly can move my experience from one Unix to another quite easily.
And yes, all the distros are the same. It's stupid fucks who can't use an app if you change the color scheme slightly.
And that's after suffering Windows Brain Numbimg for 3 straight years.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
"when the CTO of a Fortune 100 company is deciding whether to commit to Linux for 50,000 new computers, he (or she) is certainly going to be demanding. They might be a little uncertain where to direct their demands, but the overall ability of the Linux community to meet her needs is going to influence that purchase decision."
Mr. Connell's assertion that it's somehow the Linux community's responsibility to meet the needs of a corporation is evidence that he doesn't quite understand how open-source software works. He's on the right path, but not quite there.
If the "CTO of a Fortune 100" company wants something fixed or changed in a piece of open-source software, they can "direct their demands" to their own staff. If they want something fixed, they're not helpless, they can fix it themself (at least with open-source they can). It's not the Linux community's responsibility to "meet her needs". It's "her" responsibility to "meet her needs".
Open-source is about being empowered to fix it yourself, not about being entitled to have someone else fix it for you.
Anyone who can afford to have "50,000 new computers" can certainly afford to hire a programmer or two to modify the software to "meet her needs".
Entitled vs Empowered.
Choose Empowered. Choose Open-Source.
-tgw
Just remember, the CTO doesn't WANT to invest any money in computers if he can avoid it. He wants his office suite pre-installed, and wants the user to go away.
Custom apps will get written on way or the other, so they are a wash, but don't expect THEM to be open source, heck, they aren't even open binary - they are usually considered a companies competitive advantage.
One more thing to point out. Windows was going nowhere for a long time in big companies. They just could not be bothered to put the effort into writing a C program for windows. It took too LONG. Then the first of the visual tools came out - Yep Visual Basic. All of a sudden the companies all around started with pilot projects to test out programming in and deploying windows. We later got things like VC++ which was great, but VB lives on.
In industry, VB has been called "COBOL for the Micro", and really, that is what it has become. There are a LOT of COBOL jokes out there, just like there are VB jokes, but it took COBOL for the Mainframe to catch on, and it took VB for windows to catch on
OK, where, or what is the COBOL/VB equivalent for Linux? If Inprise gets their butt in gear, and gets Delphi out to marked SOON, I'd predict they would be as much of a winner in the Linux Community, as they were a minor player in the Windows.
wow
I completely agree with you. I use Linux and write GPL'd software, but I don't think everyone should use it.
Linux was designed by geeks for geeks. I like Linux's interface better than any other OS because it was designed for people like me.
I don't want the interface to be dummified in order to allow non-geeks to use it. Linux was not designed for them. Mac OS was. And with OSX looking as nice as it does, I think I would recommend it over Linux to people like my mom. But I want the Linux interface remain targeted at geeks. As a matter of fact, I would be very interested to see what a team of GUI programmers could come up with if they focused on an interface for the technologically inclined. I'm sure that they could come up with something perfect for me, but it probably wouldn't be very well suited to people like my mom.
I don't think our objective should be "Total World Domination." After all, aren't we all rather upset at Microsoft for having the same goal?
------
-Everything has a cause
-Nothing can cause itself
-You cannot have an infinite string of causes
Takes a lot of moxie to risk posting on /. but what the hey ! here goes anyway...
I am female...prolly four years older then God, not bad looking for an old broad and been using windoz computers for 6 years. I am sick and tired of the security problems/ the incompatability problems and frankly..the bloat! I work! I pay my own bills! I read/. and OMG! have even Moderated! I am NOT a hardware tech...I do NOT write code..I AM part of the unwashed masses that have discovered Linux,and a guru that did not believe the 'Don't give Linux to your grandma' bull. I had a machine built!!! I had the experts INSTALL for me and joined a local LUG. I WILL learn the same way I learned the REDMOND ROT....one error at a time! I am NOT unique! I am NOT skilled! I AM detirmined that there is a better way then Windows and I will become proficient! We are out here! We HEARD you say....the Revolution was Linux and we will be a part of it...NOT because of you BUT in spite of you. We will be part of the support for open source, some of us WILL write code, some of us will write CONGRESS but WE TOO, are here now! SOOOOOooo...you know what, all in all, it just ain't all that tuff anymore. It makes a whole lot more sense then windows and I only have to learn about that which effects my needs and not how to control a bunch of day old doggie do do that I could care less about like MSN chat/mp3's etc. which frankly just aren't MY thing etc. LINUX RULS even for us ole dogs! Now you youngin's can go back to your Natalie Portman and grits mode cuz...it may be months before I overload on white wine again and decide I have something worthwhile to say!
ah! the internet!! we may still screw up the world but NEVER again will we be able to claim IGNORANCE
I'm Probably going to get people mad at me for this but.
People need to remember that computers are tools. Operating systems are also tools. The choosing of an operating system is based on the requirements that the operating system needs to meet. Windows NT and 2000 do a good job of Workstation Serving. That is serving workstations by providing Authentication, Networked Printer spooling and file serving. While Linux and Un*x do make good back end processing servers. So when a company is choosing a server type to go with they will choose the one that bes fits their needs. While NT and 2000 may not be as stable as Linux it is easier to configure and administer, because Microsoft has done serious work on the UI of their apps. If company needs a stable and fault tolerant system they are more likely to choose Linux or Un*x.
Thanks for listening to my Diatribe.
--Justin Pfifer
This is not a competition with MS
BTW if here is a tool that automates some part of the process of using or configuring a Linux box and it does it well, why not use it? I used to do everything manually on my box, but when the tools come out that help me to speed up the process I use them. So RPM is not too bad for most installs and it makes sence to use it, why should you waste time configuring anything manually if it can be automated?
You can't handle the truth.
Can one reserve, or patent, or copyright, or trade-mark, or whatever a 1-800 number? There's probably a market for them.
Moderators, take note:
1)Read the moderation guidelines before moderating anything
linux is easy to use. the pointy end goes in the other guy.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
I don't think that's a request a coward should be able to make...
Long signatures suck.
What is The UI(tm)? When people say "The UI needs to be better/easier/cleaner/faster/smarter/slimier/whate ver, what do they mean? Do they mean we should eliminate the shells? Make a new shell, NOBASH (NO BrAin SHell)? Outlaw all WMs except KDE (ok, ok, I know, KDE is more than just a WM)? Promote the Eazel project? Promote GNOME? Make a standard "Install Sorcerer that will guide you through the setup process"? What exactly would make Linux Easy-To-Learn(tm)? (NOTE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "Easy-To-Learn" (Win, MacOS) and "Easy-To-Use" (*[iu]n[iu]x)?) No shell? FVWM95 on steriods (*shudder*)? Built-in KDE? Eradicating the TAR program and GNU Make (in favor of the Install Sorcerer)?
It could only be done to a certain extent, and it's already happened.
Frankly, I think I could set all the clerks at the Court of Appeals up with Linux workstations running KDE (or even WindowMaker -- very clean interface!) and Linux WordPerfect (that's what they use in Windoze) and they'd barely notice the difference, except that it didn't crash anymore and ran faster.
This is getting long, but I find it incredible that the Business World has swallowed the snake oil known as "software training" for MS's operating systems. To hear MS tell it, they should be so easy to use that extensive training (and believe it or not, I taught these classes for a year, so I know all about it!) isn't necessary. So what's the advantage to using Windows? You have to train your employees regardless of the OS you choose, may as well make it one they can be more productive in, right?
The UI's already there, guys. I think Linux suffers from an outdated stigma that it's for hAcKerZ 0nl3.
"You must unlearn what you have learned...", Yoda adds, nodding sagely.
Hopefully some of this made some sense. If it's Just Another Incoherent Rant (JAIR), Jeeves most humbly apologizes. = )
Everyone take it easy.
--
The more things change, the more they stay insane...
The more things change, the more they stay insane...
Even though just about everything I have installed on Linux has just worked (including my pcmcia/compact flash for my camera, much to my surprise) I believe installing linux is an impassible barrier for the masses. I also believe it is OK for distros like Mandrake to attempt to address this. I don't think Cornell intends to tell anybody in the Linux community to get to coding on the next installer/simplifier applet. Instead, what I see is that he suggests we might be a bit more tolerant of those who engage in this activity, and of the clueless that want to use Linux.
As far as newbie helping is concerned, for me, I will point them to the docs, and possibly relay some anecdotal experience. Believe it or not, I had been doing sooo much Win admin that during my first attempt to install linux, it took me 4 days to figure out that there was a /doc directory on my RedHat CD. That initial challenge had nothing to do with me being clueless. It was much more of a deprogramming issue, and thank Linux for waking me up to that. I've seen similar things happen to others, too. WDBD - Windows Degenerative Brain Disease.
I have encountered Linux issues that are not documented. For example, I am yet to find any docs that have enabled me to succeed installing LinuxPPC on my iMac. Am I posting questions asking for help? Hell no! I want to figure it out on my own. Given the opportunity, will I help someone who asks? Yep. because it enhances my skill set.
I want to redress my "filled to the brim" statement in my earlier post, it is an exaggeration, and I apologize for being so judgmental.
cat
I am curious as to why any of us think geeks should have an exclusive license on freedom. That's what I see in the "Linux is not for the masses" argument. That we are the elite, and we deserve freedom, while the rest of the world does not. I find this sentiment to be extremely hypocritical.
Maybe Linux will go mainstream, maybe not. Seems like Transmeta may have more than a little bit to do with the eventual outcome. Perhaps you can tell where I hedge my bets on this issue. Nevertheless, even if some of us decry the widespread deployment of Linux, the GPL allows anybody that wishes to climb that mountain to do exactly that. And there is nothing any of us can do to stop them.
The thing that I find most puzzling about the Linux Community is that even with its fouding principle being freedom, it is filled to the brim with fascists. Go help a newbie and stop pissing and moaning about things beyond your control.
cat
He is actually quite right, and that number may be a little inflated even if he was just talking about computer users. My opinion on this comes from working for a Tier 1 provider some period of time. The people who are supposed to run the operations for the dot-coms out there can barely run Solaris (and rarely set it up correctly), much less make a switch over to effective use of linux for most everyday tasks. This doesn't even extend to the rest of the staff that provides content and code for these sites (few of whom touch any *nix directly at work, much less at home).
:)
As for the world population, the number would be closer to 0.01%. I think the figure for amount people who own computers worldwide is something like 0.1% (this includes people who own and run businesses, but never touch computers). Just my 2% of a dollar
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
Sorry, that's 70,000 total users... not concurrent connections.
Seems to me like much of the argument is based on the problem that although many people know *what* they want their computer to do, they don't always know *how* to do it. As a programmer and long-time computer user, I know that explaining to other people why you have to do certain things before others can prove difficult.
But anyway, to my main point. Currently, all operating systems seems to focus on how things are done. I've been thinking about this (not for very long, admittedly), but this seems to be akin to the way old database systems worked. Anyone out there know if anyone has looked into non-procedural methods? Again to use the database analogy, something like SQL where you specify what you want to happen, but the OS decides how its done, and makes sure its done safely and correctly.
I don't know how viable this is, just thought of it over the past hour or two. Any responses?
Game dev and music blog
"Anonymous Coward" isn't a bad ID at all...
I told you I'll keep my mouth shut over Linux./.TheMasses.
Hope you're satisfied now.
To admit an error is something that has a place here - I think.
Especially, when SLASHDOT provoked that change of mind.
"AC", that's why we're talking here...
Peace ! george./
-
so I thank you all!
I felt uncomfortable with having Linux used by the masses,
and the discussion made me think about that again.
No one cares about what I feel, I know that.
I want to point out, that my approach is different NOW, and that the article, the discussions,
AND THIS REPLY TO US SLASHDOT folks
really changed something.
No Linux for the masses was my opinion,
BECAUSE Linux looks more and more like MS Windows every day.
There's hardly a week, where there's no GUI "improvment" to make it look and feel like M$ Windows.
I didn't mentioned it, but I thought about the X Consortium at MIT's, who sure don't wanted to re-invent an M$ Windows screen.
Now I learned something:
I'll just go for "esoteric" windowmanagers,
and try to keep my mouth shut about this topic.
As long as I have the plain ncurses console and the power of a *nix system, it's okay with me.
Thanks for these insightful discusssion,
and especially for the reply to our comments !!
Have a fine weekend, george./
I'll bite.
1. I will define 'dummifying' as the process of increasing the abstraction of the users experience from the details of the process, with the intent to make the users experience analogous to his natural life experience. Obfuscating the details from the user would be a fitting substitution.
I'll not try to define 'geek-friendly' as it seems entirely subjective. Instead I will work with examples of minimal vs. extensive 'dummification.' I'll use BASH as my minimal example and KDE as my extensive.
Given these examples I assert that minimal and extensive are not mutually exclusive.
In an X session running KWM and KDE, BASH can coexist in a Xterm. Therefore minimal and extensive 'dummification' cannot be mutually exclusive since they can exist simultaneously.
I know I have not given an explanation of my reasons for choosing BASH and KDE, but I wanted to keep this brief and to the point.
When you believe your opinion is absolutely correct, pause to identify the logical fallacy inherent in that belief.
I think most around here have forgotten that many non-coders and newbies are interested in Linux simply because it works.
What does the average computer user do? Surf the net, write some e-mail, maybe do some work on spreadsheets and word processors and play video games, yet even that is an experience in Windoze.
(Talk to people who arent in the computer field and they are shocked to find out that a word processor is NOT supposed to crash!)
When you get Blue Screen o' Death and multiple crashes and freeze-ups a day, Linux looks like a very appealing solution (as opposed to chuckin out your Winbox out the widow!).
Low cost, stable and most apps are available... (Gee! Not being able to view Flash has made my life so miserable!!! Not!) Why shouldnt people with no technological expertise be allowed to have a simple installation procedure available?
Once you get it it running, Linux can (and is) used very, very easily. My mom has it on her old Pentium 120, next to my dad's PII-350 Winblows box and she laughs every time he has to reboot! Would I have her install Linux? Never! Do I want her to use it? Absolutely!
What is so hard about having a hands-off auto-install option and another for the advanced user?
Linux has saved me a tremendous amount of grief and frustration but it seems often that looking in, many here feel that neophytes somehow deserve the Winblows misery because of their lack of computer knowledge.
Zonk
Only about 10% of current computer users actually want to have a computer.
Most people want information appliances. They want an extremely simple GUI and a mouse with one button. They may want to be able to change their wallpaper, but other than that, they don't want anything else to configure. They want to browse the web and write letters, papers, and memos. They want to play games. And they don't want to do anything that their info-pliance wasn't designed to do out-of-the-box.
I don't want that at all. If you're reading this, you probably don't either. I like to play with code. I like to get nifty new stuff offa freshmeat. I like to tweak my kernel config. I like pipelines. I think that, once you've passed the learning curve, command line unix is more "user-friendly" than any GUI. And I think the learning curve is worth it.
Does this mean that I think that the other 90% should be ignored? No. I just don't think that they want to be using the same product I want. We shouldn't be trying to change Linux to be an info-pliance OS. Of course, we should be trying to make it such that it can be configured that way -- Linux would make a fine core for an information appliance, and it's worthwhile to make it even better for that purpose. But we don't want the whole thing dumbed-down -- the 10% of us who really want a computer like the power and flexibility.
--
I doubt you've heard of them.
Comic strip: Help Desk (http://ubersoft.net)
Web zine: OS/2 e-Zine! (http://www.os2ezine.com)
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
You don't make money efficiently by tossing whole market segments out because you aren't willing to continue work already in progress.
Also, how do you handle upgrades?
Anyone should be able to get a Linux CD-ROM with instructions on how to boot the computer with it, that will install itself on the computer. Period.
The installer should determine the hardware, the disk geometry, what partitions there are, whether is has partitions at all, and make intelligenet recommendations as to partitioning, with 4 or 5 different setups which reflect the intended use of the machine. Then it should install everything if possible, and keep to itself until it is a bootable system. Then it should ask for a root password, and having set that, it should run the configuration program. This should be the same configuration program the user can run at anytime to change the box. It should cover all the important well known services, and be good about keeping secure.
No one should be thinking of stripping it down, either. Hell, Mac's come with an http server these days.
Pin the spig.
After reading his article, and many of the other comments here. (Yes, I also read the original article, and I sent Mr. Connell some comments on his article in e-mail.) Also, after thinking on my comments and the replies to my comments on the Nautilus article, I've come to the following conclusion: PCs are not for everyone.
If you stop and think about it, PCs are too complicated for most people to use, regardless of what operating system they have installed. There are too many different kinds of hardware to install, too many different software applications to learn, and so on. I'm not saying that people are stupid, I'm just saying that they may not have the time or the inclination to learn enough about their machine or their OS to be able to use it effectively. Remember my comment about the doctor from before, the doctor is intelligent and highly skilled at being a doctor and shouldn't have to become an expert at computers to be able to use them.
Look, most people can operate their car, but they don't know really what makes it tick. If they have problems, they take it to their mechanic. Should computers be like this? Tina Gasperson had a pretty good article on this topic yesterday at Andover.
I don't think that what most people really need is a PC, regardless of OS, but rather information appliances that are designed to do a small number of jobs, and to do them really well. A palmtop with the right software could be good for my doctor. He could use it to update my chart, look at my records from the computer in the office, etc. He wouldn't have to learn a lot of arcane commands or icons to use it, if it were properly designed.
It's not really a question of GNU/Linux not being right for the masses. It's really a question of PCs not being right for the masses. In general, the PC is probably technological overkill for what most users want to do.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
If there just happens to be a proprietary product out there that meets your needs, go ahead and buy it. Just go in with your eyes open:
- You're at ProprietaryCorp's mercy if there's a problem, or if you want a new feature implemented. You don't have source; you have to ask them kindly to do it for you -- they may or may not, depending on the negotiation. If you had gone with an open solution, you at least have the option of getting somebody else to do the customization (or at least threaten PropCorp with going elsewhere).
- Your code is only being improved by PropCorp's coders. Will they find and fix as many bugs as the free software community would? Will their programmers write clean code, especially if nobody outside PropCorp will ever read it?
- What if PropCorp goes out of business, or gets bought out by your arch-rival?
- Paranoia mode on: You know what PropSolution says it does. What exactly does it do? Is it secure? Does it give J Random Employee at PropCorp a back door -- or is its security model just broken? If it uses crypto, what kind of crypto does it use, and how reliable is the implementation?
- It's late here. I could go on, but then again, I could sleep -- and I'm preaching to the choir.
:)
Now, if PropSolution[TM] does not exactly fit your needs, what then? If you need a special foobar for your company, you can either pay a PropCorp to code it into their proprietary product (if they'll give you the time of day) -- or you can pay a contractor (or your own coding team, if you have one) to code it into an open product. Either way, if you want something new, you're paying somebody.--
--
#define private public
That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a contract I should hire a lawyer to write one up for me?
That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a design for my chip, I should hire an enginner to make one for me?
That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a manual for the new product I just introduced, I should hire a tech writer to write one for me?
That's just stupid
So instead of just buying a portait of myself, I should comission an artist to paint one for me?
That's just stupid
Remember, software is not a material good, it's information (like all the other examples I gave). We are also, talking about adding a new feature to linux, like all my examples involve the creation of something new.
It is quite normal, if you have some special need in the realm of intellectual property, to comission that work. Open Source/Free Software does tend to shift programming from being more of a manufacturing industry to a service industry. This has it's advantages, really. Just as you no more expect the market to spontaneously provide documentation on the proceedures internal to your company, you shouldn't expect the market to spontaneously provide a linux feature only you need.
With the source code available, you can do that. free software has often been driven by individuals scratching their own itches. If a company has an itch, and it's cheaper for them to scratch it themselves, because they have the soource, why shouldn't they scratch it?
Small companies can outsource (like they do legal services) Large companies can develop in-house (like they do legal services).
No need for them to ruin an OS that is becoming popular with a "holier than thou" attitude.
You hit the nail right on the head. Linux itself is easy to install, you push a few buttons and utilities do everything for you. Because Linux is a group effort that isn't really guided by any one person or charter there tends to be a great deal of difference in the way things work. Just look at CLI email programs, elm and pine have completely different interfaces and a way of acting. Emacs and vi also have immensely different interfaces that can be very confusing to people. I know people that have been using Unix variants for year but have never touched vi because it's so backwards from things like pico and emacs. For the most part two Windows programs will interface and behave in very similar ways so a user can figure out one interface style and be able to use that for every program they use. Until Linux sees some more work in this area many people will stay clear of it.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I partly agree with this...
:)
Linux is very easy to use (to spite clames to otherwise) but difficult to learn.
A lot of people do confuse the diffrence between "learn" and "use"..
Quite simply... an operating system that is hard to use is hard to use for everyone. The only way around this is to install utilitys that are easyer than the ones that come with the operating system.
However an operating system that is hard to learn can be overcome by simply learnning...
Windows is hard to use but easy to learn. The system utilitys pacaged with Windows are a bit to generic. They are all useful but do little to no handholding and demand the user do things by hand.
When Windows dose do handholding it dose so by guessing what the user wants and usually it's wrong so even in this case it's just getting in the way.
In order to make Windows easyer for me I end up downloading and installing DosNix.. a pacage of Dos utilitys that give Dos Unix commands. Being allready familure with Unix I have no learnning curve to worry about
I'm not saying Linux is for the masses.. Hardly the case... I'm just saying Windows isn't much better... The avrage user should stay away from both.
Given a choice between the two I'd opt for Linux over Windows... A one time learnning curve isn't as distructive to productivity as not having the utilitys for the job.
Mac by the way is easy to use easy to learn and quite powerful.. and this is my recomendation for the avrage user...
I don't actually exist.
It's not really even Linuxes fault that it's hard to install.
Installing ANYTHING on PC isn't going to be very easy.
Corel has allready solved much of the problem by making some nice gui install tools.
But that isn't going to get past the fact that the PC was designed expecting a computer expert to install Dos.
There was no consideration for the posability someone might want to install more than one operating system on one computer or that a user may wish to install something other than a CP/M like operating system and certenly no thought put to having an avrage jo do the installation.
Also some of the features that make Windows "easy" such as Plug and play should be done from a new design rather than added on to an existing design.
Linux could overcome this problem with a system designed with Linux in mind. As far as I know NetWinder and other Linux based computers do not have CDrom drives for easy installation/upgrade of Linux.. But then I guess with Linux preinstalled it isn't much of an issue is it.....
I don't actually exist.
Some of the comments on slashdot describe horror stories of
smart, technically savvy people who failed in their attempts to
install Linux. Or who spent 20 hours getting it to work right. Keep in
mind that many future Linux users are very smart people, who happen to
be busy with other things. If Linux is difficult to install or
configure, these people will give up -- even though they are "smart
enough". They just don't have time.
Some of the comments on slashdot describe horror stories of smart,
politically savvy people who failed in their attempts to understand
the election coverage in the newspaper. Or who spent 20 hours
informing themselves about some tedious issue, like nuclear weapons.
Keep in mind that many potential voters are very smart people, who
happen to be busy with other things. If picking the right candidate is
difficult, these people will give up -- even though they are "smart
enough". They just don't have time.
Some of the comments on slashdot describe horror stories of bright,
healthy children who failed in their attempts to learn to read. Or who
spent 20 hours learning. Keep in mind that many children are very
smart people, who happen to have many entertainment options. If reading is
difficult to learn, these kids will give up -- even though they are
"smart enough".
Some of the comments on slashdot describe horror stories of presentable
sensitive people who failed in their attempts to get a girlfriend. Or who
spent 20 hours getting to know a woman before the woman would "get naked".
Keep in mind that many men are attractive caring people, who happen to be busy
with other things. If a girlfriend is difficult to get or keep, these people
will give up -- even though they would make a good boyfriend. They just don't
have time.
some things are worth the time!
This is EXACTLY the attitude that the linux community CANNOT afford. I'll explain exactly why.
I am a fan of computer video games. Among my favorites are Rogue Spear, Age of Empires (2), Diablo, and Quake 3 Arena. Q3A excluded, I have to run Windows98 at home just to play these games. Diablo is VERY flaky under wine, and I'd rather have official releases anyway. Hopefully the rumors of a Rogue Spear port materialize into more than rumors.
HOWEVER: The game software companies aren't going to spend the time and effort into developing a port that isn't going to sell enough to make a nice profit.
I believe I read Torvalds quoted (I could be wrong, please stand by) as saying Linux needs to reach a "critical mass". I can guarantee critical mass is much more than the amount of users it has right now.
Some linux elitists use linux for just that purpose: to make them elitists. Then they have something to brag about and bring up during parties. If linux is used by the masses, and the UI will definitely need work for this, then they will no longer be any better than those icon-clicking, CD-tray-as-cup-holder-using neaderthals.
Some linux users, and I'm fortunate enough to work with a lot, are realists and know where linux stands and where it should be. They know the only way to do that is to be as patient as possible and help anyone and everyone willing to learn.
Get a grip. Know your role.
"More organs means more human." - Zim
WTF?! Most problems with system instability are caused by Windows! The whole article was, in fact, about how to work around the flaws of Windows. A real operating system stays up however badly an app falls apart.
Sure, applications are important. But Linux *currently* meets my needs, even if no other applications are developed. I will not cease to use it no matter what happens.
Charles is implying that we only have one chance -- and that we are lucky to have that chance and if we fail, Linux will never have another chance. Nonsense and poppycock! As long as Linux solves real problems for people, they will continue to use it, without worrying what other people are doing.
The free market ensures that those people who use Linux will have an advantage over those who do not. Over time, the latter will be converted. We have time. There is, as Linus has said, no rush to world domination.
BTW, I am not speaking for you. That is why I start my sentences with I. I means me. It doesn't mean you. Deal.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I didn't say that we don't need newbies. I didn't say anything about newbies. I only talked about myself -- saying that I am not engaging in speculation when I use Linux. I use it because it meets my current and anticipated needs. I am not using Linux because I think it's going to meet my needs later. If that "later" never happens, I will continue to use Linux. Other people will continue to adopt Linux because it meets *their* needs.
*That* is why Red Hat and VALinux have the valuations they do.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Call them the right thing, dear: they're linmodems. And I have very good reason to want to support them, but go read the page to see why. -russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
What do you mean by "we" when you say "we can move forward"? I do what I want; you do what you want, and when we cooperate, we do. But I don't control you and you don't control me.
The word for this is "freedom".
It is good.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
As a Linux software developer and a longtime free software user, I totally disagree with what you're saying and agree wholeheartedly with what the Globe article says. Mainstream acceptance of Linux and application support for the platform is more important than you seem to know, and I'd like to tell you why.
First and foremost, we need to move away from the notion that "applications" equal games and word processors. As a developer, it annoys (and costs) me that I have to maintain a Solaris or Win32 dev box in order to use a real profiler or memory debugger. As an admin in the past, the same problem manifested itself as a lack of real database support. Mainstream Linux acceptance fixed that particular problem and will soon fix my dev tool problem, so I can EBay this silly Sun box.
Secondly, there are thousands of IT professionals out there that want to employ Linux to solve their problems --- because Linux is almost always the best solution for server problems. However, the stigma Linux has (and is only starting to get over) prevents them from doing so. These people are forced by management to employ legacy NT and Novell solutions instead.
It also solidifies Microsoft's position in the market --- and we all know what happens to any market Microsoft controls. I don't think Dan Bernstein would be in any position to realistically replace BIND if Microsoft owned DNS. The only thing keeping infrastructure protocols even remotely accessible is the IT community's acceptance of Unix as a superior server solution.
Lots of things are "useful" and don't have buzz. Things like 486 DNS servers and Cisco CGS routers. But I don't want to use Linux on my scraped- together home network to save cash. I want to build my products on it and deploy it in my company's infrastructure because it is vastly superior to the alternatives that are available to me.
Linux may not be a "business" issue for you, but it is for me. If Linux "fails" and becomes like NetBSD (useful, but useless), I'm going to be upset. As will a lot of other people who don't want to spend their careers working with legacy proprietary closed-source nonsense.
Please don't pretend to speak for us.
That's probably why Linuxnewbie.org exists. I as a computer user, programmer, and hacker since the age 8 have found their responses to issues frindly enough, supportive enough, and I suppose useful enough for whatever problem pewople had to deal with, but I never see them go further. They never investigate to learn that one thing that would solve similar problems.
Which is how most people get on w/ everyday life. Fine. In fact I found by reading some of the comments on the site they get more comfortable w/ Linux as they go along. More curious? Courageous maybe, but not what I would call curious.
That's probably where the rift is.
However, because I think very object oriented and build models easily almost out of habit w/o a second thought, I have been frustrated in the past by that same lack of curiosity. Most people never take guesses as to why things don't work or how they might work. When they ask for help they're vague about their difficulty and confused. And sometiomes darned inconsistent. This goes beyond the so-called limits of "man". While I don't really meet the people who never read the dialog boxes that much on #linuxhelp at irc.linux.com (thank god the ones at work are horrible and in all their whiny glory.), I find that sometimes I'm seriously unable to help them.
Solution as the DDOS FBI guy said, most people don't grok the concept of general purpose machines, not even that same concept in cars which have been around for over a hundred years. As he put it most people don't understand that computers aren't toasters (yet ironically they assume no kids should be allowed to use them for anything besides homework. Oops, I ranted. Sorry.)
Abstraction isn't for everybody. It'll be a few more Windows marred years before they realize why almost every other alternative OS went Unix including OS/2 and BeOS.
Unix's devices==files concept pretty much flattens the whole model. I mean that's as important to shels as drag and drop is to GUIs. But it'll be awhile before that sinks in.
nevermind the idea that shells are interface parallel not under GUIs in Unix. Oh well. Iwish them luck. Glad to help but it ain't easy.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Well that was intelligent. Let me say that the kinds of things I would like to see in fact do not totally conform to the idea of "flashy".
In fact if I were to make a wager I would say linux and the people who generally use it are in fact more used to flashy stuff than the rest of the OS community. Themes.org is a beautiful example of this fascination. Actually I haven't used a windows machine for quite a while (not since 3.11) and I have never even bought a mac ( I rreally don't like the interface of the Mac OS because it dosn't give me the power of the cli like linux does).
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
You see I have one of two choices with this. I could use linux and keep what I have (garbage system that can still function fancy that) or I can spend thousands for a new computer spend an even larger ammount of money for Microsoft Visual Studio so that I can do programming have to pay for constant forced upgrades (not that linux dosn't eventually force one to upgrade but that's the subject of a differnt rant).
I see the problem being that eventually people will not want to develop apps for linux and we will have a real classy OS for real smart people that dosn't have any r3ael new and fancy apps.
The thought of being forced to retire my hardard is not a very comforting thought.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
about ethics.
See you may think that gently admointions is best but Micro$oft dosn't really care. They want to make sure that everyone runs windows and that's all. The first thing you see is often the first thing that you end up using.
I remember when I had problems with dos and it basically betrayed me because the beloved vendor (From hell's heart I stab at thee, with my last breath I curse at thee Microsoft) and I got to complaining. Eventually I got so fed up with nothing actually working I just decided to look into linux (that was a while ago). I really don't regret it. If I had been able to use X sooner it would have been better.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Without apps all linux and quite frankly any other unix system would be is just a server OS.
Quite frankly the fact that people wanted to make it more isd really quite commendable. Without apps (new ones) you loose life.
People who do computing in the 21st century will expect more and more from their computers and will accept no substitute when it comes to what they want. I would essentially choose any possible OS that gave me what I considered the best apps for my hardware3and right now that's linux.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
If this guy's replys (which is nothing more than "why I'm right" rebuttals) are going to continue to make Slashdot, is there going to be a way to filter it off in the "Customize Homepage" section?
Personally I think this guy wrote a very poor technical article, and he gets rebuttal after rebuttal posted as a headline instead of following up in the discussion threads.
If he's got all the points down and we're all wrong, why didn't he just include this information in his original article?
I like the reference to his consulting business in the response as well, his next rebuttal is going to sell banner space.
Come on Slashdot, you're reaching.
Most people don't know how a computer works. I'm talking basic computing concepts here, not transistor/gate level.
RAM. Registers. I/O. This is not rocket science, but I doubt if 6 million people could satisfy my criterion for knowing how a computer works.
What does this have to do with Linux use? I know some users of Linux who do not even know how to program in assembly language, and I certainly know many who have never done VLSI circuit design. Most Linux users do not understand how computers work at all, but you do not need to since it is an easy-to-use operating system.
He spoke about it not being a good idea to multi-task and run many programs at once. He them implied it was bad to do this with both linux and Windows.
Well I can say that I don't like to overextend my windows system and was especially pleased when some program GPF'ed and zeroed out my SETI work unit which was about 90% done at that time.
I however don't worry about everextending my linux box. I beat the hell out of it and it simply won't die (preaching to the choir here).
I'd go back and reread his original article(s) to find my other example but the prospect of reading them again doesn't appeal to me.
Ignore Alien Orders
What you say is well thought out and fairly moderate. But as someone who has posted over 300 comments on LNO [my nick is the same there as here so you can look it up] I think you are too hard on us.
LNO is about getting fast answers that will put you on your feet with Linux. Actually fast answers were not so importent as answers I could understand. A lot of people have had extensive computer experience like you but some of us are new at this... It's nice to be able to learn linux at your own pace once you have X and sound set up.
To really get a fair judgement on the newbies at LNO you need to compare where people are at for over a period of half a year. Seriously I think I've learned tons since last October.
These days if someone installs Linux I think that by default that means that they are curious about computers. Someday hopefully it will change. To be a viable operating system for the masses we will need newbies who don't ever want to learn what "compile" means. (Also there is no reason not to want the masses to use Linux. Benifiting humanity is a part of the idea behind "Free" software. And for those of us less altruistic there is going to be money involved as well.)
And finally if you still aren't convinced go to the programming section in linuxnewbie.org. Right now a quarter of the questions are, "Hey this Linux stuff is really cool! How do I start programming for it?" It's not the most specific question in the world so I'd agree with your Subject line."The newbie community doesn't know what to ask" But I'd disagree that they weren't curious. To me newbies seem desperately curious and that's exciting.
Newbies are the future.
Many /.ers are taking the stance "we don't need no stinking newbies." Think about what you're saying. Unless you are a kernel hacker yourself, there are many out there that consider you a newbie. When you install an app, do you rpm? Well then the ./configure;make;make install'ers consider you a newbie. Do you ./configure;make;make install? Well you nubian, why don't you do the configuring by hand tweaking every last parameter yourself, instead of relying on autoconf? The bottom line is, you can't just say "screw the newbies" without screwing yourself in turn. If linux configuration were more consistent and automated, you'd have time to do bigger and better things (like setting up beowulf cluster ;)
Do you think there would have been enough developer support on linux for gnome, kde, mozilla, java etc... if the number of linux users hadn't gone up dramatically in the past 2 years? The rise in the user base helps everyone
Why is it that Cray computing withered away? Exactly because true power comes from using commodity parts that everyone uses, and customizing them. Where is this analogy headed? When the linux user base reaches critical mass, it will help all linux users. The same way that intel cpu's reaching critical mass caused their price/performance to reach a point where now any of us can build beowulf clusters rivaling Crays. When technology becomes cheap and heavily supported, we all see the benefits, especially with linux since it's open for hackers to customize as they see fit. Linux is already cheap (free!), so now we just need heavy support.
I think my question fits right in with your train of thought here...
Why do you want linux on the desktop?
I think Linux fills an important niche. It brings reliability and performace to low to mid volume servers. Linux doesn't do well with databases that serve up 70,000 concurrent connections, (That's what my SUN E6500 is for) nor does it make things easier for users who want to do basic word processing and spreadsheet functions?
I think Linux here is simply out of place. We use Linux for file servers and data routers, but it would seem odd to use it in place of a proven high-volume back-end or on the desktop (Most of my users have Macs, and we just got the DP3 release of OS X)
Love linux for what it does well. Don't try to make it the end-all and be-all of operating systems.
My $0.02
Linux? I don't even know how to use \. yet. ha ha, ,I found has a
But, all joking aside, I am fairly new to the world of using computers to the point of obsession. Maybe
my computer love must have been latent? Any how, I have only been using computers on a regular
basis for about 6 months and I must say in defense of Linux that it was fairly easy for me to obtain it - Slackware 7.0(ZIPslack) through ftp at cdrom.com
and install it . I merely followed instructions.
I still have not installed a GUI for my system yet
but I do have access to the internet through an external Data Best modem that was going to be trashed.(my new system
winmodem). Besides I enjoy learning about my system from the bottom up so the Bash shell is fast becoming my friend.Point being - A relative novice with a minimal amount of knowledge
and a Diy attitude can switch operating systems with relative ease.
I'm a relatively bright guy with a learning disability. I've been trying to learn to use Linux for the PAST TWO YEARS... and I'm still, PAINFULLY, in the "newbie" category.
Why? Because while it might be worth taking the time to learn everything, that time DOES NOT EXIST for me.
By day, I am a technical writer who must devote his time to his job. By night, I have a wife, compose and distribute music, do a comic strip on the net, and write for another web magazine.
Recently I tried to use Linux as a Samba file/print server for my OS/2-Linux-Win98 machine. I eventually gave up, because while I was making progress, IT WAS TAKING TOO LONG and all of the other things in my life were suffering as a result.
Because I was trying to use the Linux file/print server ALSO as an internet gateway (so I could take out the modem on my client and save an IRQ) I couldn't connect to the net, couldn't publish my strip. I spent four days straight trying to configure this, tweak that -- my wife was pissed. And let's not forget exactly how painfully difficult it is to find the documentation you're looking for on how to configure Samba, then throw in the fact that it's written with the expectation that the reader already has some knowledge of networking (I didn't).
I had plenty of Linux people willing to give me advice, but none of them were right in front of me. It was all very frustrating, and I gave up because I was very, very far behind in the rest of my work and I had to get cracking.
I personally feel that Linux is an OS worth learning... but I only have so much time I can devote to it, and I can't afford to devote more. Until Linux can be presented in an "easier" format, or until I get significantly more free time, I'm afraid I'll be an eternal newbie.
And this is from someone whose primary job is technology based. I don't want a Doctor taking time to learn Linux that he or she should be using peforming a triple bypass or something like that. And I'm pretty sure someone who just wants to get their checking account balanced in time to do taxes won't want to spend a month getting up to speed on using Linux, either.
In other words, yes, it might be worth the time, but is the time THERE?
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
I'm not sure I understand the Linux "is hard to install" critique -- even when I was complete Unix/Linux novice. I've never thought it was hard to install nor did I ever have it fail except when using junk hardware -- and by junk, I mean hardware that I couldn't get to work with DOS but didn't have the heart to throw in the trash. Success my first time around on a misconfigured EISA 486-33, with weird, OEM SCSI adapters from floppies, and later FTP, NFS and SMB-based installations from home-made CDs and downloaded distros on all kinds of hardware. Current distros installed from CD are so simple my dad could do it, and he thinks sending mail from AOL is confusing.
I think what screws people up when installing is not that installation process itself, but the desire to "customize" installations and then later growing frustrated when you try to do something that you don't have the right packages installed for.
More generally what I think makes Linux hard is that Linux isn't a complete system, it's a kernel and a few utilities with a lot of ancillary packages added on. There's a lack of coherency to the complete picture, coupled with the naturally high learning curve of Unix generally, that makes it so maddening.
It's not so much hard to install as it is get configured afterwards.
This is what I totally agree with. I was writing a response to his previous article along the same lines, but unfortunately netscape then crashed .. Anyway, as there were many very good and valid points in his article, this is one he still misses - he still doesn't grok Linux.
Linux as a community is not a single entity with only one single goal and single thought. The community - if I may paraphrase ESR - speaks with a multitude of voices, each with individual needs and ideas. There are people who don't want Linux for the masses, but on the other hand , there are people who do - and I dare to suggest that the latter are more populous.
This is also has an impact on the humility note he had on his previous article, that is, if we don't watch out, Linux will be toppled. Well, there is no we to speak of. There are a lot of people who are already happy with Linux (me included), but there are also a lot of developers and companies who are making Linux go forward very fast. Linux was originally intended as a low-end unix server for i386 (a blatant over-simplification, I know), but it since warped itself to a multitude of architectures and a high variety of purposes, morphing (a shameless Transmeta plug ;) itself to embedded computers, PDAs and so on. So, there is no single goal.
So, I would claim that based on the unique and diverse abilities of the Linux community, Linux cannot only not fail, it also cannot be killed.
Look again at your numbers. According to you, only 60 million people (1% of 6billion) even know what a computer is. The population of The United States is 250 million, Japan has 120 million people, and Germany has 90 million.
.01% of the people in the world know how to use Linux, or only 600,000 people. About twice the population of Des Moines, Iowa.
.1%, 90% dont know how linux works.
And what do you mean by 'know how a computer works'? You mean like knowing how to use one? How to program one? How to build one out of transistors? You only need to know how to use a computer in order to use Linux. I would think that more then 6 million people know how to use a computer. I'd put that number at a several hundred million at least (The majority populations of the US, Western Europe, Japan and Taiwan. Plus large numbers in India and Eastern Europe)
Whats the problem?
The problem is in the idea that only 6 million people even know how to use a computer. By the way, if you look back at your post, you're saying that only
The percentage of the population that is illiterate and lives in mud huts is probably around 90%
(literate: 600million)
Of the remaining 10%, 90% dont know what a computer is.
(Know what a computer is: 60million)
Of the remaining 1%, 90% dont know how a computer works.
(Know how a computer works: 6million)
Of the remaining
(Know how linux works: 600,000)
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
To address the comment about people not wanting Linux to be used by the masses. I can imagine the type of induhviduals that would say something like that and presume to talk for the Linux community. I would guess that they are just some nerd who feels cool because he can use linux and be on the edge, whatever. I can understand the contempt strong technical users have for ordinary and clueless users. I however think of it a little differently.
I think there are different types of people who require different things from a computer and therefor from the OS. I generally put people into 3 groups. Those that just need a computer to word process, check email, browse the web, and a few other minor tasks. They probably aren't very computer litterate and dont have patience for it. The second group of users is also focused on using the computer as a tool. They would be power users, the kind that actually learn to use the the shortcuts and advanced features in programs even if they dont care about how the computer works. This second group would probably want more control over what they can customize and would use addition applications such as high end games and graphics programs. The third class of users would be the experts that like to be able to customize everything. They can appreciate how GUI makes things easier but aren't afraid to use a console at times when the text is more important than the pretty decorations around it. They enjoy learning how things function on all levels and want almost complete control. They would use another complex superset of applications including compilers and server-type apps.
This is where I get to the bit about why someone would say they don't want the masses using linux. The 3 classes of users require different things from an OS, so that if you made a linux that the first class of users could use, the third likely wouldn't want to, so actually I believe those people saying I dont dont want class 1 users causing *my* linux to get watered down. To quote Murphy's Laws on Technology, "Make a computer that even an fool can use and only a fool will want to use it."
I've typically used Mac, Window, *nix as a metaphor for the three types of users. This isn't an entirely accurate picture of things, but it isnt so off. Mac is a very simple OS, doesn't give you much low level access but does a lot of stuff for you easily and quietly. Windows allows more control through more setting in the control panel and the registry if you dare, and generally the programs are more feature rich (or bloated depending on your point of view). Linux is definately difficult but I enjoy putting up with the difficulty because I am rewarded for my time and effort by the level of control I get and by how much I learn. However there are things that make Linux better than windows and macOS other than level of control (reliability perhaps?). I also think that there are plenty of improvements to linux that experts could benefit from. I definately think that regular users need a better OS because teaching them that software is supposed to be buggy and your OS is supposed to crash once a day will only serve to make them more computer wary.
I think a linux for Joe Computer-User is possible and still retaining the power expert users have because of the modularity of linux. I dont think that the current developement environment is capable of doing that. It is basically just a set experts programming for experts. The great thing about linux for me is that it has all the features I want and none that I don't (well not really but in theory...). This is the strength of the community developement environment, one not driven by requests from marketing for new features, be they frivolous, gimicks, or just plain useless. The people get what the people want. What would have to happen to the way linux is developed for an OS with a user scalable level of complexity/control? I dont know. But defining the problem is step 1.
PS. The note about require a linux expert friend to help you configure it, this is something that while I admit wouldn't work for a mainstream linux is important in an expert linux. Essential the arrangement is a mentorship. That is the way it worked with me, a friend told me about linux, helped me install it, and taught me some unix basics real quick. Whenver I had a problem I'd call him and just about the time he started getting sick of me I started to know enough to find the answers to my own problems. Now I have a couple of friend who turn to me for linux help and I'm happy to give it.
Ben "JonKatz" Buchwald
Oh yeah? This is probably true, if population == all the people on Earth.
If the population means all the people currently using computers, I'd say it's more like forty per cent, even more.
Of course, most people wouldn't even try to install Linux, just as they wouldn't install Win98 or NT. But using a preconfigured Red Hat 6x, Suse 6x, Caldera or Corel distribution is in no way more difficult than using Windows. Assuming, of course, that the system boots up to a graphical login, but that's assumed of the Windowses also.
If up comes Gnome or KDE, a user most likely clicks on the menus a few times and soon is happily browsing the web or typing a letter or whatever he or she does with a computer.
If you survive in NT environment, you'll be able to use Linux. Or just aboot any other Unix with a decent desktop. Many Windows users don't understand anything about the Windows GUI, but are using it anyway. The problem for both home and corporate environments is the lack of applications and the learning curve in existing software.
If the free software community replicated MS Office as faithfully as they did Minesweeper and Solitaire, even the most clueless people would now be buying cheap computers with Linux preinstalled. And for a hudred bucks less price.
So what about the benefit to the community? We all do our typing in Emacs or sometimes StarOffice. Why should we care about having more people use Linux?
For me, the answer is simple. Drivers and games. I would buy a DVD drive and an mpeg card right away, if it had Linux drivers. I'm not going to software decode movies. I'd buy a good fast USB scanner and a digital camera, if I'd know I could use them with Linux. I'd probably even buy games, if I could play them on Linux. All this would be so much better, were there only 25 per cent or so Linux users.
NOSPAM@REMOVETHIS.NO.SPAM - you'll find the real address somewhere
Why should we make the average user install Linux at all. Computers for average users should ship like appliances (as most windows computers already do). That is to say that joe simple user should never have to run the installation program. It should be installed on his/her computer at the OEM, along with the basic office style apps. I mean can you imagine if you bought a VCR and someone said "OK now you have to install the OS before you can play a tape."
Sooner or later soemone at a major computer maker is going to figure out that they can build a very slick GNOME startup screen, license Star Office or Applixware, drop most of the workstation and server packages out of Linux, and distribute a slick internet enabled PC without paying microsoft. My bet is that Sony comes along with this in about 6-9 months.
>>Linux was designed by geeks for geeks...>>
This line of thought establishes a false dichotomy: that linux cannot be for geeks and end-users. The truth of the matter is that it can. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.
Linux has the flexibility to be 'by geeks for users' while remaining 'by geeks for geeks.' It seems to me a waste of that potential to not pursue the potential for linux as a desktop alternative. And a bit snobbish.
>>I don't think our objective should be "Total World Domination." After all, aren't we all rather upset at Microsoft for having the same goal?>>
I'm not upset with them for having that goal; I'm upset with the way they choose to pursue it. I think many others feel the similarly.
When you believe your opinion is absolutely correct, pause to identify the logical fallacy inherent in that belief.
I didn't read the original article the first time the Grok article was posted, but now I checked the second article, and it looked like this:
I heard the Linux hype probably reading most mass media, and thought it was probably not worth it for most users to install, so I went in with this opinion to go and try Linux.
I create a scorecard, which makes it more a game of numbers, even though there really is no reason. It is mostly a matter of opinion. In addition, this is compared to a *perfect* OS with full score that doesn't really exist?
I install RedHat... probably knowing Unix find out that some things aren't recognized properly. Complain about it..etc. No comparison to installation of Windows. Note that if you are installing on a bare drive, you would have to partition for Windows as well.
I add a stupid category that I cannot test with my period of time. Give it a rating just by word of mouth. Fail to notice that almost all Linux apps cannot crash the OS? Comparison to Windows?
Again, probably having exposure to Unix? I laud Linux for the obvious fact that it is command based and isn't wrapped up in a nice GUI.
Make another category that I do not test, note anecdotal evidence, pick a number, give a score. Did you _try_ LyX? Did you _try_ StarOffice, which is quite similar to MS Office? WordPerfect?!
Another thing he says in his reply is that changing office suites is hard. Well, that automatically means anything non-MS has a permanent defect?! Give me a break.
This guy knew the "flaws" of Linux, probably from mass media, went in with a bias, and just took a cheap shot. He used this "test" and "scorecard" just to move his own opinion that he started with from the beginning.
This is dumb. Linux IS ready, if you are willing to learn. Get a book, read the manual, be willing to play around. No one said it didn't take any effort. It is not that hard. Wow, its a command line, so intimidating. Most people used DOS before Windows was invented, and the Linux command line is a lot friendlier(tab completion anyone?). You choose to install Linux, and if you do, you should choose to learn it. I don't think the Linux community was over-reacting, this is the kind of FUD (yes I don't use the term loseley) that comes straight from MS's Linux myths page.
"Oh you can use Linux, but you might have to deal with new and unusual applications. You will also have to deal with a command line that I, a computer expert cannot figure out." fear, uncertainty, doubt?
Although, you have to give this guy credit for replying, unlike most of the writers who just outright bash the flamers and make them an example of the whole Linux community. The thing is though, he is still doing what he did before, picking things out to further his opinion. I don't think he really even admitted any faults. He's like yeah this but blah blah.
The installation is the main bump in the road, after that it is pretty smooth driving. The fact is, if there is a bug in Linux, YOU can fix it. You can pay someone to fix it. Can you do that with MS? They have gotten quicker at responding to bugs, but mainly because of the pressure from Linux. Plus, with open-source, you don't get burned badly, like when Microsoft decided to abandon NT for Alpha.
Linux is what you make it. The fact is, it is more your OS. You can do whatever you want to the internals, mess around totally. No longer are you dependent on MS to do everything. You can choose a different look for your system, you don't need to install things you don't want to. This user empowerment is an important thing, that many people fail to realize. It gives you more power to let you tell the computer what you want to do and make it the way you want it. Some people want to hide that power behind a bunch of dialog boxes, but why?
"To use Linux or not" is a question of this: "You want to trade some hand holding and a bit of work for an OS that is yours to use freely and in whatever way you choose?"
Also, when the CTO of a Fortune 100 company is deciding whether to commit to Linux for 50,000 new computers, he (or she) is certainly going to be demanding.They might be a little uncertain where to direct their demands, but the overall ability of the Linux community to meet her needs is going to influence that purchase decision.
Again, I think this is a mistaken point of view. Don't expect the Linux community to meet your needs - become part of the Linux community, and do what you need to do. This could mean either having your programmers work on features, or throwing money at someone who can. However, expecting "the community to meet your needs" would be disastrous. If this fundamental misunderstanding isn't straightened out, Linux will be a miserable failure in the business environment.
----
In some sense, i have to agree, linux, as it is today, i would not ask my mother to use. And Mom used to code in pascal on macos.
I used to be an OS/2 user, and you might have even called me an OS/2 pundit, but, the mantra i followed in OS/2 advocacy is "OS/2 is Not for Everyone".
people are best served by the tool that is best suited to both the task at hand and their ability to use it.
For many things, OS/2 was, and in some cases, still is, the best tool for the job, and simple enough for most any geek to use.
For many things, Linux is, and will continue to be, the best tool for many jobs, if you have people around who are capable of using it.
for most end-user tasks, the client variant of Windows or MacOS will continue to be the best tool for many. This is unfortunate in several senses, but it isn't the end of the world.
I don't belong to a LUG, and one of the reasons i don't is the same reason i never joined an OS/2 user's group: I don't advocate convincing someone that they should use a tool other than that which is best fitted to them is the tool they should use, and user's groups do things like "install-fests"
when people ask me if they should run linux, i don't automatically say yes, i ask "why do you want to use linux?"
if they don't have a good answer, i don't offer to help them. if they have a good answer, i help them find the right questions to ask, and then help them figure out how to answer them for themselves. I find that's a lot more effective, in the long run, than simply telling them the answer.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
What you're neglecting to consider, Charles, is that Linux cannot "fail". I do not care whether any interesting applications are *ever* ported to Linux. I was using Linux before it got buzz; I will continue to use it after it loses buzz. So will enough developers that it will continue to be useful to me.
You're thinking of Linux as if it were a business, with venture capitalists, looking to either take it public, sell it to someone, or else shut it down.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist