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.
"
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
Thats the problem. You, my slashdot compatriot, have been tricked into thinking Linux is all about "down with Microsoft!". It is not, never was, hopefully never will be. People who have used Linux for 5+ years typically use Linux because it *works*, not because it is the anti-Microsoft. Redhat may want you to think its all about M$, but its not. Microsoft is irrelevant in my day to day activities, because I have Linux. Why not be happy and enjoy Linux for what it is?
I don't believe that anyone in the Linux community says that only WE are allowed "freedom", but freedom has a price. That price is responsibility. The biggest problem is that the average person wants all the freedom, with none of the responsibility that goes with it. The responsibility that (so far) is engendered in using Linux is that you must be willing to spend some time to learn it. However, you get a stable, powerful OS with a growing application base.
The typical user, as many have noted, doesn't care about stability or power - if they can browse their Web portals, Web shopping sites, and watch their movie trailers, send a little e-mail, do some minor word processing tasks, and a few other minor things, they're HAPPY. That's all they want, and that's all they really care about. So what if it crashes? As long as it comes back to something recognizable, they'll survive.
For me, that's not enough. For most Linux users, that's not enough. Most Linux users do more with their systems than that, and they are willing to learn what they need to so they can have the power they need/desire.
Also, as far as helping newbies goes, there's documentation out there. Most of them don't READ it - that's why they're still newbies, because they don't want to read, and they don't want to learn, they just want to have all the answers spoonfed to them. That, as I've been saying, is the difference between users of OSes like Linux (the *BSDs certainly fall under the same category) and "normal" people.
(I know many people won't agree with my assessment - but it's mine, and if you don't like it, then that's just too bad...)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
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.
--
The previous release of NT? (I've used up-arrow under NT4 - heck, I didn't even know that F3 did something in a shell window - although most of the command-line typing I do on NT boxes these days is typed at bash.exe, not at cmd.exe, thanks to Cygwin.)
Note that when I said "I've used up-arrow under NT4", I meant that I used up-arrow in standard cmd.exe windows, not that I used it in Cygwin shell windows - I usually use ^P in those windows....
Can't help you for ^U^O, but for tab completion, this article says there's a (surprise, surprise) hidden registry knob to tweak to get tab completion.
Of course, you can just use bash and be done with it, by installing Cygwin.
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.
Behkat dun said:
Agreed. Myself, I tend to like power installs (this is the reason, by the way, why I tend to loathe Redhat--it's almost too "for newbies" friendly for my liking) but I would recommend the "easy install" flavours of Linux in a heartbeat for someone who is new to Linux and isn't one of those folks like myself (who is used to taking apart their computer blindfolded and whose computer has long since been transmogrified into a FrankenBox).
Myself, I'd use Slackware or SuSE or Debian to set up my box, because there is a lot of stuff I like to tweak.
If my sister were installing (she's not too comfy with mucking about in the innards of her computer yet, but she IS comfortable with Microsoft OS upgrades--and I don't CARE what anyone says, a fresh install of Win95 or Win98 is not trivial if you don't know what you're doing or (especially) you have hardware for which there aren't standard drivers packed with the OS), I'd hand her one of the "designed for newbies" distros--like Redhat or Caldera or SuSE 6.3 (YaST2 does have a nice, Redhat-ish GUI setup).
The one thing we're missing, IMHO, is a distro where, well, someone who has to consult "For Dummies" books about Win98 apps can install with a minimum of fuss and alcohol/antacids/[insert your drug of choice here]. I honestly think we're going to be a while on this, largely because even bloody Microsoft isn't there yet. About the only OS that IS there yet is the install of MacOS 8 (which is damn near as close to idiot-proof as one is going to get, methinks--largely because Macs themselves are largely idiot-proof, and Macs generally do not have a ton and a half of funky and possibly not-exactly-standard crap in them the way the average PC does). Until PCs become roughly as standardised as Macintoshes of modern lineage are, you aren't going to get something totally idiot-friendly. The best option for those folks all along has been, and I suspect will be for an awfully long time, to (a) have an OS preinstalled and ready-to-run and (b) have a nice friendly geek/neighbour's kid/knowledgeable relative/etc. come by and do the OS and hardware upgrades, and maybe the software ones too (depending on how knowledgeable they are).
Hell, I don't care if they're using a bloody IMac for Cthulhu's sake--I still would not trust my mother-in-law, or the lady for whom I would occasionally do computer upgrades for (whose main vocation wasn't computers, but Tole painting, and who was a complete and utter computer virgin who'd "heard of this Internet thing and that I could trade painting patterns with people"), to do ANYTHING hardware or software wise that would involve mucking with the computer's internals (OS, software, OR hardware).
Hence, I think the important thing right now (at least for the "virgins") is to push for more computer companies to have Linux pre-installed, and to make things maybe a bit more uniform for the newbies so they know where everything IS.
For the rest of us...that's going to be preference, pretty much. Some of us like standardised stuff (and that may be best for business, which has to be pretty newbie-friendly) and some of us are frankly going to want to be able to do everything ourselves. It's much like cars--some folks build their own cars and go on rod-runs, some people like zero-maintenance Korean rice-burners, and a lot of folks like something kind of in the middle (like a Saturn--it can be zero-maintenance if you like, but the car is put together well enough that Saturday-mechanic maintenance is not out of the question if you like to fix up your car yourself).
As for distros...Redhat and such seem to be the closest to "zero-maintenance", though they aren't there yet. Slackware (and to an extent, Debian) are there for folks who still like to build their own. SuSE is probably the best compromise I've seen between the two (it can literally be run in either "Hyundai user" or "performance driver" mode, and it's stock installer is basically for "Saturn drivers who at least know how to fill the tires and change oil"). This is Good--you're never going to satisfy everyone, just like you'll never satisfy everyone with cars. ;)
-Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
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.
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.
This comment just goes to show how incredibly clueless most Linux users are about Windows NT. Most have never used Windows NT, but believe that their experience with Windows 98 suffices as Windows NT experience ("it looks the same so it must be the same code"). FYI, Windows NT has had the up-arrow since the beginning. It is certainly not new with Windows 2000. Several other non-Unix systems have had the up-arrow for quite a long time as well. I do not believe it is even a Unix invention.
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
Most serious Linux users don't give a rats arse whether Linux competes with Windoze on the
desktop.
Where serious users are defined as those who don't give a rat's arse whether Linux competes with Windows on the desktop?
When you like something, there's a natural and virtous desire to see it grow and improve. You want to correct its deficiencies (usability), and you want to share it with others. This is what Linux for the masses is all about. Not to mention that making Linux easy to use makes things easier for everyone -- better installers hurt no one, 'serious Linux users' included.
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.
>>I'm one of the ones who wonders if we really want one click installs and easy setup.>>
From your complaints(below) it seems that you choose to avoid easy installers in favor of greater control and precision. I commend you for that. I sit firmly in that camp myself, but I can't expect everyone to feel the same way.
>>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'm with you all the way when it comes to my own choices. However, since we have other distros that meet our needs, why criticize 'friendly' distros for trying to meet the needs of others?
I want linux to become accessible to a broad range of computer users. I want to see linux succeed in the broad market. Because I believe that it can. The easy-to-use variants are necessary to achieve this goal. Are they there yet? No, just as Mr. Connell points out, there's still a great deal of work to be done. The question I must ask is: why should they stop?
When you believe your opinion is absolutely correct, pause to identify the logical fallacy inherent in that belief.
>>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
As Malcontent said, a significant slice of marketshare is all that is necessary to get drivers. Games I can personally live without, though they're a would-be-nice.
But beyond that what I hate most about Microsoft's system is it's one-size-fits-all nature. Whether you're a professional programmer or a first-time user you get the same wizard happy interface. It's important to me that Linux remain more than just a cheaper and more reliable Windows. I want it to be remain a system that rewards learning with power. And one that does not *force* you to sacrifice performance to interface glitz, or creativity to simplicity.
It's fine with me if people want to make Linux friendly and usable, and the more folks using it the better. But mass acceptance isn't worth the cost of changing the development model or design philosophy that makes Linux worth switching to.
This is not said out of elitism, it is said in the hope that the software market will become a more healthy ecology. I'd like to see programs and systems filling niches rather than bloating up in an attempt to dominate and kill off all other products.