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 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.