Slashdot Mirror
Sneaking Open Source Software Through the Front Door
the_1000th_Monkey writes "LWN daily pointed out this new project today. It aims to be 'a compilation of high quality open source software (OSS) [that] will be made
available as a CD distribution in order to help promote OSS to users of
Windows and MacOS.' There are hopes that this would make it easier to encourage universities, OEMS, and your parents/friends to take advantage of this software and eventually bring them over to a completely free system on their own time. Help for suggestions/discussion is being sought." Newsforge is carrying a slightly more in-depth look at this project. Anyone care to design some attractive, downloadable CD-graphic images?
Wasn't there something called cdrom.com that tried this idea sometime last decade? Did it succeed then?
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
So why aren't people taking the plunge?
Whatever the reason, it isn't the lack of an easy to install CD. If you think about it objectively, well, what are the differences between most, say, Windows software (commercial or shareware), and most open source software? Well, cost is right at the top, no question. And flexibility, for the small number of people who care. And next? Well, hate to say it, but polish, ease of use, help systems: anything that could make OSS usable by any but the most freakish, repressed, zealous, skinny Linux geek. And sticking it on a CD will never change that, ever, despite what the "community" would have you believe.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
To answer the headline question. Sneaking a non-existant CD "Through the Front Door" is rather easy. I do it all the time.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
To get people to move to Linux, we must first get them to use alternatives to MS Office and other packaged software. Get them using the cross-platform software and then switching the underlying OS won't be as tough down the road.
The only thing that can stop Linux from eventually succeeding Windows on the desktop is either laws to prevent it from happening or not enforcing laws that will allow it to happen.
What we need is a mascot. Something furry and cute. Penguins are cute, Gnu's are not.
.... A OSS Otter? Cute furry, adorable frolicking otter. Okay artists, get to work.
How about
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If this CD has an easy to install copy of LyX for Win32 I'll be more than happy to buy a copy!
Mmmmm. What you See is What you Mean editing. Mmmmmm. Yummy. Easy export of PDF, HTML or any other format from one document...
More on LyX, the BEST text processor in the world or just download it.
Linux users probably have it already.
matthewmiller.net
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Take it one step further and put it on shaped cds.
And we can't forget a copy of the Cygwin utilities. (Many core GNU utilities ported to Win32)
:)
grep, awk, wget and others all easy to install.
fortune will be VERY popular!
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
some holy water and garlic will do the trick.
"Vade retro, $atana$"
....with this;
"Free Software on proprietary opperating systems"
Can you spell "spell checker"....
oops.
nbiar.
What would be even better would be a cd that was full of open source software for windows. Like WinCVS, emacs, etc. If there isn't enough of it for a whole CD, write more!
Most open source software is for our open source operating systems. If we put more open source software out for windows, that is quality, people will use them, because they are free legally. If there are enough quality open source windows programs we can get to the point where people are using like 2 or 3 major open source programs a lot. Like how just about everybody uses WinAmp and AIM/ICQ.
What I'm trying to say, and very poorly at that, is we can make some open source programs for windows that will be very frequently used my numerous users. Then we can switch them to linux more easily, because it has all the programs they use every day and more. The biggest fright about switching to linux is that you have to use all new software for everything. All of your beloved programs are gone or different. People tend to find one piece of software for each task and stick with it.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I've tried a number of times in the past to get my parents to switch over to Linux and OSS, and I used to recommend it to just about everybody. I always told people how easy it was to et up and use. This was a few years ago. Needless to say, I've learned a lot since then - the few people I've convinced to try it were never terribly happy, and after a week or so desperately wanted to switch back. I've learned my lesson, and now would never really recommend Linux or OSS to anybody unless they express an interest in learning more.
People who learned to use Windows and MacOS expect things from their software that OSS programmers have yet to really give them. What it boils down to is a polished product. I'll admit - I think the KOffice suite, StarOffice 6, The Gimp, and many other OSS projects are incredible. They're complete, relatively bug free, and give me all of the features that I want. But when compared with similar software on Windows and MacOS, most people find the OSS stuff just feels klunky. Most OSS software (let me stress the most - certainly not all OSS software is like this) just isn't as polished-looking to the degree that a lot of common Windows and MacOS programs are.
It's not so much about stability for the typical user. Sure, they want stability. They also want something that's intuitive, compatible with what their friends and coworkers use, and looks clean. They want software with a very adequate and easy to use help system, for when they get stuck.
Also, they don't want something with the exact same features as what they're currently using. After all, why switch unless you'll also be going to something better? The better the software can meld into how they currently do things, the more likely they'll switch.
In other words: yes the software needs to look pretty. Yes, it needs to be functional. Yes, it should be relatively bug free. But it also needs to integrate just as well or even better than what they're using now. It can't just be a functional replacement - it really needs to be something different and offer something remarkably better than current solutions. Finally, price isn't as much of a concern as most people think. That's not enough to make people switch from something the way they do things now, otherwise we'd have already seen the mass migration away from Windows and other closed-source, proprietary products.
--
Welcome to the land of the easily amused...
Cygwin is a great way for those bound to the evil empire to have access to some powerful developer tools. For those not familiar with Cygwin, it is the inverse of Wine: a complete Unix environment that runs in Windows. Just about any Linux app can be ported to it, and many already have. - gcc - gdb/Insight - Python - Perl - PostgreSQL - Apache - XFree86 - KDE - Gnome ...plus all the shell lovin' you could ever want.
Jeff
Wouldn't it be funny to form some BSA-like group, which would goose-step into corporate offices, auditing software. When the group found unlicensed software (or, more likely), software which probably is licensed, but for which no license can be found, it would either mandate that their victims pony up zillions of dollars -- OR, switch to OSS software.
I wonder how fast the BSA would shut down such a group?
http://www.5inch.com/ has incredibly sweet CD-R's for sale.
Maybe something like Hello or Punchcard is appropriate?
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
I could say Mozilla but that's waay to obvious, Qcad is good for newbies to cad and it's OSS, go grab a copy at qcad.org, it's cool. I just wish they'd hurry it up with the CLI in qcad 2.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
Everyone tosses AOL cd's. No-one dig through the bargain bin. There is a common perception that give-aways are worthless. This needs to be on the shelf at Target with an $895.00 price tag. Then five people will buy and the rest of the world will pirate it. Just don't let on that one can download any of it for free.
Then there's also Transgaming. Native Linux ports are always the best way to go, but for that much needed gaming fix you can use Transgaming's version of wine. You should see Max Payne run in all it's D3D(Direct ms 3D lockin) glory. Winex is pretty sweet, for games that work they actually seem to be more stable than in windows. I've played a number of games all the way through without any problems whatsoever in wine.
There's also GarageGames. There's a ton of independent developers developing games using an engine that supports Linux, so hopefully lots of them will release Linux binaries of their games.
I'd say it's a good time to be a Linux gamer.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Demolinux is a project that consists of booting Linux from a Live CD.
This is IMHO the best Linux distro for newcomers and it looks quite like what is intended for this project : See Free Software in use without touching one's HD..
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I think that this might work as a good "gateway drug" into the world of Linux for most users. I don't think that people are opposed to the idea of OSS, I think that they are just uncomfortable with switching their OS. If they kinda get a taste of OSS in an enviornment with which they are familiar, it might make them a bit more comfortable moving to Linux. I've always thought that there was a need for more Win32-based open-source projects.
But the article blurb made me think of it.
;)
Windows doesn't come with any horribly buggy, barely working applications. None.
In addition, it installs one version of each "accessory" app.. calculator, notepad, browser, file manager, etc. It even puts shortcuts to them in the same place.
I'd like to see a linux distro that includes just one stable, simple version of each type of app in a basic install. One browser, one file manager, one word processor. Having a slightly more task-oriented set of menus and shortcuts in a distro would be a cool thing to see, IMO. I remember first installing red hat 4.something.. the choices of apps confused the living daylights out of me. The way I see it, this hasn't changed all that much...
Oh yeah, having a way to just "download and select run" to install new apps would be good for linux too
Replacing MS Office is, in my opinion, the Holy Grail of open source target product replacements. What a product needs to do to compete with Office is:
If the above were true, I believe the product might succeed in becoming more widely used and supported.
In the mean time, a free version of an Office replacement might make it in the door and onto my desktop if it was good, but it would take the above criteria for me to roll it out to all my end users.
I do, however, commend this effort. The open source community needs some help putting it's best foot forward to be seen. There are some pretty darn good open source projects, but there is also a lot of noise that makes open source stuff look like free junk.
This is EXCELLENT news, especially if some kind soul (or company) would care to finance an AOL-like blizzard of CD mailouts and mage coverdisks. I've often thought (and occasionally said) that getting the message through to ignorant PHBs is the only way to guarantee Free software a future: witness the horrors of the DMCA, et. al., and now the EUCD (which is even WORSE than the DMCA...). Once PHBs realise that such laws will actually COST THEM MONEY - or that they can save money by using *cough* open source *cough* apps, servers and OSes, we'll be safe from the proprietary industry's last attempt to save itself, by legislating us out of existence.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
For the vast bulk of "ordinary" users the computer is just a thing they switch on and it "just works".
They use M$ Windows cos that's what it came with, that's what everyone else uses and, in business at least, that's the platform targeted by the mainstream application developers.
They use M$ Office and M$ Outlook and M$ Internet Explorer cos that's what it came with, that's what everyone else uses and they get email attachments and website downloads that presume the existence of this platform.
These people usually have little, if any, computer literacy, They have little, if any, awareness of the "politics" of the open source argument. The overwhelming majority will have no understanding of or use for the source at all.
If you want to change their habits, you won't succeed by selling the operating system. "What's an operating system and why would I care about it?"
If you want to change their habits, you won't succeed by trying to change everything all at once or by selling the virtues of "open source".
If you want to change their habits, you won't succeed by giving them a CD full of strangely named things that they have to "compile" or "make" or learn howto use a plain text editor to configure.
Pick one thing, say OpenOffice, make sure that it is idiot proof with an idiot proof install routine. List ALL its virtues and, particularly, why anyone would want to use it in preference to M$ Office that they're all used to.
That might do it.
The next step to making OSS ready for the masses is getting the developers to put the vowels back in their product names.
What will this CD have on it? Linux ports or Windows ports?
Personally, I would use the Windows ports. They're available for all the current shining stars of open source; OpenOffice, Mozilla, GIMP. Those are the big ones, they cover 90% of what people actually use computers for, and they're all available for windows. Get people to switch to those and you're more than halfway to getting them on Linux.
Someone else asked 'this stuff is already freely/easily available with easy install, etc, so why aren't people switching already?' Habit is why. They're used to using MS Office and they're afraid that it'll take too long or be to hard to learn a new package. I just went through that with my Dad when I built him a new computer. He was used to MS Office and wanted it installed. Of course, he didn't actually own a copy, and I tossed my pirated copy when I discovered OpenOffice. It took me a little while to convince him to just try OpenOffice, and if he didn't like it he could always go back. It's been 2 weeks now, and he's sold. He finds OpenOffice much easier to use, and he's comforted by the fact that he can open up his old MS Office documents without a hitch.
This is the way to get people to switch to OSS, one app at a time. Then, once they've switched for all their major apps, simply point out that they will all run on Linux.
For home users, it usually isn't that hard. In a business environment it's a different story, since even the thought of a productivity hit, no matter how small, sends chills down people's spines. I think the key there is to get them to switch at home, where they're more comfortable and can take some time.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
There's (going to be, at least) a big market for this kind of thing on MacOS, where the arrival of a new operating system has created a lot of holes in the lineup of available software. Projects like Fink, XDarwin and the others have been really useful in making it easy to find and install existing free software.
I've also found a number of Java apps on Freshmeat that run fine on OS X, and were certainly less painful than the only native alternatives. Those would also be worth collecting and distributing.
Besides, this is a great opportunity to grab the kind of mindshare apps like Newswatcher and Fetch had on Classic.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Eh? maybe it's just me, but in 7 or so years using windows, I've never once had the MS help actually solve my problem.
The site: www.gnusoftware.com, which is nothing officially to do with GNU, is a collection of links to open source Windows projects. I've already used it to compile some pretty useful CDs to give away to people.
This sounds like a good idea as long as they keep it to best-of-breed products. One of the things I find annoying (as well as great) about Linux distros is the sheer number of applications avaialable. I would rather the distro only gave me 1 top quality CD palyer installed to start with and 1 browser, one office suite, etc. Then later if I wanted to allow me to try others.
Hopefully for this Windows CD they can stick with just a few top qualtiy products.
/b
[Please type your sig here.]
Looking at their forums, a lot of the people who contribute (to the forums, at least...) seem to be primarily Linux people who may use Windows a bit. As a result there's a load of people advocating crazy things like putting vim or emacs on the CD... Even programs like the GIMP are going to feel odd to most Windows users with their appalling X-style load/save dialogs...
Linux shouldn't support more games, more games should support Linux! :-)
Simple reason
e cs
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-cygwin/2.95.3-5/spec s
/cygdrive/c/devkitadv/bin/../lib/gcc-lib/arm- agb-elf/3.0.2/specs ../gcc-3.0.2/configure --prefix=/devkitadv --build=i686-pc-cygwin --host=i686-pc-cygwin --target=arm-agb-elf --e / --enable-multilib --enabl
#1
Reading specs from C:/mingw32/bin/../lib/gcc-lib/mingw32/2.95.3-6/sp
gcc version 2.95.3-6 (mingw special)
#2
Reading specs from
gcc version 2.95.3-5 (cygwin special)
#3
Reading specs from
Configured with:
-cpu=arm7tdmi --without-local-prefix --with-newlib --with-headers=../newlib-1.9.0/newlib/libc/includ
terwork --enable-languages=c++ --enable-targets=arm-elf,arm-coff,arm-aout --disable-win32-registry --disable-threads -v
Thread model: single
gcc version 3.0.2 (DevKit-Advance)
etc...
In case they didn't notice OSS is not really stagnant software. Putting it on a CD will be kinda useless because the software will be outdated in a month or two at most. Sure I guess putting only full whole [e.g. v1, v2, etc...] releases on it would be nice but just grabbing any old piece of OSS is a bad idea.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
theres currently a debian project to do just that. have a look at:
http://debian-cygwin.sourceforge.net/
ALL my Windows development tools are either OSS or designed to interact with OSS in the case that the client app is closed source... and even then its still a free closed source app. I heard it expressed in an earlier discussion on OpenOffice that making a Swiss Army Knife of a suite isn't always the best way to fight Commercial Apps. Smaller, faster tools that get the job done are very compelling. Compare MS Access to using MySQLFront (not OSS but free and the server is OSS...) Access has got a lot of wizards and tools to make tasks easier for a novice. However, when you outgrow that those features don't mean much.
Also would like to say donating time and spare cashflow to the development of these tools is critical to making these apps "polished". So practice what you preach and really support the coders creating these cool tools.
But let me reiterate what others have said: it must be EASY to use. No editing text to config. No compiling. No weird choices between tools nobody outside the free software world has ever heard of. Just a small, coherent set of useful applications that just happen to be free. Do that and you'll be amazed at how many people use and distribute this.
sulli
RTFJ.
X is just a graphics system, similar to the Windows GDI. It does not, and cannot stand in the way of making apps look good.
/dev/null. You can't just tell people to go for 1 toolkit until you have something that satisfy all of them.
There are only 2 major toolkits: GTK+ and QT.
Even though they both look different (default theme), they look similar enough to not confuse people. I have yet to meet a person who can't see that a GTK+ button is a button, or that a QT button is a button.
I also can't see how the window manager can make things look unpolished. If you like it, stick with it, and *ALL* apps will have the same window borders. If you don't like the current wm, then switch to one you do like.
As for the "brain-damaged font model": it has been "fixed" (Xft), and both GTK+ 2.0 and QT 2.2 supports Xft. GTK+ 1.2 also supports it, using GdkXft.
The reason why we still don't use 1 unified toolkit yet is because many people have different opinions. Person 1 loves the QT look but hates the GTK+ look, while person 2 loves the GTK+ look but hates the QT look. One person likes C++, the other sends his C++ compilers to
In the Windows world, there are different opinions too, except that people are more or less forced to use the standard Windows toolkit (though I have seen quite a lot of apps that don't exactly look like other Windows apps).
Abiword is mentioned as one piece of quality software. I use it, but now only to read new word docs that my MS-Office 95 can't read. Why? Last time I tried to print a 2-page letter with Abiword, it came out on 3 pages. First page and last page were just about normal, except that the middle page contained just 1 line that should have come out on the first page but didn't quite fit. I was using a popular HP printer, so it wasn't oddball equipment. The Abiword site admits that they are small and of limited capabilities vs the bigger vendors of WP software. What they have done is very good for a small team, but why make a poster child out of something that is only a usually adequate second choice? The hassles of one document screwed up like mine just about cancel all the savings of going to a free package for one desktop in a large business.
The success of software has little to do with marketing plans. It really has nothing to do with conspiracies, sneaking it in the door, subversion, etc. The success relies solely upon what the software does and how well it does it.
... most end users aren't even qualified to recognize quality (and Microsoft has trained them to not expect it), much less choose on the basis of it. They choose based on what is marketed to them, nothing more, and currently Microsoft has 99% of all the marketing dollars, earned through ongoing illegal leveraging of their monopoly that goes back a good ten years.
I know this is a troll and I probably shouldn't respond, but someone needs to point out that what you say is, of course, is demonstrably false. If it were true, Microsoft would not have the monopoly it currently enjoys. Its products have consistently been inferior to its competitors in nearly every measurable degree since the late 1980s, yet they have a virtual lock on the desktop and have had for years. Why? Not because their products do anything well, but because of marketing muscle and a criminal willingness to violate the law again and again, even while in court defending against earlier such violations.
In short, it is all about marketing, conspiracy, and subversion
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Yes, there's a lot of great open source software out there that many average people could find useful.
But there's a lot out there, too, that are just the 240th way to catalog MP3 titles.
What's needed is for the collection to be a subset of the OSS universe, applications which have been tested for being relevant, useful and reliable.
A well integrated CD like this could do wonders.
One of the hindrances that we contend with is fragmentation of a finite user community, in the sense that given 10 users of a specific kind application such as a Word-like WYSIWYG document preparation system, 2 will be doing Abiword, 2 will be doing KWord, 1 doing LyX, 4 doing StarOffice, etc.
The CD integrator has to be brave enough to choose one good application of each kind to build a complete, but minimal system. End users appreciate that orthogonality. [Not limiting them in any way - advanced users will find out about the alternatives and their benefits and limitations all by themselves.]
But most importantly, there's likely to be a larger community of people that can help new users with any particular application and also more developers furthering the particular application because of big marquee glory for something that's used by tens of thousands of users.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
"...eventually bring them over to a completely free system on their own time."
...gosh, had to be at least 3 years ago. I installed it...went "hmm" for a few weeks.. and then wiped it. A couple of weeks ago I thought it was high time to give it another look. Why not? I had listened to Linux users in these forums proclaiming how good this-or-that distribution has gotten that I kind of assumed that the operating system really was ready for prime time.
That implies running a "free" operating system, probably Linux.
"...your parents/friends..."
In my world this group would include people who aren't computer professionals and who's machines aren't otherwise professionally managed.
Having established all that... You're kidding me, right?
The last time I had run linux was
Uh...no.
I managed to get Yellow Dog 2.2 installed on my Titanium PowerBook, sure. But after having done it I was stunned at how...well, rudimentary the installer was. In spite of endless "the installer really has gotten good now" comments. Well, if by "good" you mean "nowhere near the usability of commercial desktop operating systems" then yeah I'll agree with that.
I managed to get my wireless networking going. I found out how to do a few other things. But the main thing I discovered is that Linux hasn't really gotten usable enough for novices. Somehow I expected more.
Frankly I don't care if some Linux zealot mods me down or lables my comment "troll" or "flamebait." While you're doing it, bear this in mind - I'm doing this for you. The Linux community really needs to take seriously the idea that a novice needs to be able to install, configure, troubleshoot, and maintain the thing without endless arcane documentation or professional help. If your fellow Linux users/developers won't tell you, I will.
Linux will never be more than a server OS and a geek toy until / unless the usability radically changes.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
I'm giving away CDs with the latest stable Mozilla and OpenOffice versions away for quite some time now. I'm always including the Linux and the Windows version and the appropriate spellchecker. This works quite well. My girlfriends parents have a new PC with XP and Word preinstalled. They're using OpenOffice now for spreadsheets and drawings. They still use Netscape 6.2 though. Be careful to choose the right moment to convince them and take the time helping them installing things. Give a short introduction and they'll find out the rest themselves. In a few years they'll be doing the same with others... OSS takes it's time, the source is ours, it won't run away.
Anyone who needs those utilities already knows how to get them.People who use Windows or MacOS over Linux do it because the GUI handles all the details for them, not because they want to manage it all from the command line.
That is wrong. Linux will succeed or fail on its own merits and the inertia of the market.
While I agree with almost everything you said in your post, this sentence was the one that got me.
Other factors can cause a product to suceed or fail other than its merits. This is especially true with (1) a monopoly, and (2) an entrenched monopoly, and (3) a monopololistic player who plays dirty, even willing to commit illegal acts.
I agree completely that a law is not going to make Linux magically appear on everyone's desktop. And I especially agree with what you say about making Linux usable by Joe User. But supposing that these conditions were to be met, I disagree that the merits alone will cause a product to succeed when an entrenched monopoly is willing to play dirty.
It is also good that you seem to observe that the inertia of the market can cause a superior product to fail.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
One all-too-common mistake is the assumption that OSS means Linux/Unix. There are, at the very least, windows ports of many open-source programs that originated on Linux. Trouble is, the vast majority of these use their own (klunky) widget sets instead of Windows' native widgets.
Mind you, GTK works great under Linux, but its windows implementation is slow, weak, and buggy. It would be nice to see applications like X-Chat, The Gimp, and OpenOffice ported over to Windows using the standard Windows widgets. Yes, it would take more work, but it would also make them a heck of a lot more useable in the eyes of the average user. Nobody wants to use software that klunks.
The real bottom line is: On Windows, X has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that Windows ports are secondary to original Linux code, and don't get the attention they need to make them solid.
Take the GIMP. Quite powerful plugins. But nothing like the easy-to-use with presets plugins you get on Photoshop. Every time I see a GIMP plugin, I think "this is neat, but a non-techie won't go for it".
Take edge-detection. AFAIK, not a big deal in Photoshop. There are *three* different plugins implemented for gimp, each named after the algorithm they implement. This is cool if you're into image processing, not image editing.
If you run out and download plugins you can get cool stuff, too. The problem is that downloading, compiling, and installing plugins is not going to work for new users. And most of those plugins aren't oriented toward design sorts either -- more towards image processing engineers.
Let me give an example. A tasty-sounding plugin for the GIMP is Artistic->Oilify. Oil painting, cool! In Photoshop, if you run something like this, you'll get a little window with a preview, a bunch of bundled presets named "big gloppy brush", "Van Gogh", etc. In the GIMP, you get a frame called "Parameter Settings" containing a checkbox called "Use Intensity Algorithm" and a slider entitled "Mask Size". Now, maybe it's just me, but I doubt anyone but the original coder k(or someone that's looked at the code, or is familiar with this family of image processing algorithms) knows what the "use Intensity Algorithm" does. There's no preview, so no easy way to check. Mask Size doesn't mean anything to a non-coder.
The GIMP (1.2.3 ximian) still doesn't bundle even have a good, preset-capable, previewing drop-shadow plugin. This is something that people want, and usually they don't want to still run out and create another layer, fill the selection, gaussian blur and then offset the new layer. It's work, and the 1% of the time they want some weird effects in their drop shadow, they can do things the hard way.
That means you shouldn't have a "alpha squared" value slider, you should have a "hairyness slider".
And this is the GIMP, which is billed as just about the most consumer-oriented app on Linux.
AbiWord is probably one of the closest apps here to what I'm talking about. Any word processor user will be familiar with most of the options.
Every feature has to be documented, tooltips be included, etc. if people really want to try to take over the commercial app market.
Something like Apple Guide or Windows Help needs to be implemented. Tooltips should be implemented more than once in a blue moon.
Now, I'm not asking for anything -- I'm happily using and hacking on the software out there, and it works nicely for me. But if the intent is to go after the commercial apps market, then a few areas need to be addressed.
May we never see th
... is not to hand out CD's full of it to your friends and neighbors who aren't really interested in the first place. The most effective way would be to convince the businesses that employ these people to use it. People want to use the same OS and software at home as they do at work. Remember that most people were more or less forced to learn Windows and MS Office for their job, and have no interest in learning new software when they are already familiar with Windows (and MS Office, IE, etc...). If they were required to use Linux at work, they would be much more likely to try it at home. Familiarity is the key. So try sending your OSS CD to local businesses, and be sure to stress that all the software contained therein is completely FREE... even for business use.
------------------------- Thus Spoke the Mad Monkey
He didn't mispell it, it was a nod to pirating windows. You know, you down with opp. ;)
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
" we must first get them to use alternatives to MS Office" - but don't the alternatives just work under Linux or are there Windows ports of Open Office, Star Office etc?
Video Game cheats, hints a
This is, in fact, exactly the tactic Microsoft has already used.
When Microsoft started developing Windows 95, they already had Windows NT 3.something. They knew they wanted everyone to move to NT, as it was more stable and performed better. So when they made the "Designed for Windows 95" logo program, they made one of the qualifications for receiving that logo to be that the program ran on both Windows 95 and Windows NT.
6 years later they were able to produce Windows XP, on which almost all software written for Windows 9x will run.
I'm no big fan of MS, but I appreciate their solution. And you're right, in order to move people off Windows and onto Linux, a similar migration would have to occur.
Perhaps someone (Red Hat?) can start a "Designed for WINE" logo program, and require software that receives that logo to run on both Linux (under WINE) and Windows.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'm discouraged that their list of "contributions from the community" doesn't include anything at all about decent documentation. The fact that the first item is "cool graphics" isn't very promising, either.
Accurate, well-written, and current documentation is absolutely vital. They apparently plan to link to "full online documentation", which are probably the cobbled-together FAQs and HOWTOs that are already available, and that's not likely to be adequate.
I managed to get Yellow Dog 2.2 [yellowdoglinux.com] installed on my Titanium PowerBook, sure. But after having done it I was stunned at how...well, rudimentary the installer was.
What do these two things have to do with each other? ``Ready for prime time'' and ``quality of installer''? Nothing. Granny can't install Linux, Granny can't install Solaris, and Granny can't install Windows. Despite the big advantage Apple has from their iron-clad control of everything which runs OSX, I suspect that Granny hasn't a prayer of installing OSX, either. There exists no OS which meets your criterion: `` ... that a novice needs to be able to install, configure, troubleshoot, and maintain the thing without endless arcane documentation or professional help.''
Toasters and refridgerators work that way, but complicated things like cars and computers don't. Do you think that cars aren't ready for the mass market? Once a knowledgable person sets up a Unix OS, it will run and run and run, for years. The user can't easily screw it up. That's ready for prime-time. Windows isn't, and may never be. Thanks to things like USB and Kudzu, Linux is pretty near there, once installed.
Have you tried a Windows installer lately? Some of them have pretty graphics, but their hardware detection and included drivers are way behind linux on Ix86. Installing Windows is HARD. Solaris is HARD too. Linux is a good deal easier to get running on intel hardware than those others. By the way, graphics doesn't make for an easy install. Good hardware detection and automated selection of the right drivers does.
You say that a big problem is getting the stuff installed...
I wonder if Gateway would want to promote this as a branch-off from their free music initiative. They already ship computers bogged down with other stuff, might as well put something useful on there too.
That could be a big deal for them. This software would add 'value' (as in functional or sales value, even though the software itself is 'free') to their products without costing them much(I say 'not much' because installing that on each computer will cost them).
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
It doesn't matter how simple the interface becomes, it's not enough. So what if KDE? is just as easy to use as windows. How hard is it to install new software? The standard steps of "configure, make, make install" may be intuitive for us, but it isn't for the average Windows users. Microsoft does it the right way, double click on "setup.exe" or, even better, the installer launches when you stick the CD in the drive.
The installer should be smart enough to install any components necessary for the program to run. If that means included libWhatever.so in the package, so be it. It's not good enough that most systems will have that library. Unless all systems have that library, it must be part of the installer. If the program fails because obscure shared object is missing, 99% of the users will remove the package (if they can figure out how). It won't take too many of these failures for someone to get fed up and go back to Windows.
Don't stop at getting the dependencies handled properly. Make the configuration just as easy. Either the installer must ask for necessary default information and create the default dependency, or the program itself must recognize the need and fire up a configuration wizard the first time it is run. For the typical end-user, wizards are great. They simplify what can otherwise be a tedious and error prone process.
Another area needing major improvements is manuals and help systems. All too often the developers do a damn fine job of producing a top notch program. Too bad only geeks can figure the software out, since the manuals suck, the online help is non-existent or minimal, and the web page says, "I don't have time to write anything" (I've actually seen this!).
The program isn't ready for public consumption until the manual is finished.
-- Will program for bandwidth
We could work with a cereal company and distribute OSS CDs on cereal boxes! Junior takes the CD, drops it in, installs, OSS replaces/removes spyware, etc., replacing it with good OSS products! Make sure your computer gets its daily dose of vitamins GPL and OSS! Perhaps working with IBM for funding. Hey kids! Be the first on your block to run DB2 and Websphere! It makes your MP3's fly off your website! We could advertise doing loops with Fruit Loops, shred your license costs with Shredded Wheat, crunch your software costs with Captain Crunch...ok, that might pique curiosity. ...but I am somewhat hesitant to associate OSS software with cereals that snap, crackle and pop.
The CD should hold two or three solid good choices for each major software category: Office Suites, Web Browser, Games as well as include easy to use Media software to handle MP3s and VCD, CD libraries, net phone/video, secure IRC, email, personal finance and tax software, dictionary, encyclopedias. It should have a greeting card making program, music editing MIDI, MP3, etc. As well as core internet tools allowing one to host websites, run firewalls, XTerm, VNC, FTP, SAMBA, security and system utilities, etc.
Perhaps using Peanut Linux or other smaller GUI-based Linux distribution that easily loads in along side MSFT Windows and plays games, DOS games and WINE.
Of course, for real fun, we could put hacking and cracking mini-CD's in Cracker Jacks...
What about Happy Meals with OSS Golden Archives mini-CDs? OSS Collections of the week? Collect cute little penguins with the mini-CDs?
Ask AOL, AT&T, or Earthlink to include a bundle of OSS software along with Mozilla? Imagine AT&T promoting OSS unix with it's broadband malings!! AT&T promoting unix again...such an odd come around that would be! Remember when...sigh.
Well, we could have Red Hat 7 at the 7/11 store?
CD design might be important. A boot CD that only has OSS OS and software on it that can run live, using a C: or A: drive for temporary files and data, could provide proof of concept for many folks.
Maybe we could get OSS software CDs included with cheap little hand scanners that look like pets or with CD/DVD burners.
Yep, it's time for my meds again. I'll check in again after demagnetizing the storage drums and flipping the core rings to zero. I know I left that Hollerith code book somewhere. Anybody else out there know the feel of the speed to hand spin reels of 9 track tape for data recovery?
Milk carton 'have you seen this missing OSS CD' ads?
Hostess cupcakes with web hosting CDs?
Bubble gum trading OSS mini-CDs?
Amazon books offering OSS mini-CDs with free shipping, mini-CDs which can be used as bookmarks or pocket mirrors too!
Phone cards printed on mini-CDs filled with OSS software.
Hallmark Christmas Star Trek ornaments made of OSS mini-CDs, collect all 64! Merry Christmas and hey, what's this ELF format OS stuff?
I know, I know, all it takes is a quick Google search, download the file, double-click, follow the wizard -- what could be easier? -- but do you know how many Windows users don't even know about Google? For a lot of people, AOL search is the only thing they know how to use.
Never assume that ordinary people of average intelligence will manifest anything short of utter stupidity when confronted with a computer. For most of the /. community, computers and technology in general are intuitive; they can generalize knowledge of one application, interface, or platform and quickly begin using another. For the average non-technical person, computer "logic" is 100% counter-intuitive.
I believe this confusion stems somewhat from the fact that what the average person calls "logic" is nothing of the sort: rather, it's "common sense." Most people conclude that something is logical if it "makes sense." But computer logic is a cold, unforgiving mathematical concept, which is totally foreign to people who haven't been exposed to it. I think this is the major link between proficiency with computers and mathematics -- it's not that, on an everyday level, the details have much in common, but the underlying logical model is well-nigh identical.
Hmmm... seems I've gotten carried away. Sorry 'bout rambling on like that...
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
"What I mean is, if Microsoft can no longer 'force' OEM's to put only Windows on their computers, Linux has a good chance. "
That won't make a difference if there is no compelling reason to the user to have Linux installed.
"Primarily because its free so the OEM's would love to push it. "
OEM's aren't that stupid... the Consumers have to want it.
"This can only happen if the Justice Dept. dishes out a meaningful punishment to Microsoft."
What you want is already part of the settlement the DOJ has offered.
But regardless, I hate to break this to you, but watching the past 20 years the desktop race is over. Microsoft has won, and there is no way of changing that.
But at some point the desktop and server paradigm that we currently know will go away. If someone had a vision, they would start working towards that... and be there before Microsoft realizes it. That, my friend, is how you become dominant. That is what Microsoft essentially did with the PC over the larger systems.
When it comes to software with an inelastic demand, no one cares if it is open source or not. What businesses care about is whether it works and works well. If something was free but didn't work, or was a sub-standard product, no one would use it who could afford to do otherwise. A product that has a free price tag but hurts your productivity isn't exactly a good deal compared to a product with even a hefty price tag when that product helps you get your job done more efficiently. This is why companies like Oracle and SAS can charge as much as they do, the companies that buy their products SAVE or even MAKE money in the long run.
As for the political/religious free as in speech aspects of open source, you might as well be speaking swahili because most business brains won't understand what you're talking about and those few that do won't care.
If the idea behind this project is what I think it is, to make converts out of people so that they will shun commercial products in favor of free software irregardless of the quality of the latter, then the people behind this project are in for a nasty suprise: Non-hackers are indifferent to the open source movement. Some are going to be downright hostile in fact due to the way that some open source "advocates" behave.
What this project needs to do is promote the compilation based upon the quality of the software it provides, not on the basis that it is free. This will serve to educate the public that open source software can be just as good or better than commercial offerings. When this is accomplished open source will be able to compete with commercial offerings on an equal footing. It won't have a stigma attached to it and whether it is chosen or not will be entirely based upon quality and its suitability for a particular purpose.
I've been using Linux since 1995. I like the fact that it is free as in speech and in beer, but that isn't the reason I choose it over Windows. I use it because it is more powerful, more stable, and more flexible. If it were kludgey, flaky, or unstable then I'd do little more than play with it. I certainly wouldn't use it in a commercial setting where downtime equals dollars down the drain. This is the burden that all software must carry regardless of how much it costs or how accessible the source code for it is.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
While you're talking about doing that and figuring out graphics for installers, I have got...
ten thousand copies of the GPL onto Macintoshes with my CD mastering program, Mastering Tools
Three hundred and seventy copies of the GPL onto an entirely different set of Macintoshes with Filmpaper, a new program I just put out a couple days ago, for screenwriting.
Both of these are seriously hardcore programs aimed at markets that are jammed with software so proprietary that in some cases it uses dongles and key disks. Both pro audio and professional screenwriting are full of relentlessly un-free, user-hostile software- some of the best apps in terms of performance have some of the worst copy-protection. Every copy of one of my programs that goes into such a market goes with source, 'COPYING' and a glimpse of another world- a world where you aren't jerked around by 'godlike software developers' but are allowed to take matters into your own hands if you need to, a world where you could take an active instead of a passive role with the software you use- not to mention a world where your software won't expire, annoy or selfdestruct.
It's pretty funny, actually, when you think about it- lots of Linux open source coders, deities at kernel hacking and C++ multiple inheritance, capable of coding back-end that REALLY WORKS, sitting around trying to figure out why GFX tweaks aren't loving The GIMP or why Windows consumers aren't rushing to grab ISO images of Linux for free. It's simple- DO WHAT YOU LOVE. And if all you love is heavy-duty code-monkeying, do back-end coding. But if you want free software to really build up steam, get passionate about something other than coding and apply your coding skills to it.
The important thing is to have the ONE BEST PROGRAM in any given situation be a Free Software program. I have done this in part with my CD mastering software- the area where it beats anything else out there is output sound quality, so far I can't get other aspects up to professional quality (like workflow, realtime audio and response to control adjusting). Someday I'll have that stuff together too.
You will never, never get to be the 'new Photoshop' by targetting the 'masses'. Ever. Not happening. Forget it. Guy Kawasaki had it figured out back when he was getting the Mac started- you target the TWEAKS. Do everything to target the uber-tweak heavy hitters, the early adopters, the influencers. If you are writing an OSS 'Pro Tools', talk to people in LA and Nashville- better still, BE one of the people in LA and Nashville, and code what YOU need, only then will you get it right. You have to be coding what you personally will need to put hours of use on.
We gotta find more reinassance-geeks. Biotech, robotics- I have sound engineering pretty well covered, but don't use a DAW- if you're writing a spreadsheet it had better be because YOU need to make heavy, heavy use of a spreadsheet, not because 'people in offices use these!'
This pep talk has been brought to you by Chris Johnson, who's placed over 10,000 copies of the GPL on computers where it had never been seen. He's going to continue doing this whatever you do- but if you want to show some freaking support, don't be paying for the SOFTWARE, instead go look into some of the stuff Chris cares about a lot, like his music... be totally unlike most people and buy a CD while you're at it, or just download + rate tunes left and right. Or please yourself- but that would be a BIG help
And how is that different from an open source program that is hailed as the next killer app, but only uber-geeks can figure it out because they took the time to dig through the source code to see what command line switches and config file options are available?
-- Will program for bandwidth
WTF...30 fucking seconds of googling could have shown you that StarOffice runs just fine on Win32. Sometimes, it seems like you are just posting to hear yourself speak. Jesus man, better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than to post and remove any doubt.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Imagine if Joe Sixpack could just click "Get New Program" and type "Mozilla" in the box, and voila! Mozilla. If it were that easy, more people would do it.
They can. It's called a browser. And tucows.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
(Good parent post, BTW)
The problem with designing "idiot-proof" software is that usually the first idiot brought into the process is usually the idiot who knows nothing about designing clear, concise and usable user interfaces and who proceeds to do so anyway(this is usually the programmer). When this happens, any idiot-proofing is compromised. If an idiot designs an "idiot-proof" car with the lighter by the gas tank, even someone with a PhD in engineering could blow it up.
All platforms have these types of idiots, but in varying quantities. Linux (and really much of the unix world barring OS X) has then in unthinkable, vast quantities. Not only are most of these developers ignorant in how to design usable interfaces, but they go so far as to consider the entire field of UI design B.S. (the go past the point of ignorance into total stupidity). Much of the linux community refuses to acknowledge this problem or deal with it in any way. They try to cure bad interface with increased zealotry and massive exaggeration about just how good the programs really are. Bill Gates has never had to worry about trying to kill desktop linux because so many people in the linux camp do his job for him.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Well yes - sometimes I do post when I'm half asleep. However in this case I knew about StarOffice running on Win32 - I was referring to other Office packages for Linux.
Video Game cheats, hints a
The problem is that #3 is likely to be a lot worse than either #1 or #2. This is the impression I get from using Fink, for example. Hey, Fink is a very cool project. I love what they're doing. But having used Fink apps on a Mac and the same apps on Linux, I can tell you there's just no comparison. For instance, I just tried to install xemacs using Fink today. It downloads binaries, it resolves dependencies, and everything looks good. Then -- oops -- it doesn't run! Similarly, it's been true for many months now that when you first install fink, you get a nonfunctional system, because twm doesn't work with the latest X, and twm is set to be the default window manager. You have to figure this out because twm malfunctions, and then download some other window manager.
I'm not saying all this to pick on the poor overworked Fink people. I'm saying it to point out the painful truth. The community of open-source developers interested in supporting open-source apps on Linux is a huge community. The community of open-source developers interested in supporting their apps on closed-source operating systems is miniscule. For this reason, the user experience is always going to suck if you use open-source apps on a closed-source OS, and therefore I fear that this type of project is destined simply going to convince lots of people that OSS sucks.
Find free books.
- Do not assume Joe Sixpack knows what Tucows is, or even, having heard some "works with computers" person mention it, know how to get there.
- Do not assume that, having heard about this thing called Mozilla that's supposed to be like Netscape, (which is the other thing that does what Internet Explorer does, that they may have heard about), only it's free, and somehow better, that Joe Sixpack will be willing to risk getting a virus by downloading scary program files off the Internet, especially if it's from crazy site with a stupid logo that's probably run by gasp -- hackers!
- To quote myself, from the parent post: "Never assume that ordinary people of average intelligence will manifest anything short of utter stupidity when confronted with a computer."
Go back and read the rest of my argument.People saying "it's easy, all you need is [Website X] or [Utility Y] or [Technology Z]" may be all that's needed for your average slashdotter, but Joe Sixpack needs a little more help.
It's amazing how some people can be very intelligent about some things and yet totally stupid about others. Hmmm... maybe that should be my new sig.
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.