Slashdot Mirror
The Age of Aggressive Linux Advocacy Is Upon Us?
GonzoJohn writes "Jamie Harrison, founder of GBLUG in Glen Burnie, Maryland, has written an exclusive editorial for Linux Orbit about how he sees the state of Linux advocacy.
"Whether we want to admit it or not, Linux has entered a critical period in its development - a period that may, in fact, determine in fate forever.
Now that Linux is no longer a strange little niche Operating System, and has developed to the point where Microsoft actually feels threatened by its proliferation, the folks in Redmond are doing everything they can in the way of software design, legislation, regulation and control of the internet to snuff Linux out. The main reason that they have failed up to this point is that Linux has matured and grown in popularity, gaining public and private defenders in the consumer market and especially the corporate boardroom."
Read the editorial here" I don't think that I agree with all the points here - but it's an informative read if nothing else.
For all Linux's technical superiority to Windows, we as a community must not be seen as childishly attacking Microsoft. (A trivial example being spelling their name with a '$')
Most non-technical people perceive a community by their loudest members. If all the 'Linux' community can offer is "Mickey$oft SUXXX!" and "You're too stupid to write your own device drivers, you don't deserve a computer!" then Linux shall forever remain a niche Operating System.
I seemed to feel a tone of 'manifest destiny' in the article. Is it just me who believes that philosophy is completely irrelevant to Linux?
We don't NEED to gain market share. We don't NEED to singlehandedly supplant Windows in order to be successful. In fact, if Linux does supplant Windows, it's just going to become the next widely-hated major OS of the time, until someone else comes along and supplants Linux. Doesn't sound like fun to me.
What goals does the Linux community have, other than supplanting Windows? Hrm.... creating an autonymously stable and useful operating system. Showing the Windows world what it's like to build an OS that interoperates with the majority of standards out there. Tons of others.... Why do we feel this conquistador-like goal to take over the OS world? It seems bullish and idiotic to me. There are much better things we can accomplish, cooperatively, when we're not wasting our time trying to dominate. If we keep this up for too long, Linux really will be the next Windows, in all the worst ways.
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
We have to be realistic. Even if Linux usage on the desktop increases by 400% over the next several years, it isn't going to make any real difference. Why? Because Microsoft has the high ground. They make massive financial contributions to the right people - namely the campaign funding pots of the US government.
In 3 years time, Microsoft in conjunction with AMD and Intel are going to start setting up a hardware and internet infrastructure which Linux will not be able to run on. Want to install Linux on your new PC? Can't - the CPU won't let you because it doesn't support their properterial encryption. Want to run a DVD, a Direct X game, a TV tuner, a new 'security concious' hard drive or motherboard? Can't, for much the same reasons. Next it'll be email, then webpages, and so on.
Anti trust laws you say? Won't work. MS has more power over the US government than the oil barons. Think about that. There is also another dimension. There is a little thing called 'war on terrorism' on right now, and having every computer in the world capible of being easily monitored, controlled, observed and disabled by US inteligence agencies, because of the next version of Window's 'security', will greatly appeal to them... don't underestimate this factor.
If you want to stop Microsoft, extending the user numbers isn't going to help much. Microsoft can simply cut off the air supply. The only way to stop them now is to actually get politicians in power who aren't all incompetent or corrupt fatcats.
I believe that Microsoft actually doesn't mind that Apple exists.
#1 Their OS only runs on propriatary hardware and the number of deployed systems is quite small compared to the number of Windows systems.
#2 Microsoft is able to make money from Apple users through application sales (Microsoft Office)
#3 Microsoft can point to Apple as being a worthy competitor thereby reducing the effect of Microsofts monopoly. (remember, Microsoft made a big contribution to Apple at a critical time not so long ago).
Basically, at this stage, Microsoft has nothing to fear from Apple. Once (if ever) Apple is able to take more than 10% or 20% of the market from Windows, watch out.
Microsoft fears Linux because they realize there is no easy way to make money from the Linux users other than porting (and maintaining various flavors for each version of Linux) Microsoft Office.
Linux runs on nearly every platform and is primarily used on cheap X86-based hardware rather than expensive propriatary systems.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
The biggest quality point he has is that the majority of computer users could care less which OS they are using, as long as they can point and click their programs into and out of existence, and easily install hardware that they purchase.
"Windows for Dummies" is one of the best selling dummies books for a good reason. Even windows doesn't always work the way people want it to.
If the Linux crowd wants to move the Linux OS into the mainstream, they are going to have to make it as easy and simple as possible. More so then windows perhaps. Add more help boxes, give a better manual then windows (There are companies in Japan with excellent manuals,) make it easy to install and remove software/hardware.
When these objectives are reached, I can guarantee you that more people will use Linux.
As well, provide an easy way for device drivers to be distributed for linux boxes. A big problem I have found with some of my friends that have switched to Linux is how difficult it is to find good drivers for some of their old peripherals.
~ kjrose
So, you don't know how to program, or you only know how to program in languages that are unacceptable for Free Software (such as VB), but you want to contribute. No problem!
1. Pick a project that you care about in some way. You will almost certainly lose interest in contributing to software that you don't use regularly.
2. Subscribe to the mailing list. Keep up with how the project is progressing, and what things are holding it back. Lurk for a while. (If the project does not have a mailing list, contact the project lead and coordinate setting up an SF.net account and getting one going.)
Some examples of how a non-programmer can help:
- If you are and admin type you can help new users of the package. Helping new users is probably the number one thing a non-programmer can do for a project.
- You could bring existing documentation up to date (see why you needed to lurk?).
- You could convert existing docs to "better" formats.
- You could do some other non- or semi-technical work, such as bringing a web app's HTML output into compliance with a W3C recommendation.
4. Make your presence known. Volunteer in some concrete way. Don't say "I'd love to help" say "I have six new FAQ entries, where should I send them?"5. ???
6. Profit (just kidding).
Following these easy steps I (briefly) became the project lead of a package that was featured in this month's Sys Admin Magazine, without ever writing a single line of code.
-Peter
However what annoys me most is some GUI features of linux. I'd really like to help improving that. Now the problem is that I doen't speak C++, and I don't want to spend years learning it.
Many gui-using projects have a bug database; don't be shy about entering usability bugs in the database. Your opinions do matter; you may well have more taste in interface design than many of the coders on the project, even if you aren't able to express your ideas in code. Of course, be sure you understand the issues well before posting, and state clearly what the usability bug is, not just how you think it should be fixed. I.e, "It requires 6 mouse clicks to turn off Javascript" (it really does, in Mozilla) not just "let me have an option to put a button on the toolbar to turn Javascript on and off".
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.