Slashdot Mirror
Linux Advocacy From the Trenches
An anonymous reader writes "Tom Adelstein, longtime Linux advocate and consultant has spent the last year working closely with state, local, and federal government open source software initiatives. Tom launched Government Forge,spearheaded the Open Source bill in Texas and other programs. Tom shares the grass roots efforts that have offered him an insider's view of what is propelling Linux toward critical mass and the desktop. He shares his view of Linux "from the trenches" in this interview."
"The main PC makers have held back on releasing Linux desktops only because they're afraid of offending Microsoft"
It saddens the heart to on ponder on the technological advancements that have been missed because of this disgusting behaviour. And what is worse, is that many blindly idolise this company and it's unethical practises. Man the lifeboats or go down with the ship.
I am a sometimes Linux user, but I am not personally convinced that Open Source is a better deal for my tax dollars. If Microsoft can offer a better TCO, then the government should buy Microsoft products. And I fail to see how their current procurement procedures are inadequate for making that sort of decision. The government's job is not to interfere with the market by promoting one product over another. If you really want to advocate Linux, make it a better product so that the private sector adopts it. The government sector will follow.
If Microsoft can offer a better TCO
"Total cost of ownership" isn't the buzzword anymore. The new buzzword is "return on investment". Even if free software costs more to run, it can often do more.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The kernel, basic system and desktop (ala kde/gnome) is there and ready to go right now.
.. they have them too...
Open office is really darn close, Mozilla is dead on...
but... some things are lacking horribly...
Examples? Video editing.. nothing available for linux can touch adobe Premiere.. not even the old version 5.0 of it.
Desktop publishing? It's finally starting to get there with the one app we have.
but the biggest hold back is that unless you are a medium level linux user you CANNOT install software without a fight.
a newbie want to click on an install icon... like UT, quake3, or all the loki games has.. and Open Office and Mozilla
linux needs a unified installer system. it needs to be a click-and-drool GUI (command line capability though)
this is desperately needed and actually USED by the developers.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Sun hardware? It's one thing to have great hardware, but at such prices...
...when at this very moment, the most important (IMHO) issue Linux faces is the very real threat of being rendered illegal via SCO?
Articles which trumpet how nice Linux is (and it IS nice for many things) are much like articles talking about how best to play DVDs under Linux-- they tend to ignore the frightening and (IMHO) immoral legalities surrounding such things. It is still illegal to play a (store-bought, DVD-encrypted... which means 99% of mainstream movies) DVD under Linux, as there is no licensed CSS decryptor for desktop Linux systems. And pretty soon, it may very well be illegal to use Linux without paying some outrageous "tax" to SCO. The fact that there are so many Linux advocates out there but the SCO fiasco is still going on (and no one pays attention to other Linux legalities, like the lack of a legal DVD player) is frightening. You or I might not care about the moronic decisions judges and congresspeople make, but I guarantee that businesses do. The greatest obstacle to the mainstream acceptance of Linux is not technical-- it's legal. (The second greatest obstacle is social... the gap between Linux development culture and "desktop user" culture. But that's another story for another day...)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Well, discussing it here is of no use. All of us agress on these points. What would be better is to go the Yahoo Microsoft message boards and discuss why we think MSFT is inferior. The investors there ned the same FUD that Microsoft poured into Macintosh and Linux/Unix camps. This will be sweet revenge, putting FUD into the Microsoft investors, causing them to pull out their money invest in any other company.
The government is no different from any large bureaucratic organization, like a Fortune 500 company. Tons of developers and IT people using Linux everywhere because they don't have to get umpteen budgetary approvals to take an old Pentium machine, throw it into the corner and make it a departmental or development server. Lots of Free Software behind the scenes everywhere that's supported internally.
Sure, more advocacy is needed by large shops like IBM of their Linux work so that large bureaucratic organizations (governments included) don't have to shamefully keep their Linux servers hidden away and can freely admit when a project uses Free Software. But this still isn't going to go anywhere toward getting Linux on the desktop.
I think the initial adoption of Windows on the desktop largely happened in corporations first and then overflowed into home use. But these days, I don't think it's that simple. I'm not convinced you can sell organizations on making a change to something that users aren't familiar with due to massive retraining costs (or at least the fear thereof) in the modern office, where Word, Powerpoint and so on are kind. I think you have to pursue the home audience first, where you can sell people on cost, features, reliability. Of course, you have to have a winning case before you can do that, and Linux doesn't really have that yet for the desktop.
If there's one thing that really hurts Linux, it's advocacy, especially when that advocacy is unfounded, uninformed, or overzealous. I really wish these so called "advocates" would just get on with their lives.
Realistically, a lot of people--even knowledgeable, technical people--either prefer Windows or MacOS to Linux, or they see advantages and drawbacks to each of them. To such people, trying to force "Photoshop is better than The GIMP," or "Yes, there is a version of that application for Linux, it's [fill in name of a half-baked Linux application written by a high school student here]," down their throats is downright annoying.
apt-get and Synaptic are absolutely fabulous apps for those of us who are experienced using Linux and installing software for it. However, they fail to help newbies because the process they use to get and install software does not map to the way the newbie thinks about installing software. And anyone who says "The way the newbie thinks is wrong" is simply failing to understand newbies at all.
Now that I've made a generalization, let's have a specific run-through of the problem. I have first-hand experience with switching (some successfully, some not) a number of Windows users to Linux, and here is the problem that they all run into. (NOTE: I ran into this very same problem when I first switched, but I knew no one who could hold my hand through it all. The only reasons I am still using Linux are that I am far more intelligent than most people, so I am better at figuring things out on my own, and I am also incredibly stubborn when it comes to learning something new.)
You are Joe Newbie. You've got your nice shiny Linux system running. You hear about a great app called "FooBar". You like what you hear about it and you decide you want to try it. You search google for it, and go to www.foobar-software.org. You try to download it. But you can only get source or an RPM or DEB package. (Let's assume your friend set you up with Libranet and for some reason you actually know that it's a Debian based distro -- a stretch in its own right) You download the DEB, but you run into dependency conflicts. It wouldn't be so bad if this happened once or twice, but it happens for bloody near every app you try to install.
Now all seasoned Debian users, as well as most users of other distros, will be screaming at you to use apt-get or synaptic, or whatever other package management system. But that's the problem. People accustomed to Windows or Mac are accustomed to going to a store or a vendor's web site and getting the software they want. They have no idea that their computer might somehow "magically" know how to get it for them. Heck, if you didn't know better, why would you think your system would know how to do that? Even when you show them how apt-get works, they still often forget and revert back to the old way. It's a very deeply ingrained habit that only the most persistent learn to break.
To make things worse, even Debian, with a repository probably more exhaustive than any other distro's, still doesn't have all of the packages (and new versions of packages) that a user wants. If that user is a newbie, having to remember multiple methods for acquiring software and knowing when to use each is a further strain.
Granted, if a person sticks with Linux and becomes more accustomed to it, he or she will probably learn how to use apt-get (or insert package management system here) to streamline the package-acquisition process. However, it would be in open source's best interests to try to minimize culture shock so as to further help bring more people in.
So the grandparent poster was dead-on. For example, Mozilla really does get it. Their installer is distro-agnostic and installs everything that the package needs. Even though this may introduce more bloat (redundant packages) for any given distro, it also results in an easy installation for a newbie. Advanced users will know how to get better versions of Mozilla specifically for their distros, but newbies will still be able to participate by getting Mozilla the way they know best.
All end-user focused software packages should follow Mozilla's example of providing a simple executable installer which contains all libraries and files needed to run the software independently of most, if not all, other packages on the system. This certainly isn't the ideal setup from a sysadmin or advanced user standpoint, but it is needed to match the way newbies think about installing software.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Many advocates seem to confuse OSS with organized religion. Ironically, they disparage religion for its belief system and how it limits your life, but then they turn around make statements like "Keep yourself pure -- don't install Windows XP for Half Life 2!!" I'm sure I'm not the only one that laughed when I saw "keep yourself pure."
It's an operating system, people. Not a way of life, or a higher moral standard, or any of that. Some of us just see it as a component of life, not the reason to tell others about it.
When I see people evangelizing Linux, I can't help but feel like they are REALLY missing the point. Linux in and of itself is a wonderful accomplishment, but its not for everyone. This is completely intentional. The Linux community and advocates thrive on not being mainstream. The feeling that you are 'oppressed' (or whatever term you want to mistakenly apply) is that which keeps the fervor high in the zealots.
This displays two of the problems of widespread desktop linux acceptance:
-- There are so many alternatives that it is hard and frightening for managers to pick one. Sounds silly, but Microsoft offers, for better or for worse, a de-facto standard on many fronts. Picking a linux, an open office-like suite, etc. introduces a huge set of choices which are perceived to have been already made.
-- Dippy analogies like the above. Youngest aunt, indeed.
What's holding linux back? The linux community has a long heritage (starting with it's predecessor, unix) of devaluing graphical user interfaces in specific and usability in general.
Isn't it odd we keep asking ourselves what stands in desktop linux's path when we all know where the unix people stood in 1984.
A community that places no worth in non-technical people being able to get stuff done with a minimum of fuss has lost the battle for the desktop before it ever started fighting it. Every time I hear someone in the linux technical community refer to GUI's as 'click-and-drool', it is painfully clear to me as why linux is getting its asked kicked by an incompetant bunch of fools from Redmond Washington.
I think desktops using a linux kernel will be so much better and more successful once the unix folks are shut out of the GUI design process. We let the programmers design algorithms, and we let'em design precious little else.
Ergonomica Auctorita
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Sadly, the guy's trying to sell his only product, himself. Anyone believe that someone other than Adelstein is responsible for this /. submission?
The governmentforge site was created two months ago has no FAQ of its own, no downloads, and is virtually devoid of content. The Leopard site was created last month and is likewise empty of any useful content. One interesting facet: it states "Project Requirements posted 17August 2004 at Sourceforge" so I guess he can travel into the future too. Maybe he's already visited the future, seen that he will develop no software and has given up; that would explain the lack of content.
Anyway, none of his sites has anything that wouldn't be revealed by a Google search and they all are missing a lot. They're just trivial pages of links to OSS.