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."
How can he explain This monstrosity? Nobody, not even geeks are going to use this for serious work!
Gnome 2.4 was a total disaster too! Crippled bookmark system in epiphany? Still no split pane support in nautilus? No extract here in file roller? Still has the smelly foot logo (which violates their own hig no less) Still looks like Chicago?
better run this
ln -s "-1, flamebait" "5, insightful"
I recommended that instead of going forward with the migration, that we educate users and build support internally first.
In response to perceived resistance, he decided to back off a bit and get "buy-in" from the people that actually would be using OpenOffice.org; IMO this was a smart move.
I cringe whenever I see rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth zealots - regardless of topic (OS, programming language, political party, etc. - spouting off and alienating the people they are trying to convert. Such zealots hurt the cause they are trying to help.
As an aside, I picture a modified logo and an advertisement for "A55 Hat Linux", a distro developed 'specially for the zealots...
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
If pigs can fly, then the government should buy them instead of bombers. But pigs can't fly, and MS generally can't offer a lower TCO. Just think about the cost of the viruses. Then think about the cost of keeping MS's high profit margins and high growth rates going, year after year. MS simply can't compete on cost, except in pathological cases.
Their current procurement procedures require that, in order for a product to be considered, SOMEONE must submit a bid. If we are talking about implementing a system with hardware, software and services, then bidders can put together a package which includes Libre software. If we are talking about buying 300 copies of MS Office for the helpdesk guys to install, who's going to submit a bid proposing to supply Openoffice free, instead?
The process assumes that money will be spent, and that vendors will be willing to jump through many expensive hoops to get fat contracts.
Finally, we have the fact that for many RFP's, the primary objective is to SPEND THE MONEY! Getting something in return is secondary to using up the budget, so that next year's budget is bigger rather than smaller. Free or Libre solutions aren't an obvious solution to this problem, especially if they have lower TCO! Managers know this, and are careful to write their specs so that they can spend what they have their hearts set on spending, and get what they want, rather than the best tool for the job.
Managers who purchase large systems from companies like MS or Oracle can count on being visited, flattered, lunched on expense accounts, given offers of political kickbacks[1], and whatever else it takes to make a sale. Managers who implement a low-cost, Libre solution can count on a smaller budget for software purchases next year, and nobody will make them feel important, or even buy them a sandwich at Subway.
The government's job is not to interfere with the market by promoting one product over another.
Then why is it appropriate to have our current procurement procedure, which effectively locks out most free and Libre offerings? The current system certainly promotes proprietary solutions at the expense of all other possibilities.
[1]Remember the big scandal of Oracle's big sale to California?
See what I've been reading.
When I started out, I'd ask for help and people would say read the man pages. I didn't know what man pages were. Was Linux really that gay? I laugh when I think about that now. I discovered that you'd never get an answer to a problem from Linux Gurus by asking. You have to troll in order for someone to help you with a Linux problem.
For example, I didn't know how to find files by contents and the man pages were way too confusing. What did I do? I knew from experience that if I just asked, I'd be told to read the man pages even though it was too hard for me. Instead, I did what works. Trolling. By stating that Linux sucked because it was so hard to find a file compared to Windows, I got every self-described Linux Guru around the world coming to my aid. They gave me examples after examples of different ways to do it. All this in order to prove to everyone that Linux was better.
So if you're starting out Linux, I advise you to use the same method as I did to get help. Start the sentence with "Linux is gay because it can't do XXX like Windows can". You will have PhDs running to tell you how to solve your problems.
If you mail a document who cares which software or even what printer created it. Or did you mean e-mail?
If there is one thing I hate, it is receiveing an attached document when the text could be in the body of the e-mail. If it is so fancy that it has to be attached then send a PDF or a postscript.
Finally, we have the fact that for many RFP's, the primary objective is to SPEND THE MONEY!"
(1. and 2. are the value added part
And most importantly: don't forget to reward the hard working developers, the FSF, etc. with (tax deductable?) donations.
Then it's Guinness time! (WATMHL)
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
No I am not like that, I know the type. I push OSS only when it makes sense business wise.
For example, peformance was an issue. I demonstrated that the app runs 12 times faster on Tomcat than on currently used vendor O app server. And scales better. And deploys and runs without errors. Does not matter - no way.
Yes, but there's a serious difference between normal people making money and the kind of stuff SCO/etc. are into. The groklaw story from earlier today summed it up pretty well when it noted the absolute lack of morals it takes for a firm to suggest that they don't care if all of OSS goes down the tubes if it makes them a little more money, nevermind the demonstrable loss to the world economy/etc. that would be.
... I won't use the word "malicious", but the above reference to writing his own interviews to generate press for himself, without disclosure, should get the point across.
Believe me, I'm not remotely opposed to people making money for providing services. I'm not a pie-in-the-sky FSF type. Tom's aspirations were a lot more
What Redhat and IBM are doing to get my money are (mostly) fine by me. What SCO is trying to do to get my money is categorically not fine by me. There's a big difference, and it's at the root a difference of morals. IBM could certainly get away with some of the SCO tactics if they tried, but they don't try. Yes, it's probably self-serving morality which recognizes better the long term effects of making enemies vs. making friends, but it's still a difference, and society still benefits from one and is harmed by the other.
Here's the situation with installing stuff on linux. Developers are hellbent against statically compiling things (in many cases for good reason). In addition, due to the asyncronous nature of the open source development, there are all sorts of version of libraries in use by people at any one time. Therefore it isn't really possible for me as a developer to give you a package that installs on your system and just works, because I don't know what all your system entails. Dependency checking *has* to be done.
:)
So the "download a package and click on the icon" scenario will only work if clicking on that icon starts a program that does dependency checking, downloads dependencies off the internet, and then installs. This would be better, but not optimal, because you have to start downloading the package, wait for package to download, then start the install, then wait for the libraries to down load and install. The problem is the act,wait,act,wait. It would be better to have act,act,wait,wait - same amount of time overall, but free's up the user to do something else (ie, workflow is controled by the user, not the computer).
Here's an idea. It is simular to how streaming integrates with the browser. Say we create a redirection file type whose contents is just the name (or url) of a debian package. Within the filemanager and browser, this file type (MIME type) is associated to a GUI version of apt. Then as a developer I (or my debian maintainer) would put the debian package on the debian server, and I would put a link to a redirect file on my site. When the user clicked on the link it would start the apt gui which would look up the package specified by the redirect, determine dependencies, and then (after prompting the user for root password) would proceed to install all the necisarry packages for that app. One click installing. (hmm, I should patent this
This is actually easier than the windows method, and meshes better with the technical issues that OSS has to deal with.
I can appreciate the parent posters frustration (I started in 1996), but his technique lacks a lot of integrity. Just because members of a community act abusively doesn't mean that your best approach should be to act abusively as well.
But, more importantly, this RTFM! (Read The Fucking Manual!) trend is dying out. More and more I hear people taking an interest in helping other people, and that's probably a direct result of new users who (unlike our poster) instead of reacting aggressively to the old RTFM'er reacted by doing their best to support the next generation of new users so they didn't have the same experience.
Today's Linux user is a different animal.
Quack, quack.
Modded as funny, but there's some sad truth here. Certain developments, mostly by Microsoft, have lowered the entry barrier into computing. This is a good thing in the case of end-users, but things like VB and point-and-click NT server installations and database management tools have brought in droves of drongoes doing development work and system administration.
To use the inaccurate but wildly popular Construction/Architecture analogy: it is like someone has come up with really big Lego blocks with which you can build your own home. These blocks come with plumbing, wiring, and are ready to use. So, now everyone can build their own home, right? Sure... but people will soon find out that properly designing a home is an art, and that you still need to know how to lay a solid foundation before you start building. But if everyone is able to build a home that will stand, more or less, people will lose their respect for architects and construction workers.
And that, my friends, is what I have seen happening in our own IT industry: when company managers saw that pretty much anyone could be taught to program and administer systems, sort of, they started hiring anyone with approcimately the right body temperature. The result is that management, and society in general, has lost its respect for IT professionals. Even when the demand for IT people peaked, interest in IT studies was lukewarm at best, and wages weren't all that good for academics working in IT, compared to their colleagues in other disciplines (at least, this seemed the case in mainland Europe).
I for one do remember when I started in this industry, and when I was indeed respected as a professional. Those days are long gone.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
We expect people to be able to read because written language is an integral part of our economy. If you are not able to read, you can easily be legally tricked into signing a contract that turns over all of your assets.
Computer technology is reaching that same level of integration within our economy. Your typical users doesn't know what a firewall is, yet at the same time they are unknowlingly exposing themselves to financial risk.
Yes, there is a certain level of specialization within our society, however understanding computer technology is much closer to literacy at a highschool level than knowing how to build a house or even how to drive (depending on where you live).
However, the most important reason that everyone should be expected to understand a great deal about computer technology is that is an extremely powerful tool of both democracy and of oppression. The thin line that divides the two correlates directly to how knowledgable the public is about the technology.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!