Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Advocacy The Right Way
[vmlinuz] writes "With a rapid succession of people moving towards Open Source, advocacy and evangelism is increasingly important in helping organizations to move over. The O'Reilly Network has begun publishing a series of articles about Open Source by Jono Bacon that teaches how to approach advocacy sensibly and more productively." From the article: "Although Aristotle developed his message many, many years ago, the concept of optimizing how we talk to people has developed further throughout history. From Aristotle to Heraclitus to Friedrich Nietzsche to Helen Keller to George Bernard Shaw, many people have advocated new thinking in times of rabid opposition."
Being a geek that hasn't showered in a week, constantly rambling about "Evil Micro$oft" isn't a good way to advocate OSS?
What about yelling First Post????
*Leans over podium*
Brethern, it is the time of the Apocalypse!
Stand up and be saved!
*Thumps loudly on "Linux in a Nutshell"*
Who is ready to receive saaaaalvation?!
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
I preach to you the Superlinux! Windows is something that must be surpassed. Thus spake Zarathustra.
Places hand on crashed system running Windows.....
"You shall be Heeeaaaled!!!!"
"Praise Linus!!!!"
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You mean that calmly and rationally pointing out the benefits of something accomplishes more that foaming-at-the-mouth, in-your-face, mine-is-the-One-True-Way evangelism?
Nah, can't be. If things really worked that way, just think of all the time thats been wasted...
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
It means little unless you know it's spoken from the perspective of a 15th century penguin salesman extolling the virtues of a soft sell vs. a hard sell. The latter is most necessary with an inferior product; if the quality of the merchandise can speak for itself, don't get in its way.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
..the advantages of using open source software. Because I don't have to pay Windows licensing fees, I have to spend less time working, and can spend more time with my girlfriend, and more time lifting weights. People always ask me why my relationship is so successful, or how I had time to tone my body, and I just say "I use Open Source Software."
My aunts husband asked me a few days ago if I wouldn't mine showing him Linux and telling him a bit about it when he next comes round. I'm a little worried that I'll yap on endlessly about open source and Linux only being a kernel and the GPL and bore him to death before he even gets a chance to see how great various distos are.
What I really need is a good, SHORT, list of information about linux and open source software that I can print out and give to him to read at his leasure so I can get on with showing him some cool stuff on the PC.
Anyone know of anything like that?
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
> Empirical evidence has shown, time and time
> again, that low level languages like C and
> Forth produce more efficient, faster, and
> easier to maintain code than today's so
> called high level languages.
How's that? So it's actually better to manually malloc and free memory than to let a GC take care of it? Surely you're just jesting!
As someone who's currently wrapping the Evolution C API in Ruby, I can assure you that writing Ruby code is much easier than writing the corresponding C code.
I'm not sure why this would be considered a "Linux strength",. since all the good high level languages - Ruby, Python, Perl, etc - all run on Linux, also.
The Army reading list
The reason higher-level languages are used is because man-power is more expensive than CPU-power.
.NET or whatever, then that's the way companies will go with software. The thing is that if it's not out there, it's not bringing in anything.
.NET any day, but it's not about preference, or 1337 skillz, or good programming conduct. It's about the bottom-line.
If it's easier, and cheaper, to plug blocks together using Java,
I prefer C and Perl over Java and
"From Aristotle to Heraclitus" Heraclitus was PRE-Socratic, i.e. BEFORE Aristotle's time... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus And as far as evangelism goes, it'd prolly be better to lean more towards Demosthenes an orator. Aristotle was not consumed with the need to convince his audience that he was speaking for .
LinuxAppeal.net is a good site to appeal to companies to release linux products. It is not a site where users bitch about companies, but rather people can find well written petitions, write their own (and add them to the site) and submit them to companies.
I figure the more people who petition companies the better so I've written a few petitions of my own on the site in hope that others will find them via google when searching for linux support for a product and petition the company as well.
I'm a longtime advocate of free (as in speech) software, but comparing the leaders of the open-source movement to the sages of old, and comparing their struggles to those of Helen Keller and other heroes of the past, is downright egotistical.
;) ) and ESA members will switch to an open-source model, and-- like it or not-- they are what crank out the vast majority of software that the vast majority of end-users (and corporate "IT" people, as contrasted with "geeks" like us) use.
Yes, open-source/free software does face "rabid opposition"; however, it likely always will. As much as I love free software, do you ever forsee a time where it will become the "standard"? Can you imagine Microsoft, or Adobe, or EA Games, making most or all of their software open-source (under any license?)
I can't either.
It's not so much that free/open-source software faces a "time" of rabid opposition. It will always face rabid opposition. It is virtually inconceivable that the BSA (not the boy scouts
Don't like that? Crank out games as nice as the commercial vendors can. Release them under the GPL. Make OpenOffice as good as MS Office. Make a GNU/Linux system as easy to use as Windows, and 99% compatible with 99% of existing Windows software, or come up with GPLed equivalents for 99% of existing Windows software. Until that happens, free/open-source software will perpetually face "rabid opposition", because those who oppose it (BSA/ESA member companies) will always be the most powerful force driving software development and use.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Best open source advocacy is the Microsoft's study about TCO. They base their claim on the postulate that a linux expert has higher salary then a MSWin expert. To a MSWin expert, this is very appealing argument to start to learn linux.
My only explanation for your post is that where you said high level you meant low level, and vice versa. Could you reference the evidence that C and Forth are easier to maintain than higher-level languages (faster and more efficient they might be, but that is very rarely a performance criteria in modern software)? C is, in my experience, more likely to have bugs and security defects, and be far less maintainable, as well as more likelt to be unsafe. I agree that bad code is bad code in any language, but since C seems to tolerate it more than other languages, surely that shows it is a problem with C as well as the developer?
There is a reason that the trend has been for higher and higher level languages, and C is a lone aberration that bucks the trend. We don't program in assembly much any more for the same reason that one day we won't program in C much any more. For a kernel, C is obviously the right language, but for most other applications it is an odd choice than can usually only be justified because it is the language that the developer is comfortable with.
You can have a top-notch techonlogy and the best minds in the world working on R&D and you can still fail if you do not satisfy customer requirements or needs or both.
Engineers do not get one thing: no invention can be spread around the world until it can be sold. In this world marketing and sales are just as important (if not more) as R&D and staying on bleeding edge. If you have a Linux box that cannot meet my needs, why the fuck would I buy it? Because somebody with a Ph.D worked on some programs in that box? Give me a fucking break.
Everybody is screaming about Linux and how great it is. I do not see it. Dell sells cheap Wintel boxes because that is what customers want: something cheap and easy. IBM invested money in new technology along with research; it sold its PC division to Lenovo. HP and Compaq had R&D... Now their joint venture is swimming down the toilet. The point is that it does not matter how cool YOU think Linux and Open Source are. They're not going to spread around the world unless people find them useful. No advocacy will help. You can write to tech magazines and give lectures to college students and that is fine; however, you won't be able to succeed until people start saying, "Wow, this Linux thing is really want I need." The keyword is "need." Not "want" or "cool" or "wow." Need for a cheap, effective tech solution is what can and will drive Open Source. This is pure business.
In this world everything is sold, not bought. Sell an Open Source solution to the public and you shall succeed. Nobody gives (or should give) a flying fuck about the technology and what it is inside. If you really want to push Open Source, show cost savings, productivity increase, and fewer losses contributed to the fact that Open Source is not Windows. Then people will talk to you :)
Sorry, but campaigns claiming that windows is cheaper than linux, based on MS-sponsored biased reports, are indeed FUD. FUD is when you conveniently ignore reality and depend on gullibility and marketing instead. TFA talks about how linux should do advocacy the Right Way, which avoid fanboy-dom and reverse FUD.
Really, we could write articles about how MS should sell its software as a superiour product, but they seem to feel the need to bash the competition instead ("only communists use open source!").
' and easier to maintain code than today's so called high level languages.'
.NET
Java can be faster if you use a profiling JVM, (well unless you profile your C code and get gentoo to re-emerge with using the profile every other week)
this should also apply to
Java is also much easier to maintain that C, because it's almost exactly the same as C with enough bits missing to let it run in a Virtual Machine and some extra rules inplace.
Of couse bad C is probably easier to maintain that bad Java and Bad C++.
In which case you would have to start argueing.
Use OSS because all software is bad, it's just that our version of bad is easier to maintain....
your using the 'anti' claus, your not saying were better because were the best your saying.
We use C isn't better because they try to sell a new compiler (who SUN and GCC?).
Not we use C it's better because it's simpler and more compact that many of todays languages that have lots of bolted on features that havent matured yet.
Remember, positive energy activates constant elevation. Be positive about OSS not negative about everything else.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You start the procedure by using a LiveCD. Once successfull you load Linux into a dual boot configuration with Windoze. Now you have traction, time for you exercise the demon.
Reason #32767 not to use VB6: Integers are 2 bytes... Think about it!
Now, I think the problem really is that the "High Level Languages" make people think that they are programmers when they are not. People who have not developed the skill necessary to write good code in any language can jump in and produce results. Those results might be low par and hard to maintain but they have been produced, and that is what the folks with the money want. They don't care that the code is sloppy and poorly designed. They just see the program working. Later on down the road they might care when they have to spend double the money to maintain the beast. But that is for another day.
What's Ruby written in?
As every Slashdot reader knows, the best way to advocate Linux is to belittle those who ask questions (preferably with over used abreviations like "RTFM", and "ROTFLMAO"), all the while making lame 'Winblows' jokes. Oh! And let's not forget that you must also belittle every developers efforts as trying to turn Linux into an MS clone.
Yet I didn't see these methods listed anywhere in the article. Perhaps the author should surf Slashdot, or OSNews a bit more before his next article.
> What's Ruby written in?
Why was Ruby written?
The Army reading list
And isn't that what is wrong with the world today. People need to worry about themselves and not about what other people are doing. (unless, of course, those other people are hurting other people)
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
As someone who's currently wrapping the Evolution C API in Ruby...
I thought evangelists didn't believe in Evolution.
[insert witty sig here]
So I excitedly downloaded and burned some Mandrake 9.1 CDs, installed (amazingly painless), and entered this whole new world of Linux and Open Source.
There are many ways you could describe my reaction to the yawning gulf between expectation and reality: "furious backlash" would be one; "blind seething rage and betrayal" would be another. The catalogue of disasters and frustrations that followed left me cursing the names of the people who recommended Linux to me as this wonderful cure-all and utterly *hating* Linux with every fibre of my being. I actually stuck with it for a few more days and, after deciding that linux was the most pointless project I had ever had the misfortune of dabbling with, returned to the comparatively hassle-free bosom of Windows.
Luckily for me, the story didn't end there and some persistent and random lockups in Windows led me to re-install Linux (Mandrake 10, this time around) to see whether it was hardware or driver related (a dodgy fan on my graphics card, for what it's worth). This time around, with my expectations greatly lowered (in fact, by this stage, Linux had improved unrecognisably, and I was very pleased with its progress), I fell head-over-heels in love and haven't had Windows installed since.
But it could so easily have gone the other way; it is hard to explain just how much the hype followed by disappointment soured me on Linux at the time (an understatement!) and it is my firm belief that if I had been forewarned about the things that I could do in Windows but not in Linux, I would not have reacted so sharply. So now, when "recommending" Linux to the curious, I usually start with a list of negatives (some hardware may not work; you may not be able to run your favourite games; don't expect installation of software to follow the Windows model, or you'll be in a world of hurt) before extolling its non-pragmatic virtues ("It's an operating system with love in it!"). It's heartening that quite a few people are still willing to give it a shot even after hearing my litany of gloom :)
So in a nutshell, don't be a blind fanboy, or you will be Open Source's worst enemy; let people know that there will be concessions to make, but that many people still feel the switch is worth it. Make a special point of mentioning just how different and customisable it can be (show them a variety of WMs, from the absurdly minimalist (Ratpoision) to the wonderfully glitzy (Enlightenment) - this diversity and difference from the comparative homogeniety of Windows usually gets people curious, in my experience). Don't oversell it, as this is just a recipe for disaster.
Oh, and this post mainly deals with the casual home PC user, so might be a little off-topic - apologies for that :)
I listen to what people are tell me about their computer experience:
It still amazes me the number of people who are willing to ditch Windows completely and learn something new. As long as you clearly explain the pros and cons of running Linux, most people are willing to try Linux. Where you see Linux get a bad rap is when a flaming OSS zealot installs Linux over a crashed Windows installation without first explaining to the user that their previous system, as they knew it, will be completely gone.
And contrary to popular /. opinion, Linux is not always the best choice:
I think the key to being a successful OSS advocate is simply to listen to needs of people. Many idealistic people would run FOSS software, but don't because they don't have the requisite knowledge (or time) to understand it. That's where a good OSS zealot can help people out. But at the same time, we have to realize that for those users who rely on Windows-centric "features", installing Linux would not be doing them a favor.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Obviously, though, this is something that can be debated until you're blue in the face. But discrediting higher-level languages (I assume you mean Java, Python, Perl, C#, whatever) when there is clear empirical evidence of their benefits, simply because you do not see their benefits as benefits, doesn't seem right.
As for the "college profs" comment, most that I've met won't "throw stuff at you". Hell, the programming languages guy I have likes C, and argues for its use where efficiency is needed, to the detriment of development time and code safeness. Many professors like functional languages, and it's hard to blame them, given the terseness of the languages and their uses in reasoning. But, in general, they gain little from "pimping the new stuff". At least here.
> programming time is finite where as
> cpu time is not
True. But it's seldom the bottleneck.
> Although you may save 400 Development hours
> you can lose millions of hours of runtime
> productivity.
Or you may save millions of hours by being able to quickly and accurately implement features to help the users of your produce get work done.
The Army reading list
In one case it's advocating something for the benefit of society- open standards, software options, freedom to use and modify software
In the other case, it's advocating something for the benefit of a company- more money, vendor lock-in, closed standards, closed source
I fail to see how this is a double standard. This goes beyond picking one piece of software over another.
If a civil engineering company offered "proprietary" contracts, where all work was conducted in secrecy and was not subject to inspection, then this would clearly be unacceptable. It is equally important that software be subject to similar inspections, and therefore that the source code be made available. Remember, "Open Source" does not mean "freely redistributable". A private company could tender for a contract and produce the software that the government can use and have the source code for, without that software being downloadable from SourceForge for all to copy and use.
If you want to campaign for "Free software", then that is a different matter. I respect that point of view, but it's much harder. Anything worthwhile is probably going to be difficult.
I disagree regarding your comment: "opposing something in the technology world because of the culture surrounding it, and not because of any concrete technical reason, is simply irrational."
.6 release, but it will be going beta soon. We should scrap our current plans and use this, because Microsoft is Evil! "umm..okay, let's move on"
If I am at a meeting, and a few projects are being presented, the typically come in three flavors:
1 - This project may not be exciting, but it is based on technology that is popular (Microsoft), and we haven't been burned by this yet. This project will be probably be successful. "Okay...sounds good, let's do it"
2 - We need to stop using Microsoft! We shouldn't support Exchange! There is this really great project on Sourceforge, it is at a
3 - Umm...I just need to go to the bathroom.
I have been VERY successful in getting my projects accepted. Because they may not be exciting, and they may cost us a little bit of money...but a proven track-record goes a long way.
I made the choice to base most of my development around SQL Server, back when MySQL was being pushed, but the tools just weren't there. Now we have so many projects using SQL Server, it is sick. And when we are looking for things from outside vendors...lo and behold, many are written on top of SQL Server (yes...stored procedures really are a good thing.)
So my projects are considered 'solid'. I want to disassociate myself from the OSS camp as much as possible, because they are seen as a bunch of people more concerned about the technology (and culture) than the bottom line. And the people who make the decisions on where to spend the money? Well, they ONLY care about the bottom line.
No reason to lie.
I demand that my personal bridge engineers personally hand-select the grains of steel that they'll use to custom-design my unique bridge that won't use any of the last 5,000 years of bridge engineering experience. That's the only path to quality, you know. And back away from the libc, fella! If you won't hand-roll open(), then I don't want you writing my web browser.
By the way, what crack-smokers took you seriously enough to give you +5? Seriously, man, good job! That's one of the more successful trolls I've seen in a while.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
This letter by Dr. Edgar David Villenueva Nunez that the linked article links to is absolutely fantastic. I've never read such a good argument for open source outside of its founders. Nor have I read such a great and well thought out letter by a modern day politician. It makes me want to move to Peru.
I think that you all should take a moment to read through that so that you can remind yourself that open source is the "more correct" form of software development.
Both bridges and airplanes are designed this way. You think that a bridge engineer knows how to build cable? machine bolts? mix pavement? While he may chances are he just knows the details of each of those items. size, strength, weight, etc. An air plane is the same thing. A designer doesn't know the details of how a tire is made. They probably don't even know the details of how the rim is made or bearings, or axle. They do know the stresses they can take and how to fit them together as an interface.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
WRONG:
The #1 product in the market sucks. The company that makes it is evil. This free software you never heard of is the best. It is written collectively by hippies. Everything should be free, including YOUR products.
RIGHT:
The #1 selling product in the market is not the best in the market. If we implement [Linux, etc.], it will be CHEAPER, it will be MORE SECURE, it will produce LESS DOWNTIME, it is EASIER TO UPGRADE, you will increase your PROFITS by reducing costs.
The culture for such things is simply not there, for an average person trying out Linux, getting help with stuff usually meets the usual response of "RUN [insert distro]!!~!~!" or "Compile ur own kernel for your needs" As a user, I'm not interested in these solutions, there needs to be a quick immediate fix available, or else I won't care to run your software. Simple as that.
Just to append something here, I've tried many different distros. The ones I have not been satisfied with are Mandrake 10.1, Ubuntu 4.10, Linspire 4.5, Knoppixes 3.4-3.7. The ones that I do find quite bearable, which I would gladly use should I be forced to switch from Windows are: MEPIS. Knoppix 3.3 was great as well, for a smooth LiveCD/no install experience. The main problem with the former bunch are the soundcard support, which is ridiculous IMHO. The regular plain vanilla PCI SB Audigy has to be one of the most common cards around, and the fact that this many distros have problems with it is disconcerting.
Most people aren't software people. Most people do things with their computers. It's only geeks like me who like computers for the sake of computers. All the business people I work with have to use them. They simply do not care about anything other than their needs being met in the most timely, reliable and cost effective manner.
When advocating open source, what problem are you solving? I used to advocate open source solutions for individuals and companies, but now I just give options. I still include open source options where they are a good solution, but that's not always true. People who like to play the newest popular games should probably not be switching to linux. Part of advocacy is knowing when to shut up. Pushing a particular solution to all problems, regardless of requirements is a major turnoff to pretty much everyone.
person who has not in their vocabulary the words to decribe what it is you are trying to commnicate to them?
according to the article you have to speak in their language....
Hmmmmph....