Slashdot Mirror
Linux & Open Source Software, the Present
Mark writes to tell us that LinuxForums is running the second in a series of articles designed to reflect on "what Linux is, where it came from, where it's going, how to use it and why you should." With all of the recent talk about the perceived difficulties within the OSS community sometimes it is just good to take a look at our roots.
FTFA: Is OSS any good? Yes. Not perfect, but better than closed source in some respects and worse in others.
In my line of work (system administration in a medium sized business) I'm often having to integrate closed source and open source solutions (or at least make them play nice). I like a lot of Microsoft's products. I also like a lot of OSS. But I find that (generally) whenever I look to the OSS community for help integrating the two solutions, I'm met with resistance or flat out rudeness.
For example, if I'm seeking help with getting samba working nicely in a mixed environment or figuring out how to run a PHP app on a windows box, I get responses like, "Just ditch XP, d00d, it sux", and "Apache is better than IIS".
I think if the community, in general, could adopt the idea quoted in TFA, a "newbie's perceived difficulties" with the OSS community would be drastically different.
The writer seems to want to bring up Gnome/KDE wars. Smells of trolling. What the hey, I'll bite.
Gnome has, with it's "more is less" focus achieved, IMO, a better new user experience than KDE. Not that KDE isn't good, I'm only saying that for people I know that aren't necessarily technical but just want it to work, I set them up with Gnome (on Ubuntu). My biggest success story on that front was setting up a Gnome/Linux PC for my cousin (RedHat in this case, it was a while ago). She used it to do homework for 4 years, having never used Linux/Unix before, and never called me once for support. The only call I ever got was one from her Mom asking me how to mount a floppy disk to get a document copied.
Personally, I don't think we have that far to go for Linux to be easily usable...
Politics, Culture, Food?
Although my current addiction to gaming means that most of my recent computing has been Windows based, I have long believed and will continue to believe that for the most part, UNIX and its' derivatives genuinely represent the way God intended man to use a computer.
Despite continual advances and new wrinkles being thrown at us in the area of graphical user interfaces, for many tasks the console is still fundamental and without peer where speed is concerned. Microsoft and Apple can crow about their own approaches all they like; UNIX existed before both of them, and its' descendants will exist after those two companies' names have passed out of human memory.
On reading Eric Raymond's The Art of UNIX Programming, I came to realise that that book offered not just a methodology for programming, but for life in general. It also describes the thoughts and philosophies of a group of people who were as pioneering, adventurous, and brilliant as any other in human history, and to whom larger humanity will owe a debt of gratitude for at least the next several hundred years to come.
Even at its most fragmented (IBM/AIX, are you listening?) I was still able to sit down in front of any flavor Un*x and be instantly productive. Jumping from one version of Windows to the others doesn't hold the same promise of portable skills.
No offense, but if you want to present an objective argument, don't use FUD. There hasn't been a version of Windows released since 1994 that isn't 95% identical in interface or configuration. If you stuck someone familiar with only Win95 or NT4 in front of an XP desktop or 2003 Server, is there any doubt they'd be up and running in under a minute? I'm having serious trouble trying to take an affirmative answer to that question seriously.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Translation: "I don't know because I've never had the desire to try it, but my ego doesn't allow me to admit that I don't know."
This space intentionally left blank.
Unfortunately, for every 'debunking myth' article hidden away in some obscure website, there's dozens of full page Microsoft Myth ads prominantly placed in executive washroom magazines that claim the latest Windows makes the Internet safer, boosts your bank balance and improves your corporate standing.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
First there's the hypocrisy in running free software on Windows.
.odt, but of course all Linux software is expected to be 100% compatible with Windows, or else it's dismissed as C.R.A.P. Every linux office worker will receive .doc files from their colleagues, who just *expect* them to own the £100 suite. But I would never post them .odt. Mozilla has to render crappy sites bodged to work in IE, but I'm not allowed to use transparent pngs when I design a site. None of my Windows friends will talk to me on Jabber, so I have to talk to them in MSN.
But also remember Linux is it's community. I might not write the software I use, but those who to are in my reach and willing to discuss. If I feel there is a problem, I can make others aware of that problem, leading to a solution. Microsoft doesn't have a community, there's no dialogue between consumer and producer. The backlash of Linux users against Windows users is a reaction against Microsoft not playing fair.
Microsoft purposely make their products difficult to be compatible with. They don't conform to purposeful neutral standards set out by the W3C etc, but use their own secret ways.. Office documents are notoriously difficult to read. Internet Explorer won't render perfect HTML/CSS but encourages malformed HTML. A specification for the MSN protocol has never been made avaliable. They play foul, they are a parasite burrowing deeper into their hosts. Microsoft never and aren't even expected to meet Linux half way in being able to read
Sorry, I couldn't get past this line:
In contrast OSS new features arise either in response to features seen in proprietary software, or simply because a developer discovers how to do something cool and suggests that it be included.
Wow, what a great picture. OSS coders are either lazy, unimaginitive losers who copy MS, or freaks fascinated by new, shiny things.
What about features that appear because a developer needs them? You know, like how 90% of all successful OSS projects start?
I've made some (minor) contributions to OSS projects, and in no case was it because I was copying a closed source feature or because I "discovered how to do something cool". It's because I needed a feature that didn't exist, so I made it happen.