Introducing GNU/Linux Via Applications

An anonymous reader writes "A common problem with GNU/Linux for new users is not the operating system, but the switch in applications they must undertake to use it. Many who try to make the switch have little experience with the common open source applications available under GNU/Linux. The Kutztown GNU/Linux User Group, in Pennsylvania, is helping to change that on a large scale by distributing open source applications to faculty on Microsoft Windows machines first. Instead of selling GNU/Linux, the group is selling open source. Faculty at the school have been provided discs containing a number of popular open source applications compatible with Windows as part of a larger program to get more users to consider switching operating systems."

Comments

Good idea

[ksd1337]

This is a good idea. Instead of alienating users, they can make them more familiar with the benefits of open-source while letting them keep the OS they know how to use. Wow, a first post. I never thought I'd make it.

Re:Good idea

[Seumas]

Agreed. This is a rather simple step to take, but one that a lot of us might not consider if we are in the position to make such decisions and efforts. OSS and Linux can be introduced in baby-steps, until the targeted person or persons is using largely open and free applications and even operating systems without really even realizing it.

We're often too forceful with our fanatical upholding of our favored philosophies and operating systems to the detriment of our own goals. Our enthusiasm can't be forced on someone else. The enthusiasm can be seeded in another person, though. And if you cultivate it slowly and carefully, they will appreciate it even grow to feel they discovered it of their own accord, which will make them more willing to promote and evangelize the experience and the products than if we forced it on them wholesale out of the blue.

Re:Good idea

[Otter Escaping North]

This is a good idea. Instead of alienating users, they can make them more familiar with the benefits of open-source while letting them keep the OS they know how to use.

Exactly. It's pretty much how I got Mrs. Otter switched over. She was reluctant to give up Windows due to its familiarity. Bit by bit, switched her to Firefox, OpenOffice, and Gaim - which covered the majority of what she used a PC for. The KDE switch came later - but the idea of switching wasn't as intimidating by then - I was able to promise her that all the applications would still be there.

It's not really the "open source" that sold her, though (although the notion of free-as-in-beer software bowls her over) - its the cross-platform aspect you gain with it that brings the idea of switching into a more comfortable space. Further evidenced when we got a Mac, and she still found all the same applications she had come to know.

Re:Good idea

[mocheeze]

I rarely post, but I feel I should chime in. I've been conditioning my own self to using FOSS apps for a while now so that I can make the switch to Linux a lot easier down the road. There are only a couple applications left for me (Photoshop being the deal-breaker). I'm never going to upgrade to Vista, I'm just going to switch over to something like Ubuntu when I get to the point where I would need to upgrade. By then I hope we'll have a native Photoshop on Linux, or a more robust solution on WINE at least.

Re:Good idea

[dvice_null]

> while letting them keep the OS they know how to use

I disagree. Majority of the users of Windows don't actually know how to use it. If they have problems, they need help. And during the normal everyday use, they don't actually use the OS at all, they just use the programs installed on it.

I asked my wife after 6 months of using Ubuntu how does she feel about using Linux and she replied. "What do you mean, I have just surfed the web and written some emails and edited some pictures. I haven't used Linux".

So basicly if we can replace Photoshop, Office, Outlook and IE. There is no problem replacing the Windows complitely. As long as someone is providing them the support they used to have with Windows also. (Which they probably need less with the Linux.)

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or could references to "OSS" and "Linux" be replaced with xyz religion/cult in that post? Operating systems are not a religion! Let people find out about Linux and the various OSS offerings for themselves, without carefully and deliberatly training them to use it until they're a raving Linux fanatic just like you.

Re:Good idea

[damg]

Yep, I knew a few developers who switched to Linux because they realized that they were using Firefox and Eclipse all day long. Windows open source makes a good gateway drug. ;)

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I rarely post

Don't come back.

Re:Good idea

[treeves]

I rarely post. . .

Wow, you werent kidding. That was your second post!

I like a lot of open source apps (inkscape and lilypond at the top of the list) but I have little interest in switching to Linux - can't on my work computer, wife would be unhappy if I did on the home computer - and after reading much of the Unix Hater's Guide that someone here on /. linked to the other day, I have even more doubts.

Re:Good idea

[demon driver]

> Majority of the users of Windows don't actually know how to use it.

Well, "know how to use it" to the extent of somehow getting it to do what it is supposed to...

> "What do you mean, I have just surfed the web and written some emails and edited some pictures. I haven't used Linux"

Exactly - would it be wrong to say that's just what you should expect from an operating system, that it run the apps you need and else does not get in the way? Which is why I find myself more sceptical towards every new Windows release - they alway introduce interface changes which actually do get in the way.

Re:Good idea

[Spliffster]

From The UNIX- HATERS Handbook

What is this horrible fascination with Unix? The operating system of the 1960s, still gaining in popularity in the 1990s. A horrible system, except that all the other commercial offerings are even worse.

Re:Good idea

[smchris]

Maybe. But the bottom line is that "It's all good", isn't it? If using OpenOffice.org on Windows means someone can look at a linux machine and say, "Oh, OpenOffice. I use that!" then that's cool.

My "maybe" is tentative. I'm a generalizer and obviously your wife is intelligent too. But I keep hearing about people who curl up into a fetal ball of fear and frustration because the menu button in the lower left doesn't say "Start".

And we have to face the fact that most people use Windows. It is fun giving out OpenCDs.

Already doing this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Been doing this for years

Every machine I go near (with permission) gets:
OpenOffice
GIMP
VIM (just for my sanity)
Inkscape
Firefox
Python (for those that really want)

only way really. It is cause my wife was so familiar with all these that when I made Linux the primary boot 3years ago (bar some finding the programs issues) she really enjoyed using GNOME and actually prefered it over MS

Re:Already doing this..

[FunkyELF]

Python (for those that really want)

Well, you're replacing MS Office with OpenOffice, IE with Firefox, paint with gimp....you might as well replace solitare with PySol.

Re:Already doing this..

[extern_void]

IE with Firefox, paint with gimp
You mean IE is at the same level as Paint? Paint w'll get mad!

just kidding, No flame here, please move along.

So what's included ?

[hopbine]

I am assuming that the Open Office suite is included, but what else? Come to that what should be included, how about an open virus scanner for Windows.

Re:So what's included ?

[CastrTroy]

Well, if you want anti-virus, there's CLAM-AV, although there is no resident scanner included. Other good packages that I like from the Open Source world are Digikam, Amarok, Kopete. But sadly none of those are available on windows.

Re:So what's included ?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those are available yet. Hopefully with KDE 4, that will change. Add Kontact to the mix, and maybe things will be even better.

Re:So what's included ?

[LWATCDR]

Firefox, Thunderbird, Gimp, Gaim, Filezilla, 7-Zip, Blender, and PDFCreator are a few off the top of my head that I would include.

Re:So what's included ?

[Bearhouse]

Unfortunately, in reviews CLAM does not seem to do too well on Windows. Lack of resident scan is a problem, (yeah, OK, I know people here will say it's because of Win's 'inherent' vulnerabilites, that Linux 'does not have have'..let's no go there, eh?). But all is not lost, since AVAST and other 'free' solutions exist, (decent firewalls too). Since user interaction is much reduced with these types of products, (as compared to 'office' stuff), that's a reasonable solution methinks. Or just stick with your existing AV, since it's not really a 'core' app. (People will change from Norton to NOD32 in a heartbeat if I tell 'em to - and I do - but try telling them to use OpenOffice instead of Excel and you've got a real debate on yer hands). Anyways, interesting parent post and surely a step on from the *x boot cd, (which remains a useful option for initial doubters).

Re:So what's included ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I endorse all of those, especially PDFCreator. Also, Inkscape, Audacity, and VLC.

It's specialized, but if you need a UNIX-like enviroment under Windows, Cygwin is wonderful.

Re:So what's included ?

[LocoMan]

Well, from what I've read in the comments (not RTFA... I'm at work with mozilla open in the background checking from time to time) the general idea is to use F/OSS in windows as a way to ease eventually going over to linux, so an open AV wouldn't be needed for that particular case, since on linux wouldn't be needed anyway.

At least that's how I see it, since, at least for me, an AV works the best if I just have to set it up and then forget about it at all (so far I've found the free AVG to work nicely like that).

Re:So what's included ?

[Rick17JJ]

I have not actually seen what is on their CD, but there are some examples of free programs, most of which, have already been mentioned, that are available for both Windows and Linux.

• Firefox Web browser
• Thunderbird full-featured email program
• GIMP Image Manipulation Program
• ImageMagick software suite for creating, editing, and composing bitmap images
• Inkscape is an Open Source vector graphics editor
• ClamWin free antivirus scanner for Windows
• 7-Zip file archiver
• Celestia space simulater that lets you explore our universe in three dimensions
• OpenOffice office suite
• Scribus professional page layout program
• AbiWord word processing program
• Gnumeric spreadsheet
• LyX Document Processor
• Gaim multi-protocol instant messaging (IM) client
• Audacity Sound Editor
• Blender the advanced 3D modeling program capable of producing high quality animations
• VLC - the cross-platform media player and streaming server
• Nvu complete Web Authoring System

Re:So what's included ?

[Rick17JJ]

Here are a few other examples of free programs which I forgot to include. Like the others they are available in both Windows and Linux versions.

• GnuPG - The GNU Privacy Guard which can encrypt and sign you data and your communications
• DOSBox the Dos emulator for running many old DOS games and programs
• Firebird the relational database program
• PostgreSQL object-relational database management system
• Stellarium is a free open source planetarium

Re:So what's included ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use Clam AV as a resident scanner with Winpooch or Tech-Protect.

Re:So what's included ?

[Epiphenomenon]

like your sig

OpenCD

[nharmon]

I enjoy giving away copies of the OpenCD. It contains a lot of common open source programs that run under Microsoft Windows.

Re:OpenCD

[infinityxi]

Hmm, this is cool. I did not really know about this project as I do something similar in my neighborhood. I realized that there would actually be some benefit to introducing users to some open source and free (as beer, also important to most) software. I had compiled a CD with Gaim, Firefox, ClamWin, Stellerium (It's just cool if interested), Abiword, Open Office, GIMP, and a couple of other packages. What I do when I can is put a couple of CDs out in the general area of my apartment building and other adjacent ones and leave them for whomever is interested. I also place a link for a free dialup service available in the New York City area. I just hope at least one person has gotten some good use out of it.

Re:OpenCD

[JacquesDemien]

I am often asked by family, friends, and coworkers (I work in IT and have contact with a large number of end-users) what applications I use, and what I recommend that they use. I do suggest GNU/Linux, but clearly most of them are using Windows and prefer to keep it that way for now. Here is the list of applications which I usually give them. Granted, some of these are NOT "free as in freedom" but are rather just "free as in beer" since, as noted elsewhere in this thread, for some categories of software there is no open source package available for Windows, or at least none available that your proverbial Grandma could be expected to use without installing Cygwin or something. (Obviously this list is aimed more at your Grandma than at the average GNU/Linux user, since that is the target audience. In real life I only use some of these applications myself. However, I do support family and friends who use them.) You could, of course, argue that better choices could be made, and you'd be correct.... General Tools

• Openoffice.org (use word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, database, and similar applications)
• Picasa (view/edit photos)

Internet Tools

• FireFox (browse Web sites)
• Gaim (chat with users of AIM, YIM, MSN, IRC, etc.)
• Thunderbird (e-mail)
• Pegasus Mail (e-mail)
• Macromedia Flash Player (watch Flash animations within Web browser)
• Java Plugin (run Java applications inside Web browser)

Basic Tools

• 7Zip (compress/decompress files)
• EditPad Lite (edit text files)
• vim/gvim (edit text files--advanced)
• Adobe Acrobat Reader (view PDF files)
• PDF Creator (create PDF files)

Security Tools

• ZoneAlarm (firewall - detect unwanted Internet access)
• Avira Antivirus (detect/remove viruses)
• ADAware Personal SE (detect/remove spyware)
• SpyBot Search & Destroy (detect/remove spyware)
• HiJackThis (detect/remove spyware)
• Discombobulator (make Windows more secure)
• Shoot the Messenger (make Windows more secure)
• Unplug-n-pray (make Windows more secure)
• PGP (encrypt/decrypt files or e-mail for privacy) - see admin for more details

Advanced Tools

• Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel for Windows XP (mount ISO images as filesystems) from MSDN
• IMAPSize (manage/search/backup an IMAP mailbox)

Re:OpenCD

[bcrowell]

Here is a similar CD of free books, intended mainly to be given away to university professors to let them know there are free alternatives to low-quality, high-cost textbooks.

Sure that'll work

[stratjakt]

*not*

Why do you think people will "switch"? If someone has a PC on their desk that runs Windows and MS Office, what makes you think you're going to get them to flatten it and restart with linux? It's paid for, it's done.

If you want to increase linux' and OSS's presence, it needs to ship on the box. Don't expect Dell, HP, Compaq, etc to do this for you. The fact they don't shows there's no demand. The fact that everyone who's tried to provide this has failed speaks for itself.

The masses just dont want it.

It's hard to convince people to rebuild their perfectly functional computer, with a less capable alternative, based purely on the philosophy of "MSF is evil its not Free".

Re:Sure that'll work

[Anonymous Coward]

... If it were working then none of us would switch. That having been said, I would very likely consider switching BACK if Microsoft could/would implement some process of apt-get and repositories and what-not

Re:Sure that'll work

[orclevegam]

If you convince people that the free open source apps really are as good as or better than the proprietary garbage that MS (among others) forces down there throats, and get them using it on a regular basis, then there will be nothing tying them to Windows. For most people, what holds them back from switching off Windows to something that's more stable and secure isn't that it dosn't come pre-installed, it's that they don't know how to use any of the apps all of us that use Linux take for granted. If you had someone that uses OOo, FF, The GIMP, and Amarok on a regular basis under XP, then went in and installed something like Kubuntu over night with all the same apps, they'd probably barely even notice.

Re:Sure that'll work

[Zantetsuken]

I think the point of this is not so much for people that already have a solution like MS Office, but those who are stuck using Wordpad and Paint when they want to learn desktop publishing, etc. It gets them to realize "Hey, there's something else out there besides the $300 USD per license MS Office? Wow, this means I can actually write those english papers now..." - If the Linux and FLOSS communities are lucky, this will get people to think - oh I need a cheap as possible beige-box pc - now I can do it legally instead of having to pirate MS Windows for a basic, dirt poor school...

Re:Sure that'll work

[someone1234]

They failed because M$ punished those that dared to sell a bare machine. I tried to buy several machines without W98 and XP, without success. The only way to buy a machine without that crap is to buy it by pieces. You cannot honestly say that Firefox on Windows is worse than IE. (6 or 7). I still keep an XP boot to play some games, but i use linux mostly, for 7 years now. I think Vista will make many people to switch to Linux or the Mac. If they are a little knowledgeable they will switch to Linux, if they are just 'users' they will switch to the Mac. Vista remains for those who cannot buy a Mac and cannot install a Linux, the real losers.

Re:Sure that'll work

[dvice_null]

> Why do you think people will "switch"?

- You don't need to buy a new computer to get modern version of the operating system.
- Updating programs is easier.
- You don't need to fear viruses and spyware.
- The computer works faster, because antivirus programs are not slowing it down.
- Installing new programs is easier.
- Not all have paid for it, Linux is an legal option.

Re:Sure that'll work

[AusIV]

Personally, my switch to linux went something like this:

I heard about this great web browser that was more secure than IE and had lots of cool plugins, so I switched to Firefox.
I got fed up with Office XP crashing all the time, so I switched to OpenOffice.
I got fed up with all the obtrusive ads from AIM, so I switched to Gaim.
I got fed up with inconsistencies in windows media player, so I switched to VLC (for video).

My anti-virus came up for renewal. It was $30 for a year. The only software I used by this time that wasn't on Linux was iTunes, and Amarok does everything I need. Rather than fork over $30, I made a rather smooth transition to Linux. Some months later, my girlfriend followed suit (it's worth noting, she asked me to help her switch, there wasn't much prodding on my part).

Introducing people to open source, cross platform applications lets people make one adaptation at a time. Eventually there may come a time where switching to Linux seems easier than keeping Windows. If you try and switch someone to Linux all at once, you're likely to fail. If you get them to use cross platform apps first, the switch to Linux isn't too big of a leap.

Re:Sure that'll work

[WindBourne]

Don't expect Dell, HP, Compaq, etc to do this for you. The fact they don't shows there's no demand. The fact that everyone who's tried to provide this has failed speaks for itself.

Yes, and the fact that MS telling everybody that if they installed Linux or OSS code that MS would pull the OS, Office, and even money support from them (and was found guilty of such ) has absolutely NOTHING to do with 'lack of demand'. It is hard to get a foothold when the market is controlled by one company.

Re:Sure that'll work

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to convince people to rebuild their perfectly functional computer, with a less capable alternative, based purely on the philosophy of "MSF is evil its not Free".

Hard message to hear, but it's quite true. Joe doesn't code & couldn't care less about source code availability. I personally got locked in _hard_ by firefox extensions. I'm running ~30 of them right now, 3 of which I made by examining other people's source. That's what made me appreciate open source. (In case you were wondering, it takes a while to start up, but no it's not unstable.)

These days I'll wipe their viruses, maybe install adblock for them (if they ask nicely) & show off on Beryl. Outside gaming, Linux is easily a superior product & the irony is trying to push software on people gives the impression it's a "less capable alternative."

Re:Sure that'll work

[mrmcwn]

It really goes back to the paid argument. If you could save a couple of hundred bucks using Linux and Openware when you buy a computer it would be a much easier sell than getting people to go from pretty, feature-bloated Windows across (because it's going to be a horizontal transition for most people) to Linux. As for software, I'm with you on Firefox, but OO is a slug compared to Office. Excel 2007 is going to change the world for me (1 million lines to play with - which I have needed on several occasions since I'm not fluent in SQL yet), so it will be worth the money. I would rather play with my kid than study SQL. That said I'm installing Linux this weekend on my Thinkpad - bought used and the previous owner considerately left me his XP license sticker - so I might be a convert at some point.

Re:Sure that'll work

[Lehk228]

i have found VLC to be an excellent first step for new users, video codecs is one of the places a new windows machine REALLY falls on it's face.

Re:Sure that'll work

[kurtis25]

I started using firefox, then thunderbird, then gaim, then AVG, then Zone Alarm before I new it the only MS junk I had installed was office (wife needs publisher and uses Word and work) and XP. I've tried to get rid of windows (I've filed 3 separate times. I got Ubuntu working but my lexmark printer wouldn't work (grrr). So it was back to windows. I would agree open aps is the first step in switching to linux os but things need to be plug and play, I need to install it as easily as windows and have it run as easily. I and others can't waste a day trying to get more than half a document to print.

Re:Sure that'll work

[level_headed_midwest]

I had a very similar experience:

WebCT (college course webpage system) crashed and burned under IE6.1, went to Firefox 0.7, which worked well.
Didn't have Excel because the computer had Word + Outlook in its default install so I got OpenOffice 1.1 to be able to graph with. It worked okay enough to not pay $133 for MS Office.
Windows Messenger crashed all the time, so I got GAIM and it worked fine.
I didn't want to pay $$$ for Photoshop, so I got The GIMP and it worked fine.
Reinstall of WinDVD on XP SP1 failed, so I went with VLC, which worked fine for playing DVDs.

XP SP2 broke most of my drivers, so I decided to migrate to Linux. It has worked well enough that I have stuck with it for the last 3 years or so.

Re:Sure that'll work

[rohan972]

The path I took and recommend for most people who want to change is to dual boot. I did for a year, then I was competent enough to do everything I needed in Linux, but I hadn't compromised my ability to use my computer in the meantime.

Re:Sure that'll work

[dbIII]

The only way to buy a machine without that crap is to buy it by pieces.

All in one motherboards even come with decent graphics chips and dual screen outputs now. Putting computers together from a small number of parts is so easy many children with no experience do it, and it's going to be cheaper than getting an assembled system.

KDE 4

[javilon]

When KDE 4 is released, many of its apps will be compiled for windows. There are some of them like amarok and k3b that are the best in their class, including closed source ones, and there are others that are as good as the closed sourced ones like krita, krusader, scribus, kivio and some others.
When they are available for windows, and if you also consider firefox, thunderbird and openoffice you will be able to run a windows system with most of the applications open sourced.

Re:KDE 4

[CastrTroy]

Any word on when this would happen. I love Amarok, Digikam, and Kopete, and would love to have the running on windows. I'm currently running VMWare just to run Digikam, and a couple other linux Apps. I would really love to be able to run these on a windows box.

Re:KDE 4

[pavon]

The tenative release date for KDE 4 (unix) is around the end of October. The developers hope for the Windows port to be runnable (technology preview / alpha quality) at that time. I know, I am chomping at the bit myself :)

Re:KDE 4

[drinkypoo]

I have used both Scribus and Indesign (as well as Quark, but only under protest) and I can say that Scribus is NOT repeat NOT ready for prime time. It is getting quite good but they haven't even nailed down a file format yet. If your other examples are as sketchy, then I'm not too impressed. Scribus, by the way, is available on Windows right now.

Re:KDE 4

[Odin The Ravager]

Actually, amarok won't be ported for a while (if ever)
from the amarok developer's blog:

amaroK will not be ported to windows until (if ever):

* amaroK 2.0, which will use the Qt 4 toolkit. Qt 3.x releases, although have windows editions, are not compatible with the amaroK GPL license
* KDE-libs, and respective engines are ported to windows
* There is an open source windows developer willing to do all the hard work. There is as much chance of any of the current dev's porting to windows as there is
copyrighted music download becoming free. I'll do it if it does.

So, stop harrasing us - it's not going to happen for a while.

Re:KDE 4

[pavon]

That blog post is almost two years old. The first two bullet items will be done by October. I don't know whether the Amarok Roadmap is reliable (it is a wiki) but it says:

Version 2.0
        Estimated Release Date: The same day or slightly before KDE 4.0 is released
        Will be Released on Linux, Windows and Mac.
        Will kick all other media player arse :-).

Re:KDE 4

[Workaphobia]

One thing I always wondered about KDE 4.0 was whether the window manager itself will be ported, or if it's just the applications and the libraries needed for platform compatibility. Because I would love get the look and feel of KDE, from the kicker to the konsole to the mouse gestures, on Windows.

Re:KDE 4

[adah]

There are some of them like amarok and k3b that are the best in their class, including closed source ones, and there are others that are as good as the closed sourced ones like krita, krusader, scribus, kivio and some others.

Amarok is good, but seriously you think it is among the best? I guess not (on Windows, at least). Does it have systray and toolbar integration? Is its interface very attractive? Does it have kernel streaming? Windows media applications are a crowded world, and I do not think Amarok (or k3b) has a good chance competing with iTunes, foobar 2000, Windows Media Player, WinAmp, and such like.

Re:KDE 4

[EsbenMoseHansen]

From what I've gathered, porting the window manager is regarded as making "little sense". I don't have anything concrete to point at though, so regard it as a rumour.

Re:KDE 4

[mgiuca]

The tenative release date for KDE 4 (unix) is around the end of October.

*Just* in time to miss out on being in Kubuntu 7.10... Dang.

Re:KDE 4

[Anonymous Coward]

Amarok is good, but seriously you think it is among the best? I guess not (on Windows, at least). Does it have systray and toolbar integration? Is its interface very attractive? Does it have kernel streaming? Windows media applications are a crowded world, and I do not think Amarok (or k3b) has a good chance competing with iTunes, foobar 2000, Windows Media Player, WinAmp, and such like.

People have very differing needs for a music player -- some want it to just play files, some want "library handling". Some like to get artist info from Wikipedia or all kinds of visualizations, some just want a minimal UI... To imagine that your needs equal the majority's needs (or even the needs of a large group of people) is dangerous.

As a personal anecdote I can say that when I turned an old computer into a dedicated music jukebox, I chose Amarok and Linux, even though I had two different Windows licenses lying around and all the software you mentioned to choose from... After some tests I realised it was clearly the superior choice for my needs.

Re:KDE 4

[Phleg]

Best in their class? Bullshit. Have you actually _heard_ the default notification noise K3b makes when you're finished burning a CD? Did a three year old write the damn app?

Wow a first!

[Anonymous Coward]

...since groups haven't been doing this for the past... err, few years or anything, distributing abiword, openoffice, mozilla-suite, gimp, etc...

Yep, this is "news" allright!

In other news, water is wet!

GNU/Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Less GNU, more synthahol.

At KCLUG, we called it the 'Gateway Drug'

[The Monster]

We handed out CDs with Windows versions of FOSS apps. If people find that they can do their jobs just fine with those apps instead of Windows-only apps, then the OS doesn't matter to them anymore. Then Ubuntu came along with a combo live CD and Windows installer for several FOSS apps as an added bonus, so we've settled on that as our new sampler. I do get a kick out of the fact that Kubuntu has Firefox for Windows on the CD, but not for Linux. (Not that synaptic can't add it in a hurry.)

Re:At KCLUG, we called it the 'Gateway Drug'

[BiggyP]

The LiveCD approach is nice but for certain users i've a feeling that having a bootable linux disc could really scare them if they accidentally leave it in the machine when they shut down, the other thing is that it might be nice to have OpenOffice.org for windows on the disc, it's quite an important part of the transition for most windows users. That's not to say that handing out LiveCDs is a bad idea though, having both a dedicated Windows FOSS disc and a liveCD available is probably the best solution.

I've been doing this lately.

[pair-a-noyd]

I've recently installed Open Office and Gimp on a few of my customers M$ machines when they were facing the option of a $$$$ M$ Office & Adobe photoshop purchase.
Their response? "Free? No way!"
Two weeks later: "I LOVE these programs, they work great! Thanks!"
I charged them nothing to install the programs, I did it for free because I like my customers and want to keep them happy. I'm not out to gouge them, I'm there to make happy customers.

I don't expect them to convert to a "Linux" installation because they use some proprietary applications for their business but some of them may entertain the idea for their home computers.

It's the camel's nose under the tent.

"GNU/Linux"

[guspasho]

Off-topic, I know, but is there any reason the author consistently refers to "GNU/Linux" rather than Linux?

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[FMota91]

Because Linux is only the kernel, and what most people know as Linux is actually Linux + GNU Programs. So, calling it GNU/Linux is more accurate.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[pinballer]

As I'm sure many many others will be lining up to respond: Linux is just the kernel. GNU/Linux is the operating system, consisting of the Unix-like commands provided by the GNU Project.

Take a good look at www.gnu.org

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they want a proper rogering by Richard Stallman.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[orclevegam]

Because when you refer to it as just Linux, it makes RMS cry.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[shawn(at)fsu]

I think it is some old flavor of Linux, I've never tried it though.
I kid I kid
But I do wonder if RMS has nightmares with people saying that.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Gonoff]

This a common practice amongst certain groups, including the pedantic, politically motivated and those who have been lectured at by Richard Stallman.

I call it Linux because nobody apart from IT enthusiasts would know what "GNU/Linux" is!

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[dhasenan]

GNU didn't create GNOME or X or KDE or Amarok or Gaim or OpenOffice. They currently maintain most of the basic utilities for UNIX, but most non-developer desktop users don't directly interact with any GNU tools.

So it's GNU/MIT/Sun/GNOME Foundation/KDE foundation/Gaim project/Linux.

Might as well add Berlios and Sourceforge, since, though they don't control or own many projects, they help out a fair bit. And I use tetex, so add that, too. And nongnu.org hosts CVS...

GNU/MIT/Sun/GNOME Foundation/KDE foundation/Gaim project/Berlios/Sourceforge/tetex/nongnu/Linux...

That's a name to inspire generations of users.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU didn't create GNOME or ...

"GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project"

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

I normally call it GNU/Linux too, just to be correct.

But now that I think of it, if you install The Gimp on a windows machine
or any other free software as the article suggests, nobody would call it
"GNU/Windows".

Meanwhile I don't think it matters, if you call it "pudding/Linux" somebody
would have something to gripe about.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[grolschie]

GNU didn't create GNOME or X or KDE or Amarok or Gaim or OpenOffice.

What a silly thing to say. Do you call MS Windows: "WindowsVistaOffice2007PhotoshopNeroPremier"? No, you don't! No-one calls GNU/Linux: "GNU/MIT/Sun/GNOME Foundation/KDE foundation/Gaim project/Linux".

But more importantly, all these apps that you mention are superfluous for many systems. Many a GNU/Linux system has no need of a Window Manager or even X, let alone such GUI applications. But just you try booting the Linux kernel without any GNU tools.

As others have mentioned, GNU created GNOME - by the way.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[bendodge]

OSTG is somewhat at odds with Torvalds over the naming issue. I'm not sure of the details.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's was a load of crap when RMS first came up with it, and it's even less relevant today. It's sour grapes on his part because hord never actually made a dent in the OS universe.

Stop calling it GNU/Linux!!!!

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Chandon Seldon]

The GNU/Linux operating system was created as a result of the GNU project. The only two components that could be considered "core" to the GNU/Linux system that aren't the work of the GNU project are Linux and X.org - and we can discount X.org unless you want to tell me that Sun doesn't get to take credit for Solaris. Hell, Solaris with Gnome and X.org has less of a claim to getting to name their operating system than the FSF does with the GNU system.

So it's GNU/MIT/Sun/GNOME Foundation/KDE foundation/Gaim project/Linux.

X is standard on all Unix-like systems. OpenOffice and Gaim are applications, not OS components (you can tell because they are available as Windows apps). GNOME is a part of the GNU system. That leaves - in order of importance - GNU/Linux/tetex. Go ahead and call it that. If you want to shorten it, try GNU/Linux. If you want to shorten that, it shortens to GNU.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Then we should call Debian Linux/Debian to be more accurately differentiate it from Hurd/Debian.

In addition Linus has the right to call his OS whatever he wants to, and he called it Linux. Yes its true, Linux depends on GNU; but it doesn't matter. Does the FSF require that users of their software name their systems based on GNU? or is this just a special case because Linux is widely successful?

The fact is if Linux were not successful, the RMS would have not tried or cared to prepend the GNU brand to Linus's little OS.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[budgenator]

So if i compile and install all of those nifty GNU utilites on my OpenServer, does it become GNU/SCO openServer and the resulting paraddox cause the universe to implode?

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover is there any reason the author keeps referring to linux at all, given that these a) are applications, not linux itself, and b) there's more to open source than linux?

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually GNU did create GNOME (that's what the 'G' stands for.) And Amarok, Gaim, and OpenOffice are applications, not part of the operating system. KDE is a competing desktop to GNOME, and could be considered an add-on to GNU/Linux.

Aside from KDE, the only component you've mentioned that forms part of GNU/Linux and isn't developed directly by GNU (though GNU contributes) is X.org.

If you don't want to run GNU, replace your userland with BSD, and use KDE as your desktop. My guess is you're perfectly happy to take without giving attribution. Unlike the FSF, who are happy to allow Linus to have his name on the final OS, despite contributing a tiny part of it.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

On the very first page of Debian website in both the first and second paragraphs, Debian is referred to (properly) as Debian GNU/Linux. There also exists Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/Solaris.

Also no one has questioned Linus' right. The complaint is that the GNU Project has been ignored in mainstream media coverage, and many new users are ignorant of their contributions and their importance to Free software. They wrote: gnome, gcc, emacs, gdb, autoconf, automake, bash, binutils, coreutils, dia, gimp, gnustep, gtk...and the GPL, which has helped the Linux kernel gain popularity and influence. The EFF, FSF, OSDL and SFLC are all here working for you in large part because of what the GNU Project and Richard Stallman started/popularized a long time ago.

It is not a competition between Linux and GNU, they work together. We should be grateful of both and offer our recognition to the work they do.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when you refer to it as just Linux, it makes RMS cry.

Wait till he sees the author's recommended "GNU/Linux" distribution is "Linspire". GNU is "free software" and that's why RMS wants Linux distributions to be "GNU/Linux" and I doubt Linspire fits his description of "free software". GNU existed before the Linux kernel and can be compiled to run with numerous other kernels but so far GNU/Linux is the most popular combination, however many distributions include proprietary binaries (NVidia drivers for example) along with the Linux kernel and GNU software as well as OSS that RMS would not consider "free software". Seem to recall something of a fuss over KDE's chosen developement tools QT for example, licensing changes to QT however are bringing ever closer to being acceptable.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[glwtta]

GNU didn't create GNOME or X or KDE or Amarok or Gaim or OpenOffice.

And yet they created GCC and glibc, which those applications rely on... I guess that's why they call it the OS?

And of course, they did create GNOME.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[mw13068]

The facts are simple:

1. The GNU project began in 1984 to create a unix-like Free Software operating system
2. They created the GNU GPL license to protect their work
3. Torvalds created the Linux kernel in 1991 and shortly thereafter licensed it as GPL

Torvalds did not create an operating system, he created a kernel. Without the FSF and the GNU project "Linux" would not exist. Without the continuing work of the FSF and the Software Freedom Law Center it would soon become impossible for non-Corporate entities to create Free/Open-source software.

People who write GNU/Linux tend to care about Freedom and give credit where credit is due.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[geminidomino]

Without the FSF and the GNU project "Linux" would not exist

It doesn't take a long stretch of imagination to realize that the converse may be just as true. Without Linux, the FSF would still be completely irrelevant, since Hurd will likely be the first OS to run DNF.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[petrus4]

Without the FSF and the GNU project "Linux" would not exist. Without the continuing work of the FSF and the Software Freedom Law Center it would soon become impossible for non-Corporate entities to create Free/Open-source software.

This is fear based garbage, and it's also so utterly idiotic and ignorant that I find myself wondering why I'm bothering to reply to it at all.

You obviously haven't used any of the BSDs before, have you? Of course, you're probably barely even aware that *BSD exists at all.

You probably also aren't aware that the sources of many of the commercial UNIX userland apps were released under the BSD license by Caldera not that long ago. In other words, a minimum of 3 different implementations of said userland exist, aside from Stallman's. The only element of the GNU system which is currently genuinely irreplaceable is gcc. Everything else has multiple alternatives.

Please...do both yourself and the rest of us a favour, and get some basic knowledge of general UNIX outside the box Stallman wants people to think in, before feeding people his usual propaganda and expecting them to swallow it.

I'm really sick of seeing people here who are so pathetically ignorant that they actually believe this sort of shit...it happens over and over again. Go and do some of your own research rather than merely accepting the first thing you're told, and even worse, expecting the rest of us to do the same.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

So if i compile and install all of those nifty GNU utilites on my OpenServer, does it become GNU/SCO openServer and the resulting paraddox cause the universe to implode?

No the universe might explode because someone still uses SCO products. :-)

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[dbIII]

That applies for Debian where the people managing the distro put gnu in the name - otherwise it's just the old LiGnuX rant taken up by newbies that missed the discussion the first time around.

Time to relax, go home and read Underwood/Grapes of Wrath.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[linvir]

a minimum of 3 different implementations of said userland exist, aside from Stallman's. The only element of the GNU system which is currently genuinely irreplaceable is gcc.

AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Shut up shut up shut up!

The leader is good, the leader is great. I surrender my will, as of this date.

LALALALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING I CAN'T HEAR YOU

Richard SAYS that it should be GNU/Linux, and that's obviously correct because Richard is impartial in this matter and has no vested interest in shoehorning his organisation's name into the name of a software product used by millions, which is why I believe him from my heart down to my toes and back up to my fronthead.

Stupid lazy Linus just wants to STEAL the precious, but we WON' T FUCKING LET HIM.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[cparker15]

So if i compile and install all of those nifty GNU utilites on my OpenServer, does it become GNU/SCO openServer

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: If you replace every single component of your SCO operating system (why you would be using an SCO product is beyond me) with a comparable component of the GNU operating system, except for the kernel, then you wouldn't be using an SCO operating system anymore. You'd be using GNU, which would be running on top of the SCO kernel. So, yes, your particular operating system could be accurately called "GNU/kOpenServer" or something similar.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[cparker15]

Components of one of my GNU/Linux installations, their functions, and their sources:

• Linux; kernel; Linus Torvalds, et al.
• GRUB; bootloader; GNU Project
• coreutils; core operating system components (e.g.: unix commands) contained in fileutils (chgrp, chmod, chown, cpdd, df, dir, dircolors, du, install, ln, ls, mkdir, mkfifo, mknod, mv, rm, rmdir, sync, touch, vdir), shellutils (basename, chroot, date, dirname, echo, env, expr, factor, false, groups, hostname, id, logname, nice, nohup, pathchk, printenv, printf, pwd, seq, sleep, stty, su, tee, test, true, tty, uname, users, who, whoami, yes), and textutils (cat, cksum, comm, csplit, cut, expand, fmt, fold, head, join, md5sum, nl, od, paste, pr, ptx, shalsum, sort, split, sum, tac, tail, tr, tsort, unexpand, uniq, wc); GNU Project
• grep; regular expression parser; GNU Project
• bash; command shell (enables utiliziation of coreutils); GNU Project
• nano; text editor (yes, operating systems contain text editors); GNU Project
• Emacs; text editor, etc.; GNU Project
• gcc; compiler collection; GNU Project
• make; compilation assisting tool; GNU Project
• patch; patching tool; GNU Project
• gdb; debugger; GNU Project
• gawk; string manupulation language; GNU Project
• sed; text stream editor; GNU Project
• finger; user info; GNU Project
• cron; scheduling; GNU Project
• parted; partition editor; GNU Project
• tar; archiving; GNU Project
• gzip; file compression; GNU Project
• GnuPG; asymmetric key cryptography; GNU Project
• less; paginator; GNU Project
• ncurses; text display tool; GNU Project
• screen; multi-terminal utility; GNU Project
• time; time-reporting tool; GNU Project
• wget; file downloader; GNU Project
• which; executable path tool; GNU Project

That's not counting all of the libraries, GNOME, or GUI tools (Nautilus, et al.). If you count--at minimum--GNOME and X, then you may add GNOME (GNU Project) and X.org (X.Org Foundatio

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem.

From http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-announce/2001/msg000 00.html

tallman recently tried what I would call a hostile takeover of the
glibc development. He tried to conspire behind my back and persuade
the other main developers to take control so that in the end he is in
control and can dictate whatever pleases him. This attempt failed but
he kept on pressuring people everywhere and it got really ugly. In
the end I agreed to the creation of a so-called "steering committee"
(SC). The SC is different from the SC in projects like gcc in that it
does not make decisions. On this front nothing changed. The only
difference is that Stallman now has no right to complain anymore since
the SC he wanted acknowledged the status quo. I hope he will now shut
up forever.

The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a
control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon
as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back.
*NEVER* voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella
since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make
decisions for the project.

The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story
behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which
eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force
me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd. Work on Linux would
be counter-productive to the Free Software course. Then came, what
would be called embrace-and-extend if performed by the Evil of the
North-West, and his claim for everything which lead to Linux's
success.

Which brings us to the second point. One change the SC forced to
happen against my will was to use LGPL 2.1 instead of LGPL 2. The
argument was that the poor lawyers cannot see that LGPL 2 is
sufficient. Guess who were the driving forces behind this.

The most remarkable thing is that Stallman was all for this despite
the clear motivation of commercialization. The reason: he finally got
the provocative changes he made to the license through. In case you
forgot or haven't heard, here's an excerpt:

[...] For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-free
programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating
system, as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.

This $&%$& demands everything to be labeled in a way which credits him
and he does not stop before making completely wrong statements like
"its variant". I find this completely unacceptable and can assure
everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc
(which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major
part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away.

This part has a morale, too, and it is almost the same: don't trust
this person. Read the licenses carefully and rip out parts which give
Stallman any possibility to influence your future. Phrases like

[...] GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version.

just invites him to screw you when it pleases him. Rip out the "any
later version" part and make your own decisions when to use a
different license since otherwise he can potentially do you or your
work harm.

In case you are interested why the SC could make this decision I'll
give a bit more background. When this SC idea came up I wanted to
fork glibc (out of Stallman's control) or resign from any work. The
former was not welcome this it was feared to cause fragmentation. I
didn't agree but if nobody would use a fork it's of no use. There
also wasn't muc

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[petrus4]

This is one of the best responses I've ever had. Thank you. :)

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

Now try again, counting only software for which the FSF owns the copyright, as being the result of the GNU project. Just because they cherrypicked what somebody else wrote and licensed under the GPL doesn't mean they created it.

Re:"GNU/Linux"

[cparker15]

Are you retarded? The FSF owns the copyright for everything I credited as "GNU Project". If you have proof stating otherwise, I'd like to see it, O Wise Coward.

I like ordering Ubuntu's Free ShipIt CDs

[rolfwind]

to give to people interested in Open Source.

They are nicely packaged, have a CD with some art on there, etcetera.

Personally, I think nothing looks as cheap (in a bad way) or shadier than a burnt CD-R especially with permanent marker on there.

Is there any place that sells Open Source CDs or makes low runs of CDs with professional art at a low price?

Otherwise I may looking into a lightscribe burner - it look a little better.

Re:I like ordering Ubuntu's Free ShipIt CDs

[networkBoy]

If enough people are interested I will order a silkscreened run.
I want orders and payment up front (we'd need to order about 1K disks)
question:
disk only or with a foldover cover (adds about 50 cents to the cost per disk)?
-nB

Re:I like ordering Ubuntu's Free ShipIt CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a grad student... did you say FREE!??

Re:I like ordering Ubuntu's Free ShipIt CDs

[alphamugwump]

"Personally, I think nothing looks as cheap (in a bad way) or shadier than a burnt CD-R especially with permanent marker on there."

Geek: Hey. You wanna buy some linux disks?
Obi-Wan: You don't want to sell me linux disks.
Geek: I don't want to sell you linux disks.
Obi-Wan: you want to go home and rethink your life.

Re:I like ordering Ubuntu's Free ShipIt CDs

[Skrynesaver]

The Open CD is available to purchase or download. Lots of lovely OS apps for Windows and it comes with Pictures rather than marker, have a look through the site, distribute it to your friends and neighbours.

Good start...

[ingo23]

That's what I have been doing with my wife's PC. The only thing left is PaintShopPro, which is a bit difficult to replace with GIMP from the ease of use perspective. The rest of it can be switched to linux tomorrow.

Re:Good start...

[dvice_null]

I was a newbie with both Photoshop and Gimp. Here are the results:
- With Gimp, I could draw some images, but I couldn't draw lines with it (later I learned how to do that)
- With Photoshop, I couldn't draw anything. Never figured out how to do this.

So I think that both are complex and not intuitive enough. But because other is free and the other is not, I would certainly choose Gimp and learn using it.

Re:Good start...

[maxume]

Did you have a mouse?

Re:Good start...

[Yosho]

I can't speak for Gimp, but Photoshop is not a drawing program. It is an image manipulation program. If you're looking to draw, try something like Corel Painter or openCanvas. (note that despite what you might assume from the latter's name, it is not open source)

Re:Good start...

[MrCopilot]

The only thing left is PaintShopPro, which is a bit difficult to replace with GIMP from the ease of use perspective.

Have you seen/tried GimpShop? http://gimpshop.blogspot.com/

For windows users (especially PhotoShop people) it is a nice comprimise.

Re:Good start...

[budgenator]

My stepson is a dyed in the wool, and school trained PSer, and I TOTALY blew him away by doing everything he could do in phototshop faster in GIMP; then for an encore I did everything faster than he could in photoshop. The real secret to both is learning the keyboard shortcuts, not the click-streams, the shortcuts are the same, the click-streams are different.

Re:Good start...

[icegreentea]

photoshop isnt primarily a drawing application. although it is powerful enough to use for drawing/painting (that's what i use it for, along with a tablet), i would agree that photoshop's line and shapes are... pretty confusing. that being said, the plain and simple brush/pencil should turn out just the same as mspaint brush/pencil. as for gimp... i have no quarrels with it. i just like photoshop a lot better.

Re:Good start...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's not available for windows yet (it will be after KDE 4 is released), but have you looked at Krita?

Re:Good start...

[Viceroy Potatohead]

unfortunately, there are still things GIMP cannot do (or do as well) as PS. Undoubtedly, GIMP will be a better tool in some cases than PS, but I think the opposite is true at least as often. No CMYK mode is a big drawback of GIMP, for instance. That alone makes it pretty much useless for professional print work.

GIMP is a fantastic program, and I consider it one of the best examples of desktop OSS, but it still needs some work. It isn't the equal of PS quite yet, but it's fairly close.

Re:Good start...

[geminidomino]

Not only is OC not open source, it's not even free as in beer unless you can find an old copy of V1.1 floating around. Too bad, too. It's apparently really popular with amateur manga artists.

Re:Good start...

[Yoozer]

and I TOTALY blew him away by doing everything he could do in phototshop faster in GIMP

Transform > Distort (aka the Free transform). Using shapes copied out of Inkscape as "smart objects" - pixel-rendered but for all other intents and purposes vectors. Using Inkscape shapes at all - there's something called interoperability between Photoshop and Illustrator, and with any alternative I'd expect the same (and this is something a lot of GIMP advocates oversee, sadly enough). Proper font handling. The new lens blur filter. Layer effects (as in that they are tweakable afterwards)

Didn't find 'm in GIMP. Sorry. Playing with lensflares and filters - no, that doesn't make it an alternative to me.

If I need people to have a simple alternative for pictures and not the crippled bloatware most camera/scanner mfgs put on their disks, I install Paint.NET.

Re:Good start...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to go for the obvious, but: did you even glance at the manual?

One nice thing about Adobe products is that they actually do ship with a 1"-thick book. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how to do some simple things in Adobe Illustrator (similar in power and design, if a slightly different media). Then one day I flipped through the relevant chapter of the Illustrator manual, and said "oh, *that's* why it's built this way ... I see ...". It not only explained how to do things, but why it was more useful to me in the long run that they designed it this way.

Maybe you're not giving the manual a chance, because you're used to programs having crappy manuals. In this case, that might not be a safe assumption.

There's something to be said for usability. Then again, a lot of people seem to think that anybody should be able to pick up Photoshop and make beautiful images, with no experience or ever having picked up the manual. Consider that it's a pricey app, designed for professionals. I don't know of any other most-expensive-in-genre app designed for professionals that any random person can pick up and start being productive with right away (could the professional photographer, who Photoshop was designed for, do anything useful with Visual Studio?). Even Final Cut Pro, which its users rave about, has a much simpler app for non-pro users (iMovie). FCP also has a pretty good manual, without which I wouldn't have been able to do anything in FCP, either.

Re:Good start...

[bensch128]

Have you considered the benefits of adding some wine...

Ben

Re:Good start...

[pugugly]

Umm - Gimp will import Inkscape SVG's as a mesh - I'm misremembering terminology (haven't needed the function in awhile and I'm at work), but Gimp can work with SVG just fine, albeint not as well as inkscape.

Pug

Terminology

[adavies42]

Instead of selling GNU/Linux, the group is selling open source [emphasis added].

Who was clueless enough to let that slip through? Love RMS or hate him, that should clearly be "selling free software".

Re:Terminology

[happyfrogcow]

Who was clueless enough to let that slip through? Love RMS or hate him, that should clearly be "selling free software".

Oh sure... confuse everyone with "selling free software".

I kid, I kid.

See the post just below yours

[IANAAC]

www.opencd.org

Re:See the post just below yours

[jdeisenberg]

Actually: http://www.theopencd.org/

For the past few semesters, I've been handing out copies at the "campus groups on display" day, and the reception has been quite positive.

From the end user's perspective, it makes little

[Anonymous Coward]

difference. They don't care if it's open source or proprietary; good software is good software. Obviously there are some external benefits to something being open source, but if it's not broken don't fix it. What is so horrible about someone using Windows / Photoshop / whatever that compells people to try to switch them? If they are willing to use the tool, know the consequences of using the tool (i.e. specifically vendor lock-in), and the tool works for them, then what is the problem?

What is with the GNU tag?

[shaitand]

People keep referring to Linux and Linux-based distributions with this 'GNU' thing in the name? What's up with that?

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than linking a wikipedia article on the subject, I will simply say this:
If you don't know, don't worry. You can google it to find out, but its all symantics anyways.

Only zealots and flamers really care what the distinction means.

PS: How apt! Captcha: DEFECATE

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[drinkypoo]

People keep referring to Linux and Linux-based distributions with this 'GNU' thing in the name? What's up with that?

I hope you are being funny, but if you are not, I will explain. or even if you are, in case someone else wants to know.

The assertion is that it should be called GNU/Linux because Linux depends on GNU for userspace, build tools, et cetera.

This was once true, but is actually not true any more.

Debian is explicitly called Debian GNU/Linux for this reason. Debian is pretty much the gnuest (but not the newest, ha ha) distribution out there. It has higher ideals than any other Linux that I'm aware of; read the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) for more information.

Richard Stallman has written a whiny diatribe on the subject entitled Linux and the GNU Project. Here is an excerpt:

"What they found was no accident--it was the not-quite-complete GNU system. The available free software added up to a complete system because the GNU Project had been working since 1984 to make one. In the The GNU Manifesto we set forth the goal of developing a free Unix-like system, called GNU. The Initial Announcement of the GNU Project also outlines some of the original plans for the GNU system. By the time Linux was written, GNU was almost finished."

GNU was almost finished? Yeah, except for the lack of a useful kernel. When the HURD finally came out it was extraordinarily limited for an operating system of its day, including a lack of support for filesystems over 2GB.

You may have noticed that I have no sympathy for the view of forcing people to call it GNU/Linux. Why not? Because it's inconsistent. As per the terms of the GPL I am free to fork GCC and call it something entirely different that has nothing to do with GNU. No one is trying to take anything away from GNU or the FSF by calling various Linux distributions Linux. No one is trying to hide the fact that the majority of systems (but again, not all!) are based on or built with the GNU userland. They are only apparently not giving GNU sufficient credit. If GNU needs more credit, that should have been in the license. If it's not worth putting in the license, then shut up already.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[shaitand]

'I hope you are being funny, but if you are not, I will explain. or even if you are, in case someone else wants to know.'

Actually I was joking and maybe playing troll Tuesday a bit. Plus this is one of my pet peeve issues for the reasons you already listed. Hopefully someone will be enlightened by your informative post.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[Chandon Seldon]

This was once true, but is actually not true any more.

You're right. Rather than using the GNU System on top of Linux you could take the userspace component of another Free unix-like system and run that on top of Linux. You could build a Solaris/Linux system or a NetBSD/Linux system. In addition, for embedded systems that don't need to be fully functional Unix-like systems, you can put a simpler userspace on top of the Linux kernel - this is commonly seen in embedded systems.

But... you can't claim that Linux is a Unix-like operating system and also claim that the GNU component of GNU/Linux systems is trivial. Without GNU, Linux is not a general purpose operating system - you'd have to drop in an entire other Unix-like system in order to get Unix-like functionality without GNU. Without Linux, the GNU System will run fine on any of the BSD kernels, on the Solaris kernel, or even on the (still not ready for production use) GNU HURD kernel.

To be very simple and clear: The GNU System has produced a Unix-like operating system that most commonly runs on the Linux kernel. The only replacements for GNU are other full Unix-like operating systems.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[jonasj]

Because that is the name of the operating system. The GNU project has implemented an entire free operating system, except for one critical part, the kernel. Linus Torvalds and his merry men has implemented a kernel, Linux, which works very well in the GNU operating system, but that doesn't make the system "Linux". Fedora Core, for example, may be commonly called a "Linux distribution", but "GNU distribution" is far more correct. Now, why people keep referring to GNU and GNU-based distributions with this "Linux" thing in the name, and even as "Linux" alone, I don't know.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is trying to force anyone to call it anything they don't want. They're suggesting/arguing that it would be beneficial both for the GNU project as well as those that depend on it, to recognize it's importance. But you obviously don't have to agree.

P.S. Free software has cultural and social implications, ignoring GNU's role in the development of Free software, either by calling it Linux or "Open Source," diminishes that. Like books and literacy, computers and software have a great possibility of benefiting the world through knowledge and education.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU was almost finished? Yeah, except for the lack of a useful kernel. When the HURD finally came out it was extraordinarily limited for an operating system of its day, including a lack of support for filesystems over 2GB.

If GNU needs more credit, that should have been in the license.

If GNU needs more credit, maybe they should have finished what they set out to do! Yeah, they made a nice set of tools, but I see a helluva lotta constructive stuff coming from other people. Note that (how many years later?) HURD still isn't very capable.

This insistence on GNU/Linux is just a cry for attention.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[wrook]

I pretty much agree with what you said (especially about the idea that I should be able to fork names).

On the other hand, I think RMS is right with respect to what he is trying to accomplish. This idea of introducing Free software to people before trying to get them to change operating systems is *exactly* (IMHO) what RMS has been trying to say with his "GNU/Linux" diatribes all these years. It's just that sometimes he isn't the best communicator.

Linux as an kernel is interesting. It's got some really strong points to it. But end users don't (and shouldn't) care about the kernel they are using. They care about their applications. GNU provided a user experience that is important. I've got a good shell, a decent C/C++ compiler, tons of shell utilities, etc, etc. GNU also provided a host of other important applications.

I believe RMS's point was that in order to promote Free software and Free software ideals, one will want to distinguish between the kernel and the user facing utilities. Back in the day, nearly all of a user's interaction with the computer was with GNU. These days that's not true at all. But it's still important (from a Free software evangelical position) to promote the *user experience* of Free software.

One *could* say, "Use Linux because Windows sucks". "Using Linux will reduce your TCO". Or whatever. But that totally misses the point to moving to a Free software system. A better (Free software reason) for using Linux is, "If you use Linux, you aren't bound by some moron's notion of how memory should be swapped. If you notice that your computer is swapping like crazy *even though you still have a gig of RAM free* you can probably convince someone to change it".

But really, I can't say that to a normal person. However if you say, "Imagine if your word processor corrupts your document. Imagine that you could walk up to a programmer friend and they could actually help you get your document back". With Free software, a person with normal programming skills is guaranteed to have everything they need to help themselves or a friend. With non-Free software you are at the not so tender mercy of the author (or the entity that controls the author).

The idea behind GNU was to create a completely Free computing user experience. They were doing it alone because, frankly, everyone else in the world thought they were nuts (and many still do). Now there are many individuals and groups that are devoted to creating a Free software experience. So, personally, I don't think "GNU/Linux" makes much sense any more. I like the idea of calling it "Ubuntu", "Fedora", "Debian", "Gentoo", etc. These are complete Free software experiences aimed at different types of people. These names focus on the correct aspect. Linux is just one small part of the equation. GNU is another small part of the equation. Mozilla is another. Apache is another. X is another. Gnome, KDE, etc, etc, etc... I could go on forever...

Please note that I don't use "open source" in this little diatribe. That's because open source is focused on the *pragmatism* of Free software. It's the "many eyes", "faster development", "better apps" argument of using Free software. These arguments may be true, but ultimately for the user I don't think it's a compelling argument. For instance, I could just say "My closed source product has the best programmers in the world. I spared no expense to get them. Therefore our code is better". It may be untrue, but how can a customer distinguish the difference.

Personally, I think the 4 basic freedoms are the most important thing. If I have an idea to improve my life that requires me to use the software in unanticipated ways, I'm not fucked. If I want to find out what my software is doing, I'm not fucked. If something goes wrong, I'm not fucked. If I have useful software and I want to help others with it, I'm not fucked. Without Free software, I am at the mercy of someone else (i.e., I might be, and probably will be fucked).

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[2short]

"Now, why people keep referring to GNU and GNU-based distributions with this 'Linux' thing in the name, and even as 'Linux' alone, I don't know."

Oh, that's very simple. No amount of explaining what makes sense is going to do anything, because it's not about what makes sense. To the vast majority of people, who don't know or care about the details, but who define the terminology by their usage, it comes down to this:

"Linux" is a cool name.
"GNU" is a stupid name.
"GNU/Linux" is a super-stupid name.

That's all there is to it. Get over it or don't; it's not going to change.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[shaitand]

'The GNU project has implemented an entire free operating system, except for one critical part, the kernel.'

Translation:

The GNU project has implemented a bunch of great userland applications that can be run on top of a unix replacement operating system. It would be a complete system if it only it weren't missing the actual operating system aka the kernel. It sounds like someone is using the phrase 'operating system' to refer to an operating system distribution again.

The GNU applications are not needed for the Linux operating system to function. That precludes letting the GNU project rename the Linux operating system. I also have a windows workstation with all the GNU utilities running on it. Perhaps you would propose we rename that system GNU/Windows?

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[shaitand]

'The GNU System has produced a Unix-like operating system that most commonly runs on the Linux kernel'

Lets not confuse terms. GNU produced a set of applications. Applications (ALL Applications) run beneath the operating system and the Linux Operating system consists of a single Macrokernel. That kernel provides a powerful general purpose environment for applications like the GNU programs. What you are referring to is an Operating system distribution. After all you don't rename a windows based computer used by a graphic artist to Photoshop/Windows and you don't rename windows to GNU/Windows if you load GNU applications on it.

The importance of Applications is beside the point. Obviously applications are important or operating systems wouldn't have been created to make developing them easier. That doesn't change that an Operating system provides an operating environment for applications, while applications provide an operating environment for users. It is no more appropriate to refer to an operating system (or distribution that has an operating system as its core) by the name of the application than it is to refer to an application by the name of its user.

Perhaps the copies of GNU applications given to H&R Block should be referred to as H&R/GNU? After all, the applications wouldn't provide a functional system without someone to use them.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[petrus4]

People keep referring to Linux and Linux-based distributions with this 'GNU' thing in the name? What's up with that?

It's part of Stallman's usual obsessive need for the limelight, as well as a reflection of his attempt to make his own group's additions to the OS appear more important than the kernel. As always with his decrees, this one is also enforced by his minions on Slashdot.

I don't really understand the reasoning behind the recent seeming re-polarisation in favour of Stallman around here recently; prior to about six months ago, a lot of the site's readership seemed sufficiently disillusioned with him and his cult that I had felt some hope that his influence was waning. It could be the flap over the Microsoft/Novell deal, and if so, he should probably reconsider attempting to ban such deals in the GPL v3, since apparently such incidents are good for revitalising his popularity.

If there is one reason though why I wish Microsoft would change their behaviour, it is because said behaviour feeds Stallman and his followers and makes them both feel and appear justified. I consider Stallman and his followers to be my life's primary remaining source of misery at this point, and where Linux is concerned, do not wait for anything with more fervour than the collapse of the Free Software Foundation.

To paraphrase the Joker...I have given a name to my pain, and it is Richard Matthew Stallman.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[petrus4]

GNU provided a user experience that is important. I've got a good shell, a decent C/C++ compiler, tons of shell utilities, etc, etc. GNU also provided a host of other important applications.

Please note that I don't use "open source" in this little diatribe. That's because open source is focused on the *pragmatism* of Free software. It's the "many eyes", "faster development", "better apps" argument of using Free software.

Ok, so we've heard the standard pro-FSF mind control. Now tell us...what, as an individual, do you really think? ;-)

People try and tell me that the FSF aren't a cult, and that I'm "disingenuous" for calling them one. Then I see screeds like the above, which basically consist purely and solely of people holding Stallman's perspectives in leiu of their own. If that isn't cultic, someone needs to explain to me what is.

It also makes me wonder if Linux is ever going to be rid of the boa constrictor around its' neck that is Richard Stallman.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[geminidomino]

Please mod parent up for actually knowing what the hell an "operating system" actually is!

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an individual he seems to agree with the FSF, there is nothing wrong or cultish about it. I don't doubt your sincerity but you do seem be in lack of both understanding and respect.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[jonasj]

It sounds like someone is using the phrase 'operating system' to refer to an operating system distribution again.

Ah, okay, that someone would be TFA and/or the GP poster :-) But when people talk about "the Linux operating system", most of the time they mean GNU, and when they say "how do I do this on a Linux system", most of the time they mean GNU (that is, the answer would be relevant to any GNU system regardless of the kernel, but not to a Linux system with other userland than GNU).

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[drinkypoo]

On the other hand, I think RMS is right with respect to what he is trying to accomplish. This idea of introducing Free software to people before trying to get them to change operating systems is *exactly* (IMHO) what RMS has been trying to say with his "GNU/Linux" diatribes all these years. It's just that sometimes he isn't the best communicator.

Sure, I fully agree. It's a good concept to introduce people to. I also agree that it's not an example of good communication. In Slashdot terms, demanding that the name Linux be prefixed with GNU/ is like going on a diatribe about the GPL in a story about the release of a new Linux kernel. It might be insightful and informative, but it's definitely offtopic.

Re:What is with the GNU tag?

[Chandon Seldon]

Lets not confuse terms.

You're right. There is a confusion of terms going on here. But... I'm pretty sure that you're the one who's confused.

GNU produced a set of applications.

You're right. GNU has produced some applications. The GIMP is an application. GNU Chess is an application. Some would argue that even GCC is an application rather than a system component.

But, the fact that the GNU project has produced some applications to run on the GNU System doesn't change the fact that the GNU System is an operating system. An general purpose modern operating system consists of more than a kernel. Consider the standard system libraries - the code that implements "fprintf(3)" is definitely not part of the kernel, and it's definitely not part of an application - it's part of the operating system. On a GNU/Linux system, that part of the operating system is the GNU C Library.

The "standard libraries" component of an operating system even goes beyond implementing the ANSI C and C++ standards. For example, the various libraries that make up Gnome are part of the standard libraries.

Then there are programs that are not applications. Things like "cupsd" provide operating system services, allowing a GNU/Linux system to print. "acpid" provides power management support. Printing and power management are definitely operating system functions - even if they're not in the kernel.

Then there's an area that confuses the issue on Unix-like systems: Libraries aren't the only kind of standard system interface. In Unix, a significant amount of functionality is provided by standard tools. On something like Windows you might have some sort of "winarchive.dll" that provided a programmatic interface to making archive files. On Unix we don't - we have "tar". It's a standard component of a Unix-like system - application developers will expect it to be there and they'll expect it to provide the standard Unix tape archive interface. It's even part of the POSIX standard. It'd damn hard to argue that any of the standard Unix tools *aren't* part of the operating system. You're definitely not going to tell me that "sort" is an "application" the way Photoshop is.

Re: Add mail client

[lieutenant_Zaz]

And Thunderbird instead of Outlook. Mail is really important for certain tasks in my job to be completed.

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never understand why this obsession about migrating to Linuzzz/Open Source.

It's about getting the power back. Shhhh! Don't tell anyone.

nitpick

[pavon]

From the GNOME Website:

GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.

So, yes GNU did create the GNU Network Object Model Environment, as much as any other GNU project.

GNUs Not Unix

[Nymz]

People keep referring to Linux and Linux-based distributions with this 'GNU' thing in the name? What's up with that?

The summary is regarding a set of applications that can be used on a Windows operating system. Linux is the main part of one open source OS, and is not an application designed to run on Windows. GNU on the other hand refers to many open source software applications.

The goal is to promote the use of the open source model, and freedom of use, not any one application or OS over any other.

Inaccurate Headline

[SirGarlon]

From the article:

The group wanted to make a point that Open Source software works on Windows machines, not just on computers running a version of GNU/Linux

So I don't think it's accurate to say this group is introducing "GNU/Linux." Quite the contrary, really: they're introducing users to free software that runs on Windows. There's no apparent direct connection between replacing MS Office with OpenOffice (for example) and replacing MS Windows with GNU/Linux.

On the other hand, introducing users to free applications does eliminate one of the barriers to switching. However the article itself does not say anything about that possible next step.

Re:Inaccurate Headline

[lilomar]

When I read the article (I know, I know, "I must be new around here.") I got the impression that they were trying to promote Linux, but the person writing the article had no clue what he/she was writing about. I quote:

GNU/Linux is the way the Free Software Foundation identifies a freely distributed computer operating system, with GNU referring to a series of utilities and Linux referring to the core of the operating system, called a kernel. and

distribution [version].

TFA does not say what software was on CD?

[Bearhouse]

Unless I missed it. Tried these two links.. http://www.kglug.org/index.php/Software http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html Neither really gave the simple 'windows-user friendly' correspondance table one could wish for. How about it, guys? And I don't mean 'word' = OO either. For example, I use 'Minitab' stats software a lot...anything out there?

Re:TFA does not say what software was on CD?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about R? Most of the GUI front-ends for it (e.g., R Commander, JGR) have most basic univariate statistics already built in, and even some multivariate as well.

Re:TFA does not say what software was on CD?

[Bearhouse]

Thanks, I'll take a look

Don't fear the malware

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Says who?

Re:From the end user's perspective, it makes littl

[Intron]

because when someone sends me a file, I would like it to be something that I can read instead of something that I could only read if I buy $100s of dollars of some software that I don't want. Open source software tends to use open standards.

Re:Why

[infinityxi]

It IS about using whatever you want. The CD isn't installing Linux on those machines against the will of someone else. If they like it, use it. If they don't care for it, trash bin it. It's just like complaining about Microsoft or Apple for marketing their software all over the Television and internet and giving people incentives to upgrade/switch.

First Steps

[JPLemme]

I was a typical Windows user, until about three years ago I decided to try Firefox. I was impressed. Then I got fed up with Norton AV and downloaded ZoneAlarm and AVG for my wife's PC (not libre software, I know). Then I got fed up with MS's WGA program and installed SuSE on my main PC. (I skipped right over my planned OO on Windows step.) Now I'm using Kubuntu and I have no intention of ever going back to Windows.

But if it hadn't been for the easy availability and high quality of Firefox on Windows, I would never have switched to Linux. Firefox is the best weapon in the whole FOSS arsenal.

Question for Kutztown GNU/Linux users

[IGnatius T Foobar]

I'm an alumnus of Kutztown University (1993), and remember the technology environment there being somewhat resistant to change, to put it mildly. If there are any current KU GNU/Linux users there, may I ask you a question: what is it like being a Linux user there nowadays? Does the IT staff give you a hard time about it? Does the current student environment require specific Windows-based programs? Are there elements of the res-net that are difficult to live with if you're not running Mac or Windows?

Re:Question for Kutztown GNU/Linux users

[ibennetch]

Me too! Class off 2003, though, so my news may be a bit dated. For all I know I was the only Linux user at the time (I had a desktop system running Debian). I had no trouble (other than the time cron started mailing error logs to root at kutztown.edu instead of root@localhost; but they were *very* friendly about that). At the time they were changing some policies; my last year they had a w2k server for students to use as a file server but hardly anyone did so. I was able to print from my windows laptop by plugging in to the network; I assume I could have done the same from Linux but never tried as the labs and resnet were on separate subnets or some such. At the time anyway, resnet was as simple as plugging in to the port in your room or the common area; you'd get an address from DHCP. We were firewalled off from the internet, so I couldn't host my own www or vnc server even though we had real IP addresses. There wasn't much to the resnet other than grabbing a DHCP address, so any platform that could handle that should have worked. No login required or any such business...very straightforward.

As far as the CIS department (where I took several CIS classes but I'm actually an Electronic Media grad), the C++ and Java programming was taught on Suns, which was great, since I already knew Linux. There were two classes in Visual Basic but as I recall everything else (algorithms, all the introductory stuff, etc) used the Suns.

Re:Question for Kutztown GNU/Linux users

[IGnatius T Foobar]

As far as the CIS department (where I took several CIS classes but I'm actually an Electronic Media grad), the C++ and Java programming was taught on Suns, which was great, since I already knew Linux. There were two classes in Visual Basic but as I recall everything else (algorithms, all the introductory stuff, etc) used the Suns.

Suns would have been nice. Back in my day all of the programming classes were taught on a roomful of dumb terminals connected to a Unisys minicomputer ... except for a few that were actually taught on the Burroughs A-9 mainframe. And they thought it was high tech.

Something to worry about

[adisakp]

Sure getting people to try open source apps is a good idea. Distributing them by silently slipping CD's under a door is a bad idea.

I worry about how many of the 400 faculty members would install software slipped under their door. If a significant portion of them install the software, then this would prove to be an easy distribution path for an evil person to set up a worm or backdoor on computers that had access to student data and grades.

The worm or backdoor could even be easily incorporated into the OSS applications since the maker of the CD has access to the source and can easily incorporate malicious features or expose a vulnerability in the app.

Cool

[opec]

I had an experience with this kind of thing just today. My music education class is taking a short detour into technology use in the classroom for the next couple of weeks. I was happily surprised to note that one of the prominent examples of music software to use was Audacity. The link was in big bold letters on the handout: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Thank you, Anonymous reader :p

[matt me]

> A common problem with GNU/Linux for new users is not the operating system, but the switch in applications they must undertake to use it. Many who try to make the switch have little experience with the common open source applications available under GNU/Linux.

This is a ridiculous statement! What *is* an operating system, if not a set of applications?! [don't get too technical, to the user, an operating system exists as the applications presented, and the interactions between them]

I can't believe many people would try GNU/Linux having never used any of Mozilla Firefox or Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, the GIMP, gaim, Apache or Python. A motivation to use more free software comes from somewhere.

Re:Thank you, Anonymous reader :p

[nasch]

A common problem with GNU/Linux for new users is not the operating system, but the switch in applications they must undertake to use it. Many who try to make the switch have little experience with the common open source applications available under GNU/Linux.

This is a ridiculous statement!

It's not ridiculous at all. If there were Linux versions of Outlook, Photoshop, Office, Taxcut/whatever financial software, and so on... how many people would have a problem using the same apps in Linux? Very few - the barrier to switching is not the OS, it's the application software. This is one reason you will never see MS making Linux versions of their big-name titles - it would weaken the OS monopoly their company is built on by making it easier for people to switch away from Windows. And no, an operating system is not a set of applications. The fact that billions of people don't know the difference doesn't mean there is no difference.

On a smaller scale...

[athloi]

I know I've woken some people up by giving them copies of EditPad, or PuTTY, or Opera or other open-source software. I tell them it's like indie music, but software, and you don't have to look like Michael Stipe.

Re:On a smaller scale...

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither Opera or EditPad are open source software. They are as free as Microsoft Office.

Re:On a smaller scale...

[Mad Merlin]

I know I've woken some people up by giving them copies of EditPad, or PuTTY, or Opera or other open-source software.

You know that both Opera and EditPad are proprietary software, not open source, right?

Reverse Wine?

[parvenu74]

KDE for Windows would be nice, as well as Gnome for Windows. But what would really be helpful is an EASY way to set up a Linux application environment on Windows similar to Wine on Linux. That way users can get used to not only OpenOffice and Firefox, but also programs like Evolution, Grip, gEdit/KEdit, etc. so that when they finally switch over to Linux they won't have to figure out such things as "now what program do I use to replace iTunes that doesn't run on Windows and therefore I couldn't use/get frustrated with until now?" Does such a thing as "inverted Wine" exist, or is it going to be a by-application experience?

Re:Reverse Wine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does such a thing as "inverted Wine" exist, or is it going to be a by-application experience?

cygwin

Selling free software ...

[porky_pig_jr]

Yeah, yeah, I know, this is 'free as a freedom', yet it still reminds those "Free Gift! You only pay for shipping, handling and processing. Other applicable charges may apply (and some unapplicable charges may apply as well)."

Re:what's gnu/linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

JEBUS FUCKING XRIST!!1

yuo must b k1ddin me?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU

Not such a good idea.

[griffenjam]

Lets be frank, the state of the majority of open source projects doesn't even come close to commercial software in terms of end-user eye candy and ease of use. Not to mention that interoperability with Microsoft software is spotty at best (anyone that's had to support OpenOffice users knows what I'm talking about). There's just as much chance that people are going to fire up the open source counterpart to apps they use, find that their documents don't display correctly in it, and conclude that OSS is a waste of their time. This has always been the big problem with Linux and OSS in general, usability and eye-candy is always something for later. It's always put off and never made a real priority. Then when non-computer nerds see OSS apps they see things that look like throwbacks to Windows 95, or hell, even 3.1. Remember, average users aren't impressed by things like a small memory footprint, a non-restrictive EULA, or even the fact that the software is open source (they don't even know what the hell that means). They see the fact that free programs can't open their documents correctly, drag and drop doesn't always work like it should, the icons normally look ugly...

Re:Not such a good idea.

[boteeka]

Although I like open source apps, I used to chose them over commercial ones if there are equally useful as they commercial counterparts. Sadly there is not so much of these kind of apps. For example let's compare Photoshop and GIMP. Maybe GIMP is good enough for basic photo editing or stuff like that, and maybe one may never use the vast majority of tools and features offered by Photoshop, but when you start the program (GIMP), you are overwhelmed by a huge number of windows from which you don't even know which is which. I, for one, used to use apps maximized, so I like them to be in ONE single window, and this way know that if I click on the task bar a button, I'm getting to the expected app, and don't need to make multiple clicks while I get to the one I wanted. Too many open windows makes me confused and frustrated. Firefox, for example, get this point, and instead of opening X number of windows for each site I visit, there is only one windows with X number of tabs. Firefox is a good example of good open source app, as it is Thunderbird too. As for OpenOffice, is good enough for some little documents for yourself, but when things come to exchange documents with others (Microsoft Office users, using the DOC format) you're royally f*cked up. Maybe the ODT format will help on this. Looking at the file managers of different systems. Windows has a usable Explorer, which doesn't have many features, but at least is working quite well. But not that well that I use it. I use Total Commander when using Windows. I always liked better these "commander"-like file managers with two (or more) panes. Maybe this is because I once used DOS and Norton Commander. In GNOME the Nautilus isn't bad, but could be better. When you're viewing directories with huge number of files in it, the scrolling is ...,well not too good. If you grab the scrollbar and move it down, you can't follow where you are. If I'm looking for a folder which has a name starting with "S", for example, I can't follow at which letter I am while dragging. Drag and drop does not work as expected, if I want to decompress a tar.gz file, it opens in File Roller (or something like that) from which I simply want to drag and drop into Nautilus. But only the second drag and drop move works. Why? Shouldn't this be a basic operation? If I am at a file dialog and want to change the name of the file, I select it with mouse without selecting its extension and type some new name, right? Well, that's not so easy in GNOME either. If you are "too" fast with that mouse selection move you might end up dragging the selected part of the text (by default is all selected), instead of re-selecting just a part of the text. Confusing at least. This is when I fire up a terminal and start using Midnight Commander. Good old *working* app. Not so nice, but working, and I doesn't expect to be drag and drop compatible, so I'm not mad at it because of that doesn't work. What I hate the most is when an app is pretending that it's capable of something, and then turns out not to be. These, and other little issues are driving me crazy once in a while, when I just want to do something, and the system stands in my way in different kind of ways. I'm not interested in that GNOME's new version will include a nice "sticky notes" applet, and one of the (basic board or alike) games has new graphics or what. Instead I would be interested in seeing Nautilus improved, more and more usable, stuff like that. Who needs fancy sticky notes and games when even the basic file management functions aren't working as expected (not by me, but an average reasonable user). Against all of these things I keep using Linux and other open source apps on Windows because I still hope that there will be improvements that will move the FOSS apps ahead. But it's not working to put our heads in the sand and be happy with the current situation.

Re:Not such a good idea.

[Wyzardking]

when you start the program (GIMP), you are overwhelmed by a huge number of windows from which you don't even know which is which. I, for one, used to use apps maximized, so I like them to be in ONE single window... I agree with you; I wish GIMP acted more like Visual Studio windows where you have a choice: you can dock the toolbox and other control windows to the sides of the editing screen or you can leave the control windows as separate windows. I use both methods; when I'm editing a project normally, my toolboxes, explorers, properties, etc are docked to the the editing window. But when I'm running in Full Screen mode, these control windows are undocked and moved to my secondary monitor -- I get the full screen on my primary monitor for editing code and the control windows are always available on the secondary monitor. I'd love to see that type of functionality in GIMP.

Looking at the file managers of different systems. Windows has a usable Explorer, which doesn't have many features, but at least is working quite well. Eh, not sure I'd call it "quite well". Why is it that you sometimes still lose the entire shell if an explorer window crashes, even if you have "run as separate process" checked? It doesn't happen as often as it used to, but it's still quite an annoyance when it does happen.

Against all of these things I keep using Linux... I use both (my wife uses linux exclusively) but I'm primarily in Windows, mostly for games -- I play a lot of games that doesn't work well in linux. And there are a few annoyances that I can't get resolved in linux. For example, in Windows I can click on a streaming mp3 (or pls) link and Media Monkey will automatically start playing it immediately, even if it was already playing something (I do a lot of stream hopping.) However, I cannot get Amarok to do that in Linux; it usually just appends the new stream to the current playlist. I've checked the preferences but nothing I modified changed that behavior; I even wrote a dcop script to try to force it to work correctly, but I could never get it to work like I wanted.

Getting Beryl to work in KDE is pretty sweet, even if it breaks the shutdown ability on the logout screen. I really miss that in Windows...

Qt4 is free in Windows

[orzetto]

The KDE switch came later [...]

About KDE, it seems from a quick skimming of the comments that no one has yet remarked that Qt4 is GPL'd for Windows as well (Qt3 was not). As KDE 4 comes around and applications are ported to Qt4, it will be fairly easy to recompile K3b, Amarok, digiKam, Krita, Kile and of course KOffice to Windows. Sometime later this year there may be a flurry of high-quality free software made available for Windows, it will be interesting to see how it develops.

Re:Qt4 is free in Windows

[mikael]

Microsoft has a near monolpoly on the computer market, because everyone has to/or only gets to learn Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer. Allowing users to work with open source applications like OpenOffice, Mozilla/Firefox helps to break this monopoly. Recruiters still insist on CV's/resume's provided in .doc format - they should be able to accept .pdf and .odt files as well.

Re:Qt4 is free in Windows

[marcosdumay]

Not so much for K3b, that is only a GUI for several command line tools. But I can't wait untill I can install KDE applications (mainly umbrello) at work.

Re:Qt4 is free in Windows

[Drooling Iguana]

OpenOffice isn't a QT app.

Photoshop and switching to Linux

[falconwolf]

I rarely post, but I feel I should chime in. I've been conditioning my own self to using FOSS apps for a while now so that I can make the switch to Linux a lot easier down the road. There are only a couple applications left for me (Photoshop being the deal-breaker). I'm never going to upgrade to Vista, I'm just going to switch over to something like Ubuntu when I get to the point where I would need to upgrade. By then I hope we'll have a native Photoshop on Linux, or a more robust solution on WINE at least.

Yeah, Photoshop is one reason I've come across as to why people won't switch to Linux. Some FOSS advocates say, if not scream, "GIMP". However for graphics and photgraphy pros GIMP doesn't come close to being a replacement for Photoshop. For instance whereas PS has 24 bit colour channels (and CS3 may have 32 bits) GIMP doesn't even have 16 bit channels, last I heard it's coming RSN, which was more than a year ago. Now I don't know how well it runs in WINE but PS 7 does run in Crossover. Though I got a PC with Linux preinstalled several months ago, personally I hope to get a Macbook Pro in the next 2 or 3 weeks which will be my primary computer.

Falcon

Re:Photoshop and switching to Linux

[ozmanjusri]

For instance whereas PS has 24 bit colour channels (and CS3 may have 32 bits) GIMP doesn't even have 16 bit channels, last I heard it's coming RSN, which was more than a year ago.

CinePaint, aka FilmGimp already supports 32 bits per channel. Use it if that's what's important to you.

Re:Photoshop and switching to Linux

[falconwolf]

CinePaint, aka FilmGimp already supports 32 bits per channel. Use it if that's what's important to you.

Ah, isn't Cinepaint for movies and not photo editing? The Cinepaint homepage even says it's for retouching and is not an editor. Even so, I may give it a try along with other programs such as POV-Ray.

Falcon

Re:Photoshop and switching to Linux

[ozmanjusri]

Ah, isn't Cinepaint for movies and not photo editing?

I think their web page is referring to design goals. In use it's almost identical to the Gimp, and I had no trouble using it for stills. If you're interested in 3D, you might want to take a look at Blender as well.

Just say GNU!

[jonasj]

If you only want to call it one word (which is very reasonable), that word is GNU. Because that is the operating system you are running: The GNU operating system.

You don't refer to Windows XP as "NTKRNL32.EXE" either.

Re:Just say GNU!

[geminidomino]

Assuming you don't know the actual definition of "operating system".

Hint: Operating systems don't include text editors.

Re:Just say GNU!

[jonasj]

Sorry, I'm using the terminology of TFA and the GP poster (yeah, I know, pointing out terminology things while using the wrong terminology). The "Operating environment", "operating system distribution", "the stuff my computer is running", or whatever you want to call the whole thing combined, is still mainly GNU, and most of the time I hear people say "Linux", they really mean GNU.

Re:Just say GNU!

[geminidomino]

"Userland." And the more embedded linux installs, boots into KDE, and other configurations are making the userland less and less GNU.

Calling it GNU/Linux is just feeding into GNU's mental masturbation.

Re:Just say GNU!

[cparker15]

And calling it Linux is just feeding into Linus's.

Re:Just say GNU!

[jonasj]

or whatever you want to call the whole thing combined

"Userland."

Reread what you were replying to :-) I didn't know what to call the kernel and userland combined, if not "operating system".

Re:Just say GNU!

[geminidomino]

Ahh...

In that case, "Software" works. :)

GIMP and Photoshop

[falconwolf]

I've recently installed Open Office and Gimp on a few of my customers M$ machines when they were facing the option of a $$$$ M$ Office & Adobe photoshop purchase.

Your clients, customers, I dare say aren't graphic or photography pros, are they? There's just no way GIMP comes close to being a dropin replacement for Photoshop! It doesn't even have 16 bit colour channels whereas Photoshop has 24 bit channels. And I've hear CS3 will have 32 bit channels.

Falcon

Re:GIMP and Photoshop

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the next version of gimp is supposed to have 64 bit color channels. And Native CMYK 2.0 support.

Re:GIMP and Photoshop

[TheModelEskimo]

It doesn't even have 16 bit colour channels whereas Photoshop has 24 bit channels. And I've hear CS3 will have 32 bit channels.

I'm a professional. I even teach Photoshop classes. And this is not a big deal. Really you need the added bit depth for photography work. But when I do come across this shortcoming of GIMP from time to time, it DOES make itself annoying. So what do I do? Open the image in another open source image editor that can handle the extra bits. Make my edits. Back to GIMP.

The only thing that Adobe's done for me (as someone who makes a living in computer graphics) is make me aware that they are attempting to force me to be their customer by monopolizing the industry. THAT feels really great to my sensitive, artistic side.

There's just no way GIMP comes close to being a dropin replacement for Photoshop!

I disagree - all it takes is a short discussion about Adobe to convince many pro artists that O/S software like GIMP is based on superior principles. After realizing that, most people will MAKE it work for them somehow.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/83823859@N00/

Re:GIMP and Photoshop

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be great! I am using Photoshop CS2 and CorelDraw. Anyway, there is no FOSS replacement of CorelDraw. Inkscape, Xara Xtreme are already great programs for web designer, but for a graphic artist the features are not enough.
Anyway I love Linux.

Re:GIMP and Photoshop

[dbIII]

Your clients, customers, I dare say aren't graphic or photography pros, are they

Obviously not - but gimp trumps a pirate version of photoshop for cropping and printing photos of grandchildren at work any day (which is what people want photoshop for at my workplace so they do not get it).

One funny thing was some time back I politely asked about undo on photoshop on a news group - I thought it was just a feature I could not find since it was even in an early gimp (although I did not mention such a thing in the post). I got flamed with such comments as "a true professional will save before any major operation so undo is not necessary". Gimp is of course now vastly superior to that early photoshop that professionals were using back then even if it is no comparison to the current photoshop for some tasks. Professional print graphics designers apparently say little other than "make the interface indentical to photoshop and then we'll talk" so gimp is not designed for them.

Re:GIMP and Photoshop

[falconwolf]

I'm a professional. I even teach Photoshop classes. And this is not a big deal. Really you need the added bit depth for photography work. But when I do come across this shortcoming of GIMP from time to time, it DOES make itself annoying. So what do I do? Open the image in another open source image editor that can handle the extra bits. Make my edits. Back to GIMP.

Because I want to work in photography, I don't work now because of an injury and photography is something I can do and have experience both behind the camera and in darkrooms, I've been checking out different photo editors and I haven't been able to find any that come close to the capabilities of Photoshop nor has 24 bit colour depth. And I use film, develop it, and then I'd scan it. I'd use a dslr unfortunately ones with full frame sensors are priced out of my range right now (forgetting about medium format). Ooh I see POV-Ray does offer 24 bit colour depths. But it's more a general graphics program and not a photo editor. You say you use another OS program for higher colour depths then go back to GIMP. Don't you loose those "extra bits" once you save in gimp? If they are saved maybe I could use POV-Ray with it.

The only thing that Adobe's done for me (as someone who makes a living in computer graphics) is make me aware that they are attempting to force me to be their customer by monopolizing the industry. THAT feels really great to my sensitive, artistic side.

I'll have a problem with Adobe when they have patents issued and start going after others over violations of those patents, software should NEVER EVER be patented, only specific implementations as long as it is unique.

There's just no way GIMP comes close to being a dropin replacement for Photoshop!

I disagree - all it takes is a short discussion about Adobe to convince many pro artists that O/S software like GIMP is based on superior principles.

Idealism and reality are different, sure I agree ideally OS is better, but when it comes to what actually works, for photo editing Photoshop sets the ceiling, and it is high compared to other offerings. This is especially true for either commercial, fashion, or nature, photography, not that they can't be one and the same.

Falcon

Re:GIMP and Photoshop

[TheModelEskimo]

GIMP can do 24 bit color - that's 8 bits per channel, RGB. 48-bit color is 16-bits per channel. Cinepaint can do 48 bits, Krita can do it, digiKam can do it, etc.

8-bit color would be 256 colors.

If you want to work with 16 bit images and still work in the GIMP, you're correct. You need to open one of the aforesaid image editors and do color corrections like tone mapping before saving for the GIMP. Most people do color correction work first anyway, so that's why I say it's not a big deal. Also, through the miracle of adjustment layers in Krita, and layers in GIMP, it's even less of a big deal to make corrections later and update the final.
 
Idealism and reality *can* be different, but it depends on your circumstances. I teach Photoshop because the college doesn't have room in the schedule for a GIMP course, let alone 3D graphics courses, and more students will recognize the Photoshop name. At work, however, I can use whatever I feel gets the job done.
 
BTW Povray and other 3D software packages support 48-bit images in HDR or OpenEXR because lighting can be derived from the high dynamic range. Many 3D packages can also save renders to HDR formats for editing in capable software. I use this feature all the time.

Re:GIMP and Photoshop

[falconwolf]

GIMP can do 24 bit color - that's 8 bits per channel, RGB. 48-bit color is 16-bits per channel. Cinepaint can do 48 bits, Krita can do it, digiKam can do it, etc.

Yes, GIMP does 24 bit colours, 8 bits per colour channel. Photoshop does 24 bits per colour channel, with three colour channels that's 72 bits total versus GIMP's 24 bits. And though I don't know for sure I heard CS3 will do 32 bits per channel.

BTW Povray and other 3D software packages support 48-bit images in HDR or OpenEXR because lighting can be derived from the high dynamic range. Many 3D packages can also save renders to HDR formats for editing in capable software. I use this feature all the time.

Sorry I don't know of HDR or OpenEXR or if that 48 bits is all together or 16 bits per channel.

Falcon

Re:GIMP and Photoshop

[TheModelEskimo]

32 bits total s usually 24 bits + 8 bit alpha (or transparency). But you're probably talking about 32 bits per channel, which is a newer item for off-the-shelf photo editors. In the open source world, Cinepaint and Krita can definitely handle this that I know of, and I think some of the more popular photo-editing-only apps can too. I don't think CS2 can do this, so yeah, you'd probably need Photoshop CS3.

Last I heard, OpenEXR uses 16 bits per channel, and HDR can use either 16 or 32. But it's a little fuzzy here - all I care about for work or play purposes is the increased tolerance for really messing with a photo without messy blends caused by rounding artifacts, etc.

This is good

[kahrytan]

  This is a good idea but I find open-source software lacking when it comes to their Windows counterparts.

If you compare a open-source software to it's Windows counterpart, you will notice they applications in OSS are downright ugly and lacking many features. For example, AOL and Yahoo Instant Messengers.

It is a hard sell to get a Windows user to give up nice looking applications packed with features for open-source software the lacks a nice ui and many features as their current software. I will never use GAIM because of this.

Re:This is good

[Paradigm_Complex]

I'm willing to give up the nice UI to know what else is in the program, or change it myself, etc. I moved from the 'doze world to Linux, not pretty-shiny (and stable) OSX, for this reason. "Free as in liberty." This isn't just my argument to get people to move to F/OSS, its *my* reason. If the pretty-shiny is more important to Joe Sixpack then the "free as in liberty" and the "free as in beer" - even after I've given my whole shindig about it - there really isn't reason for them to move. Sure, more linux marketshare is better for me in order to get companies to give it better drive support, etc. I just don't feel right going back to that missionary I turned down to tell him whats best for him even if he doesn't know it.

GIMP and Photoshop

[falconwolf]

My stepson is a dyed in the wool, and school trained PSer, and I TOTALY blew him away by doing everything he could do in phototshop faster in GIMP; then for an encore I did everything faster than he could in photoshop. The real secret to both is learning the keyboard shortcuts, not the click-streams, the shortcuts are the same, the click-streams are different.

Oh, GIMP can do 24 bit colour channels? If not it can't do everything Photoshop can do. And last I heard it couldn't even do 16 bit colour channels. Oh, it's 24 bits total not 24 bits per channel.

Falcon

Correction

[renegadesx]

Kubuntu uses Adept

Re:Correction

[keitosama]

But Synaptic could do it as well, you know. "Ha ha."

Photoshop != Paint Shop Pro

[DogDude]

They're completely different programs. Photoshop is the full blown graphics package aimed at professionals. I can barely get the damn thing to do anything. Paint Shop Pro is a very long running shareware program (recently purchased by Corel) that lets most people do all of the basics in terms of graphics. I use Paint Shop Pro on a daily basis. Photoshop costs $600+. Paint Shop Pro costs $60. Big difference.

Please note

[einhverfr]

If you install that CD on your computer, RMS will start requesting that you call the operating system GNU/Windows ;-)

good idea... but users are hard headed.

[Grinin]

I've been trying to accomplish the same feat with many of my customers. In an attempt to cut costs for many small businesses I've installed OpenOffice and Firefox. I even sit there and show them the benefits of both, yet some time goes by, and for whatever reason, the user ends up reverting back to Internet explorer for whatever reason. I sat down today and asked one of them why they hadn't been using Firefox. I was called in to remove some spyware as a result of their wandering the internet while using IE and was scratching my head at the simple fact that this wouldn't have happened had they used Firefox. They didn't have an answer for me, and I suppose the world may never know the thought processes of these people. Maybe they've been completely brainwashed by Microsoft. If there isn't some sort of familiar MS logo on the product they are using they immediately close it and quickly install some spyware to make themselves feel better.

Whatever it may be, it would be really nice if software companies started programming applications for all available platforms so users can get the same software no matter what OS they are running. Open source or not, this would be a great advancement in application development and hopefully more and more will follow the trend. I believe Ahead is making Nero work in linux soon, which will be really nice.

Re:good idea... but users are hard headed.

[3t3rn4l]

Agreed, users are hard headed. I and some co-workers ran into the exact same problem. Based off of some people's response of "I've just always used Internet Explorer, so I keep clicking the icon for it." we just simply remapped the IE icon to launch Firefox and also defaulted Firefox to be the main browser. Sad, but h00mans are creatures of habit!

Re:good idea... but users are hard headed.

[Torvaun]

I've done some computer work for a local real estate outfit. The computers there all got OpenOffice and Firefox. Turns out an important website for them (Paragon, if anyone cares) is not friendly with any browser except IE. I've called them, and talked to a support guy who said that he wished they supported Firefox too, but nothing was likely to change. So, the person who uses a Mac there is out of luck.

OpenOffice is disliked for the performance hit. Apparently the people there have gotten very used to some of the features of Word, not to mention the compatibility problems between PowerPoint and Impress. They would rather spend the money, and who am I to tell them no?

Re:good idea... but users are hard headed.

[Grinin]

Yeah, for the basic stuff that some of my clients use office for (Spreadsheets, and simple Word processing) OpenOffice is great... but recently, even I ran into some trouble using it when someone asked me to print an envelope. It was overly complicated and in the end, it did not function the way it should have, though we still were able to print the envelope.

Also, a user complained about the lack of fonts in OpenOffice.

As for remapping of IE links to point to FireFox, I'm not the in-house I.T. guy, so I can't be an IT Nazi... plus, if I tell them how to prevent spyware and they continue to get it as a result of their unsafe surfing practices, then I'll just be called in to remove some more spyware, which I also taught them how to remove on their own. They simply do not wish to learn, and I think thats the bottom line. :(

I got fed up with MS's WGA program and installed

[falconwolf]

SuSE on my main PC

Add Activation and WPA. A few months ago I got a new PC with Linux preinstalled for my desk and I plan on getting a Macbook Pro for a laptop. Unless I have to or MS changes it's policies I will never get another Ms OS or software.

Falcon

No accidents with live CDs

[The Monster]

a bootable linux disc could really scare them if they accidentally leave it in the machine when they shut down

I think that Knoppix set the gold standard for this. When you shut down, it pops the CD tray open, and asks you to remove the CD from the drive. Every live CD I've used since that copies this feature.

Re:No accidents with live CDs

[BiggyP]

Funnily enough this behaviour isn't mirrored by windows when you use the windows FOSS content on the CD, if the user has chosen to boot the liveCD in the first place i wouldn't be so concerned about them forgetting to remove the disc at reboot.

The Open CD

[mackyrae]

Where I work we have been routinely installing OpenOffice on every computer we repair. The other tech and I are both Linux users, and we like promoting OSS. I found out about http://theopencd.org/The Open CD a few weeks ago. It's got 30 OSS Windows apps (OOo, FF, Neverball, Really Slick Screensavers, PDF Creator, GIMP, Blender...) with an easy little installer and info about each. We label them and give them out with fixed computers.

sometimes even with your best efforts

[noldrin]

I was at the bookstore today and found this book about doing open source on windows. It was several chapters explaining what each application did, how to use it and how to install it. It also came with a CD with all the applications on it. The one problem? It was filed next to the Linux books and away from the Windows books.

Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

Dated July 16, 2003:

"1. Cross Platform (particularly MS Windows) - Applications such as Mozilla and OpenOffice show users exactly what Free Software is capable of. This also makes the transition between operating systems less painful."

http://www.nabber.org/mytake/index.php?entry=entry 030716-000000

and it definitely works!

[Phil Urich]

I was just over visiting one of my friends. She's still running a rickety old Win2k box, and contemplating buying a new computer . . . and probably installing Windows on it.

"But really, why Windows?" I asked.

"I don't get Linux!" she argued.

"Come on, for what you do you don't need to get the guts of it."

"True," she admitted, "but . . . won't things be all different? I need my browser, and GIMP, and . . ."

"Yeah, yeah," I said, "that's all Linux native. It'd be the same, just, yaknow, without Windows underneath."

"Oh," she said. "That wouldn't be bad at all."

Parent is NOT troll

[adah]

It simply is not. And that is my case, esp. for OpenOffice, which is far too weak compared to Office 2003.—You said it was open, right? I filed three bugs regarding Far East support, someone told another to have a look, and nothing happened thereafter. Do you expect office users to fix the bugs in OpenOffice? No way!

I do have many F/OSS applications installed. Ethereal is superb, and it satisfies all my needs. Vim is great, and I do not want other editors, though some of them have a more attractive interface. GIMP is OK, because I do not want to pay for Photoshop; but I cannot flatter it, since one even cannot ‘Paste as new image’ before foolishly creating a new image. Celestia is fantastic, and I think such applications are worth the highest award....

BTW, I get the Win32 version of Celestia from the Ubuntu live CD. Those guys did the ‘Via Applications’ very early. Vive la Ubuntu!

Free from all that jazz - drop "open source"

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, as advocates - do not waste time on the term "open source".

Your average business and home users Joe and Jill are interested in not being bothered by the RIAA and the BSAs of this world, because that is a pain in the neck - they want to be free from all that jazz. Most want to be upstanding citizens and respect developers whom they depend on, but free from exaggerated prices and vendor lock-in.

While many home users and businesses strapped for cash may find software at no cost appealing, the term "open source" is not what they will search for at their favourite search engine. They will search for "free software", "free anti-virus", "free DVD burning", "free shopping cart" and so on. If you are surprised by this, then get out from under that rock. Use the term "free software" or "free " to mean both software at no cost AND free (as in freedom) software. Use it to mean software available at a substantial price, with license terms that make users free from the intentional or unintended consequences and limitations of the software they give you money to create.

Personally, I believe the protective measures of the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL, where distributors of derivates must use a license with similar terms, is a good thing, but you don't have to agree. Maybe you think that is not free enough, but at least acknowledge that "free" as in "freedom" is a common term available in all dictionaries whilst "open source" is not, acknowledge that to communicate and sell your "more free" software, your license terms and your pricing is more interesting to the majority of users than your code. If developers want your code, it's to adapt it - to be free to do that!

The term "open source" is quite unneccessary in any other language than English, where - in my view - the actually beneficial ambiguity of "free" is not present, and it's introduction has made it more difficult to persuade government and other officials without special knowledge to get their documents right. The important thing is to get them to mean license terms which give you the right to run the software as you wish, the right to study the software, the right to enhance it to suite their own needs, and the right to distribute the original or a derivate. In stead, translators of "open source" have made it easier for those who favour restrictive license terms to get a foot in the door. Please help close that door by changing your web sites to include "free (as in freedom) software" - or drop the term "open source". You don't have to use the GNU GPL or GNU LGPL if you don't feel like it, but acknowledge that the terms in the license you have chosen grants freedom.

good

[tirrarien]

It's a really good idea. I have a real example. My wife is working in the web development (php/xml/javascript/sql(mysql)) and uses m$ windows, but CEO in her company said "we're need to migrate to the open source software" and she migrated to it. In the past she has a problems in using linux (ubuntu with gnome) home, but now with the similar products on the job and home she works normally both in the home on linux and in the office on win. And now she thinks to delete windows from office desktop and install ubuntu ;) I think that for users the main difference in OS is the applications, not OS itself. PS Sorry for my english.

Oh noes, it can't do $FEATURE in (find obscure())

[Anonymous Coward]

It's weird how this shit goes:

GIMP? Nah, can't do CMYK.

Oh, it can now? Well, it can't do 16bit.

Oh, it can now? Well, it doesn't support RAW.

Oh, it can now? Well, it doesn't support spot colours.

That's because it's protected and not GIMP's fault? Well, it can't do 24 bits.

When it can, will the problem be that it can't do floating point colours?

And please let me know where in PSP you can get 16 bit colour...

It makes a lot of sense

[dave420]

But unless all the apps these users regularly use on Windows have a suitable replacement in the GNU/Linux realm, they're going to stay with windows...

This is how I started out

[Mr_Tricorder]

This is basically how I got into using linux. First, I was very unsatisfied with IE and heard about Firefox, and I fell in love with it instantly. Then I heard about Open Office and decided to give it a try, and by the time OOo 2.0 came out I was using it for everything that I had used previously MS Office for. Then I did some research into linux and discovered live CDs. It wasn't too long after testing them out that I decided to actually install linux on my second hard drive. Now when I'm on my computer I'm working in openSUSE 10.2 (my preferred distro) and only use Windows for Photoshop (even though I'm getting better at GIMP, I still need to use Photoshop for some things), 3ds max, and games.

Basically, people are naturally afraid of change, so people who aren't familiar with open source need to be introduced to it gradually. A little bit of change, like trying out a different web browser or office suite, is a lot easier for people to handle then jumping directly into linux and completely leaving Windows behind.

Re:Oh noes, it can't do $FEATURE in (find obscure(

[budgenator]

Cinepaint handels deep color depths 8-32 and floating point as well as professional file formats that photoshop can't touch; but the real point is that actually learning the software is more likely to be better than learning to do narrow tasks with the software. Why be totaly indocrinated in one manufacturer's pipeline?

Cinepaint

[falconwolf]

I think their web page is referring to design goals. In use it's almost identical to the Gimp, and I had no trouble using it for stills. If you're interested in 3D, you might want to take a look at Blender as well.

Their frontpage does say what some goals are but it also says, cut and paste:

Is CinePaint a Video Editor?

CinePaint is a deep paint tool that's used for retouching movies, not a movie editor like Avid or Final Cut Pro.

As for 3D and blender, I have downloaded Blender and may give it a try however I'm more interested in photography and photo editing right now as I don't work now but want to start working in photography.

Falcon

Re:Cinepaint

[ozmanjusri]

CinePaint is a deep paint tool that's used for retouching movies, not a movie editor like Avid or Final Cut Pro.

Ah, OK. What they mean is that CinePaint is used for editing a single frame at a time rather than for modifying the video stream (Avid and FCP are video stream editors). It's fine for editing still photos. The only down side compared to Gimp is that it needs a lot of RAM for high resolution images (32 bits/channel/pixel means BIG files).

Blender can still be a good tool for still photogs. I used it a lot to plan lighting setups - you can do a virtual preview to see if there are any "gotcha" shadows or hotspots when you're planning your lights.

Good luck with your career, hope it works out for you.