Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Semper ubi sub ubi
I enjoy giving away copies of the OpenCD. It contains a lot of common open source programs that run under Microsoft Windows.
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.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
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.)
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
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.
Off-topic, I know, but is there any reason the author consistently refers to "GNU/Linux" rather than Linux?
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.
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.
Who was clueless enough to let that slip through? Love RMS or hate him, that should clearly be "selling free software".
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
www.opencd.org
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.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
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...
And Thunderbird instead of Outlook. Mail is really important for certain tasks in my job to be completed.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
> 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.
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.
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.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
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?
Says who?
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
'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.
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.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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.
Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
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.
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?
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
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.
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/
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.
> 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.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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."
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.
technical writing / development
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.
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?
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.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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)."
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.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
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...
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.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
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.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
\
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Kubuntu uses Adept
Make SELinux enforcing again!
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.
If you install that CD on your computer, RMS will start requesting that you call the operating system GNU/Windows ;-)
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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).
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
"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.
'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?
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.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
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.
'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.
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.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
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.
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.
Please mod parent up for actually knowing what the hell an "operating system" actually is!
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."
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
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.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
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.
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!
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.
Tirra tirra is a cat, Tirra tirra like a cat.
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...
Ah, okay, that someone would be TFA and/or the GP poster
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
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.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.