Slashdot Mirror
GNU/Linux Desktops with No User Knowledge Needed (Video)
Joey Amanchukwu is co-founder and CEO of Transforia, a company that leases computers pre-loaded with Red Hat Enterprise Linux -- a distro choice that may have been made at least partly because Joey used to sell for Red Hat.
There have been other companies that tried to sell Linux desktops and laptops on a "don't worry about a thing; we'll administer them for you, no problem" basis. Not a lot (maybe none) of those companies have survived, as far as we know. Will Transforia manage to make it big? Or at least become profitable? We'll see.
There have been other companies that tried to sell Linux desktops and laptops on a "don't worry about a thing; we'll administer them for you, no problem" basis. Not a lot (maybe none) of those companies have survived, as far as we know. Will Transforia manage to make it big? Or at least become profitable? We'll see.
2016 is Year of the Linux Desktop!!! You heard it here first.
Thanks for catching the typo. Fixed.
The interviewer seems like a dick. Here's what I think I read:
Question 1: You have a funny last name. Maybe you belong to a weird ethnic group too?.
Question 2: You don't live in Silicon Valley, but I do, so fuck you.
Question 3: I came to this interview completely unprepared. Good luck making your point now.
What's with all the useless video garbage?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The vast majority of PC users out there are non-technical and just expect everything to look and work identical to MS Windows, and when, for example some Windows hotkey combination doesn't also work on Linux, they seriously think the computer itself must be broken/faulty in some way.
The problem Linux has to overcome is that the vast majority of non-technical users still don't even understand that the MS Windows interface isn't some inherent property of all computers.
It boggles my mind that even migrating from one version of Windows to the next apparently results in what they consider to be a giant learning curve, so how can you realistically ever expect them to adapt from Windows to Linux more easily?
I read a study somewhere that looked at people that had never used any computer before. They found for those people, Linux was much easier to learn from scratch than Windows from scratch. They also found that nearly all people that had learnt to use Windows first before they ever saw Linux that considered Linux much harder to learn/use than Windows. The trouble is, the second group pretty much represents the majority of all people on the planet.
Excellent. That's my experience.
It's one word - proofread.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Linux on the Desktop and Slashdot fixing typos?
We truly are living in the future.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The reality is that there is a HUGE amount of resistance to technology. One example: What Computer? Why Small Business Shuns Technology
The other distros were not forced, they willingly adopted systemd to help *BSD gain a larger userbase. It's a "the end justifies the means" kind of thing.
I think there's a lot of reasons for this, most surrounding money.
My perception with a lot of owner-run businesses is that they see every dollar spent on expenses as a dollar out of their pockets. I mostly see this as short-sighted, but it's probably an impossible bias not to have as a small business owner. But it's mostly short-sighted because they're all too willing to scrimp on useful updates that will save them labor hours and save them from data loss. They'd get a lot of benefit from a small enough amount of money that it wouldn't really affect their income or wealth.
I think they may also (mostly wisely) be trying to avoid the complexity and money sinkhole of buying too much technology. I think they want to keep businesses at a simple enough level that they can control and understand a lot of details. Maybe this becomes too much of a micromanagement obsession, but maybe a simple, easy to run business is more likely to succeed than an optimally computerized one that gets bogged down in complexity.
Many people are inclined to use Linux. However, people often need specialized software that is simply not available for Linux. there are music and art programs for Linux that are just fine but they tend to have a steep learning curve. But many companies have numerous employees that need effective tools that simply have no real learning curve at all. I will not run any Microsoft software. However, some of the programs that one can purchase for their OSs are really nice. To make a living any product needs either a large user base or an ability to charge quite a bit to support a small number of users.
Because a RedHat employee wrote it and convinced his boss.
It IS a RedHat project - they even paid for Lennart to go to conferences to promote systemd when it was only a concept as well as his salary while he was writing it from day one.
I think the biggest factor is that it is almost impossible for a small business owner to find fully competent technically knowledgeable people to do the work.
My experiences today:
A representative of Ally Bank showed complete, utter incompetence, while pretending to understand.
I told someone that Wells Fargo Bank management is not technically competent. She said, "My husband works there. He strongly agrees."
I got a message from United Parcel Service. UPS no longer supports Windows XP. Crazy.
tell this to CEO of Nestle
Because upstart was shit.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
That word does not mean what you think it does.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Please please please get someone else to conduct them. Anyone, I don't care, just get someone else. This is an embarrassment. The people being interviewed must not have watched previous interviews or they would have never agreed to it.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Probably because Lennert works for Redhat directly and SystemD is a Redhat project.
Blame Fedora for that more than Redhat. Lack of Redhat oversight (and feedback from the RHEL/Centos userbase) was what led to the inmates running the asylum from Fedora ~15 to Fedora 18, by which time it was too late.
Bill Nottingham and other old hands on fedora-devel should have spoken out against the changes that were occurring. Hopefully they would have, if the "systemd of today" had been what was proposed back in Fedora 14 instead of just "a thing to improve boot times over upstart, which we're not using any advanced features of anyway."
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Because upstart was shit.
upstart in SysV compatibility mode, or the shiny upstart features? The Ubuntu side of the house was trying to use upstart as upstart, the Redhat side of the house installed upstart but basically just used it to run SysV scripts. Legacy init -> upstart was almost completely an invisible non-issue for Redhat/Fedora users. People probably thought upstart -> systemd would be similarly handled and have a similar result. I basically did.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
You can have systemd ouput text logs too, it's a configuration option (as well as an option you can set at boot time), as well as read them with journalctl (which outputs nicely)
Does SystemD make money for Red Hat by causing more demand for support?
I doubt it since so much commercial stuff is still on older versions of RHEL due to a combination of a lot of commercial software taking years to come out for new versions of anything (see how much scientific and engineering software on MS isn't supported past Win7 yet for example) and people liking the old version of gnome. It appears that most of the stuff RedHat does paid support for doesn't have systemd yet.
It's just plain old stupid workplace politics to calm an enormous ego instead of a broken window fallacy to generate pointless busywork. It's in RedHat's best interests for systemd to require as little demand for support as possible so as not to scare people away from the platform.
The core idea of what systemd is supposed to be is not bad in itself, what is bad is that scope creep has made it diverge wildly from that idea and the execution of the idea has been both poor by design and poorly implemented before moving onto the next shiny thing. It has spread from the idea one little thing done well to an enormous pile of utter newbie mistakes by people way out of their depth by expanding into areas they know little or nothing about - pretty well just so the project name can be stuck on everything at a low level in linux userspace.