Slashdot Mirror
"The Ultimate Argument Against Linux"
GroundBounce writes "osOpinion has posted an article which basically refutes all of the FUD against Linux but then contends that the FUD itself may be enough to keep it from succeeding. I don't agree, but it's interesting reading anyway. "
Social change still takes time, however quickly information can move. People still change gradually.
--Evan Vetere
The FUD that that is created "no such thing as a free lunch" is purely based upon ages and ages of paying for goods. We are entering a whole new age, where people CAN give their blood, sweat, and tears away for free, and still make money in another form (documentation, support, et al). :)
The only one I really disagree with is "Why would anyone write good software and give it away free?" The people that will/do say this are those that also say "How can anyone sit in front of their computer for 12 hours straight?!? I cant stand it for 2 hours!" They dont realize that this is something we love. I personally say to myself that I get to go to work, rather than I have to go to work. Its a hobby that we're lucky enough to make $$ from.
-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
"Ironically, with a graphical environment very similar to Windows or the Mac, Linux's command-line and scripting interface will perhaps soon emerge as a major selling point for advanced users. Windows and Macintosh treat all users alike, irrespective of skill level, and do not allow users to acquire more control over their machines with increasing experience. Unix and Unix-like systems, on the other hand, "scale" extremely well with experience, rewarding advanced users with dramatically greater productivity.
This has been my pro argument for Linux for a long while. I like the power of unix and the amount of customization. But I often find GUIs too darned clunky and difficult to use for certain tasks. The best method is to open multiple shells in a window manager to do your work. The best of both worlds scenario.
But for those folks who like the pure point and click, it's available (or will be). I don't think one can ever argue against GUIs, but rather one can argue against getting rid of the CLI. That won't happen in Linux.
I have to work with NT at work and I very much miss the "scalability" to use more CLI than GUI. Alas, that will not happen in NT.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
When I started using Linux 5 years ago, explaining to clients that I was using Linux was very difficult. It was hard enough to explain to them what the value of the WWW was, or how email could improve their relationships with their customers.
Now I tell people I use Linux and it is hard for me to avoid having to explain that it isn't like Windows where everything is done for you. That owning a computer isn't always like using an appliance... However I can also tell a client that my system is running a Linux server, that it has Apache, and thus that it is THE TOP OF THE LINE as a web host.
Furthermore now when I install a custom programmed machine controling someones exhibit, I don't have to explain that Linux DOESN'T mean that I am the only person in the world who can fix it, it means that a permanent installation can be PERMANENT.
I don't hear people responding to Linux with fear. Most people are curious, want to know whether it is worth switching to, and if there is value for them. When they bought their Windows machine it was because it was the only name in the game. The very notion that with the same hardware they can now have a choice is extrodinarily persuasive and always has been. The dual boot machine with no risk...
The basic fact is that the status of Linux as a FREE alternative would not make a difference to a first time buyer, or someone buying a new machine. No one calculates the cost of Windows. It is free cause it is on the machine when you order it. To switch and actually PAY for another OS is to much trouble.
Linux has the advantage of taking away that cost, and allowing a user to TRY IT. Anyone who is frightened of it or doesn't trust it has THAT choice.
I remember when the DOS users pshawed the Macintosh. A Windowing interface was too clunky, they were so fast with text only that it a mouse was a hindrance. I still don't understand why Macintosh doesn't have more keyboard control. It seems so sensical. Now adays, they say, you can't have a CLI it is too complicated. True enough, the GUI did make machines accessible to people who can't remember how to do things or read manuals. But to talk about the GUI for an OS being the judgement of usefulness is a joke...
I don't think that anyone is scared of Linux but people who have a stake in its failure. Everyone else sees it as part and parcel to a world in which a 300 dollar PC can do everything you ever wanted. Back when I was a teenager the C64 was like that... We are FINALLY back into a world where the cheap computer isn't a real compromise. As long as Linux works on cheap commodity hardware then in the world of the PERSONAL computer, Linux will succeed in offering its one great value... ****FREE**** CHOICE
I believe you are correct; you only have to provide source code if you redistribute your changes. Making changes does not force you to share those changes. Otherwise, you'd be in violation of the license the instant you inserted a single space into the source code and recompiled it on an non-networked computer.
However, it is unclear to me whether or not internal distribution is considered distribution. In other words, if a corporation, which legally is a single individual, puts a modified version of GNU/Linux on all their computers, are they then required to let their employees have the source code and redistribute it? Would installing GNU/Linux on a system that another individual will use be considered distributing it? I don't think so, but the license isn't clear.
I read it right after it posted, saved it from my cache to my server. Hopefully my pair.com server space won't get /.'ed either:
http://haughey.com/linux.html
This article mentioned that several times that free software refutes the time-honored belief that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." This is very wrong. Free lunches don't exist, and never will.
It's a common misconception among non-economists that prices equates to money. Free software does have a price, but it's not measured in dollars, marks or yen.
Richard certainly got paid for creating Emacs. Linus got paid for Linux. Larry got paid for Perl. And they got paid full worth according to the value of their software. But they didn't get paid with money, they got paid with respect, adulation and other valuable intangibles.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I read the article earlier today, and I think that the author doesn't understand the GPL. Either that, or I don't understand the GPL.
The author states that no company would want to modify GPL'ed code because the GPL requires them to provide the source to the public. However, isn't this the case only if the software is distributed? e.g. If a company wants to modify the linux kernel for internal use only, and does not try and sell it or make it available for public use, then they wouldn't have to release the modified source, correct?
Someone please whack me back into line if I'm way out of it...