What's that got to do with getting more people to use Linux?
The record of the last 15 years shows pretty conclusively that the vast majority of businesses would rather buy Microsoft than acquire Linux for free. And that's ignoring the fact that initial software license costs are a small part of the total cost of that software to a company.
The response of the Linux community cannot be that those businesses are stupid. The community needs to examine why so many people are not responsive to its Linux pitch.
Linux has many good points, but few people in this thread have mentioned them.
This entire thread is typical of almost every Linux post here. It immediately devolves into a bunch a screeds about how stupid everyone else is for not using Linux and an equal number of screeds outline reasons to use Linux that have nothing at all to do with using Linux.
>> The OP is advocating imparting a better level of understanding on how to use computers rather than turning our schools and colleges into vo-eds for MS products.
All well and good, but irrelevant to the issue of how to get more people to use Linux.
Besides, try going to a school board meeting and convincing it to spend resources teaching about software that few of them will have heard of and all of them will be convinced none of the students will ever have a reason to use in the real world.
Forget about the free software philosophy. Forget that you don't need to pay for Linux. Forget about the warm fuzziness of increased awareness of something that isn't Microsoft. Those are issues that most people do not care about. Then, find a reason for those people to use Linux. What does the average white-collar worker want to do that can only be done in Linux?
I got your point. it doesn't bear on the fact that employers expect applicants to know Windows and Office. You could be 100 percent correct (and you almost are), but it makes no difference. You want people to change how they think about computing, and that's not the same thing as convincing them to use Linux.
Have you ever known an employer who expected employees to buy their own software?
To all intents and purposes, the "free" part of Linux isn't much of a selling point. The cost of running Windows and Office on an employee's desktop is a tiny, tiny fraction of that employee's overall cost to the employer.
>> A teacher who is in any way involved with computers should be aware of major movements in the computing world.
Why? If you are teaching anything other than a specialized course in running Unix/Linux servers, why would you need to teach Linux?
Besides, Linux is not a "major" movement on the desktops of the mainstream. Frankly, outside the computing world, Linux is essentially invisible.
Look, if I was a teacher, I would not want someone handing out Linux CD's to my students. Why? Because they'd try to install Linux on the machines in my classroom. I'd feel the same if those machines ran Linux and Bill Gates came to school handing out free Windows.
>> Clearly, you are not very familiar with the job market for engineers and programmers.
More aware than you seem to think. But, the fact that a tiny percentage of the workforce actually need to know Linux is not an argument in your favor. Mainstream offices and other white-collar employers expect applicants to know Windows and Office, not emacs or vi.
>> on many occasions, someone has asked me questions like, "How to I turn this Word document into a PDF file?" or "How can I concatenate these 4 PDFs into a single document?"
That's hardly a reason to expect people to want to use Linux. If it was, Adobe could eliminate any reason to use Linux by releasing a free version of Acrobat.
Besides, I worked in a large Windows-based organization for years and years and no one ever asked those questions. If they needed Acrobat, they got the company to buy it.
People making a living from computing have a reason to know about Linux. People making a living doing anything else do not have a reason to know about Linux. They won't as long as Linux fails to deliver some unique capability they want that Windows can't deliver. (I don't think that will ever happen because anything Linux can deliver commercial software can also deliver.)
Employers expect new hires to come onboard already knowing how to use Windows and Office. Perhaps they might think that an applicant who knew Linux but not Office can learn new things, but they would not hire him because they aren't interested in teaching people how to use Windows or Office. They don't need to.
I don't think it is wise to teach Linux in schools on the off chance that one of the students might someday become an admin. One of the students might grow up to be a chiropractor, but that's no reason to teach bone manipulation to the little tykes.
There's no reason students should be unaware that Linux exists. But it is a truth that use or even awareness of Linux has zero impact on the employment opportunities of all but a very few of current students.
Other than being paid to admin servers, can you name one piece of Linux software that an employer might expect prospective employees to know how to use?
I once put Firefox on a relative's Windows laptop after he'd complained about "viruses" locking up IE. He wouldn't use it and took it off. Why? He didn't trust it.
So, then, we need to teach Linux in schools because one in one-thousand students might once apply for a job as a Linux admin?
That's a speciality.
It's interesting to see you are dreaming of the day when you can talk people into abandoning Word and adopting a clone of Word. What's the point, besides the differing development and distribution models? Why should someone who is happy with Word and doesn't care about free software use Open Office?
Here's the thing: You support Linux for a lot of reasons that most people simple do not, and will not, care about. There's nothing wrong with your reasons, but it is obvious that's not enough to sell Linux to mainstream users.
>>"The whole free software thing should also be explained..."
That will just cause eyes to glaze over. Most people don't even know, or care, that software is licensed. Ranting on about the GPL is the last thing you want to do.
Stop playing at being copyright lawyers. Stop yapping at the choir about the wonders of intellectual freedom. No one cares if programmers can share source code any more than they care if plumbers share wrenches.
No one is going to be convinced to abandon Windows simply because a lot of other programmers don't like Microsoft or closed code.
And when you try to tell a school or a teacher that they should teach Linux bcause "children should have the skills to compete in the workforce", you'd better name an employer or two in the local area, not just make unsubstantiated allusions to "government and so forth" using Linux. (And skip all the server use. It's irrelevant in an effort to convince normal folks to use linux.)
This is not her problem. It's a problem for the Linux community. That community talks to itself in assorted online media that have little appeal or relevance for the rest of the human race who are not enamored with tech for the sake of tech.
If this teacher, or anyone else, is unaware of the truth about Linux, that represents a failure by Linux.
Alos, if I was teacher, I'd need to be convinced that I had a valid educational reason to put Linux in my lesson plans. The world does indeed expect new graduates to know Windows. Telling a prospective employer that you know Linux but not Word is not the way to get a job.
The teacher's sentiments are common. Many, many people believe that any software that someone is willing to give away must be little more than a toy. Many of them will assume that Linux is pirated. (For that matter, I know more than a few people who insist my Mac is simply a toy, incapable of matching Windows in computing power.)
Remember, too, that for all the attention Linux gets in its little part of the world (people interested in tech), it remains almost unknown elsewhere. This teacher clearly has never heard of it.
That's not the teacher's fault. Those who want to evangelize Linux need to do much, much more work in the "real" world.
Teachers prepare students to exist and work in the world outside the school. In that world, Windows dominates. it is a simple fact that students will enter a workforce that expects them to know how to use Word and Excel.
The rant about the NEA was bush league and self-defeating. The teacher almost certainly has no knowledge of who contributes to the union, and Stark has no assurance that the teacher is an NEA member. Linux can't be sold by ideologues chanting anti-corporate mantras.
It's a disgrace that teachers in the U.S. have to resort to things like this. it's a disgrace that teachers are compelled to spend their own money to buy basic and necessary supplies for their students. It's a disgrace that schools have to resort to using kids to sell cookies and candy and other junk to raise money.
"From what I read on that Apple post, it sounds like Apple is encouraging you to install multiple AV software."
I thought so, too, but on second reading I decided that Apple is trying to say that a user base that runs a variety of AV packages will help defend against the bad guys by increasing their code-around-this burdens.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not putting words in his mouth. He was referencing Open Office.
The parent was presenting an old argument, i.e., that people need to learn computers, not software.
I've never agreed.
People don't use computers. They use software. It's the software that needs a computer.
Knowing the intricacies of computer design and structure won't help you learn to use a single new piece of software.
However, for example, knowing Word Perfect will make it easier to learn Word, because both share many functions.
What's that got to do with getting more people to use Linux?
The record of the last 15 years shows pretty conclusively that the vast majority of businesses would rather buy Microsoft than acquire Linux for free. And that's ignoring the fact that initial software license costs are a small part of the total cost of that software to a company.
The response of the Linux community cannot be that those businesses are stupid. The community needs to examine why so many people are not responsive to its Linux pitch.
Linux has many good points, but few people in this thread have mentioned them.
Linux isn't Ford. Go ask people if they've heard of Ford. Then ask them if they've heard of Linux.
What rant?
No, I'm not a teacher.
Yes, there is no Linux community.
This entire thread is typical of almost every Linux post here. It immediately devolves into a bunch a screeds about how stupid everyone else is for not using Linux and an equal number of screeds outline reasons to use Linux that have nothing at all to do with using Linux.
And our point is....?
Maybe you had a classmate that got a job as an acupuncturist. Is that reason to teach acupuncture to kids?
How many kids can count on getting jobs as Linux admins.
>> The OP is advocating imparting a better level of understanding on how to use computers rather than turning our schools and colleges into vo-eds for MS products.
All well and good, but irrelevant to the issue of how to get more people to use Linux.
Besides, try going to a school board meeting and convincing it to spend resources teaching about software that few of them will have heard of and all of them will be convinced none of the students will ever have a reason to use in the real world.
Forget about the free software philosophy. Forget that you don't need to pay for Linux. Forget about the warm fuzziness of increased awareness of something that isn't Microsoft. Those are issues that most people do not care about. Then, find a reason for those people to use Linux. What does the average white-collar worker want to do that can only be done in Linux?
I got your point. it doesn't bear on the fact that employers expect applicants to know Windows and Office. You could be 100 percent correct (and you almost are), but it makes no difference. You want people to change how they think about computing, and that's not the same thing as convincing them to use Linux.
Have you ever known an employer who expected employees to buy their own software?
To all intents and purposes, the "free" part of Linux isn't much of a selling point. The cost of running Windows and Office on an employee's desktop is a tiny, tiny fraction of that employee's overall cost to the employer.
Nothing in the teacher's letter indicates she was teaching about computers.
Employers expect applicants to know Windows and Office. Teaching students Linux or Macs to the exclusion of Microsoft does them a mis-service.
Starks reply was intemperate. He's trying to sell Linux by telling people who don't use it that they're stupid.
>> A teacher who is in any way involved with computers should be aware of major movements in the computing world.
Why? If you are teaching anything other than a specialized course in running Unix/Linux servers, why would you need to teach Linux?
Besides, Linux is not a "major" movement on the desktops of the mainstream. Frankly, outside the computing world, Linux is essentially invisible.
Look, if I was a teacher, I would not want someone handing out Linux CD's to my students. Why? Because they'd try to install Linux on the machines in my classroom. I'd feel the same if those machines ran Linux and Bill Gates came to school handing out free Windows.
>> Clearly, you are not very familiar with the job market for engineers and programmers.
More aware than you seem to think. But, the fact that a tiny percentage of the workforce actually need to know Linux is not an argument in your favor. Mainstream offices and other white-collar employers expect applicants to know Windows and Office, not emacs or vi.
>> on many occasions, someone has asked me questions like, "How to I turn this Word document into a PDF file?" or "How can I concatenate these 4 PDFs into a single document?"
That's hardly a reason to expect people to want to use Linux. If it was, Adobe could eliminate any reason to use Linux by releasing a free version of Acrobat.
Besides, I worked in a large Windows-based organization for years and years and no one ever asked those questions. If they needed Acrobat, they got the company to buy it.
People making a living from computing have a reason to know about Linux. People making a living doing anything else do not have a reason to know about Linux. They won't as long as Linux fails to deliver some unique capability they want that Windows can't deliver. (I don't think that will ever happen because anything Linux can deliver commercial software can also deliver.)
Employers expect new hires to come onboard already knowing how to use Windows and Office. Perhaps they might think that an applicant who knew Linux but not Office can learn new things, but they would not hire him because they aren't interested in teaching people how to use Windows or Office. They don't need to.
I don't think it is wise to teach Linux in schools on the off chance that one of the students might someday become an admin. One of the students might grow up to be a chiropractor, but that's no reason to teach bone manipulation to the little tykes.
There's no reason students should be unaware that Linux exists. But it is a truth that use or even awareness of Linux has zero impact on the employment opportunities of all but a very few of current students.
Other than being paid to admin servers, can you name one piece of Linux software that an employer might expect prospective employees to know how to use?
I once put Firefox on a relative's Windows laptop after he'd complained about "viruses" locking up IE. He wouldn't use it and took it off. Why? He didn't trust it.
Linux admins run those servers. That's a speciality. Almost everyone will become something other than a Linux admin.
That's especially true if you are not in a tech field. How many banks or law offices or accountants or doctors run Linux on their desktops?
When was the last time anyone went for an interview for a non-tech job and was asked if they could use OpenOffice?
So, then, we need to teach Linux in schools because one in one-thousand students might once apply for a job as a Linux admin?
That's a speciality.
It's interesting to see you are dreaming of the day when you can talk people into abandoning Word and adopting a clone of Word. What's the point, besides the differing development and distribution models? Why should someone who is happy with Word and doesn't care about free software use Open Office?
Here's the thing: You support Linux for a lot of reasons that most people simple do not, and will not, care about. There's nothing wrong with your reasons, but it is obvious that's not enough to sell Linux to mainstream users.
>>"The whole free software thing should also be explained..."
That will just cause eyes to glaze over. Most people don't even know, or care, that software is licensed. Ranting on about the GPL is the last thing you want to do.
Stop playing at being copyright lawyers. Stop yapping at the choir about the wonders of intellectual freedom. No one cares if programmers can share source code any more than they care if plumbers share wrenches.
No one is going to be convinced to abandon Windows simply because a lot of other programmers don't like Microsoft or closed code.
And when you try to tell a school or a teacher that they should teach Linux bcause "children should have the skills to compete in the workforce", you'd better name an employer or two in the local area, not just make unsubstantiated allusions to "government and so forth" using Linux. (And skip all the server use. It's irrelevant in an effort to convince normal folks to use linux.)
>> " How could she be uninformed..."
This is not her problem. It's a problem for the Linux community. That community talks to itself in assorted online media that have little appeal or relevance for the rest of the human race who are not enamored with tech for the sake of tech.
If this teacher, or anyone else, is unaware of the truth about Linux, that represents a failure by Linux.
Alos, if I was teacher, I'd need to be convinced that I had a valid educational reason to put Linux in my lesson plans. The world does indeed expect new graduates to know Windows. Telling a prospective employer that you know Linux but not Word is not the way to get a job.
The teacher's sentiments are common. Many, many people believe that any software that someone is willing to give away must be little more than a toy. Many of them will assume that Linux is pirated. (For that matter, I know more than a few people who insist my Mac is simply a toy, incapable of matching Windows in computing power.)
Remember, too, that for all the attention Linux gets in its little part of the world (people interested in tech), it remains almost unknown elsewhere. This teacher clearly has never heard of it.
That's not the teacher's fault. Those who want to evangelize Linux need to do much, much more work in the "real" world.
Teachers prepare students to exist and work in the world outside the school. In that world, Windows dominates. it is a simple fact that students will enter a workforce that expects them to know how to use Word and Excel.
The rant about the NEA was bush league and self-defeating. The teacher almost certainly has no knowledge of who contributes to the union, and Stark has no assurance that the teacher is an NEA member. Linux can't be sold by ideologues chanting anti-corporate mantras.
It's a disgrace that teachers in the U.S. have to resort to things like this. it's a disgrace that teachers are compelled to spend their own money to buy basic and necessary supplies for their students. It's a disgrace that schools have to resort to using kids to sell cookies and candy and other junk to raise money.
STOP HIDING FILE EXTENSIONS.
File extensions have nothing to do with the contents of a file, as I suspect you know.
...it's all the people Apple is training to reflexively approve security dialogs ....
I suspect that the difference in the number downloads on machines used by folks here and the typical Mac user is at least an order of magnitude.
It's not like most people are going to be seeing this warning on a daily basis.
"From what I read on that Apple post, it sounds like Apple is encouraging you to install multiple AV software."
I thought so, too, but on second reading I decided that Apple is trying to say that a user base that runs a variety of AV packages will help defend against the bad guys by increasing their code-around-this burdens.