Because 99.99% of the population isn't interested in re-writing their own version of whatever application they need to use. Most of us just want something that works, for a given task. Linux simply doesn't do that, and jut about every comment here demonstrates that.
That is, I hear all these techies talking about the cool stuff they do to get Linux to function and how thy hacked their macs. But the vast majority of the users don't need or want that, jut like the vast majority of driver aren't going to build their own open-source car engine. Sure, a few hobbyists who love that will do it. But most of us haven't got the time.
The free software movement also failed to recognize that designing software is a job, not a hobby. It can be a hobby, but like a lot of other things if you want to do it right you have to put the hours in. And since we don't live in a society with a guaranteed minimum income, and there are a limited number of hours in the day, and most people have partners, spouses, families, meals to make, dishes to do, and all that other stuff... well, there's sort of a limited scope in which an "open source" product is going to get any traction. The successes out there -- Firefox, for one -- are notable because they are exceptions.
Think of it this way: people have to get paid for their work, and anything that is any good you likely need to put full-time hours into. Imagine a movement for free art. (There was one). Why doesn't everyone have free oil paintings? Because the people making the paintings have to eat.
My sense was always that the free software movement was a neat idea but only works if everyone is 25 and had no responsibilities other than their hobbies.
Question: I need to run MS Word. I ther ea Linux version or do I have to go fancy dan and then figure out what to do with 15 years worth o files I can no longer read?
Not one of the people who tells me that Linux is wonderful ever seems to answer stuff like that. That's what us non-techies want to know.
I am not a developer. I do not write code except for a few class projects in Mathematica. I wrote code once and it was likely before half the readers here were even born, on stuff that is so obsolete that most code might as well be magic incantations to me at this point.
I do not claim to be particularly knowledgeable about computers except in a rather abstract way. Ask me how a computer works and I can tell you; ask me to fix a problem and I can do some pretty elementary things. I mean, I got as far as replacing some hardware (I have done some work on my mac). That's about it.
But beyond that, I am not an early adopter. I use my laptop for work which is not really technical at all (I am a writer) and I need my computer to work, all the time, reliably. I cannot spend hours tinkering. When I was 16 I could do that, but now I not only have to work but get dinner made and every second I spend not working is money lost.
Under those circumstances, why would anyone like me -- users who just want the damn machine to work -- install Linux on a Mac? Or anywhere else?
This is something that I noticed in the Reddit comments and a lot of the time here. People who just use computers to do everyday stupid things are not stupid, we're just people who need shit to work. If I could work on a typewriter old-school I would, because it's simple. I am not a luddite by any means, I like what the technology can do. But as I don't play heavy games system speed is less important. I am not a graphic designer so I don't need the latest and greatest for a GPU. I just need my computer to turn the heck on and not do anything whacked. I need MS word to function and the internet to connect and not have to mess around when a deadline looms. I need to know that wherever I take this thing it will just WORK.
The reason, I think, that the Mac OS is still popular among non-techies like me is just that. It works. And I am not going to try and get it to do anything weird or push the processor or make the software jump through hoops any of that other shit that makes techies brag. (I can't wait for the "you don't know what makes techies brag" line -- and that's sort of the point).
I always get the sense that Linux fans simply do not get the simple power of convenience and the fact that 90 percent of what normal people do on a computer isn't and shouldn't be complicated.
Can anyone make a case as to why I should install Linux? Or rather, what would I be getting from Linux that I am not getting from OS X? It seems I would have to re-install everything I run on here, which would be a major PITA.
(OS X and Apple are not without frustrations for me -- one huge design flaw is that if your computer has a system problem you need to download stuff from the Internet but if your computer is messed up YOU CANT CONNECT TO THE F-ING INTERNET. Apple seems to think that the Internet is magic and their phone customer service is abysmal).
And for some reason the preview function shows no paragraph breaks. So sorry about that.
OK, I started out as a Physics/ Astronomy major, and even got through three semesters of intro (all the way to elementary QM) and three semesters of math (thru diffy Q) as an undergrad.
My problem, and why I became an English major: I was in the 3rd semester phys class and the math breaks out, and I am fine until they started using bra-ket notation. (If you don't know what I mean it's stuff like and used a lot in QM) I had no idea what it was. I hadn't seen it in a math class yet. the math and physics departments evidently never spoke to one another so there wasn't ay "matching" of the curricula, so if you got to the right notation in math you were ok but god help you if it was unfamiliar. I was too embarrassed to ask about it, probably.
I didn't give up a sci major for *just* that reason. Originally I wanted to do both a liberal arts and a science degree. Yeah, I bit off more than I could chew. And I got interested in a lot of other things, like language learning (which I was more naturally talented at no question). But I did feel that I was falling behind in physics and was getting a bit frustrated I think. Even with pretty OK grades.
But all that said, math builds up from one step to the other. I think it's like bicycle riding -- a lot of things stay once burned in.
Anyhow, I did OK in my physics classes, and even the math. I was a B student and probably could have stuck it out.
Interestingly, 20 years down the line I am back in math again. And I did Vector Calc and loved the class. My prof gave a take-home exam and I loved the fact that me and other students could argue over solutions. In one interesting instance I had the answer to a problem and I had to convince 2 other people I was right. I really learned that one! I think, even though I got a B-, (I glitched on the final, blanking on L'Hopital's rule for more than one variable, for christ's sake, I was so anxious) but my teacher was so good I felt like I learned a lot. And I still remembered, with a little prodding, the calc I took 20 years ago. Funny how it stays with you.
Then this summer I was in Linear Algebra. And it was the most frustrating math class ever, for me. Lots of memorization of proofs. Abstractions way more than Vector Calc. I found it VERY hard. Much more so than vector calc even. A totally different skill set. I find that kind of abstract math more challenging for some reason. (Though I finally learned what the hell bra-ket notation meant. If someone had told me that in 1989... )
I think it's a combination of difficulty, preparedness, and the hit-or-miss setup of curricula at various colleges. And you have to have - as others here have said -- instructors who can help students with the things they struggle with. That's an art and there are no hard and fast answers or easy methods.
I'll be taking partial diffs at some point soon I think. Will have to break out my old calc book and study ahead tho. (Finishing that physics BA. I really kind of dug intermediate E&M this time around).
I think we forget sometimes that most people want to just turn the TV on and go to a channel and have it work.
I don't want to mess with hooking up an Xbox. (I don't own one). As a non-technical person I find Apple TV and Google TV or whatever to be completely opaque and frustrating to use at best. I like streaming on Netflix but it doesn't work well on my TV if I try to hook up the computer to it. And I never had a card in my cable box-- there's a slot for one (it's a Scientific Atlanta model) but I never got one from Time Warner.
I just want to watch the freaking television. That is what it is for.
For those of us who just want to watch TV, is there any real benefit to cable box competition? Will it matter? I know many people here are more technically-minded. But I am not. And also, I suspect, are 90 percent of TV viewers. I don't want to mess with a zillion different devices trying to figure out how to connect, you know? I like the on demand service, but again, i just want to point the remote and have it work. No fuss no muss.
So, will some more technically sophisticated person out there help explain to me why this is going to matter? I'm not being just flippant. I really want to know what this will do for me.
Slashdot Mirror
That is, I hear all these techies talking about the cool stuff they do to get Linux to function and how thy hacked their macs. But the vast majority of the users don't need or want that, jut like the vast majority of driver aren't going to build their own open-source car engine. Sure, a few hobbyists who love that will do it. But most of us haven't got the time.
The free software movement also failed to recognize that designing software is a job, not a hobby. It can be a hobby, but like a lot of other things if you want to do it right you have to put the hours in. And since we don't live in a society with a guaranteed minimum income, and there are a limited number of hours in the day, and most people have partners, spouses, families, meals to make, dishes to do, and all that other stuff... well, there's sort of a limited scope in which an "open source" product is going to get any traction. The successes out there -- Firefox, for one -- are notable because they are exceptions.
Think of it this way: people have to get paid for their work, and anything that is any good you likely need to put full-time hours into. Imagine a movement for free art. (There was one). Why doesn't everyone have free oil paintings? Because the people making the paintings have to eat.
My sense was always that the free software movement was a neat idea but only works if everyone is 25 and had no responsibilities other than their hobbies.
Let me put it another way: your grandma needs to use a computer. Can she do it with Linux?
Question: I need to run MS Word. I ther ea Linux version or do I have to go fancy dan and then figure out what to do with 15 years worth o files I can no longer read? Not one of the people who tells me that Linux is wonderful ever seems to answer stuff like that. That's what us non-techies want to know.
I am not a developer. I do not write code except for a few class projects in Mathematica. I wrote code once and it was likely before half the readers here were even born, on stuff that is so obsolete that most code might as well be magic incantations to me at this point. I do not claim to be particularly knowledgeable about computers except in a rather abstract way. Ask me how a computer works and I can tell you; ask me to fix a problem and I can do some pretty elementary things. I mean, I got as far as replacing some hardware (I have done some work on my mac). That's about it. But beyond that, I am not an early adopter. I use my laptop for work which is not really technical at all (I am a writer) and I need my computer to work, all the time, reliably. I cannot spend hours tinkering. When I was 16 I could do that, but now I not only have to work but get dinner made and every second I spend not working is money lost. Under those circumstances, why would anyone like me -- users who just want the damn machine to work -- install Linux on a Mac? Or anywhere else? This is something that I noticed in the Reddit comments and a lot of the time here. People who just use computers to do everyday stupid things are not stupid, we're just people who need shit to work. If I could work on a typewriter old-school I would, because it's simple. I am not a luddite by any means, I like what the technology can do. But as I don't play heavy games system speed is less important. I am not a graphic designer so I don't need the latest and greatest for a GPU. I just need my computer to turn the heck on and not do anything whacked. I need MS word to function and the internet to connect and not have to mess around when a deadline looms. I need to know that wherever I take this thing it will just WORK. The reason, I think, that the Mac OS is still popular among non-techies like me is just that. It works. And I am not going to try and get it to do anything weird or push the processor or make the software jump through hoops any of that other shit that makes techies brag. (I can't wait for the "you don't know what makes techies brag" line -- and that's sort of the point). I always get the sense that Linux fans simply do not get the simple power of convenience and the fact that 90 percent of what normal people do on a computer isn't and shouldn't be complicated. Can anyone make a case as to why I should install Linux? Or rather, what would I be getting from Linux that I am not getting from OS X? It seems I would have to re-install everything I run on here, which would be a major PITA. (OS X and Apple are not without frustrations for me -- one huge design flaw is that if your computer has a system problem you need to download stuff from the Internet but if your computer is messed up YOU CANT CONNECT TO THE F-ING INTERNET. Apple seems to think that the Internet is magic and their phone customer service is abysmal). And for some reason the preview function shows no paragraph breaks. So sorry about that.
OK, I started out as a Physics/ Astronomy major, and even got through three semesters of intro (all the way to elementary QM) and three semesters of math (thru diffy Q) as an undergrad. My problem, and why I became an English major: I was in the 3rd semester phys class and the math breaks out, and I am fine until they started using bra-ket notation. (If you don't know what I mean it's stuff like and used a lot in QM) I had no idea what it was. I hadn't seen it in a math class yet. the math and physics departments evidently never spoke to one another so there wasn't ay "matching" of the curricula, so if you got to the right notation in math you were ok but god help you if it was unfamiliar. I was too embarrassed to ask about it, probably. I didn't give up a sci major for *just* that reason. Originally I wanted to do both a liberal arts and a science degree. Yeah, I bit off more than I could chew. And I got interested in a lot of other things, like language learning (which I was more naturally talented at no question). But I did feel that I was falling behind in physics and was getting a bit frustrated I think. Even with pretty OK grades. But all that said, math builds up from one step to the other. I think it's like bicycle riding -- a lot of things stay once burned in. Anyhow, I did OK in my physics classes, and even the math. I was a B student and probably could have stuck it out. Interestingly, 20 years down the line I am back in math again. And I did Vector Calc and loved the class. My prof gave a take-home exam and I loved the fact that me and other students could argue over solutions. In one interesting instance I had the answer to a problem and I had to convince 2 other people I was right. I really learned that one! I think, even though I got a B-, (I glitched on the final, blanking on L'Hopital's rule for more than one variable, for christ's sake, I was so anxious) but my teacher was so good I felt like I learned a lot. And I still remembered, with a little prodding, the calc I took 20 years ago. Funny how it stays with you. Then this summer I was in Linear Algebra. And it was the most frustrating math class ever, for me. Lots of memorization of proofs. Abstractions way more than Vector Calc. I found it VERY hard. Much more so than vector calc even. A totally different skill set. I find that kind of abstract math more challenging for some reason. (Though I finally learned what the hell bra-ket notation meant. If someone had told me that in 1989... ) I think it's a combination of difficulty, preparedness, and the hit-or-miss setup of curricula at various colleges. And you have to have - as others here have said -- instructors who can help students with the things they struggle with. That's an art and there are no hard and fast answers or easy methods. I'll be taking partial diffs at some point soon I think. Will have to break out my old calc book and study ahead tho. (Finishing that physics BA. I really kind of dug intermediate E&M this time around).
Guilty as charged, typed very fast.
I think we forget sometimes that most people want to just turn the TV on and go to a channel and have it work. I don't want to mess with hooking up an Xbox. (I don't own one). As a non-technical person I find Apple TV and Google TV or whatever to be completely opaque and frustrating to use at best. I like streaming on Netflix but it doesn't work well on my TV if I try to hook up the computer to it. And I never had a card in my cable box-- there's a slot for one (it's a Scientific Atlanta model) but I never got one from Time Warner. I just want to watch the freaking television. That is what it is for. For those of us who just want to watch TV, is there any real benefit to cable box competition? Will it matter? I know many people here are more technically-minded. But I am not. And also, I suspect, are 90 percent of TV viewers. I don't want to mess with a zillion different devices trying to figure out how to connect, you know? I like the on demand service, but again, i just want to point the remote and have it work. No fuss no muss. So, will some more technically sophisticated person out there help explain to me why this is going to matter? I'm not being just flippant. I really want to know what this will do for me.