Throwing dirt, slinging mud.. Is that really such a great way to gather followers? Maybe the more radical ones, but if they're radicals and interested, they're probably already aware of Linux's existence...
Agreed, Linux and free software in general does need more exposure, but it needs more than that. There needs to be still more specialized software... Great, there's a nice office suite, a nice word processor, MP3 players, everything you need to do every so often or like to have going in the background.
I'm probably biased because I do a lot of music/sound-related work on my computer, specifically tracking, and there are more powerful trackers available for DOS than Linux, so I would rather use them.
The main issues as I see them for popularizing Linux, and these have probably been hit a million times before by other people, are that it needs to really cater to the needs of everyone at the same time. This includes easy to install software (configure... need this library? okay, got it. configure library... need seven others? rurg this is getting frustrating) that is easy to use (though usually not much of a problem once it's going) and powerful (certainly not a problem).
Of course, people need to be aware of its existence and usefulness. So do companies and institutions.
It needs more companies with clout to develop for it. Loki develops for it, but there's a myriad of others that don't. This is tied in with the whole advertising/unaware of existence problem; if people don't know about it, it certainly isn't profitable for a company to develop for it, and companies like profits.
Yes, Linux and free software could benefit from TV time, since most people hear about it from word of mouth (I know I did). But they definitely need an actual reason to switch, which means yes, they need to be shown what it can do. And to publicly throw dirt at other companies is just nasty and can turn people off.
I figure I'm an OS/2 user because OS/2 is running for the majority of the time that my main computer is on.
I never really thought it was "superior;" but it fit my needs better. I needed (and still need) good DOS program support, and all my DOS programs run very well under OS/2. Particularly when I first tried it, this was of great importance.
I have tried another operating system. I have Linux and Win98 also on this system and I use them both. I have another system running Linux for IP masquerading, another system running FreeBSD mostly so that I can familiarize myself with it, and another ex-Win95 (now 98) system used for accounting with Simply.
I tried BeOS a few times, but it didn't seem to support my hardware so well (though it had nice sound mixing!). I can't really make a judgement - I haven't used it much at all.
I'm the only OS/2 user in my family. My father used to use it but had to switch to Windows.
Most of my experiences as a child were with DOS. I started with DOS on other computers and used it for a while on my own until I could run something else.
Obviously, I'm not a 100% OS/2 user. Linux is kind of installed so that I can get used to it and customize it, since it has so much more freedom with customizing than anything I've found so far.. Windows, for games only.
I consider using OS/2 normal -- but not mainstream for home users.
When I started using it, and whenever people ask.
I have been criticised for using OS/2. However, I see no reason why I should stop using it. Windows is fine for games. Linux is fine as a server.
What I do most on my computer is track and musical things. I have an Awe64, and I use Impulse Tracker, a DOS program, just about every day. One of the "small things" in OS/2 is that if you are ever in a full screen console session, it won't interrupt you -- the worst it will ever do is bring up a little text message (something like "There is a problem with your printer, check the desktop for more information. Press a key.") and prompt.
It's quite stable, and can recover from a crash without problem.
Driver support is not as bad as some people might think. I have an S3 Trio3D/2x video card, Awe64 sound card, and an NE2000-compliant network card. I can use them all (I guess the NE2k was kind of a given...), and there are drivers for newer cards (like the Riva TNT2, which I also had for a short time).
Some Win32 programs will run under the Odin project (I have run Starcraft completely, albeit slowly), many *nix programs have been ported (including XFree86), DOS programs run fine. And it multitasks well.
It's good for what I do, and this is probably the same reason you would get from most people using it.
Slashdot Mirror
Annoyed by so many people saying "Linux" when they mean "UNIX". Also by those who apparently use Linux 8.2 and like ilk...
Throwing dirt, slinging mud.. Is that really such a great way to gather followers? Maybe the more radical ones, but if they're radicals and interested, they're probably already aware of Linux's existence...
Agreed, Linux and free software in general does need more exposure, but it needs more than that. There needs to be still more specialized software... Great, there's a nice office suite, a nice word processor, MP3 players, everything you need to do every so often or like to have going in the background.
I'm probably biased because I do a lot of music/sound-related work on my computer, specifically tracking, and there are more powerful trackers available for DOS than Linux, so I would rather use them.
The main issues as I see them for popularizing Linux, and these have probably been hit a million times before by other people, are that it needs to really cater to the needs of everyone at the same time. This includes easy to install software (configure... need this library? okay, got it. configure library... need seven others? rurg this is getting frustrating) that is easy to use (though usually not much of a problem once it's going) and powerful (certainly not a problem).
Of course, people need to be aware of its existence and usefulness. So do companies and institutions.
It needs more companies with clout to develop for it. Loki develops for it, but there's a myriad of others that don't. This is tied in with the whole advertising/unaware of existence problem; if people don't know about it, it certainly isn't profitable for a company to develop for it, and companies like profits.
Yes, Linux and free software could benefit from TV time, since most people hear about it from word of mouth (I know I did). But they definitely need an actual reason to switch, which means yes, they need to be shown what it can do. And to publicly throw dirt at other companies is just nasty and can turn people off.
IMO.
I figure I'm an OS/2 user because OS/2 is running for the majority of the time that my main computer is on.
I never really thought it was "superior;" but it fit my needs better. I needed (and still need) good DOS program support, and all my DOS programs run very well under OS/2. Particularly when I first tried it, this was of great importance.
I have tried another operating system. I have Linux and Win98 also on this system and I use them both. I have another system running Linux for IP masquerading, another system running FreeBSD mostly so that I can familiarize myself with it, and another ex-Win95 (now 98) system used for accounting with Simply.
I tried BeOS a few times, but it didn't seem to support my hardware so well (though it had nice sound mixing!). I can't really make a judgement - I haven't used it much at all.
I'm the only OS/2 user in my family. My father used to use it but had to switch to Windows.
Most of my experiences as a child were with DOS. I started with DOS on other computers and used it for a while on my own until I could run something else.
Obviously, I'm not a 100% OS/2 user. Linux is kind of installed so that I can get used to it and customize it, since it has so much more freedom with customizing than anything I've found so far.. Windows, for games only.
I consider using OS/2 normal -- but not mainstream for home users.
When I started using it, and whenever people ask.
I have been criticised for using OS/2. However, I see no reason why I should stop using it. Windows is fine for games. Linux is fine as a server.
What I do most on my computer is track and musical things. I have an Awe64, and I use Impulse Tracker, a DOS program, just about every day. One of the "small things" in OS/2 is that if you are ever in a full screen console session, it won't interrupt you -- the worst it will ever do is bring up a little text message (something like "There is a problem with your printer, check the desktop for more information. Press a key.") and prompt.
It's quite stable, and can recover from a crash without problem.
Driver support is not as bad as some people might think. I have an S3 Trio3D/2x video card, Awe64 sound card, and an NE2000-compliant network card. I can use them all (I guess the NE2k was kind of a given...), and there are drivers for newer cards (like the Riva TNT2, which I also had for a short time).
Some Win32 programs will run under the Odin project (I have run Starcraft completely, albeit slowly), many *nix programs have been ported (including XFree86), DOS programs run fine. And it multitasks well.
It's good for what I do, and this is probably the same reason you would get from most people using it.