What the Linux Community Needs to Grok 570
Charles Connell sent in an article that he wrote following the onslaught of flames he (and even his boss) got following articles that were critical of Linux. I've said many times that Linux's worst enemy is the army of angry, self-appointed advocates: they don't write code, but they have
a lot of pent up anger that often gets directed in the wrong places. Anyway, read
the article and talk amongst yourselves.
He's Right On. (Score:2)
I use Macs...have used Macs ever since I stopped using my C-64. I've been trying to work with Linux on IA-32. Right now...I'm at the point, 11 monthes later, where I feel comfortable using Linux as a Server. It's just too much effort to retrain myself to use Linux as a desktop OS. I've found the documentation for Linux to be less than helpful for the most part...there is no central place where I can get information. I'm used to the Macintosh world or the Novell...where I get help from fellow users...not told to RTFM.
I've been trying to find out if there is a way I can mount Sever Volumes on my Mac like I can with AppleShare or Novell...for eleven monthes I have been looking and have found nothing that says yea or nay. I don't have any Linux friends to ask, I'm on my own here...and it's not that easy of a path. I want to put an Orb Drive in my dual boot NT/Red Hat 6.1 box...but where the hell do I get a yea or a nay about this? No where that I see.
The future of our community (Score:2)
Great article, and great conclusion! Hopefully the fanatics who can't grok the basics of a shell prompt but seem to think they can speak for our entire community will read it and think twice next time they start to act like a spoiled child.
Linux is a great operating system, and it's getting better and better every day. It's not the best tool for everyone's needs, but it suits mine and I'm happy. I enjoy being part of a community that fosters sharing and open ideas, and despair when zealots give us a bad name by acting foolishly.
The author hit it right on: Linux will not be around forever. Something better will come along, or Linux will evolve into a different beast entirely and make itself obsolete. What won't change is the community we all build around it and the ideals to which we hold. The recent influx of corporate influences into our community has proven that we can grow and prosper beyond our hobbyist beginnings without compromising our integrity. With a bit of luck, some patience, and a little less fanaticism we'll keep our community throughout the coming years. Good things are in store for us all!
An essay riddled with problems (Score:2)
Mr. Connell makes a number of questionable assumptions:
1. "People set up computers alone."
Actually, they seldom set up computers at all. They use preloads. If customers actually had to install Win98, let alone WinNT, on a blank hard drive, we would cease to hear these foolish, context-less complaints about Linux being "difficult to install".
2. Further, he assumes that consumers won't accept any other sort of setup regime. Never mind the fact that they already do (i.e., preloads): Why should we believe that OS setup/configuration cannot be a salable service, just because Connell can't imagine it?
3. "To address this reality, new computers with pre-installed Linux should work fully and completely the first time they are turned on."
The above appears to assume that such is not the case, which is a fearsome insult to the painstaking work of ASL, Tuxtops, Cosmos Engineering, Cobalt, PromoX, Rebel.com Inc., etc.
However, he goes on to (one assumes) clarify what he meant:
"When the user plugs in a standard option that they already own -- printer, network, external storage device, etc. -- those options should be recognized and configured automatically." By way of comparison, he cites MacOS running on Apple hardware.
But that begs the question: Isn't the ease of installing peripherals on MacOS made possible by the carefully controlled standards of Apple-compatible hardware?
If you'll pardon the expression, "Apples, meet oranges."
4. "Unfortunately, most people don't know a computer expert of any kind, much less a Linux expert. It is important for the Linux community to keep in mind that most users will be completely on their own when setting up or installing Linux systems and software."
Again, this assumes that the only way the world can run is the way Connell is familiar with.
5. "Learning new applications is hard.... Several Linux fans wrote to me stating that the 'application problem' is actually a 'user problem'. Users are incorrectly resistant to change, the argument goes, when they should be accepting something that is new and better. This is backward thinking."
More to the point, the entire dichotomy Connell poses, here, is a red herring: The general (proprietary-OS) computer population already learns new applications on a recurring basis -- every time their vendors' upgrade treadmills crank up another notch, and also often when a change of management (or of employer) means learning the new local "standard": If the management team du jour says you're going to use Groupwise instead of Exchange, you'll learn it. If the local standard is Microstation instead of AutoCAD, you'll learn that, too. And when the next revision of your cherished office bundle shuffles half of the functions around, you'll learn that, too.
The point is that, if you're already contemplating a forced upgrade to your proprietary-OS package (or between two such packages), maybe the real question isn't whether learning new applications is hard, but rather whether learning new applications on Linux is significantly harder than what you're already considering.
6. "It is not the job of the masses to adapt to your computer system. The history of business is carpeted with extinct companies that did not understand this."
This seems to assume that Linux is a business. Of course, there are businesses based on Linux, but Linux itself will not live or die according to market acceptance the way, say, OS/2 did. If every significant Linux-based firm were to close its doors tomorrow, the open-source developer community, the user base, the Internet-based community mechanisms that create and nourish them both, and all the $1.99 CD-ROMs would go on with barely a jitter.
Connell's spectre of "extinct companies" is a mirage.
7. "Consider focusing your immediate application efforts on the few key pieces of software that receive 90% of home and office use.... You might create a native Linux look-a-like for MS Word."
Connell's assumption, here, is that this is or should be a task for the Linux community at large (or at least for Linux developers collectively). Which begs the question: Why? Those who want such software will create it or pay for its creation, if they want it so badly.
It's surprising that Connell should raise this argument, since obviously he's been around Linux for quite some time. The community's tradition is well known, and eminently pragmatic: If you want a piece of software created, you're free to take out your copy of gcc and hammer it out -- or give someone else a personally compelling incentive to create it.
8. "The Linux community has been on a honeymoon as it has created the Linux software.... As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase."
The Linux community has ignored clueless demands before, and it no doubt will again. "Pressure" and "demands" from third-party companies are a no-op, per se. Of course, they can "pressure" and "demand" coders they pay adequate salaries to (if they can retain such), but that is a different subject.
The assumption, in any event, is that such "demands" are a problem. That is a claim without substance.
"Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect."
Ditto.
9. "Some readers have suggested to me that the open source method of software development causes project management issues to evaporate; that the projects manage themselves. This is a fantasy."
It is also yet another red herring. Those who need and want legal accountability and fiduciary responsibility will hire (and otherwise pay) people who wish to agree to such relationships. But that occurs distinctly from the regular community-based open-source model.
10. "You will be managing a large public programming project with conflicting demands, tight schedules, and the need for high quality."
Connell fails to state what hypothetical assumptions would lead to this situation, but one gathers that he means something like what AOL/Netscape's project managers for Netscape 5.0. Indeed, Netscape might have a project-management problem -- but, if it decides it doesn't like limited social contracts, it can at any time have exactly as many programmers on staff as it's willing to pay for (thereby buying into an entirely different collection of problems).
Connell also begs the question of what constitutes "good project management". If community-based open-source projects can't always be counted on to meet milestones and deadlines, it's equally true that they're largely immune to shipping in bug-infested condition just because some butthead executive needs to doctor the end-of-quarter books.
11. "Humility is a virtue. If Linux succeeds in a significant portion of the computer world, and it looks like it might, your time in the limelight is short." Connell then tells the cautionary tale of his former career at Digital.
However, again, Linux is not hostage to corporate fortunes. Linux cannot "go out of business", or "take a nosedive".
Connell's suggestion that Digital's fate can befall Linux is thus illogical.
12. "The same thing will happen to you. The Linux killer is just around the corner. You don't know what it is, and you won't recognize it when you first see it."
The assumption here is that this would necessarily be a bad thing, and that we have some reason to cling to Linux in the face of this "killer". Suppose the "killer" is something better than Linux. Why would we not welcome it?
"The next generation of techies will understand it and will consider you old fogies for having your heads buried in the Linux sand."
Begs the question: Aren't we on Linux because we're early-adopter types who chose it for various technical advantages? If so, wouldn't we be the ones adopting and understanding this new thing, and looking back over our shoulders at the reactionaries?
And, lest we forget: Connell seems to assume throughout his essay (but here, particularly) that one uses just one operating system at a time. Yet, it should be obvious that diversity serves a purpose, and that no one OS fulfills all roles well.
Connell is obviously a talented writer. It would be good to see him cease arguing bogus positions resting on doubtful premises.
-- Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
Who cares what software people want to run on Linux. Don't be so small-minded.
Re:Great.... (Score:2)
I do agree with the importance of working together on Linux instead of taking the `ivory tower' approach or becoming the proverbial Catherdal.
I know "Animal Farm" analogies have been flying left and right lately, and I don't agree with them at the present moment..I hope I can say the same in a year.
They went way out of bounds. (Score:2)
People pay attention to drive-by shootings, too, but that doesn't mean they're effective at anything.
This guy didn't just get flame mail -- people wrote his boss suggesting he be fired!
Sure, he needs a clue or two (see comment about wealthy customers and schedule pressure) but *nothing* he said justifies atempting to interfere with his livelihood. For that matter, he seems reasonable enough -- why flame?
Re:Great piece, but let me add this: (Score:2)
The argument is a self-fulfilling one. 90% of apps are written for Windows because it's the dominant OS. Nothing is as good when it is ported or copied to another OS (look at Microsoft's own trouble with Office on the Macintosh and the ire it has provoked from those die-hard users). Since applications for Linux are invariably either ported or copied from existing Windows apps, yes, their quality is going to be lower. But I think there's one that at least comes close.
The GIMP. This may be highly debatable, but I run the GIMP on my 40 MB RAM, Pentium 120 and it never crashes, has all of the features I've come to expect from Photoshop, many many many more default filters, and a much better interface (no large single window). And that's just the development version (Adobe won't let me use their development version).
Photoshop is a good program, but it frequently crashes and is a huge memory hog (relatively speaking). I use both regularly and I find myself saying, "Man, I can do this in the GIMP," a lot more than "Man, I can do this in Photoshop."
Re:He's on the money (Score:2)
--
Re:He's on the money (Score:2)
--
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
But what happens when something goes wrong with Windows? You're prepared to talk her through fixing a corrupt registry with regedit? Didn't think so...
Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything else you said!
Re:A good article. (Score:2)
"People set up computers alone."
His text relating to this point is not based on "the difficulties people have when installing an operating system for the first time." Rather, it is based on setting up a newly purchased computer for the first time.
Currently, there are several scenarios for someone buying a new computer and getting it usable in order of user complications. Please note that for the vast majority of users "usable" means able to complete a basic set of tasks. And those tasks are not playing with the computer itself. They are: word processing, email, games, web access.
- The Macs. Take it out of the box, plug in the electric, monitor(if it's not an iMac), printer and phone line and turn it on. You can do all of the tasks on my list. You may need to pull out a credit card to set up your ISP, but other than that you're up and running.
- A Windows box. You take it out of the box, hook the hardware together, turn it on and it autodetects most of the hardware and sets it up. Depending on whom you bought it from, all of those tasks are ready to go, same as the Mac.
- A preinstalled Linux box. The primary hurdle in this is finding one for sale in mainstream distribution channels. Even then, you still get to try to manually configure virtually all of your hardware (and since you just bought your first PC, you don't know what any of the specs mean), then you need to dig to figure out how to do most of those tasks.
/tangent/ My biggest complaint about command-line based software is that you have to remember the command names (even to be able to get a list of the switches). In a GUI, you can explore to find what you're looking for./tangent/ - A Windows box converted to a Linux box or a blank box waiting for either Windows or Linux. This is the only setup that requires installing an OS from scratch. You're quite right. An average user would have difficulty with any OS from scratch, but he was talking about the entire system being bought and set up, not just an OS being set up on an existing box.
Re: the manual in most distributions. The biggest problem is that they assume you already know enough to install the thing. Also, manuals (in general) as an only resource during a technical process are notorious for making users scream "BUT". As in, "but my monitor isn't listed, etc." Manuals can't deal in exceptions and the exceptions are what stops most people dead in their tracks."Learning new applications is hard."
In this section, you make a subtle assumption about "Linux" that seems to permeate discussions such as these. That a change in one incarnation of Linux changes all incarnations. This is simply false. Just because Caldera includes a simple install, with a limited version of DiskMagic(or whatever it's called) and a copy of Tetris to play during install, doesn't mean that Debian, Slackware, S.U.S.E et al need to include it. Nor does it mean that a decent Word clone will overwrite your copies of emacs and vi. Why should it matter to you if one version of Linux is "being dumbed down"? For most users, the computer is not the end; some kind of work is. Ergo, needing to know what is going on in the computer is a waste of time to them.
I know that the majority of Slashdot readers do not own a high end camera. Most likely, if they own one at all, it's a simple point and shoot. A photo geek (and many do this by the way) could be decrying all of the amateur people taking bad pictures without so much as minimal knowledge of film speed, apeture(sp) settings, shutter speed, lens length. After all, in order to get a decent picture, you need to know what's going on with your camera, film, printing process, etc. But, if you can take pictures of the annual drunken bash with a point and shoot and you're happy with them, why do you need to know all of that?
If indeed, someone decides to buy an OS (and not just a PC with the OS on it) BECAUSE it's an alternative, your mindset makes sense. However, some people are buying boxes for the first time and being told they need to buy a Linux box because it is more reliable, more stable, cheaper, etc. not because it's an alternative OS. In those cases, the user is approaching the computer to get something done, not to be a rebel.
"Open source still requires good project management"
I'm not going to quibble with you on that point. I don't necessarily agree with either side of this issue.
"Humility is a virtue."
One of the factors that is being brought into play by the companies is that of evolution by proxy. Up until now, the user base for Linux has been able to implement their design ideas. That allows it to truly be democratic and to evolve according to its users' wishes. However, all along, there has been a group that wishes they could get a simpler interface or other features they'd like, but being unable to code themselves, they are unable to get their ideas into the evolution. Now enter Red Hat, Corel, et al. Those companies will only develop, evolve or improve something that provides a profit margin. You argue that that is a limited vision. It is no more limited than a developer only vision. A company will only see a profit potential where a section of the current or projected user base will spend the money. If those changes wouldn't have been implemented by a developer only vision, that means that the company has found a group of users that had needs being unrepresented in the current democratic development process.
Just remember, because all of your interests/features are included in the current vision, doesn't mean mine are.
Any spelling/grammatical/coherency errors are due to no editing, lack of sleep, and a desire to finish posting while it is still a relevant comment.
LetterJ
A good article. (Score:2)
However, there are a few issues where Mr. Connell is, IMHO, mistaken:
"People set up computers alone."
Mr. Connell talks about the difficulties people have when installing an operating system for the first time.
For the 'average' user, trying to install Windows 98 from scratch is _just as hard_ as trying to install Linux from scratch. Installing an OS from scratch is _not_ something that today's "average" user is an any way capable of doing on their own.
He also speaks of the manufacturer support line being the only resource available to the customer. Again, this is not entirely true. Nearly every 'boxed' distribution comes with a printed manual, and from personal experience I know RedHat's manual to be _extremely_ thorough in covering not only a step-by-step install process, but in also dealing with any problems that might occur both during and after the installation.
"Learning new applications is hard."
In this section Mr. Connell talks about the argument that users are resistant to change, and that software should be tailored to work exactly how the customer is expecting it to.
While he makes a very good point for 'classical' computing methodology, this is simply not the case for Linux. Linux isn't about dumbing itself down to the 'average' user's level. It's about raising the average user to a level in which they can understand the things that they're doing on their computer.
By deciding to purchase and use an 'alternative' OS, a user has already made a decision to learn something new. That means they should be expecting from the beginning to be learning and adjusting to a new way of doing things. You don't honestly think Microsoft and Apple sit down and discuss the UI for their programs and how they should make them compatbiel do you? Linux will have it's own, unique user interface, just like Apple and Microsoft each have their own, unique UIs.
"Open source still requires good project management"
This section, while well-written, argues from the incorrect assumption that the Linux community is/will be at the beck and call of the corporations selling it. Things are, in fact, exactly opposite from that. The Linux kernel itself dictates what features are possible, and it is the responsibility of the _corporations_ to provide the neccesary resources to get the features they want. For an example, see RedHat's sizeable list of on-staff developers, including one Alan Cox.
"Humility is a virtue."
Humility is indeed a virtue. However, the problems Mr. Connell describe in this section stem from a lack of vision rather than a lack of humility. Linux has the potential to become the best computer Operating System, period. Why? Because it is designed and evolved by _its own users_. It goes in the directions its users want it to. Not the directions the limited vision of a corporation out to make a profit dictate. The Linux development model cuts out the 'middle-man' of profits and share-holders, and goes straight to the user instead. It is truly democratic software. Anyone is capable of contributing to the whole if they make the effort.
Linux isn't just an Operating System, it's frame of mind.
Re:Linux for Ordinary Users (Score:2)
I disagree. IRIX seems to be fairly user friendly last time I tried it. MacOSX comes from Apple, whose fortunes live and die by UI and ease-of-use, and they seem to be pretty happy with a unix-based infrastructure.
The point is, it doesn't really matter what you're running underneath as long as it's flexible, stable, and efficient. Linux is (or can be configured to be) that. What you need for ease of UI and ease of use is for motivated developers to create that interface and libraries. It's happening as I write this.
Personally, I believe that Linux will eventually make serious desktop inroads for many reasons (price, dollar-magnet of UI inevitably drawing commercial interest, international nature of linux, power on old platforms, driver support) and that the areas which are weakest (ease-of-use in the UI, ease of configuration, desktop apps) are being worked on.
Don't forget, TiVo is a Linux-based solution [tivo.com] that is extremely easy to use...
It can be done.
It SHALL be done.
Be patient.
Your Working Boy,
3c509b having problems?! (Score:2)
Where your interests are affected. (Score:2)
If Linux et al. are content to be modest niche hobbyist OS' on the desktop, rather than taking in a sizeable market share, we will not present enough critical mass to persuade content producers to distribute media in formats we can read. We will cede the web to QuickTime, the Windows Media Player format, and versions of RealMedia for which Linux players are unavailable. Others will exchange files that we can't read, and wonder at our curmudgeonly disinterest in communicating with them.
This is already the status quo to some extent (it is one of the main reasons why I have a Windows machine.) Arrogance towards the 'great unwashed' will exacerbate it; growing the ranks will make it unteneble to keep content in closed formats.
About development pressures. (Score:2)
Here's one point I take issue with. While I don't take issue with its clairvoyant validity, I do take issue with the idea that this should be accepted practice.
The idea that anyone should say yes to an impossible schedule, over-promise, kill themselves to work inhumanly sustainable hours is just ludicrous. But we've been doing it.
It's time to stop it.
Just got this in my mailbox, and I think it says just about everything I want to:
Gold Rush Mindset Undermining Programming Field [www.tao.ca]
Think about it, if you're 20-30 something now, and working 90 hours a week, do you want to be doing that into your 40's? Should you even be doing that now? Why do you accept it?
If we're so valuable, and in such short supply, it's time to start maybe from the grunt programmer on up to put a stop to the acceptable practice of demanding the impossible and change it into delivering the sane.
Re:Linux Killer (Score:2)
You're making the same mistake the author of the article did - you're ignoring the critical difference that open source makes. While MacOS 10 has open-sourced the BSD backend, but the bit that differentiates the Mac certainly isn't.
Without completely open-sourcing MacOS, the platform will *never* have many of the advantages (lack of vendor domination, speedy bugfixing etc.) that Linux and the real BSD's do.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure that Linux could get very sick and old. But it has to many hardcore advocates to just disapear.
Advocates don't keep a system alive. Users and developers do.
Re:Linux Killer (Score:2)
I'm not a Mac Zealot by any stretch of the imagination, I rather loathe them, but I have to use them here at work, there's a G3 sitting next to my NT and Red Hat boxes here as I write this. However, I think that Mac OS X could be BIG, very BIG. Here's why:
1. It comes from somebody consumers already know, Apple, and they have a history of making things easy to use. It's a horribly closed platform, but easy to use because Apple controls both hardware and software ends.
2. It runs existing Mac apps. Now, granted, I'll put on my Windows hat here, and say that ain't a whole lot compared to Windows, but it's something.
3. It'll run Linux/BSD apps. Sure, it'll take some recompiling and tweaking, I'm sure, but once it's done, that gives you two of the three big end-user OS's. Why run Linux/BSD when you can run Mac OS X and use Linux-ish apps AND Mac apps? Now throw in WINE and you can run everything! (Okay, I'm getting too farfetched here)
4. It'll run Microsoft Office, the dominant Office Suite. I've used WordPerfect and StarOffice, and they're great products, don't get me wrong, but end-users are terribly stubborn about switching, no matter how little difference you or I see between graphical word processors.
5. It has a flashy user interface, I gave a Professor a new laptop yesterday, nifty new Sony VAIO, she was the most excited about Desktop Themes, yup, not DVD, not that it was twice as fast as her old laptop, not 128MB of RAM or 100Mbit networking, but that it had Desktop Themes.
6. You'll be able to just plug stuff in and it'll work. I can't stress enough how this is important, I reccommend USB devices to people all day long, since I know I'll eventually have to install them. I flatly refuse to install parallel port scanners and zip drives anymore. Sure, I can get them to work the majority of the time, but they suck, and when they don't work, you're screwed. My mom and dad, and yours, want a system they can plug something in, and it works, they don't want to track down text files to edit or re-compile a kernel. If Mac OS X delivers on the promise to keep the console completely hidden for 99% of things, this should happen.
Now what are the downsides?
1. It's not free, Linux is free, that's nice for those of us who are poor, but we're used to an OS coming with our new computer anyhow, and most users don't change that over the life of their computers, so this will be irrellevant to all but those who get fed up with windows and want to switch to something else without buying a new machine.
2. It comes from Apple, who tends to screw users from time to time, they abandon hardware standards arbitrarily and without warning. Anyone remember NuBus? ADB? SCSI? Floppy drives? You'll probably have to have an Apple computer to run it, and they're not cheap, despite what Bytemarks and selected Photoshop benchmarks compare PowerPC chips to Pentium III's at.
3. Apple keyboards and mice suck. This really isn't related to the OS thing, but I really hate them, and wanted to say so, again.
Will Mac OS X kill Linux? I doubt it. Will it convert Windows users to the Mac platform? Possibly. I don't think it's going to be the Holy Grail of operating systems, but I think it'll have a lot to offer to people who are like me, people who don't care about open-sourciness, they just want something that works well, is easy to use and support, that runs the software that users already know, as well as having the power and flexibility to satisfy advanced users. Don't forget that this will bring all those things that Linux has, Pre-Emptive Multi-Tasking, Protected Memory, etc. to the masses that are the Mac community, all with (hopefully) an easier-to-use paradigm in software and hardware installation.
---
I'm with you (Score:2)
The model for this ease-of-setup is the Macintosh system, which truly is user-friendly.
So, why don't the laity buy Mac's? Why do a lot of appliance folks who may be better of with Mac's end up with broken Msft systems? That's Msft's oversold-PC-marketing-and-the-customers-who-fell-
This is what I beleive: If someone wants to open up a box, plug it in, have printers autoconfig, start wordprocessing and web browsing, get a Mac. If you want something fairly automatic but sometimes quite challenging, buy Msft. If you want access to all the nuts & bolts and enjoy learning how computers really work, run Linux.
To me, the value of Linux is twofold: (1) as much control as I can learn, and (2) easy licensing. Certainly #2 is as appealing to the non-technical user as the technical, (witness how many non-technical types want to run unlicensed copies of easy to use Word, Excel, etc) but a central contradiction exists - if your willing to do a lot of work yourself, the licensing can be free and easy, but if your not willing to do a lot of head scratching and puzzle solving, then you'll probably have to pay someone to do it for you, either directly on site (designer Linux!), or indirectly in lots of autoconfig type software development, Mac and Msft style, which, as I said, kinda turns me off, but as long as I can turn IT off I guess it'll be ok.
CSMA/CD race driver
Well, I dunno... (Score:2)
CSMA/CD race driver
I have said it all along... (Score:2)
Linux zealots do not want to hear about alternatives. I have a Masters degree in Computer Science with concentration in Human-Computer Interaction. Whenever there is a news story regarding interfaces or usability, I often post my educated comments. Guess what? Most of the times people laugh at my suggestions. Most Linux zealots say "Who needs usability we have QT and GTK widgets that already work. Don't like the" look? Change the window manager." This approach is fundamentally wrong from an HCI standpoint. Anytime I try to explaing why, I just get marked as flamebait. Oh well.
Another issue the irates me is the "Free" issue. Linux zealots the world around chant "Linux is free, Micro$oft is expensive, convert, convert!" They do not understand that for a business to convert OS would require a large amount of money. The price of the OS (~$300) is chump change with respects to the amount lost on user productivity.
Now that I have written this, I await the moderation to mark my post down, and the zealots to start "correcting" my viewpoints.
Note that I use the term Linux zealot not user. Cheers!
--Ivan, weenie NT4 user: bite me!
Re:A good article. (Score:2)
o Boot off Win98 floppy.
o Answer "yes" when it asks you if you really want to re-install over the existing system
o Sit there for 20 minutes while it installs.
o Click on the "connect to internet" icon when install is done to reconfigure for your ISP
o Go to Start->Windows Update to get any patches from the web-based interface.
No fdisking. No formatting. yea, a few reboots, but the system does them itself if you aren't there.
BTW, just for comparison, I'd like to see the equivalent Red Hat install path INCLUDING PATCHING THE KERNEL TO RUN USB
Re:AOL 5.0????? (Score:2)
And as to your points about what the "average" user wants -- what you "believe" is probably not what is (hey, I don't mean this as an insult, it's true for most people). It's a good point -- there are 20 MILLION aol users. More than any Linux users I can count. For some people, it is the SOLE REASON THEY HAVE PURCHASED A COMPUTER. Scary, but true. I wouln't be so dismissive.
Re:linux killer? (Score:2)
GNU/HURD
Re:Linux is not a product (Score:2)
feature, they hire somebody to add it.
K.
-
Re:This Man has some great points. (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure there's enough masochistic stuff in there to keep me happy for a while yet -- the next thing I want to learn more about is low-level TCP, sockets programming etc :) It makes a nice change from AIX, anyway, which doesn't have man pages let alone Perl ...
--
Re:This Man has some great points. (Score:2)
> in 640x480, I had to mess around with the
> X86config file,
Ha ! Count yourself lucky !
I've been trying to get a fucntional Linux system for /two years/. Before activating flamethrowers, let me point out that my job title is "Perl programmer". I've tried Debian, RedHat and now Mandrake. Alas, X has screwed it up every time. Currently I'm trying to get it working at something greater than 200x320. Whoops, it's a Voodo3fx card, course I can't expect that to work, can I ? I mean, it's /only/ 18 months old, right ?
The only reason the machine hasn't gone back to NT is that I'm bloodyminded (masochistic ?) enough to keep sweating over the wretched thing.
--
Re:This Man has some great points. (Score:2)
--
Re:Better: (Score:2)
3. LiteStep [litestep.com]
Not that either of these makes Windows perfect, but definitely a lot more usable.
Re:True, but... (Score:2)
People setup computers alone: true. Nope. People at home setup computers alone, but in the workplace a great number of people do not, and that's a huge market. What then becomes important is automated setups and the ability to keep users from breaking things; Linux excels at these.
The big leap in Linux desktops is going to come when medium-size companies decide that per-seat licensing for Windows is absurd just to give everyone e-mail and web access.
Learning new applications is hard: true Yes, but notice that in the last 10 years the MS market has gone from DOS to Windows to Win95, significantly different interfaces. And everyone's gone along. More importantly, MS has established a standard of changing to enforce upgrades, forcing people to change when they don't want to. Eliminating that is a big win for everybody.
Open source still requires good project management: very very true. Well, yes, but the point that's being missed here is that MS, the monopoly-holder on the desktop, has terrible project management. OS's arrive years late and incredibly buggy; MSOffice has traditionally added features to attract new users while ignoring the features that current users want and need. Marketing runs the show on many many desktop products.
Now, there's an area of software where marketing input is very important, but there's also places where marketing influence does nothing but hurt quality. There's a lot more to be said on this subject, obviously, but the answer isn't simple on either side.
Humility is a virtue: true. Oh, true enough, but the 'Net isn't virtuous. Complaining about flames is nice and everything, but it's never really accomplished anything. Filtering input is always going to be a high priority.
My system resources and AOL (Score:2)
Why should I mind if they want to run AOL software, as long as it doesn't affect me? Isn't it their choice? Shouldn't Linux be about choice?
Hold on while I tell my friend to stop using xemacs. Who knows, when xemacs has sucked up all his resources, it might go after my system.
there's a middle ground (Score:2)
That middle ground is also keeping around a diversity of operating systems, together with open protocols. Being locked into Linux is no more fun in the long run than being locked into Windows, no matter how nice Linux may look right now.
Herding cats. (Score:2)
The point about the purpose of computers being to make tasks easier - instead of forcing people to do things the way the system dictates, is very valid. But down this path lays the animated paper-clip and an application named Bob.
My question to the author is, Why do you address the open source/Linux/GNU community as a company?
Why should the people responsible for GNU/Linux be afraid of the fate of DEC and Linux? We do this for free, and few of our paychecks depend on the number of bugs fixed in the next version of the Apache.
I'd be curious to see what would happen if a powerful corporation who embraced Linux suddenly started dictating 'hot list' items...
Sure, that would suck for people who are on that task, in that company... But trying to dictate features to 'the community' would be like trying to herd cats.. "You want WHAT?! WHEN?!"
Linux exists in it's present form because millions (are we there yet?) of developers made these things a priority instead of those things. Companies made some things harder to do (i.e. closed specs) so development proceeded along the path of least resistance.
I pity the project manager who tries to dictate policy and priorities to a bunch of competent volunteers. Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth.
You can ask, you may suggest, and your request will be considered.
You can offer free hardware and services, and that might make the minds of the able a little more willing to see things your way. But you try strong-arming people who do charity work to work harder, and they'll take their toys and go home.
Here kitty-kitty...
I think... (Score:2)
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
Consider the case of my grandmother. A couple of years ago, she bought her first computer. Running Windows 95, I configured her computer so that she could dial up to an ISP, check her e-mail, and even use Netscape.
When the computer boots up, she sees a nice friendly screen with the Windows logo. She can even play some games on it.
There's no way I could do this with Linux. If I was willing to put in a great deal of time, I probably could have come up with a setup so that she could do everything in X. But I'm her resident Linux expert, and I live 400 miles away. What happens when something goes wrong? I'm not about to tell my grandmother over the phone how to use vi to edit her
I have no problem telling my friends who live down the hall in my dorm to run Linux; I don't think it's reasonable to expect people like my grandmother to run Linux. I think Linux is great, but we've got a long way to go before we can get people like my grandmother using it, and that's the kind of thing that this article's talking about.
We don't need to get new users to "learn Linux"... We need to get it so that they don't have to. While there's been a lot of progress over the last couple of years, it's just not there yet.
Clarification (Score:2)
Yup. I wholeheartedly agree. Rereading my last post, I realize I was in a strange mood when I typed it. I was thinking of companies that would try to treat the "Linux Delover collective" as if they were a company that existed to serve the needs of the market, which it of course it is not. Companies that want something developed have 3 choices:
1. Pay someone to do it (M$ or anyone else)
2. Ask the Linux people to include it, and show that there is a need. If they agree, they'll do it.
3. Do it yourself. If it involves modifying the source to a GPL'd product, or if you just feel like it, rerelease the source to the public.
"Here's the source, have a nice day" pretty much sums it up perfectly
Obviously, if an individual programmer enters into a contractual agreement to create new or modify existing software, then that's a completely different situation, and, you're right, neither response would be acceptable.
Couldn't agree with you more
People, let's not forget that Linux is something most of its developers do in their time off.
--
grappler
Re:What a Microsoft Pawn! (Score:2)
Good God, you'd think no one on Slashdot had ever seen sarcasm before!
For what it's worth, my mom uses a NetBSD laptop, which I built and continue to support.
Re:Remember OS/2 and Betamax (Score:2)
However, both OS/2 and Betamax did not have overwhelming market and lay-person support at the time. Did you ever see an OS/2 VAR going public and setting first day gains records? Howabout article after article in major paper publications dedicated to the creator of Betamax? The primary difference between Linux and other technically superior failures is the amount momentum behind them.
Linux's enemy at this point is not all of the loud-mouth bigots; nearly any company would kill for that amount of hype. Remember that age old attage, "There is no such thing as bad publicity."
-AP
Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
Yes, we need newbies (ie. more users, who will all be newbies for a time) for the Linux movement to progress, but the last thing we need is a dumbing down of Linux to this level!!!
Eric
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
Now, this is where I realized something: maybe the Linux zealots should quit evangalizing to people who are comfortable with their computers and work more at convincing the truly new computer users instead.
Sure, most people don't need to know how to use multiple computers, but at some point, your fiance learned how to use a Mac. What if, at that point in her life, someone had shown her how to use a Linux machine instead? She's really learned no more or less about computers. She has simply learned how to use a (different) system.
IMO, there's no point telling a computer user how much better Linux is than the OS they are using now. We need to be the ones there when a user gets his first computer.
Then again, people who have never experienced Windows might not appreciate what it means to have a stable OS
Eric
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
If that's all they want to do, fine. I can't imagine that a company would sell a pre-installed Linux system without a web browser. It's not going to be IE; most likely it would be netscape (among current non-beta browsers). With the AOL takeover of netscape, AIM is built right in. Register a nickname, go to www.aol.com, and follow the links to the chat rooms.
IMO, nothing there is too complicated for the average newby, especially if the computer came with any documentation on how to do the things an "average" user would want to do. The best part is that no one would have to resort to such a crappy ISP.
Eric
Re:How close (Score:2)
No way. I mean, I've liked OO as much (or more) as the next guy ever since I discovered Simula back in the late 70s, but you really don't want or need heavy OO in an OS kernel. Too much unneeded overhead.
Besides, we've had OO OS's (sort of) before -- MacOS, for example -- and while they've been popular in certain domains, they're hardly "killers".
Given the level that that the hardware is at these days, the "Linux killer" is likely to be some sort of advanced AI interface that recognizes natural language (spoken or written) and learns about the user well enough to anticipate most requests. Of course, the PC as we know it will be considered old-fashioned; we'll have wearables, pocketables and smart appliances that all talk to each other behind our backs. (And yes, some of that software may well be OO.)
GNU/HURD is still born vaporware. (Score:2)
<I>the "Linux killer" is likely to be some sort of advanced AI interface that recognizes natural language (spoken or written) and learns about the user well enough to anticipate most requests. Of course, the PC as we know it will be considered old-fashioned; we'll have wearables, pocketables and smart appliances </I>
These are all applications. There is nothing preventing Linux from running new AI or natural language interfaces. Linux is so modular and free, expect it to <I>help</I> information appliances, not to be killed by them! Remember how much Linus has been talking about PDAs over the past year.
the Road ahead? (tm)(arg)(bg) (Score:2)
Luckily, open source is a democracy/merritocracy. Those who code, decide where it goes. So as long as enough people agree with me, I think I'll be happy (Of course, having powerfull tools does not rule out having easy tools).
Re:Remember OS/2 and Betamax (Score:2)
Yes, one of the things that killed OS/2 and Betamax was that they came to late. If you already have a VHS and a collection of tapes, you aren't going to invest in a new VCR, specially not if your current equipment still works fine. And if you are buying a VCR for the first time, and many of your friends have VHS, the interoperatibility (exchanging tapes) is more important than a better quality.
Technical superiority isn't important for most people. Browser plugins and the ability to send word documents by email to your kids are.
-- Abigail
Re:A good article. (Score:2)
How To Set Up Windows 95
This is how I set up Windows 95 to achieve a reasonably stable system for playing games - the only thing I do with Win95.
1. FDisk the hardrive if neccessary. Too bad if you've never heard of FDisk. Reboot when done.
2. Format your partitions. Don't forget the
3. Install Windows 95. (I assume OSR2.) I hope your boot diskette included CD ROM drivers! Reboot when done.
4. Install the Intel chipset drivers for your post-1996 motherboard. Windows will not tell you to do this, but if you don't, you will have Problems. Reboot when done.
5. Install the USB supplement for OSR2 (Undocumented feature - this also enables AGP). Finding the USB supplement on Microsoft's web site is left as an exercise for the reader. Reboot when done.
6. Install drivers for your video card. Reboot when done.
7. Install Intellimouse software for full mouse wheel support. Reboot.
8. Install Microsoft DialUp Networking 1.3 to fix many, many bugs in the DUN that comes with Win95. Reboot, of course.
9. Install a big set of mostly network and security upgrades. Some of these may not be neccessary, but who can tell? There is no documentation! (secupd2, vtcpupd, w95grey, winsock2, winsockup). Reboot. Of course.
Re:A good article. (Score:2)
Moderators, please moderate my earlier article down as redundant, and moderate this one up. (If you think it's relevant. I do get to a point at the end...
Anyway, for the sake of reference, everyone needs to keep in mind that setting up Windows 95 properly on a brand-new, blank harddrive system is a nightmare. It is harder than installing Linux.
How To Set Up Windows 95
This is how I achieve a reasonably stable system for web browsing and playing games - the only things I do with Win95.
0. Assume you have a boot disk for your computer with the FDisk and Format programs. Or, that you can boot off the CD ROM. Otherwise you are SOL, go back to the store, pay the nice man way too much to do the job badly for you. Moving on...
1. FDisk the hardrive if neccessary. Too bad if you've never heard of FDisk. I bet you wish your OEM Windows 95 came with real documentation now, don'tcha! Reboot when done.
2. Format your partitions. Don't forget the
3. Install Windows 95. (I assume OSR2.) I hope your boot diskette included CD ROM drivers! Reboot when done. Note that you will actually want to do this by copying the install directory onto your hard drive, and running the install from there. If you don't, every time you change something in the future, you will have to put the damn Windows CD in again.
4. Install the Intel chipset drivers for your post-1996 motherboard. Windows will not tell you to do this, but if you don't, you will have Problems. Reboot when done.
5. Install the USB supplement for OSR2 (Undocumented feature - this also enables AGP). Finding the USB supplement on Microsoft's web site is left as an exercise for the reader. Reboot when done.
6. Install drivers for your video card. Reboot when done. Gee, I hope you downloaded the latest drivers for your video and sound cards before you started!
7. Install Intellimouse software for full mouse wheel support. Reboot.
8. Install Microsoft DialUp Networking 1.3 to fix many, many bugs in the DUN that comes with Win95. Reboot, of course.
9. Install a big set of mostly network and security upgrades. Some of these may not be neccessary, but who can tell? There is no documentation! (secupd2, vtcpupd, w95grey, winsock2, winsockup). Reboot. Of course.
10. Change network setup so you can see other machines on the network. (I make this sound easy - it is for me - but good luck if you have never done it before!) Reboot.
11. Install a large set of useful utilities (like Winzip). Maybe you won't have to reboot!
12. Install sound card drivers. Reboot.
13. Install DirectX. Reboot. After the reboot, DirectX will detect more hardware and reboot again. (!)
14. Install latest version of Internet Explorer. (but where do you get it from? Probably a magazine cover CD.) Reboot.
15. Install a bunch of Microsoft add-ons like True Type Font Extensions, TweakUI, other Power Tools. You might have to reboot.
16. Install latest QuickTime, Intel Indeo Codec, WinAmp, Adobe PDF Viewer, other utilities and system stuff.
17. Install drivers for Zip drive. Reboot. Then install zip drive utilities and reboot again (sigh).
18. Install Logitech Joystick software and reboot again.
19. Set up your ISP connection. At least this is pretty easy under Windows.
20. Congratulations! NOW BACK UP THE REGISTRY, so that when something gets screwed up later, you have half a chance of fixing it without going through this whole thing again!
Total - at least one hour, and at least 15 reboots, if you don't make any mistakes. You may think I have exaggerated the problem, but I've actually simplified it by not considering the whole installation of significant applications! Oh yeah, I skipped the network card driver install and the details of network setup. But most home users don't do that.
The point is, people think Windows 95 is easy because they don't do it themselves. For a total computer neophyte, I believe Linux is already easier out of the box, if your distribution includes drivers for your hardware. Admittedly, this may be a big if.
But if I had to talk my parents (who not highly computer literate) through installing an OS properly over the phone, there is no way in hell I would use Windows 95. I would use Mandrake 7 (because the install is OK and I know it - I am sure there are other good install programs.)
I have problems with Linux too. I will save those for a different rant.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Linux for Ordinary Users (Score:2)
Now, this doesn't mean that non-technical users can't make use of Linux; it just means that their boxes will have to be set up by a Linux Friend and locked down so they can't break anything. Imagine a KDE/Gnome box with Netscape, Star Office (or KOffice for the more radical amongst you) and a big red button on the desktop that says 'shutdown'. I think
Finally, for technical users, Linux is probably fine as it is. Usable, reliable and easy enough to set up. If it was any easier, it wouldn't be fun, would it?!
I see no reason why the
To say the Linux and Free Software community doesn't listen to it's "customers" is incorrect. It's gotten where it is by doing precisely that. It's just that Linux's "customers" are technical users for whom Windows and MacOS are inadequate; and also those who need to deploy stable, secure systems for non-technical users in a traditional office environment.
Perhaps Windows (and MacOS) does suit the first group best. Perhaps it will for a long time. But I think the best fit of all would be "none of the above", but some kind of information appliance. Look at what Nokia/Intel are doing with their Linux-based box and Sony appear to be planning for the PlayStation 2 to get an idea what I'm on about here.
Linux isn't for everybody and doesn't need to be in order to "win". This isn't about dominating the market like Microsoft does, and Sun would like to do. This is about making computer systems that don't suck (Thanks ESR).
Re:It just makes me want to roll my eyes... (Score:2)
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [dhs.org]
Re:GNU/HURD is still born vaporware. (Score:2)
I think there are more than a few userspace advantages for the Hurd over Linux, namely, most of the kernal (Pun intended). Besides, I have read Linus saying that Linux is getting close to being complete except for new device drivers. Software isn't limited by developers but by design. Linux seems to reach out a lot less further than the Hurd. But then again, that is probably why we are using Linux and the Hurd is still trying to be usable.
And put your politics aside. Linux has nothing to prove by *always* being better. Even if the Hurd 1.0 gets released in 6 months that virtually replaces Linux as the GNU kernal for its advantages, that doesn't say anything about the compentency of the Linux team. It just means Linux's time has passed and the Hurd's has come. The original author was right, there will be a Linux killer around the bend. I would *much* rather it be GNU Hurd than some propietary software. Take it or leave it. We are all in the same boat.
<i>These are all applications. There is nothing preventing Linux from running new AI or natural language interfaces. Linux is so modular and free, expect it to <I>help</I> information appliances, not to be killed by them! Remember how much Linus has been talking about PDAs over the past year.</i>
If Linux is so modular then how come Linux users recompile their kernals so much? Even with modules there are devices that aren't supported until you recompile the kernal. And can modules be compiled separately (honest question)?
And wouldn't it make sense to design a new GPLed kernal for PDAs? It's an honest question.
Re:Great piece, but let me add this: (Score:2)
There is no question that GIMP can do a lot, but... let's face it. It doesn't have nearly the feature set that Photoshop has. Granted, if you stick to basic bread-and-butter stuff, then you can get by with GIMP. But don't kid yourself that it can do what Photoshop can do in the hands of a professional.</i>
You have sparked my curiousiy. What does the Gimp lack?
Re:This Man has some great points. (Score:2)
hmm, I've gotten both the Voodoo1 and 3 working fine. You might want to go back and try from scratch or mess with your monitor settings, they caused me the most headaches (any recent distro should have the voodoo drivers). If you get the masochism down you might someday get to develop sendmail (or at least configure it fulltime)
Patience, persistance, creativity, and luck. No wonder we think we're 31337.
--
Re:This Man has some great points. (Score:2)
--
Rabid Zealots... (Score:2)
Every OS has/had it's own rabid zealots..
I remember back in the Amiga days, the flames I got when I mentioned something positive about PC's or Macs (I was, and still am an Amiga user - I migrated from a C64 to an A1000 in 1987, and I still have an old A3000 connected to my home network, and I still use it regularly - however it's seeing less and less use compared to my PC's, which mostly run Linux - although I keep one around which dual-boots into Windows to keep my wife happy.)
When Lightwave came out for Windows, I was severely flamed by several idiots who had switched, and were calling my trusty old A3000 "useless", and that I should get a P100, which would run circles around it (I actually HAD a P100, and with the A3000's processor upgrade, speed was pretty much the same..) These were the same people who flamed PC users just a couple of years before. They knew nothing significant about either operating system, except the one they used was "best", and that they had to flame anyone who disagreed, or had a differing opinion.
And today it continues with Linux. It's just the latest in a long line... I've seen Zealots of the Mac, OS/2, Windows, Amiga, Atari, C64, and even SuperNintendo (and, to a lesser degree, Sega)
In short, there will always be idiots with low self-esteem, who's only means of feeling good about themselves is to bash people who don't agree with them. There's nothing (really) that we can do about it. You can't reason with them, you can't shoot them, and you can't stop them from being stupid; this is a fact of life on the Internet - if you're posting an opinion, be prepared for the nutcases who think you're challenging them.
ZZZIIPPPP (this is me donning my flamesuit
AOL's Reply (Score:2)
Hello, my name is Pam and I am writing to you on behalf of America Online in response to your recent e-mail.
Please forgive my delayed response to your e-mail.
I want to personally thank you for taking the time to write with your concerns about using the America Online (AOL) software on the Linux operating system.
America Online for Linux is currently in research and development.
AOL Member Services is currently "collecting the data" on requests for AOL for Linux and I assure you that your feelings and input are being used to help AOL make the best possible online experience.
I am excited about any improvements to the service and will be able to answer questions about AOL for Linux as soon as information and a possible release date are made available.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Thank you for writing America Online. I hope you were satisfied with the service you have received. Please feel free to write anytime you have questions or concerns. Have a great day!
Pam M.
Customer Care Consultant
America Online, Inc.
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
Yes, we need newbies (ie. more users, who will all be newbies for a time) for the Linux movement to progress, but the last thing we need is a dumbing down of Linux to this level!!!
I disagree with you on this. If AOL should happen to port their software to Linux, there is absolutely nothing which forces you to install it. Each of us makes the Linux system we want. It's a "movement" only in the sense that there are a lot of people who, for their own separate reasons, have chosen to use Linux.
Some people use Linux for ideological reasons -- the folks who agree with Stallman. Good for them.
Some people use Linux for the stability and reliability that comes from the Open Source development model. Good for them, too.
Some people use Linux because they are dissatisfied with the quality of Microsoft's product offerings. Good for them, as well.
Some people use Linux because it's "free as in beer", or because it lets them make use of hardware that would otherwise be populating a landfill. Good for them, also.
Some people, who would like to use Linux, are prevented from doing so by the barriers which are described in the article. The many comments which I have read in this thread about how it is terrible if Linux is "dumbed down", or how it is essential for all Linux users to learn about system administration do this particular group of potential users a great disservice. Adding the ease of use functionality that this group wants does nothing to take away from any other group that is using Linux. The fact that there's an AOL client doesn't keep you from connecting to any other ISP by whatever means you choose. The fact that a "newbie install" has a flashy GUI, limited options visible, almost no daemons installed, doesn't make vi the default text editor, or other "blasphemous" features has no impact on any person who is running a different style of Linux system.
I've been running one or more production Linux servers since I set up a DNS server on a 386SX-20 with an 80mb hard drive and 8 megs of RAM running kernel version 0.99pl15 (I forget whether it was Slackware or SLS). I don't need a huge amount of hand-holding for myself anymore, and I act as a "linux friend" (to use the article author's phrase), but just because I had to "gut it" and learn a huge amount to get to where I am today doesn't mean that I think new folks should have to do the same.
Had I invested the time I spent learning Linux into learning how to play the guitar, I'd be a fair guitarist by now. Instead, when I want to hear guitar music, I play a John Fahey or Andres Segovia or whomever CD. Yet I don't get hate mail from subscribers to Guitar Player magazine because I chose to put my efforts into learning an operating system instead of learning to play the guitar.
To coin a phrase: "Can't we all just get along?"
Re:Linux is Linux, Linux is NOT the anti-windows (Score:2)
I find it more agreeable that certain Windows-based "killer-apps" need to be re-created or ported to Linux. Word/Access/Excel is certainly one of them. Star Division took us part of the way, but they're still a little off -- I look forward to seeing what Sun will do with the Office Suite. AOL, on the other hand, should definitley be ported to Linux. Case and co. have *got* to be thinking about this -- it's just a matter of time until they go for it. And I say, more power if they do. 25 million people are on AOL, right? That's 25 Million people who previously were locked into one of two operating systems.
As for your other point: I don't think 2.4 will make much of a difference in the desktop arena. Why? Because hardware isn't really our weak-point right now. It would be nice to have better USB support, granted, but I would hardly place it at the top of the "wish-list". What I would like to see is software like KDE and Gnome working together to build a better desktop. XFree86 4.0 looks nice, and that should help out with gaming, but I think the desktop environment is more pressing right now. We need a consistent (themeable for sure) interface that users can depend on for ALL their applications. People say how diversity is one of the great strengths of Linux, but it's not necessarily true. Consistency is much more important in getting people to accept a new OS for their desktop system.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:I mostly agree with him (Score:2)
Commerical software company: Sorry, no, that's not on our release schedule.
Open source software developer: Take the source and fix it yourself you idiot!
The end result in both cases? Same. Both say : Screw you, the user.
The big difference is that there isn't just one person/entitiy capable of making the code changes in the open source case. You can pay/pursuade any of thousands of individual developers (quality and price may vary), infuence/pressure the company you buy releases and support from, make your case to the general community or fix it yourself.
If the changes are truly general and worthwhile, a big/wealthy company who $pends on support should be able to get fixes/features from distributors like RedHat, and the fixes would be done responsibly. If the features/fixes suck, no one will adopt them and the user can keep their crappy code.
The small, idependent and/or poor will have to rely on the interest/kindness of others or learn to do it themselves, but at least they've got more options than trying to get the one owner of the closed source to hook them up.
Are they all advocates? (Score:2)
Either way, it won't change the facts. Linux has soft-spots (e.g. documentation) as does every OS. Those need to be addressed and those who write well thought-out, clear articles about those problems will get MY paise.
Re:The people that need to read this.. (Score:2)
Would those be the people working on KDE, GNOME, XFree86, the various office suites and graphical installers? Please go grab a copy of Red Hat 4.2 and try using it (I'll dup my CD for you, if you like). I suspect you will detect an OS that has not remained "as-is".
Then again, perhaps you're refering to the kernel, where video, USB and IR support are being added for easier integration with consumer electronics; or what about those "elite Linux gurus" and their hard-to-use games like Myth2 and Heroes of Might and Magic III; there' always things like Mozilla and Knoqueror, which clearly are aiming at making the desktop harder to use....
Re:I mostly agree with him (Score:2)
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
If people can't take responsibility for their own actions, and aren't willing to learn ("I'm afraid, it's a computer!") then they should get an attitude adjustment or stop whining. A car is far more complicated (and requires real-time feedback from the user, unlike a computer), yet most people are comfortable with that technology... why? They have either grown up with it, so it doesn't seem strange, and they are willing to take a risk (ever driven on the NJ Turnpike? Far more dangerous than trying to get a dual NT/Linux set-up working).
This may sound elitest, but hey - it's the truth.
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
Yes they are. Word processing, freecell... these are not real-time scenarios, any more than they are with a pencil and paper or a deck of cards.
>Danger aside, we are talking about a large population of people who are fairly intelligent, receptive and aggreable people. The fact of the matter is that they don't have the time, money or desire to change their computer habits when what they have works more or less well for their needs.
Yes, but most (fairly intelligent) people don't realize how easy, and how little time it takes to learn things. Of course the definition of fairly intelligent varies from person to person (I'd say anybody w/ IQ >120/130, just a rought estimate). What people also don't often realize is that a couple of hours of learning now will save you many hours of time and frustration later. I'm not opposing any specific program, OS, or brand of computer here, just suggesting that people take a little time and responsibility to figure out what really is right for them. Linux doesn't have to take over the desktop, and I've never really advocated it for everyone. I'm suggesting people learn *a* tool.
Like I said, if you whine about learning to use an iMac, maybe computers aren't for you, but maybe all you need is a little change of thought and attack. You don't need to learn anything, but don't complain to others if you aren't willing to try to learn things for yourself.
I spoke in some anger and didn't fully explain myself... Responsibilty, not elimination of users is the idea... live and learn.
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:2)
I'll just carve what I want and ride the rest home... 8^)
The idea is that you need to responsibly learn to properly use a hammer, and the same with a computer. "Oh, a lathe is too dangerous to use!" is only valid if you don't learn about the tool and how to safely use it. The same with a computer. Learn, live, love. You should learn to use any tool properly and respect its abilities and limitations.
>TWACK! goes the Elitest Clue Stick.
Shouldn't that be "THWACK!" ? 8^)
Maybe it's just me... (Score:2)
Many of us here (on
Computers are like books - you need to look at them, open them up (either literally or figuratively - maybe both), and get involved in them. Learn the ideas, get to know it.
Dive in, learn. Whether it's a Mac, Windows box, Linux box, pinball machine, or whatever - take a few minutes to learn about what you are using. You will be happier with yourself (conquered another hurdle), ease your everyday life, and end up learning more about more things than you ever thought possible.
My significant other had very little computer experience before we met, but she was more than willing to learn. Her friend had used computers for over three years before, but was 'afraid' of her computer enough to only use freecell and a word processor. Result? 2 years later, My S.O. is finishing her (non-computer related) degree, and has taken the time to explore things like QBasic, Macros in Word/Excel, and isn't scared when she sits in front of KDE or Gnome. She may not be efficient, but she pokes around and learns what she needs to know and asks questions with the aim of not having to ask that again. Her friend still knows how to type a paper, maybe make some of the text bold, or change a font, and asks the same questions all the time with no intention of trying to learn anything. The difference is apparent - attitude toward learning.
The choice is up to you. Find the tool that makes your life easier, and learn to use it. If a CLI is too tough for people to learn (and I suggest that it is not), then people will use the graphical login managers. Linux grows and improves via the people who use it, so it will not immediately add all sorts of neat little things that many consider "needless eye candy", unless someone really thinks that it is worth *their* time to do it. Use Windows or a Mac if you like - I will use whatever platform suits my needs for the task at hand. I am not afraid of knowledge.
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:3)
snip
While I'm all for the spread of Linux as a desktop OS, I'm afraid it will never happen. Most people just want a computer that they can turn on, click on icons, and chat/word-process/etc.
Not to incite bad mojo, but don't you see something slightly contradictory with that?
AOL represents the end-user client, the appliance in the computer, the thing that ma and pa can install by themselves and begin using without having to go through an arduous learning process. (recent 5.0 mishaps notwithstanding)
The Linux glory days are for the most part gone, unless you roll your own. The future is uncertain, but it may be something that is just as good--but if our ideals don't adopt to the changing times, we'll be left with crust. It's a choice: play the game, even if AOL is on the lineup, or take your bat and go home.
What's "X-Windows?" (Score:3)
X (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is an important part of any UNIX-like operating system in which GUI-based programs are used; without it, you lose network transparancy for GUI-based programs, which, believe it or not, can be quite useful in a multiuser environment.
New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
He's on the money (Score:3)
But I don't think that OS nirvana has yet been reached. Capability based systems sound very cool.
On the topic of flame... I'm actually starting to wonder whether some of the flaming (and possible the ridiculous number of trolls on /. for the past month or so) is not being subsidized by someone who would rather Linux not succeed.
I mean... seriously. I know that I don't know any Linux users who act as stupidly as a lot of the trolls act.
--
About development pressures (Score:3)
Here's one point I take issue with. While I don't take issue with its clairvoyant validity, I do take issue with the idea that this should be accepted practice.
The idea that anyone should say yes to an impossible schedule, over-promise, kill themselves to work inhumanly sustainable hours is just ludicrous. But we've been doing it.
It's time to stop it.
Just got this in my mailbox, and I think it says just about everything I want to:
Gold Rush Mindset Undermining Programming Field [www.tao.ca]
Think about it, if you're 20-30 something now, and working 90 hours a week, do you want to be doing that into your 40's? Should you even be doing that now? Why do you accept it?
If we're so valuable, and in such short supply, it's time to start maybe from the grunt programmer on up to put a stop to the acceptable practice of demanding the impossible and change it into delivering the sane.
Re:He's Right (Score:3)
And before you cut me off at the legs, think about how not too long ago (like a year) writers like this would complain about how hard it was to install Linux, and that Windows installation was easier. Now the reviews are getting more positive in that respect -- we have simpler installers and pre-installed computers.
Linux is not a product (Score:3)
First of all, who will they complain to? There is
no LinuxCorp. Linux is not a product, it's the
result of a community effort. Several entities
sell it as a product, and contribute to the
development effort, but they're not under contract
to anyone to, say, deliver USB in the next month[1].
Secondly, if a wealthy corporation wants a feature
right *now*, there's nothing to stop them hiring
a few programmers and adding it in. The
development process allows for this. It encourages
it. Try getting a custom feature added to a
closed OS and see how far you get.
This is a fundamental misconception in the
article, and in others that claim that Linux isn't
ready for primetime. Linux does what its users
want it to do. Its users mostly want low-to-mid
range servers, so Linux is perfect for that. Some
users want high-end servers, and the design allows
for extension to fill that need. Not too many
people worry about luser-proof desktops, and so
work needs to be done in that area.
But the fact remains that Linux is adaptable to
a host of applications, precisely because it
isn't a traditional product and doesn't have
a closed development process. The open development
process is not a weakness, it's a strength.
K.
-
[1]And yes I know it's in the 2.3 kernel, so don't
bother pointing that out.
Connell is missing the point behind GNU & Linux. (Score:3)
First, the notion of a CD-installable general purpose operating system is itself outmoded. The consumer market is moving towards embedded and specialized devices. Linux will play a big role in that market, but making it user friendly will be done by the for profit companies that make the devices. Even in the PC market itself, most non-technical users never install applications, let alone a whole operating system.
Second, open source efforts like GNU and Linux worked because users/customers were also developers: they could make intelligent suggestions for how to improve software and often even supply and share the enhancements themselves. Non-technical users contribute nothing to this ecology and it is debatable whether the open source community should expend a lot of scarce resources on such user communities.
Third, the world needs an operating system for technically savvy users. The idea of one operating system for everybody is Microsoft's, and if I wanted to use that kind of system, I would (I have licenses to all the Microsoft software). World domination by any operating system, be it Linux or Windows, is bad because it means trying to make one system fit everybody's needs, and that cannot be anything other than a mediocre compromise.
Let's aim for open standards, open protocols, and open device interfaces, not world domination by Linux or any other system.
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:3)
Since you shared some of your experiences, I'll reciprocate... I also have been using Linux for about 4 years, mostly as a portal to remote supercomputers (during grad school) and somewhat on my home system. During college and grad school, I was continually exposed to *nix environments, and consider myself a fairly adept user. However, when it comes to system administration, at times I still need a good thwacking with a large clue stick.
IMO, the real problem is that, currently, Linux (which is inherently multi-user) requires a goodly amount of administration compared to Windows and MacOS (inherently single-user OSes). Consider software installation: in Windows, you download a file, extract it (typically through an install wizard) and click ok several times, and *poof* it's ready to run (after the obligatory reboot, of course
While I'm all for the spread of Linux as a desktop OS, I'm afraid it will never happen. Most people just want a computer that they can turn on, click on icons, and chat/word-process/etc. An inherently multi-user system, such as linux, *BSD, etc. adds a level of complexity that this type of user will never want to navigate.
I guess I see the spread of linux in the light that there are millions of people out there who actually want to learn and understand more about how their computer works. To me, that's more important than which company comes out on top.
Nb: M$ aside, of course... THEY don't want computer users to understand what they are doing: they might stop paying for crappy software then!
Eric
Mixed messages here (Score:3)
As an example, Apple's OS and hardware have demonstrated levels of proficiency in both tasks. As much as people criticize the design decisions, a single user interface is ideal for people who are figuring out information flow, computers, tasks, etc. A single mouse button, so people don't have to fear that if they do an incorrect action, something irrecoverable can happen because there is only one action. A single menu bar, so people *always* know where to look for info and stuff, without having to figure out what app has the focus.
Now here's the problem, if you want to be a Linux advocate.
Apple will be releasing MacOS X. It will feature all of the above useability functions. I don't know if it will also feature a gradual learning curve for newbies, but it will definitely have all the power features Linux has touted over Win9x and WinNT. The CLI, the GNU tools, the scripting and networking and robustness, unless Apple screws up majorly. If they do throw in a gradual learning curve, all the Newbies will be flocking to Apple because of their strengths, and Linux's weakness
Consistent, useable, useful UI. I'm not talking about themes or skins. Consistent drag and drop functionality. Patterned interfaces among all applications. Their menu bar. Their single window mode, for new users. The graphical interface for system management. Consistent behaviors among all applications. Transparent windows, for example, to indicate which windows own which dialogs. Animated minimization and maximization so people know where the windows go, that they don't disappear.
Advertising, focus, and attention for the new users. They will have the nifty industrial design, the nifty desktop graphics, the nice effects possible through display PDF.
Control. Because Apple hardware is under Apple control, they can design the software and the OS to just work. If they haven't in the past, it's their bad, but they have the resources to provide excellet support and coverage.
A lot of these things Linux just cannot control. At least until someone does a Linux box, akin to the iMac. Plug in, power up, and use. Until people start focusing on UI, instead of themes and skins. Until we stop thinking of new users as 'dumb', and things for them to be dumbed down. New users are just that, new, and they have their own ramp up and their own distinct needs. We can ignore them, of course, and that would just leave the door open for Apple, or Be, or someone else.
-AS
Now's a good time to remind people (Score:3)
http://linux.com/howto/mini/Advocacy.html [linux.com]
What busy people should read is the Coles Notes version of Section 6, the Canons of Conduct [linux.com]:
As a representative of the Linux community, participate in mailing list and newsgroup discussions in a professional manner. Refrain from name-calling and use of vulgar language. Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer. Your words will either enhance or degrade the image the reader has of the Linux community.
and
Always remember that if you insult or are disrespectful to someone, their negative experience may be shared with many others. If you do offend someone, please try to make amends.
Re:It just makes me want to roll my eyes... (Score:3)
There is some self-interest in Linux. A Linux user is either a Unix user who adopted this new flavor, or is a non-Unix person who decided the effort to test and learn Linux was worth the trouble. Those who convinced themselves that Linux was worth the effort to try it had to convince themselves that it was worth doing so. Some of those people will be advocates, and some will be defensive about their present O.S. choice.
You're less likely to hear from those of us who aren't passionate about something. You get to hear from those who most strongly agree or disagree...and those who agree may simply think that you're as normal as them and see no need to comment.
Re: Linux Killer (Score:3)
Advocates see Linux as a techie operating system with a command line prompt and an X interface, but if Linux ever get somewhere then that's not what's going to be visible. Linux will be buried under the hood to the point that no one cares it's there.
Please, don't "OS/2" Linux... (Score:3)
Have a I seen similar attitudes from Linux users? Unfortunately, yes, and it makes me cringe every time. I advocate Linux regularly (ask my boss!), but I try to do it in a positive manner. Obviously, Linux isn't alone in having zealots causing 'bad PR' -- I've had problems with OS/2 zealots, as noted above, and Macintosh zealots -- but it is so unnecessary and so unfortunate, for any operating platform. Did I stick with OS/2? Nope. Was the negative experience from OS/2 zealots the only reason? Nope, but I would be a liar if I said it didn't play a part.
The next time you feel like flaming somebody for being (in your eyes) "anti-Linux" remember the old saying: You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar!
Journey to Yandol [uninova.com]
Re:Grok this! (Score:3)
I also program because I want to and I can. No argument there, compadre.
But I also remember that the user is the reason the program exists. That's the spirit of open source -- to meet the needs of users by putting th users in control of the software. Open source is not about replacing a clique of proprietariness with another clique of I-am-a-better-hacker-than-you.
Now if the user base consists of yourself, go ahead and program as you see fit -- you will naturally program to meet your needs. However, if the user is someone else, I do my best to find out what their needs are. If their needs can be met by a feature they demand, then I implement it. Sometimes you have to say "no" to a feature either becuase it's impossible, there isn't time or there's a better way, but if your software is for someone else, I think you should listen to them.
Not everyone can pick up a programming language and fix their software -- even those of us who can can't afford to patch every piece of open source software they wish had some feature or another.
Saying "Use the source. Now leave me alone" to a non-coder (or even a coder) is like having the chef of a restaurant telling you to cook your own damn steak if you don't like the way s/he does it; s/he may be right, but will s/he be a chef for much longer?
Re:Sick of Anti- Flame Advocacy (Score:3)
I remember back in the early days, the biggest flamewars were "Apple ][ vs. Commodore 64". In many ways, the participants there were the same sorts as the worst flamers here. Usually it is someone young and niave, who has only really seen one system. They get themselves invested in that one system and feel the need to prove it in order to prove that their investment wasn't unfounded. And so they flame anything that even looks like a criticism of their favored OS.
But despite their loudness, the majority understand that every system has its strengths and its weaknesses. Unfortunately, if the idiots are too loud, and burn people too often, those on the outside will shut everyone out, idiot and otherwise.
Every system has its weaknesses. So does Linux. Sending blizzards of mail to correct something that was incorrect is good. Sending blizzards of misinformed mail pretending that black is white because otherwise your OS isn't perfect makes everyone look bad, makes people ignore criticism and is just generally counterproductive.
Even Linus Torvalds says that someday something better than Linux will come along. Don't be one of the fools that is so blinded by partisanship that they get left behind when this happens.
Re:Maybe I'm Just Thick (Score:3)
Just my USD2.00E-2.
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off."
This is _exactly_ what he's talking about... (Score:3)
Anybody look at the last 10 posts or so on this thread?
This is exactly what the author was talking about!
A set of flaming comments on the author being "a M$ pawn" and "Grok? Crock!" and so forth. (Especially if you browse
In spite of the man having some good points about the state of Linux in relation to "newbie" users, i.e. the public in general, he is automatically attacked and flamed as if he was Bill Gates posting on
As a user of Linux for about two years now I can honestly say that it's not ready for prime time quite yet. Close? Yes! Absolutely!
Can we just give it to a Windows user and have them use it without having to seriously re-train or coddle them? No. No way!
I have 10 years of OS/Network experience under my belt and there are still quite a few things about Linux that I don't understand.
If I don't undsertand it then there's quite a good chance that a new or converted user won't either.
I'm just as strong a promoter for replacing Windows with Linux as anyone else but as members of the Linux community we have to face facts - we're not going to replace Windows any time soon.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
Great piece, but let me add this: (Score:3)
Two other things Linux advocates need to learn:
1. 99% of users don't care about the operating system. The only thing that matters is the applications.
2. Stability for the desktop is way down the list of priorities for the average user. Is it nice? Yes, but it's not a big issue. [Proof: If it was, the Mac would be dead, and Windows never would have dominated.
Linux will never go anywhere on the desktop until it gets some decent applications that are at least comparably to Windows. Right now they are way, way behind. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Name for me one significant end-user application that is clearly superior than the equivalent in Windows. There simply isn't one.
--
Flexability to "Roll your own" (Score:3)
Everybody gets hung up on the thought of a big corporation requiring programmers to add whatever features to a program.
But, with the GPL, if a company needs a feature and the primary developer isn't able to add it (either through lack of time or ability), the company can add their own features. Or, they can pay somebody to add their features. Or, they can use the existing program as a framework for their own version that has the features they need. Point is, they have the flexability if they need it, and the primary developer isn't obliged to listen to anybody (although it's a good idea, sometimes it's not practical).
Sick of Anti- Flame Advocacy (Score:3)
I know all about the Advocacy HOWTO, and I personally am not a flamey mail-bomber. But I believe it IS an effective form of advocacy. This article on slashdot, and last weeks rant about Loki/Blizard ports on LinuxGames shows that people DO pay attention when deluged in hate-mail.
Why not "For Newbies" distros? (Score:3)
Windows has Win9x and WinNT. The first being for your average joe who just wants Office and the Net to work and the second being for servers. Why shouldn't Linux do that? We already have Caldera Linux for the newbies. If you want "power-user" system you can use Debian among others. There is no reason that all the distros should look and act the same. What's good for a newbie is hell for a power user after all.
It only makes sense to have different Linux's for different people. You can't please everyone. We don't all run an identical kernel. Nor should we run identical distros that are all dumbed down for new users.
Don't dumb DOWN, Cover UP! (Score:3)
MacOS X, designed to be stupidly easy to use by the guys at apple, yet underneath, its a unix based operating system (hey, linux is unix based too!). What linux needs to get into the avg user market share is a opensource/freesoftware equivelant to the MacOS interface. You don't need a command line that understands human style sentances (dumbing down) you need a GUI that is simple, not overly complicated, and allows the user to do what they need/want easily, like type a letter, or surf the web (covering up).
Are there any projects out there working on a GNU-Bob? =]
Better (as in simpler) hardware support is needed too. Woz once said the ideal computer would have peripherals that upload their drivers to the computer when they are plugged in, making them truely plug and play. Most distributions have made proggress in hardware support. HOW-To's from a few years ago tell you to write down all information about your computer before installing linux, including IRQ assignments, chipset type etc...
These days you don't even need to know what an IRQ is to install RedHat or Caldera.
Linux is moving in the right direction, it is just important to realize that, to avoid stepping backwards.
-NH
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Hitting the nail right on the head (Score:3)
There is no Linux killer, or at least something newer and better may come along and replace the Linux kernel but there will still be a huge body of free software available and it will only grow and improve.
One reason, there will always be academics and volunteers forming a core of developers, wether they believe in a moral crusade to make free software available, or whether to scratch an itch.
Another, it makes no sense for a Large company that makes the bulk of it's money through services embracing a business model that produces less reliable software, thus diminishing the value of those services, this is perhaps less certain than point number one, but I believe it will hold true.
On a side note, what the author needs to grok is that if he posts technically ill informed details about something people believe passionately about, he is bound to meet some resistance, "Red Hat ships Linux with a Windows-like graphical user interface (GUI)" What??? in what way is X "Windows like"?? "the Linux GIU(sic) does not cover many tasks" whatever.
Another thing, why does Linux need a Windows emulator? surely a more complete version of WINE would be a better solution. And in what way is X incomplete (apart from the "coming soon" 3D support)?
Whatever, Later
-----------------------------------
Re:Linux Killer (Score:3)
A "killer" might be a little strong, I find it hard to beleive that Linux could just up and die. Don't get me wrong I'm sure that Linux could get very sick and old. But it has to many hardcore advocates to just disapear. The Linux base is at it's start not it's end. - But if I could point a finger at a possible threat it would be to another Unix base. And a very good user interface; - MacOS 10.
I know this is a streatch, but think about it. Mac definitly has the whole "out of the box" situation down. And their new OS, with a BSD backend, is a stable, smart idea. It will be backward compatible with all Mac software and compileing software for it that was written for other UnixLike systems will be a brease. Oh and don't forget MS will keep suporting Mac so the big office suite that everyone and ther uncle already knows will be on the system. -- and yes even AOL will be there.
Scarry!
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:3)
Well, you're kinda right (Score:4)
But think about what the commercialization of Linux has brought us. We have games being ported by more than one company because there are people buying Linux for the desktop. There's major commercial software being ported. Virtually every major brand-name add-in card (video, sound, whatever!) is getting a Linux driver, and in many cases the driver is Open Source, too!
All these riches are not being bestowed upon us because the companies like the way we dress, the way we talk, or because of the Politics Of Linux. They're in it for the money, and they see Linux as a revenue generator, whether now or down the road a ways. All these development resources that have been turned over to us come with a price, friends. The bargain we strike in excahnge for the goodies is the implicit agreement that We, The People, will build Linux into a commercially viable operating system that Joe Schmoe can buy in a store, take home, and install. That's where the development resources are going.
It doesn't matter if you were running Slackware in 1995 and remember hand-installing applications fondly. It doesn't matter if you prefer the "pure" days when you used Linux because it was Free, and Cool. It doesn't even matter how you pronounce it (I've been using it since way back when, and I still pronounce it "Lie-nux",). It's still being pushed in this new direction regardless of what we think or want. How else are you going to get to World Domination?
Keep this in mind whan you speculate as to a Linux without all the commercial backing. The developers will still build things the way you say - but there'll be a heck of a lot fewer of 'em.
I prefer trying to make it the OS for the average luser.
- -Josh Turiel
Great article! But one thing. :) (Score:4)
I'm not sure I agree with this - perhaps demands will be put on Red Hat and the like, but when it comes down to programmers, I don't think so. If it happens, it will likely be ignored. The text that comes with the GPL'd app says explicitly that there is no warranty, and if the free software developer doesn't want to implement 50 features in her spare time, then she simply won't. Is this the kiss of death for Linux in the business environment? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be. Someone who wants features right now can throw money at someone, and get it. Otherwise, it's free, and development terms are dictated by the developer.
Some readers have suggested to me that the open source method of software development causes project management issues to evaporate; that the projects manage themselves. This is a fantasy. The open source method, while it does solves some problems, raises new ones. You will be managing a large public programming project with conflicting demands, tight schedules, and the need for high quality. You have to figure out how to do this well. Hopefully, you can invent and master new techniques for software project management within the open source method. But if you don't, the complexity of this task will sink your whole endeavor.
Again, I think the Free Software community has demonstrated that their project management (or whatever you want to call it - their development process...) works very well. Perhaps it's not what people are used to, but it provides robust, feature-filled software. What may be lacking is that most software contains features for programmers, rather than for users. But I don't think I agree that a fundamental change is needed. Perhaps it boils down to the goal of Linux - is it acceptance in the business world, or is it a robust, free, operating system?
Other than that, I think you make some excellent points, and I hope the Linux community can grok them. :)
----
Maybe I'm Just Thick (Score:4)
I have to disagree with a couple of points regarding end users and applications. The author states that people have invested hours and hours into learning the ins and outs of their Office Suites. Yeah, some people have. Most of the people I know sure haven't! They've spent hours and hours doing the same things over and over again because someone showed them how to do a simple task. If they moved to a different program, they'd scramble for a few weeks and call someone over to show them how to do two or simple tasks and then they'd be okay.
I'm pretty sure this is a representative group, here. They don't want to learn the ins and outs of everything. They certainly don't want to sit down with a manual and learn what options they have and might use in the future. When they try to do something new (perish the thought) they might poke around for ten seconds and then either give up or try to find someone else who might know how.
So the time spent in learning a new application is a lot smaller than the author estimates -- if the people I know are representative.
Of course, then he talks about the Palm being a revolutionary device because it did what people wanted to do, as opposed to making people adapt to a new system. Right. I'm willing to bet at least, oh, 95% of current Palm users had to learn that Graffiti language. Granted, Palm users may be more technically adept than the rest of the population, but they learned something new and it became a fantastic success.
I suspect the truth is closer to my experience than the picture the author presents. :)
--
Re:Be afraid... be very afraid (Score:4)
--jeff
Re:The people that need to read this.. (Score:4)
Ah, but then there are those of us who are elitist and snobbish about Linux, and who admit it and even revel in the fact.
I used to enjoy using an Atari 8-bit computer. It was great. You could get the source code to its OS from Atari. You could also get the source code to its DOS and its BASIC language. They would send you programming tip sheets for free if you asked them to. And, as a 12-year-old, I called Atari Corp. with a programming question, and a couple of weeks later an actual progammer called me back. Me! A little 12-year-old, talking to a big-time programmer about my completely inconsequential problem!
But, the masses chose IBM Compatibles, which were horrendously expensive and which didn't offer graphics or audio as good as that 1979-vintage Atari until more than two decades later. Even so, the masses chose this broken platform, and before long, almost the whole world thinks the IBM Compatible's operating system of choice (Windows) == Computer. Pretty soon, just about all the hardware and software available in stores is only available for "IBM PCs and Compatibles." So I ended up buying one, and suffered through programming that closed OS for longer than I care to think about.
But, hey, at least I found Compuserve at about the same time as I adopted that crappy platform as my own. It was a nice online community, populated mostly by people who knew a thing or two about computers. I mean, you at least had to have a modem and know how to configure your terminal program to get on there! I had a lot of fun on Compuserve (and paid the huge Visa bills to prove it), and even met the woman who became my wife on there.
But The Masses wanted AOL, so Compuserve made itself more and more like AOL, and eventually AOL bought out Compuserve and made them virtually one and the same.
I could go on and on with this sort of thing, but I'm sure you've gone through the same sorts of processes.
The bottom line is that I'm sick and tired of having what I love ruined by the will of the masses.
If they want to use Linux, that's great. In fact, I'd prefer if everyone did. But if Linux has to be adulterated beyond recognition before they'll accept it, then fsck 'em. I'm not going to lose yet another of the great things in my life just because most people are lazy and ignorant.
While I'm ranting, I may as well rave about the original author's crack that we'd better all watch out or the Big Bad Companies will get upset that they're not getting what they want from us.
OH REALLY?!
I'm completely fed up with people telling me that I'd better do X or the companies will be mad, or I'd better NOT do Y or the companies will be upset.
These are the same entities who are ruining our lives. They're the ones who register software patents, who buy our politicians, who send 16-year-olds to jail for having the audacity to view legal copies of movies on their OS of choice. These are the monsters in our nightmares, immortal, all-encompassing, and growing more powerful by the day. And we're supposed to care more about what
They can all go to hell in a handbasket, and so can their cronies who think we should do their bidding.
Linux is
Re:I mostly agree with him (Score:4)
> and shove them. We have no time for that.
No. The correct response is, "Here's the source, have a nice day". That's why it's called open-source, isn't it?
This Man has some great points. (Score:4)
Let me just say that I installed red hat 6.1 over the weekend on a Jaz drive on a computer that is primarily a windows box. It went HORRIBLY.. I had the worst time with it, I eventually bought a new NIC after reading newsgroup posts about the 3c509b nics form 3com. I bought a NetGear nic, which eventually worked, but has made boot and shut down freeze a few times (I fixed this). It is not easy to set up Red Hat linux (I've never tried caldera or corel), that much is clear to me. It is FAR FAR easier to set up Windows 2000 from scratch (I've done that 25 or 30 times, in a testlab). It is the easiest install I've ever seen. Once it's up, I never have any problems finding drivers for my up-to-date hardware. Again, drivers WERE available in Linux for almost everything, but they were very difficult to find (Diamond MX300 sound card). When X first came up, it would only come up in 640x480, I had to mess around with the X86config file, where i set my refresh rate of my monitor incorrectly (it is a used monitor, and I don't actually know it's specs), so in one or two resolutions it was impossible to figure out what the hell was on the screen.
Now, After about 3/4 hours of work. It works great, and I'm ready to start messing around with perl and CGI. I personally don't mind the 3 or 4 hours lost, it was for a "good cause". I wouldn't even know how to begin getting CGI stuff set up in '98 (my other os, for gaming). But I have a fairly good idea about it in Linux.
I've been using Linux since the major distribution was slackware 2.0 (at least on the east coast). So I know somethng about it. I actually had fun setting it up on the Jaz drive. Though I can't actually get the Jaz Disk to boot, I can always pull it out and put another OS on another disk.
Now. I would never expect my mother to be able to do what I did, or even many of my friends. There is a gap between Linux and windows that is closing rapidly, but it is there, and it's not technology, it's usability.
Anyway, I thought I'd share a semi-newbie's experience. (I hadn't touched linux in 2 years).
The people that need to read this.. (Score:5)
won't be the ones reading. They'll be the ones skimming and then flaming.
What kills me about the Linux movement is this: It is composed apparently entirely of people that have never been USERS in their lives. They've never dealt with something that they just don't have the time or ambition to learn. They've never dealt with something that is unnecessarily difficult.
These people make statements like "Lets not dumb it down THAT far..." about porting AOL to Linux. Linux advocates seem to have forgotten that putting the software that people want on their PC isn't 'dumbing' anything down, it's called customer service. I like Linux. I wish it could gain the market share and market approval necessary to start getting the software development that we need for it to prosper.
Right now, Linux has no place on the desktop in my company. There are limited places where you could put Linux on the desktop and make it work. Why is this? Because the 'elite Linux gurus' want Linux to remain as-is. A club that only people with the computer and programming know-how can join. An exclusive club from which they can look down upon the [L]users that DARE to ask for user friendly software and configuration tools.
Next month and the following, as all of the geeks that have to fill out a tax form more complicated than the EZ, I want you to take a look at who you're paying to do your taxes. If you're doing them solo, take a look at the time wasted and the frustration involved in this seemingly simple task. Why is this? Because the IRS feels about the tax codes like you do about the code behind Linux. Job security through obscurity?
Well, it's a good thing I don't collect karma, because I am confident this is going down in "flames"...hell, you simply can't call Linux advocates elitist or snobbish and be expected to get away with it, eh?
-Jer
I mostly agree with him (Score:5)
Instead, he's insisting he's right about the things he wrote about linux. I agree with his assessment of what end users expect and need, but this part caught my eye:
As Linux is embraced by more organizations, and used in more ways that are crucial, the demands upon you will increase. New feature ideas and bug reports will no longer go onto a "wish list"; they will go onto a "hot list." You will face pressure to add 50 new items to the next release, when it really ought to have 10. Wealthy organizations, accustomed to getting their way, will demand impossible schedules from you, and then complain if the quality is not perfect.
I have two responses to this.
1. God, I sure hope not. I hope it never comes to that. Let's make sure it doesn't.
2. Tell those "wealthy organizations accostomed to getting their way" to take their "schedules" and shove them. We have no time for that. If they want crappy software with lots of features, point them to the borg in the northwest. They'll come crawling back.
--
grappler