The horns of the dilemna.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| salparadise Oct 26, 2006 3:07 AM EDT |
Part One - reaction. Not only does the article not give an opinion on free vs proprietary, it absolutely does not use the words Quoting: I'd rather be in chains than be uncool. What the article does is present a list of things that people who bothered to reply to a poll think. And here's the rub - users don't want a lesson in politics (shame but no surprise), they don't particularly care about licenses (again, no surprise). What they want is a Linux distro that works. Why? I suggest it's because they instinctively don't trust Microsoft, because they don't want to keep paying and paying and paying and because everyone loves to rebel at some level or other. Because awareness of huge global corporations being inherently evil, stupid and greedy is spreading and people want a way to join in whilst thumbing their noses at the accountants, lawyers and suits. Now I know there's all sorts of arguments for open source and freedom and DRM and so forth. But putting people down, alleging the use of terms that haven't been used and just plain stupid ranting isn't going to do anything except get peoples backs up. Perhaps a better way would be for the community to create a video that is provided with all distros that explains the situation in easy to understand terms. Let the user decide how much of this freedom they want to embrace. Otherwise there's elements of the thought police in how we as a community treat these issues. It's not just the video codecs and the browser plugins, it's government portal functionality (governments who on the one hand support the idea of open source as a way of saving schools, voluntary orgs and local gov' money but on the other hand WILL NOT mandate the use of sites that any browser can access). It's needlessly complex installation of drivers, wireless setup, printer setup and so on. Linux is not easy, Ubuntu is not easy, neither is SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva etc, if you want easy go with freespire or maybe PCLinuxOS. We have to decide whether we are making an OS for above average geeks or an OS to "set people free from proprietary nonsense". If it's the latter then Linux needs an overhaul and needs to take a leaf from Freespires book. If not then carry on as you were, but forget completely the idea that Linux will ever be anything other than a hobbyists tool or a server. Users are not stupid, they are users (we live in a culture where stupidity is praised and knowledge is sneered at, how then can we blame people for being conditioned by the prevailing culture?), people who don't listen and think they can force everyone to be as they are are the stupid ones. Part Two - action. On the umpteenth reading of what I'd written above something occurred to me. If we let proprietary code become the norm on Linux then we lose, probably for a LONG time, the opportunity to do away with the proprietary way. Linux becomes just another OS (with insufficient users to stir the big companies into action). We will, in effect, have had our teeth pulled by the sheer mindless greed of "the masses". So the question perhaps should be, do you wish to use multimedia plugins in the browser, watch avi's and wmv's, use Acrobat reader etc? And if the answer is yes then "stick with Windows". This of course makes Linux into a political vehicle with all the flack and problems that that will create and completely avoids the other reasons that people might wish to use Linux - such as socio-economic reasons, security reasons or just because they like to be different. Maybe some sort of standard that a distro can adhere to - "pure Linux", a standard that will disappear as soon as extra codecs are added, a standard that the OS broadcasts so as to encourage its use. So the OS scans itself periodically to see if anything "untowards" has been added. The only way (?) to tackle this is to create a user base of people who WILL NOT use proprietary code/cs yet who vociferously demand access regardless. This would in turn create a two-tier system of distro classification. I know we're sort of there already, but maybe we don't make enough fuss about those who do "stay pure" and allow too much of the "a messed up Linux install is still a Linux install"... Any thoughts...? |
| jimf Oct 26, 2006 3:20 AM EDT |
the 'article' wasn't worth a thought in the first place. Just mindless babble... |
| dinotrac Oct 26, 2006 3:37 AM EDT |
>The only way (?) to tackle this is to create a user base of people who WILL NOT use proprietary code/cs yet who vociferously demand access regardless. Therein lies the rub. You create code. You don't create a user base. You attract it. If you don't make something people want to use, people won't use it. That can be approached two ways: 1. Alter your something to be more desirable, or 2. Effectively communicate why your something really is something people want to use. Number 2 only works if it's true. You might get a lot of looks followed by a bad rep you'll never live down if it's not. One thing you don't do is call all the people you want to join your user base a bunch of lemmings, idiots, losers, lazy bums,etc. That tends not to be very enticing. |
| salparadise Oct 26, 2006 3:53 AM EDT |
I don't have a problem with the article, I have a problem with this... A journalist gives her precious advice to GNU/Linux distributors: "Convert your distros into ms windows or mac os, then it'll sell and I'll buy it. I don't care about freedom anyway, it's just that using ms s/w is uncool. I'd rather be in chains than be uncool. Penguins are so cute they must be cool. Otherwise, I don't have a clue." Inflammatory nonsense. I'm surprised this got posted. |
| incinerator Oct 26, 2006 4:27 AM EDT |
aye, that comment was from me. It reflects my opinion about the article and its author. Thanks, sal. Request to the editor: Next time you censor my written works, please ask for my permission or don't post it at all. I can understand that the first and last paragraph were removed, but you should have informed me in advance. |
| devnet Oct 26, 2006 5:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:We have to decide whether we are making an OS for above average geeks or an OS to "set people free from proprietary nonsense". If it's the latter then Linux needs an overhaul and needs to take a leaf from Freespires book. If not then carry on as you were, but forget completely the idea that Linux will ever be anything other than a hobbyists tool or a server. Love that line above...it's absolutely 100% true. Politics, culture, and licenses fly out the door when a new user comes across. Our target audience for Linux MUST change if we want it to grow...any business/project must adapt to changing audience/customer expectations to grow. Some probably are saying, "we don't need Linux to grow" I'd say you're an elitist snob. Linux growing would allow everyone to be in charge of their computing...it puts the user in the driver seat, gives them freedoms that they don't have...and allows them to eventually become immersed in the FOSS/FLOSS culture. I say that is the idea...get people interested first, then barrage them with idealology later. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 26, 2006 7:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:get people interested first, then barrage them with idealology later. Definately. I think that's how most of us got to Linux in the first place. At least I did. |
| dinotrac Oct 26, 2006 9:14 AM EDT |
sander - Same here. The funny thing is, if you use Linux long enough, the ideology kind of creeps in whether you want it to or not. You like being able to get whatever software you need when you need it. You like being able to fix a problem -- whether you are able to fix the code, or you simply find out about somebody's fix and you go get it. When things get in your way, you know that something isn't right -- that your ordinary freedom is being compromised. You may not know exactly what to call it, you may not even know when, how, or even that it happened, but you've internalized a whole buncha freedom-thinking. |
| tuxchick2 Oct 26, 2006 9:43 AM EDT |
I don't understand all the ranting against "ideology", unless you're thinking of the foamy-mouthed zealots who know better for everyone else. Ideology is what drives FOSS (and everything else in the world.) Ubuntu is the Cool Linux because of its ideology. It's even expressed in the name- "humanity to others." The ideology of FOSS is, in a nutshell, the same rights and freedoms that we are accustomed to in other industries- multiple competing brands and vendors, interoperability, the right to use our possessions as we see fit. FOSS follows the natural evolution in any product cycle- a new product is expensive and exclusive. Then imitators follow, and we get many brands and versions. Then prices drop, features increase. Then third-party parts and accessories. Then a second-hand market. Then continual improvements and variations. Proprietary software took this away from use. Prices stay high, vendor-lockin is the rule, quality remains shoddy, and the second-hand software market was killed thanks to Microsoft and other big proprietary vendors. I'm thinking if people are turned off to the ideology it's the delivery, rather than the message that's to blame. When did "freedom" become a dirty word? BTW I wouldn't call Eugenia Loli-Queru a journalist. An opinionated person who I believe founded OSNews, a professional flame-baiter. But not a journalist in the traditional sense of the word. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 26, 2006 12:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:When did "freedom" become a dirty word? It didn't. But to someone looking to escape Windows it's not a selling point. Having superior applications and very little security problems is. *We* know that it's the ideology that drives Linux, but we have forgotten that most of us got pulled into Linux because of the rumors of "a superior OS that's totally free (beer)". Sure, we knew the freedom bit too - somewhat. But we only learned the true nature of the ideology after running Linux and having been exposed to the community for a while. Dino's example is spot on. You install Linux. You run it for a bit and before you know it you're totally used to grabbing everything you need off the net through your package manager - because that's just "the way it works". The realisation that this is true freedom only comes when such a user tries something different (troubleshooting a friend's Windows PC for example) and proprietry crap gets in his way. At that moment he's enlightened :-) |
| jimf Oct 26, 2006 2:16 PM EDT |
The 'article' as such is just stupid. As tuxchick says, Eugenia Loli-Queru is hardly a journalist, and the piece is primarily flame bait backed up by a dubious windows straw poll, Certainly we want to make Linux a better OS, certainly we want to increase the number of Linux users, but at what cost? I certainly am not willing to have Linux become a clone of XP or Vista. If that's elitist devnet, I'm happy to clam the title. Not even getting into the GPL or 'freedoms' aspects of it, the unwritten tradition in Linux has always been to give back to the community, 'each according to his abilities'. A large part of that is assisting others to become proficient in set up, management and use of the Linux environment. In Windows, that's more like 'each according to what you can afford to purchase from MS, and the help aspect is also a commodity. I think it's entirely insulting to new Linux users to say that they 'won't get that' , for the most part, pretty quickly. I also point out to new users that Linux is 'different' from Windows and will require that they learn new things. No matter how 'easy' we make Linux for the new user, that will still be true. I've never encountered a new user who can't understand that. Nearly all of them want to learn, and then share that information with others. If one looks at a Windows install, we find that it's primarily a text based install, with many many parts to add to the basic OS after that's been installed, and many settings to be resolved. I'd also like to point out that any functions in Windows are learned, and have nothing to do with intuitive, so, what makes anyone think that it will be different for Linux? Many of the Linux Distros offer live CDs, and the installs are either good and easily understood text based, or GUI. Nearly all of them provide a basic and completely set up desktop. Immediate productivity, and a way to immediately and easily add new apps. If you do have problems with the install or setup, there are scores of forums and IRC channels where one can (again) get immediate help and advise. All of that is a far cry from what I've ever gotten from MS. There will probably be Windows fanboyz forever. MS is very good at promoting their garbage. As Lincoln said "you can fool some of the people all of the time", but, sooner or later those not in that group will come over to Linux (or at least mac). In the mean time let's not fall into the the 'give them what they want, and, damn the ethics' trap. In most cases, new users think they 'know what they want', but, haven't a clue about 'what they need'. It is only right that we show them 'what is possible'. |
| Scott_Ruecker Oct 26, 2006 2:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:If one looks at a Windows install, we find that it's primarily a text based install, with many many parts to add to the basic OS after that's been installed, and many settings to be resolved. I'd also like to point out that any functions in Windows are learned, and have nothing to do with intuitive, so, what makes anyone think that it will be different for Linux? The very first time I ever installed Linux I said to myself, "Well, it can't be worse than Windows" It was not only 'not worse' but kinda fun, at least for me. Who hear doesn't enjoy trying out new distro's all the time? Just seeing how the different distro's installer works is interesting. I tell people that Linux is different, its secure, its stable and it will open that old Word 98' poem from High School. I got more people to try Open Source Software on that selling point alone. Opening documents, I kid you not. |
| tuxchick2 Oct 26, 2006 2:57 PM EDT |
Linux installers are light-years ahead of all other operating systems. LiveCDs, bootable USBs. Gumstix, net installs... and it's easy. At most one reboot. Y'all are spoiled. I dare you to perform a fresh winduz XP install. I double-dog dare you. You'll cry, I promise. |
| jimf Oct 26, 2006 3:25 PM EDT |
> You'll cry, I promise And I have, many times :( |
| dcparris Oct 26, 2006 3:45 PM EDT |
I agree with the installers bit. Can you use Windows while you run your upgrade process in the background? That's what I did with Ubuntu. > I double-dog dare you. Ooohh! The double-dog dare! No 'real' admin can turn it down without risking deep shame. Say, anyone got $300 I can have to buy a new copy of Winduz? No? Oh well. I tried. |
| salparadise Oct 26, 2006 10:38 PM EDT |
Well, I convinced myself that maybe a pure OS was worth a good try. I've always installed all the extras on Linux (nvidia drivers, codecs and so on) and have happily been able to access 98% of what I found.
But the idea that this is not real freedom has sort of taken a hold. So I've switched to blag linux. Gulp! |
| jimf Oct 26, 2006 11:40 PM EDT |
> Gulp! So, it's cold turkey huh :D |
| salparadise Oct 27, 2006 2:06 AM EDT |
Hmmmm.
Sometimes it feels that way. I get sent links to crap on utube, killsometime etc and always feel slightly dirty after viewing them. Take away the ability to view them and I get annoyed. (Damn that contrariness!) What surprised me was that after installing blag I can still view 99% of the political/social films I have. It's only the .wmv's that are out of bounds, but since most of what I have is in avi/mov/mpg format I'm ok. The majority of the web is a bit like fast food, you know it's crap that is making you ill but you get such a rush off the chemicals, fats and sugars that the tendency is to keep going back for more. Eat a wholefood meal with none of the additives and you feel clean and wonderful. Until the next time the fastfood shakes come along. So yes, cold turkey is not a bad explanation at all. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 27, 2006 2:31 AM EDT |
Hmm... doesn't gnash work with YouTube and Google Video these days? If not, that should really be their top priority. |
| salparadise Oct 27, 2006 2:37 AM EDT |
...and always feel slightly dirty after viewing them. It's mostly people being stupid or hurting themselves. I only need to look out the window... |
| jimf Oct 27, 2006 9:06 AM EDT |
> doesn't gnash work with YouTube and Google Video these days? If not, that should really be their top priority. I spent some time with it last night, and, it absolutely 'will not' do YouTube and Google Video. I agree with you, this is a top priority if we want to get the macromedia monkey off our backs. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!