In my opinion, there is one overwhelming reason.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Jun 09, 2009 5:45 PM EDT |
There are lots of side issues, such as the "Four Is". But the one single overwhelming reason "normal" people don't use Linux is: Preinstallation As has been said so many times in the past, Windows wouldn't have the reputation of being "easy" if people had to install it themselves. |
| caitlyn Jun 09, 2009 6:04 PM EDT |
Don't have a heart attack, but: Bob gets it 100% right. He is spot on. This is where netbooks and now expanded product lines from Dell and HP running Linux helps. Until Linux is in your local big box retailer right next to Windows this will remain a problem. |
| salparadise Jun 09, 2009 6:14 PM EDT |
If both OS's are equally as hard for a non-technical person to install, and given that Microsoft et al have dealt with this through the use of "restore CD's", can this not also be done for Linux? (with the added bonus of, it could be made so it put a msg up along the lines of "ok, your system is borked, but, since we know it isn't going to be a virus, slap a USB key in and we'll back up your profile/home dir for you and then you can add it back afterwards". Just a thought, (said he in the blissful ignorance of the non-programmer). ;-) |
| caitlyn Jun 09, 2009 6:26 PM EDT |
@salparadise: A lot of netbook vendors have done precisely that: provided restore CDs or restore images. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 09, 2009 7:02 PM EDT |
I agree with Bob on preinstalls. If we had a user culture in which installing Windows was something everybody did, installing Linux wouldn't be such a big deal. But that's not how things are, and I believe that preinstalls are the very, very best way to get new users. I also think that more promotion and education about what free, open-source software is all about, at the OS, application and media level, is essential to giving people a reason to consider non-proprietary software. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 10, 2009 10:42 AM EDT |
I also see a use for "restore" functionality. This is how I think it could work: A live CD, USB-boot, whatever, of a particular release. A "repair" function, which will go through all the installed packages and compare what is on the system to the archives, overwriting any that have been corrupted. A "restore" function, which will save all the configuration files (back up /etc, what could be easier?), erase everything except /home and maybe /var for servers, and reinstall all the packages which had been installed before. Maybe recover a short list of known files from /etc that can't be regenerated, which I expect to be few if any. Now I agree that the "need" for this is limited, since there is so much less opportunity for corruption to come to a Linux system. However, I've had /usr/bin corrupted myself and would have been very happy to have such recovery options. A complete reinstall may be fun once in a while, but to do it because it needs to be done right now is rather disrupting to one's day. |
| tuxchick Jun 10, 2009 10:53 AM EDT |
One option that comes to mind, Bob, is Clonezilla. Make periodic snapshots of your system, keep them on a fileserver, and then you have all the restore points you could ever want. A repair function as you describe it might already exist, I don't know, it shouldn't be that hard. Just compare checksums or hashes or some such geeky thing I'm probably not saying right. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 10, 2009 12:01 PM EDT |
> Just compare checksums or hashes or some such geeky thing I'm probably not saying right. I think you're saying it exactly right. Such a "system check" sounds like an excellent security measure as well, a kind of sanity check once in a while that can detect stuff no normal virus scan could because it's comparing against known good files. Some days I wish I were a programmer. RedHat, the last time I played with it, had some wonderful system-recover functionality, but it was limited to the boot sector and kernel, not applications. My idea of a "snapshot" is to zip all the "dotfiles" in my home directory, /etc (minus /etc/alternatives which might be Debian specific), all the normal files in home, and a dump of all the presently installed packages in a format which can be used by apt to reinstall them: To dump: dpkg --get-selections > package-selections.txt To restore: dpkg --set-selections < package-selections.txt dselect update apt-get dselect-upgrade After all, the real trouble in recovering a system is to make sure that all the applications one needs are installed, right? This could easily be part of a full recovery script. And dump a list of packages in the prior installed list that couldn't be found in the available repositories into a text file in the user's home directory, just in case. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 10, 2009 2:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:One option that comes to mind, Bob, is Clonezilla. Make periodic snapshots of your system, keep them on a fileserver, and then you have all the restore points you could ever want. Too complicated IMHO. Just have the OEM or distro installer set up the system with LVM or a filesystem that supports copy-on-write snapshots (Ext4, btrfs). Making a restore point? Create a CoW snapshot and you're done. There's okenty of CLI tools to deal with that. All you'd need to do is add a user-friendly GUI for non-geeks. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 10, 2009 5:59 PM EDT |
Linux needs an easy-to-use GUI-powered backup application that any idiot (me included) can figure out that either backs up all /home files, all /home files plus configuration files (/etc) AND has the option for bare-metal restore. And it should allow for that data to be archived on a hard drive, remote server or in the cloud. I'm about to test JungleDisk, which works with Amazon S3. That doesn't do all I say above. I enjoy hacking away at shell scripts as much as the next person, but I'm a little peeved at having to reinvent the wheel with all my little rsync scripts. Like managing mail in mutt/fetchmail/procmail, I'm way happyier having Thunderbird do the dirty work for me, and I'd like the same in a backup app, one that's preferably free and doesn't make me jump through hoops at the console. |
| hkwint Jun 10, 2009 10:40 PM EDT |
rdiff-backup is the best I came across; but there's no gui. Good thing is you do incremental (actually, decremental) backups daily or hourly and can revert to a certain point in history; like with snapshots. It can backup to anything you can mount; and I'm sure there's a way to mount the cloud. Someone should write a front-end for it. Maybe I'll try; not sure. Here's my backup script: /usr/bin/nice -n 19 /usr/bin/rdiff-backup --force -v5 --exclude-filelist /root/bin/rdiff_bcu_excl / /mnt/bcu In the file /root/bin/rdiff_bcu_excl is a list of dirs to exclude. That's not complex, is it? It can do bare-metal restore if you use some Live-media; you could simply use 'cp' or 'dd' to do that. |
| gus3 Jun 11, 2009 12:13 AM EDT |
Here's my backup script: # cd /rsync/home # rsync -aP --delete /home/ . Repeat with 'etc' in place of 'home'. Please note that /rsync and /home are on different disks, and are two different filesystems. My system can suffer a hard disk failure, or a software failure (bad filesystem code clobbers /home?) and recovery will still be reasonably easy. After re-installing the OS, I can restore /etc, then create a symlink from /home to /rsync/home and I'll be back in business. Ideally, I would use 'rsync -e ssh' to copy files to a remote system, but that isn't an option for now. |
| KernelShepard Jun 11, 2009 9:38 AM EDT |
I think Bob's reason is the biggest reason, but a number of my coworkers have told me in the past that they've been scared off by the ridiculously heated flamewars that erupt on mailing-lists and the like. Take for example this flamewar started by some Boycott Novell purists on the Ubuntu mailing-list who tried to get some Ubuntu developers fired for disagreeing with them over whether Mono should be included in the distro or not: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-... Just found this gem on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/8rmv5/mono_bashers_ta... I've never participated in Windows developer forums/lists, so I have no idea if this is unique to F/LOSS or not (I've grown used to it), but I have to admit that I could see how people would be put off by these flamewars (especially the one linked to above). |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 9:47 AM EDT |
I agree with KernelShepard. G-d forbit some folks who are just considering Linux happen on the comments section of DistroWatch Weekly. That will send people running for Windows faster than anything. Overbearing Linux zealots who condescend to or demean Windows users don't help either. Sometimes the FOSS community is its own worst enemy. It only takes a few loudmouths to do tremendous damage. |
| tuxchick Jun 11, 2009 9:50 AM EDT |
Yay, here comes KS with the obligatory Horrid Example, uncovered and presented with no effort spared!
That glass ain't 95% full, it's 5% empty! oh noes!! **edit** agreed Caitlyn, still, the Ubuntu forums are very good overall. Better than most. I guess KS should thank Microsoft for stirring up all the Mono follies so he would have that one thing to take a shot at. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 9:51 AM EDT |
@tucxhixk: Yes, KS used specific examples to make a general point. Having said that I could post 100 more examples and not run out. 5% can do tremendous damage when they are a very loud and obnoxious 5%. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 10:14 AM EDT |
Just to emphasize KS' point... others see the same problem over at Ubuntu: http://www.workswithu.com/2009/06/10/trouble-brews-with-ubun... |
| KernelShepard Jun 11, 2009 10:17 AM EDT |
What is your problem, tuxchick? Damn. |
| tuxchick Jun 11, 2009 11:09 AM EDT |
My problem, KS, is the Mono zealots who can't give straight answers, and who are making big messes in the Ubuntu forums. It sure looks like they take their marching orders from Redmond because of their tactics. I have extended an open invitation to anyone who wants to write up why Mono should be included by default in Ubuntu, why it is not a danger to Linux, and why it is desirable to Linux users. And which Linux users? Desktop users? Server admins? Embedded device users? Who benefits? Plus anything else a person feels is important to mention. I will publish this on Linux Today, the only rules are the usual TOS things (no swearing, no personal attacks.) Details here http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009061102135OSCY |
| bigg Jun 11, 2009 12:59 PM EDT |
> have extended an open invitation to anyone who wants to write up why Mono should be included by default in Ubuntu I'd really be interested in that one. I've seen no justification for including it by default. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 1:13 PM EDT |
Me neither. I'm sure someone from Canonical or Novell should be able to come up with a good list of reasons since they do include it by default in their respective distros. |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2009 1:16 PM EDT |
> I've seen no justification for including it by default. Agreed. Having it available for those who want it, yes. Making it a default, no. TracyAnne seems to be our local Mono expert. Maybe she can add something. |
| hkwint Jun 11, 2009 7:36 PM EDT |
Mono is part of the strategy which could be found in the 'Evangelism is war' documents: Platforms are more important than products. The following comes almost straight out of that document (only inserted Silverlight) If Silverlight runs on Linux too this could be a disadvantage for Microsoft, because it's one less hindrance in Linux-adoption and migration. However, it will always run better on Windows. Apart from that, new versions will always be released for Windows first. And only people who pay Microsoft - via Windows or Suse - are sure not to be sued for patent infringement. Therefore, Silverlight serves to lock people in to Windows. This is not obvious to everybody, it seems. Some people really naively believe Microsoft wants to build a cross-platform environment. I agree to some of the other critics that Microsoft will drop Linux-support of Silverlight and stops supporting Novell as soon as Silverlight becomes a dominant platform. The pace at which Moonlight always lags behind Silverlight shows the 'MS-platform theory' to be true. Lately, Adobe did some efforts to bring new versions of Flash simultaneously to Linux and Windows, IIRC. If they can, then why can't Microsoft do so for their Silverlight? Simple, because Silverlight is part of their plan to lock people in to Windows. You can't run Silverlight 3.0-websites on Linux, you need Windows. That's - I guess - what should be communicated to Linux / Ubuntu users. It happens some Linux users are not very good at communicating and use the wrong tactics. That's indeed a shame. However, if 1000 people make the point I made above not much people will give it any attention, so we only know about the 5 who are bad at communicating. Just like tons of bosses don't hang themselves, and therefore are not interesting. |
| KernelShepard Jun 11, 2009 7:51 PM EDT |
> My problem, KS, is the Mono zealots who can't give straight answers, and who are making big messes in the Ubuntu forums. It sure looks like they take their marching orders from Redmond because of their tactics. Don't you mean Anti-Mono zealots? See the Ubuntu mailing-list for a prime example of an Anti-Mono zealot who tried to get at least one developer fired for disagreeing in a civil manner (the Anti-Mono zealot, however, did not display any sort of self control). What exactly is a Mono zealot? Someone who prefers a desktop app or two that runs on Mono vs some alternative desktop app(s)? I have to say that I have never seen a Mono zealot before. By this description, I can only imagine that it is someone who spews vile hatred for anything not written in Mono and tries to get people fired for disagreeing? > I have extended an open invitation to anyone who wants to write up why Mono should be included by default in Ubuntu, why it is not a danger to Linux, and why it is desirable to Linux users. And which Linux users? Desktop users? Server admins? Embedded device users? Who benefits? Plus anything else a person feels is important to mention. I will publish this on Linux Today, the only rules are the usual TOS things (no swearing, no personal attacks.) You seem to be asking the wrong people "why". The only people who can answer "why" Ubuntu ships Mono by default are Canonical. Since Mark Shuttleworth has already answered this question, I can only assume you mean to stir up a flame war yourself. All I can say is be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. |
| hkwint Jun 11, 2009 8:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:What exactly is a Mono zealot? Those pushing Microsofts agenda to help lockin of customers to Windows; including tons of astroturfers. If you never seen one, go some place else than LXer. Take any general software/hardware forum and you will stumble all over them. Of course, there are Anti-Mono zealots. However, their number is small, like both TC and I indicated. Especially compared to the number of Mono-zealots. The latter are better at operating under the radar. That's why they don't meet your eye all too frequently I assume: Only if you look with the right eyes you see them. |
| krisum Jun 13, 2009 4:52 AM EDT |
Quoting: This is not obvious to everybody, it seems. Some people really naively believe Microsoft wants to build a cross-platform environment. I agree to some of the other critics that Microsoft will drop Linux-support of Silverlight and stops supporting Novell as soon as Silverlight becomes a dominant platform. The pace at which Moonlight always lags behind Silverlight shows the 'MS-platform theory' to be true. Lately, Adobe did some efforts to bring new versions of Flash simultaneously to Linux and Windows, IIRC. If they can, then why can't Microsoft do so for their Silverlight? Simple, because Silverlight is part of their plan to lock people in to Windows. You can't run Silverlight 3.0-websites on Linux, you need Windows.All this has been discussed to death in these forums. Probably you did not notice that all this is perfectly understood by the "other" side at least in these forums and has been replied to multiple times Its just that you skimmed over the real points made and as a result have misrepresented their position. |
| caitlyn Jun 13, 2009 12:45 PM EDT |
If anyone doubts what's been said about Microsoft's goals for Mono, I humbly submit OS/2. Microsoft co-developed OS/2 1.x with IBM. They inevitably had a falling`out with Big Blue, some would say a planned falling out. When Warp (OS/2 3.0) with integrated internet support (TCP/IP, a browser) came out in 1995 and IBM began marketing it the Redmond boys felt threatended. Their response: drop OS/2 now or you will never ship Windows on an IBM product again. This came out as part of the testimony by IBM in the Department of Justice case against Microsoft. IBM execs wanted to move forward initially but the PC company (a profitable division) convinced them that without Windows '95 sales would plummet. IBM cut an 11th hour deal with Microsoft and all marketing and ISV support for OS/2 disappeared, ultimately dooming a clearly superior OS. The real irony of the story is that IBM eventually sold off the PC division. The mechanics of how Mono will be used to bury Adobe Flash and how any OS other than Windows will get cut off will be different because the circumstances are different. The goals are the same. I also have serious problems with all the legalese around Mono. I just don't want it on my systems and it really does belong in the non-free repository, not as a part of a default install. Fedora/Red Hat have got it right. Ubuntu/Canonical have not. |
| krisum Jun 14, 2009 5:50 AM EDT |
Quoting: Fedora/Red Hat have got it right. Ubuntu/Canonical have not.Got what right? You mean Fedora dropping tomboy for gnote in Fedora 12 alphas (which is actually quite a different thing)? |
| tracyanne Jun 14, 2009 6:06 AM EDT |
I suspect that Red Hat and Canonical have lawyers who are quite capable of making sense of Legalese. |
| number6x Jun 14, 2009 8:14 AM EDT |
Re: Mono Usually when the Open Source community develops an alternative to Microsoft products, the community rallies behind the effort. Consider Samba, or the NTFS drivers. The developers of the alternative have a clear agenda, to allow interoperability with Microsoft closed protocols. The Open Source alternatives are very clear and, well, open, about their intents and goals. They are also clear about their licensing. Mono could be seen in the same light if it weren't for that strange, super-secret licensing deal between Microsoft and Novell. Because the details are not known, Novell has cast a shadow over Mono. Some people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.. Others, familiar with Microsoft's long history of well documented illegal business practices, are not. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me 83 times, you are Microsoft. Mono developers at Novell have chosen to dip their product in a fetid sewer before offering it to the users. Then the mono team whines when the users state that something about Mono stinks. Because of the licensing deal with Microsoft the Mono team has put itself at a huge disadvantage when pushing its product when compared to say, Samba. This disadvantage is the fault of Novell, Novell's secret license deal with Microsoft, and Novell's Mono development effort. Because of the choices Novell has made, Novell will have to work much harder at gaining support for its product Mono. If I run a lemon aid stand, and I buy my water supply from the local sewage treatment plant, I'm going to have more trouble getting people to choose my product than the competitor across the street who is using fresh spring water, triple filtered to make their lemon aid from. Mono may be perfectly free from all legal problems, but because of its source it is seemingly tainted. There will have to be a lot of extra effort to remove that taint. It may be unjustified, but given Microsoft's history, tactics, stated intents, and the body of evidence shown in Court documents (visit Groklaw), I agree with the camp that smells something rotten in Mono. I removed it from my one Ubuntu install, and will not install it into my other distros. There is nothing related to Mono that I need or want. |
| jdixon Jun 14, 2009 9:03 AM EDT |
number6x: Well stated, and essentially my view also. |
| hkwint Jun 14, 2009 11:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:Probably you did not notice that all this is perfectly understood by the "other" side at least in these forums I was not referring to people in these forums. |
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!