[Note: this is rather long]
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Blackjax wrote:
> >How do we get folks to use it at home? How do we get the word out
> >and *show* people that we have something really special here in terms they
> >can understand and accept?
>
>
> I see comments like these and I worry. Note that there is no question of
> whether folks at home should use it, this is simply a foregone conclusion.
I have never seen people advocating Windows asking themselves the same
question or whether it suits for a server. Linux can be used at home and
it can be used by non-CS people as well, it has been proven multiple
times.
> I've watched Linux advocates argue that Linux should be pushed into every
> conceivable niche of computing
At least it can be cut to fit remarkably better than the proprietary
counterparts.
> and that open source is the only way to write software and open source
> is the only software people should support.
Free software or open source as you like to call it is more and easier
customizable than proprietary software, it has often less bugs because
there are seldom shipping dates to fulfill, it is very performant because
one does not have to be compatible to ancient things at any cost, it's
code is nice and clean in most cases because other people out there can
actually look at your source code and you want to impress them which leads
to better designed systems and an overall improvement of life in general
;-).
I don't shove free software down people's throats (other than the
counterparts who more or less force people to use theirs) but no one
should complain when we "free software zealots" say: "Oops, it crashed,
..." (maniacal laughter from the off) "... now where's that source code so
it can be fixed? What, no source code? Well, I guess you have to wait for
the next service pack."
> Fanaticism, by my definition is when somebody holds views that do not
> take reality into account and does not question those views. Positions like
> the 3 i've listed above are, in my opinion, fanatical.
You have a very twisted view of fanatism. Fanatism is not that you have a
certain opinion (regardless of whether it is intelligent or not) but if
you won't let other people have different opinions and you try to force
them to have yours.
> Getting back to the quoted passage, we see the view expressed that
> people in general should install and use Linux at home. The premise for
> this seems to be that Linux is faster, more stable, and costs less than
> Windows. What this premise fails to take into account is that it is
> almost completely unusable for the computer illiterate and semi-literate.
Hear, hear. I hate it when I have to use my wife for such an example
(because it could lead people to start ill-judged flamewars), but she is
much less computer-skilled than I. Despite that, she does manage to use
Linux for her everyday (computer) tasks. She even prefers the
oh-so-complicated LaTeX to conventional word-processors for large,
structured documents (ok, this may be an exception to the norm). It is a
fact that no one needs to use the command line any more for just starting
programs or managing her/his own files. The existence of a more
complicated and flexible interface (the shell in this case) doesn't mean
that you're bound to use it. I may remind you that NextStep (which if you
ask me is far superior to Windows when it comes to the user interface) is
base on a fully fledged BSD, you can even have a shell if you insist.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
> First, Linux is not particularly easy to install properly and
> configure without considerable skills, and not everyone has someone
> else to do this for them.
As a person who has done too-many-to-count installations of Linux and
too-many-to-be-good-for-my-nerves of Windows (on friends' computers), I
think I have the right to disagree whole-heartedly with you.
Talking about configuration, anything beyond changing the desktop color
scheme is too much for persons "without considerable skills". Talking
about installation, program installation on Linux is as easy or easier
than on Windows (not talking about deinstallation which is crap on
Windows), installation of hardware is in most cases (i.e. when something
goes wrong/doesn't work perfect on the first attempt) easier to be done in
Linux. With <plug>kudzu (in Red Hat Linux 6.1)</plug> a lot of devices are
supported plug'n'play.
This all boils down to the point that for those persons who can't master
Linux, someone else has to do installation/configuration. With my friends,
that's me, so I wonder what could be wrong if I'd like to have Linux on
their PCs besides Windows? Not that I would force anyone into anything --
I would be the last one to wipe their Windows partitions, since some
software isn't really available for Linux (games, educational, some
businessware).
It's about showing people alternatives: "Look, here is something I
consider better than Windows. If you've got the time, give it a try. I
might even give you better assistance than with Windows because that's
what I use at home."
> This has been getting easier I'm told, but it is not even close to
> what is offered on end-user operating systems.
<intermezzo>This sentence contradicts itself. Linux _is_ an end-user
operating system. Or how would you describe my wife and me? With the
exception of that I program a lot, we use the Internet (Web, Mails and so
forth), do text-processing (in LaTeX and with conventional
"text-processors" like Star Office, it depends on the job) and
spread-sheets( Star Office, in the future hopfully gnumeric, as soon as
diagrams work).</intermezzo>
Coming back to what you said in the last paragraph: You haven't tried it
in the last time (I'm told). Jane/John Doe Windowsuser (I mean the average
person without much computer experience) doesn't install her/his PC, s/he
gets Windows preinstalled. Then s/he:
a) doesn't touch it anymore and it continues to work (if it worked in the
beginning)
b) fiddles with it and
b.1) hoses it (that's where I come into play)
b.2) does it right, gaining some knowledge. At a certain point, such
people aren't comfortable anymore with Windows, because they
feel limited
For a), a reasonably preinstalled Linux will fit nicely (given the needed
or wanted software exists for Linux), for b) it will fit, too, if you
don't tell them the root password (joking) and for c) the problem will be
solved automatically.
> Further, the window managers in Linux, for all their good points, are
> still quite crude and cryptic when compared to the GUIs of end-user
> operating systems.
Hey, where have you been for the last two years? Hiding under a rock?
> The question is not whether a linux system could be set up for someone
> so they could manage to use it, the question is whether or not it
> really makes sense at this point.
With the wanted software available, it does make sense. More than Windows,
because people will finally know again that it's not normal behaviour for
computers to crash.
> The bottom line is that Linux is not now, and may never be, the kind
> of OS that your average person would be comfortable with. Given this,
> it is a mistake to try to push it into mainstream home use, it just
> does not fit very well. You are simply re-arranging the types of
> problems the user has ease of use vs. performance/stability.
You seem to neglect that on the base of something stable yet complicated
(Unix/Linux), something user-friendly can be built (which already is done
with Gnome, KDE, GNUStep, etc.) -- extensibility is the keyword. You can
strip Linux down to the bones and use it for some embedded task, but you
also can put the pieces together and have a server-grade OS which is
usable though.
> Issues of cost, performance, and stability are important and an effort
> needs to be made to solve them, moving away from Windows is a good
> idea, but the answer is not Linux. Linux is well suited to being a
> server operating system, it is also well suited to being a workstation
> operating system for power users, it solves more problems than it
> creates in these areas. For end users there are other options such as
> BeOS that will solve their problems without creating new ones.
Give the user a nice frontend and everything is fine. At last the
graphical configuration tools of Windows are just a frontend to the
registry which is not something that I would call "ready for my Grandma".
> Linux does not have to be all things to everyone to be a good thing, it
> just has to be the right thing in the right place.
"Nah, that[1]'s my toy, give it back, you already have yours[2]."
[1]: the end user
[2]: server tasks, super computing, ...
To be serious: I am convinced that the free software community can do
better than any proprietary software, even on the desktop. I think this is
because we don't primarily make software to make profits (a marketing
based approach) but to be good for the people using it. We don't trick
people to use our software -- if it isn't good, people won't use it. Free
(as in beer) software is easily dropped in exchange for something better
as the user has "invested" fundamentally less than for proprietary
software. For proprietary software companies, the incentive is to get
people to buy something. My incentive is to get people to grab my software
and to actually use it and like it.
Because Linux consists of many modules, each (more or less) optimized for
its task, it can be very well tweaked to fit much more tasks than a
monolithic beast like Windows. If you don't need X, throw it away. If you
need something not yet available, look what of it has been done already
and add what's not yet achieved.
It's that simple. And what's even better is that you don't have to. Not
someone else for you, but you make the choice.
I should go to bed, or I'll get even more pathetic.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
