On Monday 09 May 2005 11:40, Amos Shapira wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But there's always a possibility. In Windows, it's impossible to keep
> > several versions of the same DLL due to the lack of symbolic links. And
> > most packages come in installers, that install all the required DLLs
> > along with the programs. (there is no dependency resolution). But it'
> > possible that it's no longer a problem as before. (possibly because the
> > development of the DLLs has become more stable).
>
> I'm not that deep into Windows administration, I just know that, as
> far as I noticed,
> I never had to bother with it.
>
Well recently I heard of someone who told me MS Freecell (!!) does not start
for him for some reason. (while almost everything else seems to be in working
order) I said I had no idea how to resolve it, but pointed him to free
(as-in-beer and possibly as-in-speech) alternatives.
> > Generally, a system should be expected to avoid having to rely on such
> > mechanisms and be secure by default. There can always be a new kind of
> > spyware that the anti-spyware software could not detect in time. As for
> > firewall, generally, the system should be secure even with all the
> > services exposed. I agree that firewalls/NATs/etc. are useful (even for
> > Linux
>
> First - I share your feeling that it's silly that Microsoft sell a broken
> OS and then sort of patch it by giving anti-virus software to try to catch
> the slime which sleeped through the holes in its basic OS, and half the
> computer's resources are wasted on constant security checks instead of on
> doing real work.
>
> Second - My point is that this is not the sort of argument that people like
> my mom would understand or care about. All they know is that in Windows
> they more-or-less manage to do what they want and in Linux they don't
> (or at least if they can do just the same things in Linux when why bother
> to switch).
Like I said in my reply to Shoashannah: Windows requires constant maintenance
to keep in working in order. Even if you're a complete rookie. In Linux, if
you are a complete rookie which an expert gave you some Linux maintenance
101, then your maintenance problems are over. If you're a Power User and like
to tinker with your system, then things may temporarily break. But it
shouldn't happen to the Aunt Tillie type people like your Mom. And when it
does, a quick web-search/forums usually resolve it.
A "guru" like me, can expect a lot of breakage. But for the clueful "Aunt
Tillie" type Linux just works and works and works.
>
> > systems). But for example, if you browse the web with a vulnerable
> > browser, that allows malicious sites to execute code on your machine,
> > then all the firewalls in the world won't prevent your machine from
> > getting infected by a trojan.
>
> Actually current firewalls/proxies and routing boxes DO scan for viruses
> and melicious code while you surf as well. Dig the network for specific
> examples, I can't remember them off the top of my head.
Then let me invoke Turing's Theorem here, and claim that it's impossible to
build a computer program that will find all such malicious codes. It can
search for well known patterns, but once new patterns emerge, you'll be at
risk until an update.
I heard a rumour that a research claimed an unprotected Windows box (don't
know about XP SP2) takes less than 20 minutes of Internet connection to
become infected with malware. Some default installations of Linux has seens
months without a single intrusion.
>
> > Possibly. However, the possibility always remains. And since the source
> > code is available, there's more possibility than someone among the many
> > developers interested in open-source will do that for you in time. With
> > closed-source software you have to rely on the vendor's whims.
>
> Again - both of us seem to view these matters just the same but, again
> - as far as his target audience is concerned, the paragraph above might
> as well be writen in Kazakh script from the 1st century BC, and sang as a
> Haiku Liryc. They won't understand even the basic terms used in it
> ("source code", "developers", "open-source", "closed-source"), let along
> the relations between them and what's wrong with it.
>
> Get down to earth for these people if you want to win them over.
>
Let's just say that with "Open Source Software" (a definition soon to be
defined) like all the components of a common (GNU/)Linux system everyone can
modify it and incoroporate his changes in the distributed version, and so
either you can find someone knowledgable to do it, or someone will do it
eventually.
I used small words here.
> > > > 2. Price - no need to pay for anything including upgrades. All
> > > > software can be installed from the base system.
> > >
> > > How is BSA doing these days in Israel? Not a big point for OSS (yet?).
> >
> > Still, if you install a non-legit version of Windows, you cannot use
> > Windows
>
> Which most people do at home today.
>
> > Upgrade (without various tricks). You cannot get support for this version
> > of Windows, and you cannot contact the vendor for help.
>
> How much has this prevented people from installing Windows illegally
> on their home
> computer and call "the next door teenage geek" (AKA TNDTG) when they
> catch a virus?
> Even more so - since for most people TNDTG is "technical support", you
> might better make sure that enough of these TNDTG know Linux :)
>
That's a good idea. Maybe the so-called "Power Users" are our main target
audience. Of course, the problem is that these people like to install
software on their computer and tinker with it, and so may encounter all the
cases where Linux problems start to surface. The same thing happens in
Windows, though, and much worse.
> > And the price is a big issue for medium or large organizations who wish
> > to deploy proprietary software on their systems.
>
> Is this the audience of this argument? As far I remember the beginning was
> about convincing a private person.
>
OK. It was a diversion.
> > > > 3. Community - the Linux and Open Source Community is very fun,
> > > > supportive. There are many resources available for getting help or
> > > > for learning more.
> > >
> > > Again - do "this Magimix Mixer has a community of 20,000 active users
> > > in Israel" sound like a convincing argument from a sales druid in the
> > > Shekem? That's more or less the attitude you should address.
> >
> > The point is that you can get very good support from the community, which
> > has a larger amount of knowledge than the equivalent one for proprietary
> > software. (due to the availability of source, and other factors - see
> > ESR's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" Series).
> >
> > And I'm not only talking about Israel. You can always subscribe to an
> > international forum dealing with your software of choice, or even to a
> > foreign local forum that happens to speak English.
>
> And I'm not only talking about linux-il subscribers. I'm talking about
> people like my mother, who's still not sure when should she click the right
> mouse and when the left mouse buttons, and you want her to go out on the
> net and ask meaningful questions?
> Get real, c'mon. :^)
>
Amos, I'm pretty sure most computer users are either considerably younger than
your mother and/or more capable. The person the Original Poster described
sounds like the "Power User" type. The person I mentioned is somewhere
between an "Aunt Tillie" and a "Power User".
And I recall an article on Newsforge that claimed that for the "Aunt Tillie"
type, the command line is the best computer interface to be taught. Perhaps
they were right from your description.
BTW, just to dispel a few myths, I don't think it's necessary that old people
will be "Aunt Tillie"'s. I personally correspond with a 78-years old hacker,
who wrote two widely distributable Windows programs in ANSI C, and has a
history of DOS, CP/M, PDP-7's, Intel 4040, Z80 and an obscure computer system
that is even more ancient. He was programming for a living before I was even
born, and I'm relatively old in comparison to some of the younger folks we
can see hacking on Linux and Windows nowadays. (not older than Amos, though).
He did not want to try Linux until he found a good reason to have to use it,
but I'm sure he'll have no problem using it once he does.
> > > As for "fun" - just look at the abuse someone received for sending a
> > > little-awkwardly worded job ad over here.
> >
> > I agree that there are always exceptions. Some forums are more friendly
> > than others. You can always find a place where people will welcome you.
>
> *I* can, I go to the net dozens of times every day to lookup answers to the
> problems I encounter, be it in programming C++ at work or convincing
> Ubuntu to display Hebrew in PowerPoint presentations sent to me at home,
> but as much as my mother made big advances in the 6 months she got her
> first computer, I don't expect her to be able to cope with installing and
> using Firefox or Thunderbird, as much as I'd love her to do this.
>
Like I said your mother is an extreme case. The bottom end of the "Aunt
Tillie"'s. The OP talked about a Power User (or at least 0.5*("Aunt Tillie" +
"Power User") and he'll have no problem in adjusting to a new platform.
BTW, I think that if you install Kubuntu/Mandriva or whatever to your mother
instead of Windows, she'll eventually get used to it and not bother you.
Windows is not easier to use in this regard than Linux+KDE. In fact for "Aunt
Tillie"'s it's much more straightforward and less trouble-making.
And BTW, I installed Thunderbird for my mother who is an Aunt Tillie to work
on the WinXP laptop, and she got used to it pretty quickly. From time to time
she asks me questions about what to do, and I answer, but she seems to learn.
I would have installed Eudora, which is only free-as-in-beer and which I like
better, but there wasn't a "Set Encoding" option in any of the menus or
configurations. (and I looked everywhere, searched google, etc.) And this is
critical for Hebrew mails which she receives.
> > > (BTW - a linux-jobs mailing list is long overdue, IMHO).
> >
> > Perhaps. But how do we convince everyone to subscribe to it, and people
> > to post jobs there instead of here (especially if not everyone subscribe
> > there)? Perhaps we should just establish an etiquette that says that one
> > should not comment on job ads that are not to one's liking. (unless of
> > course they are lacking in details, and the respondant wishes to cause
> > the original poster to clarify what's the job is all about).
>
> Isn't this the whole point of a separate mailing list? (That
> interested people will
> subscribe while uninterested people will be spared?).
>
Yes, but why would a prospective employer concsiously send it to the
apporpriate mailing list where he knows he'll have a smaller audience. It
occured at least two times when people submitted jobs to all the mailing
lists in the lists of Israeli mailing lists that I created and maintain
(including GNUbies-IL...) because they wanted to have the widest possible
audience.
> > Furthermore, now that the job tracker has an RSS Feed, I see less a point
> > in establishing a mailing list.
>
> Good move.
> I think it would still be convenient to have an e-mail mirror of this
> data, so I'll
> be able to get it all in my gmail account instead of having to configure
> yet another live-bookmark and remember to look at it.
>
I think sending a mail to a mailing list address using one of the hundred or
so CPAN modules for sending mails (some of them are present in Debian Woody
which iglu.org.il runs), should not be a problem. I just did not get to it
yet.
As for the live-bookmark - maybe you should get a better RSS aggregator. I'm
using akregator, which displays all the bookmarks in a tree, with the total
number of unread ones in the KDE taskbar, the number of each unread item in
every feed in bold blue on each item, and the unread items themselves
colored. Very convenient, easy to use and intuitive. There might be something
like that for GNOME too, but since I'm KDE-based I did not look into it.
> > > > 4. Powerful Command Line and Scripting.
> > >
> > > See above. It might appeal to the kind of people who have to take apart
> > > any piece of hardware the comes through their door, and spend their
> > > weekends tweaking their car's engine, but how many such people do you
> > > know? I only heard about such a person in the media once over the last
> > > month.
> >
> > Actually, I happen to chat over AIM with a guy whose brother (who is a
> > programmer) introduced him to Linux because it causes less problems and
> > does not have spyware, etc. He now happily uses Linux for some time now,
> > is comfortable with the command line, and he recently switched from SUSE
> > Linux to Debian testing, conducting the installation on his own. And he's
> > a young guy - in the 12th grade now, not one of them veteran DOS hackers.
> > (like me).
> >
> > I am not the kind a guy who takes apart pieces of hardware, or tempers
> > with cars. I am very much afraid and clueless in such physical activity.
> > I like my machines working, and if they break, I send them to repairs or
> > buy new ones. But I cannot get enough of working in the command line,
> > automating common tasks, and tweaking every bit in my computer. My
> > father, on the other hand, is very clueful in electronical and mechanical
> > stuff, and he still uses Windows, and does not try to learn how to
> > program or automate common tasks. (he relies on me for that). So it's a
> > bad analogy.
>
> Just my case - my sort-of analogy was that people look at
> programming/tweaking/ configuring their computer as sort of activity
> similar to
> taking-apart/tweaking/improving
> pieces of machinery. And you came up with an example of someone who LIKES
> doing the later but treats the former as "just make it work for me, will
> you?" :)
>
OK.
> > The command line is very powerful and convenient once you get the hang of
> > it. By learning how to program in Shell/Perl you can make your life much
> > easier. Doing all this is much better done on Linux.
>
> Again, who are you trying to convince? Me? You don't have to convince me,
> I worked with UNIX since the days of 24x80 vt100 terminals with 9600 baud
> serial connections to Vax 11/750, and the best you could do with windowing
> was to split Gosling Emacs buffers horizontally (we didn't have vertical
> splits until GNU Emacs came along).
>
> But my mother won't appreciate command-line at all (and so would I, if I'll
> have to explain to her what to do with it over the phone).
>
Possibly. Even though I started teaching my mom Perl once... but we did not
get very far, more for like of interest on her part than for lack of
competency.
> > > > 6. Eye Candy/Themes/Skins/etc.
> > >
> > > Most users (I'm thinking of my mother right now) don't care about this.
> > > They can use a computer for ten years and when you'll look at their
> > > desktop you'll see the same default green-hill and window decorations
> > > as if the computer was installed yesterday (which might as well be true
> > > :), and tons of files they never
> > > bothered to clean off their desktop...
> >
> > Heh. But once you get used to changing skins, you can never go back...
>
> Again, my mother (and, frankly, even me) couldn't care less.
> (I'm the sort of guy who switches the background image when his
> s/o asks him "why is this yur background?", I hardly see it because
> I like full-screen windows for my main application (my age begins
> to show)).
<offtopic>
Hmmm.... do you have pictures of naked chicks as wallpapers? ;-) Mine's are
either well-groomed or at least only half-naked.
</offtopic>
>
> > > > 7. Virtual Workspaces. (The MSVDM solution for Windows sucks ass).
> > >
> > > I always have them on. I find myself hardly switching between them.
> > > They are going to be a major source of confusion for people who don't
> > > know what they mean.
> >
> > Well, I use Virtual Workspaces a lot, and switch between them constantly.
> > Most people will become used to using them once they understand what they
> > are all about. (which takes 5 minutes).
> >
> > > OS-X like "Expose" is the right way to go :)
> >
> > I'm not familiar with it, but I believe I saw it in action in one of the
> > presentations in YAPC, where the presentor used a Mac OS X laptop. He
> > could switch to a screen full of small screenshots of the applications
> > and switch to different applications like that.
>
> Yes, that's expose. And these are not just screen-shots but live, "zoomed
> out" application windows. Extremly neat and easy to stay oriented.
> There is skippy for X11 which tries to simulate it, works so-so.
>
I see. Well, the thing is that with a virtual workspace I can see several
windows at one. I recall working with a 19" monitor at 1280x1024 resolution.
2*2 konsoles all fully visible... wonderful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/
Hacker sees bug. Hacker fixes bug.
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
