- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Why Normal People Don't Use Linux
|
|
|
Comments (32)
12 earlier comments in the full thread.
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.
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.
**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.
@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%.
Just to emphasize KS' point... others see the same problem over at Ubuntu:
http://www.workswithu.com/2009/06/10/trouble-brews-with-ubun...
http://www.workswithu.com/2009/06/10/trouble-brews-with-ubun...
What is your problem, tuxchick? Damn.
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
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
> 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.
I'd really be interested in that one. I've seen no justification for including it by default.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
I suspect that Red Hat and Canonical have lawyers who are quite capable of making sense of Legalese.
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.
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.
number6x: Well stated, and essentially my view also.
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.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
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).