re:Should I really care
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 3:27 AM EDT |
Quoting:a lot of people just don't see a need to really care about what's going on in the Penguin Land. Everyday users just go with the majority, and it would take some drastic changes for most people to seriously consider using Linux I disagree with you grouch. This article has nothing to do with whether Windows is better than Linux or the other way around. Nothing whatsoever. The question in the title is the one that many Linux enthusiasts seem unable to wrap their arms around: Why should non-techies care, especially non-techies who feel no special hatred towards Microsoft? It's a threshold effect question: At what point is it worth leaving my comfortable world to try something new? Given a choice between two equally good things, most people choose the one they are most familiar with, or have heard good things about from their friends. In fact, it turns out the two things don't have to be equally good if the chooser is comfortable enough with the inferior item. Think of it this way: How good would a Chevy have to be to lure significant numbers of Camry owners away from Toyota? Now...the encouraging news is that all of those Camry owners would have been Chevy/Ford/Chrysler, etc drivers thirty years ago. But the bad news is that it took really lousy quality in US cars combined with the Arab oil embargo to push Toyota forward. And that was cars, where the learning curve is no impediment to switching brands. Switching to Linux doesn't just mean changing your OS. It likely means dumping everything you've come to rely on. The threshold is a lot higher than for cars. So...We've got the really lousy quality in Windows, though no easy way to let people see that free software is higher quality. Where is our arab oil embargo? Do we need something more? We do want people to toss away an awful lot of experience. Hmmm.. Could it be that OpenOffice, Gimp, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc, for Windows might actually play a role in promoting free software? |
| devnet Aug 09, 2006 5:56 AM EDT |
But grouch is adressing exactly what you said dino...Quoting:a lot of people just don't see a need to really care about what's going on in the Penguin Land. Everyday users just go with the majority, and it would take some drastic changes for most people to seriously consider using Linux Why? Because a majority of people drive Camry's. (It's the most popular car in America). What makes it popular? It's reliable and efficient unlike other cars and is stylish. If that's all it takes to make a car #1, what does it take to make an OS #1? It takes a bit more than what you're getting at. We need to convey an empathetic voice toward those users who have the desire to do more with computing. One day there will be a straw that breaks the camel's back...perhaps DRM and TC, perhaps something else...whatever the case may be...there will be a tipping point and these types of users will begin to understand what penguin land is all about. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 5:59 AM EDT |
>We need to convey an empathetic voice toward those users who have the desire to do more with computing. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe Linux just doesn't make sense for most people. |
| devnet Aug 09, 2006 7:21 AM EDT |
It doesn't yet it does... It doesn't make sense for people to want to use something because it's free and because it has no DRM or TC. People don't care about these things (for the most part...if it works, they don't mind being locked in or they don't mind paying money for it). People use things because they work. UI reigns supreme now. Functions/Features are dead. Apple nailed it with their IPOD as far as design and ease of use are concerned...but they failed to allow people to completely control their entire experience by locking them into their DRM. So now instead of "look my Linux can do XGL and boot from my ThumbDrive" we should be concentrating on "how can we improve what we have to better suit the user experience". http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/157-Perspective-is... If Linux continues to match Vista and OSX feature for feature, we'll always just be a cloned effort. Instead, doing something truly unique by keeping the end user experience in mind, we could vault Linux to the forefront the way the IPOD has done for music players. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 7:52 AM EDT |
>If Linux continues to match Vista and OSX feature for feature, we'll always just be a cloned effort. Instead, doing something truly unique by keeping the end user experience in mind, we could vault Linux to the forefront the way the IPOD has done for music players. Which is a tricky thing to do when you're talking computers, but hey... |
| tuxchick2 Aug 09, 2006 10:00 AM EDT |
I think you fine lxer persons are confusing a number of issues. The core issue is what is the Linux/FOSS target user? The common assumption is "Linux needs to be designed to appeal to the masses." If that's the case, then yes, bring on the binary blobs, the closed codecs, the "open source" DRM. Because it's going to continue be a struggle to get hardware vendors to support Linux and other non-windoze platforms. On the other hand, if Free Software is meant to deliver maximum freedoms to users and developers, to protect the hard work of developers, to continue to supply first-rate power tools to power users, system administrators, and network admins, and to keep the available Free Software code pool wide and deep, none of those nasty things need apply. Yeah, I know certain persons are going to quibble and claim that Free Software is only about freedom, and if that means putting up with crappy, buggy, inadequate software, well hey that's OK. I don't agree with that at all. Remember, legend has it that Saint RMS started on his path when he was confronted with crappy proprietary printer code that he could not fix, and the vendor refused to fix. He already had cruddy software; he didn't need to start a revolution to insure a steady supply. |
| Libervis Aug 09, 2006 10:06 AM EDT |
Quoting:If Linux continues to match Vista and OSX feature for feature, we'll always just be a cloned effort. Instead, doing something truly unique by keeping the end user experience in mind, we could vault Linux to the forefront the way the IPOD has done for music players. There are efforts in that direction, such as the KDE 4 Plasma interface. Alot could come out of it. GNOME is already quite user friendly in terms of usability (hiding the rest of the less important clutter of features). As for motivations for trying GNU/Linux they can be either technical or "ideological", that is the freedom. And I'm not necessarily talking about switching to GNU/Linux because of suddenly discovered belief that all software should be free, but being chased away by an increasinly obvious imposition of control over proprietary OS's in form of TC and DRM. In other words, the second motivation is realization that, indeed, they are loosing freedom and need something where they can have it again: GNU/Linux. Ultimately I believe that second point should be even more propagated than the first point (technical reasons) because the second point is going to matter more and more to users as the industry tightens its control forces. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 10:08 AM EDT |
tuxchick - Well, that is the old question: Should it be for an elite clique, or for a broader audience. Frankly, I would be very sad to discover that I am insufficiently elite to use Linux. I seriously dislike Windows. Don't want to live there. But... I see no point in having computers I can't use to do the things I want to do. I didn't buy them to look good in the office (which is why they don't!!). So... I want everything to be free. In the absence of free, I will take available and works well at a price I can live with. |
| Libervis Aug 09, 2006 10:11 AM EDT |
tuxchick2:Quoting:Remember, legend has it that Saint RMS started on his path when he was confronted with crappy proprietary printer code that he could not fix, and the vendor refused to fix. He already had cruddy software; he didn't need to start a revolution to insure a steady supply. No he didn't start a revolution to ensure a steady supply of cruddy software, of course. He didn't start a revolution to ensure a steady supply of brilliant high quality code either. ;) He started it because he wanted to ensure a steady state of freedom, so that he can have the right to ensure better software. Freedom is first, and quality is only the consequence of having it. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 10:18 AM EDT |
> and quality is only the consequence of having it. Or so we hope. |
| tuxchick2 Aug 09, 2006 10:26 AM EDT |
dino, I take your meaning, though I quibble a bit with 'elite clique.' I don't feel particularly leet, nor do most of my customers that I've managed to move to nice Linux boxen over the years. They want to get their work done, and they don't want to be jerked around by vendors. It actually seems pretty simple, but of course the real world has this astonishing inability to see things in the same steady, clear-eyed fashion as me. :) Libervis, while ensuring code quality is not explicit, it is strongly implicit in freedoms 1,2, and 3: - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1) - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2) - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3) |
| Libervis Aug 09, 2006 10:37 AM EDT |
Yes, but the freedom is an apparent prerequisite. That's all I'm saying, freedom is the first goal and the most important one, as everything else hinges on it. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 10:43 AM EDT |
T & L : Yes, can you imagine how awful it would be if, say, you had a robot garage loader and your software stopped working and you didn't have the source code so you couldn't get it going again? Of course, nobody would let themselves get in that position, would they? |
| tuxchick2 Aug 09, 2006 11:08 AM EDT |
Libervis, I'll agree with that. |
| number6x Aug 09, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
dino repeats the question:
"Why should non-techies care, especially non-techies who feel no special hatred towards Microsoft?" If you have been following along here at LXer, you will know the answer... If they don't care, all of their cars will be trapped by giant, unlicensed robo-garages. So use open source, or bow down to your new, unlicensed, robo-garage overlords. |
| jimf Aug 09, 2006 12:18 PM EDT |
The scariest part of this is their 'solution' is the lack of one. This is the most compelling case for open source I've seen in a long time, but, once again, government hasn't learned anything. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 12:45 PM EDT |
jimf - No kidding. Why isn't the Yo-Yo (with apologies to Duncan and friends of Duncan) who inked that deal made to stand in the main town square wearing stocks? Better yet, locked into the Robo-Garage naked with and covered in honey with fire-ants nearby? |
| jimf Aug 09, 2006 1:10 PM EDT |
Lol, just lock him in a car in the garage next time the system fails... |
| grouch Aug 09, 2006 2:06 PM EDT |
dinotrac: >Quoted:
"a lot of people just don't see a need to really care about what's going on in the Penguin Land. Everyday users just go with the majority, and it would take some drastic changes for most people to seriously consider using Linux" >"I disagree with you grouch." You fail to attribute the quoted statements. This plus your statement following the quote makes it appear that you are quoting me. To set the record straight, I did not make the statements you quote. |
| dinotrac Aug 09, 2006 2:18 PM EDT |
grouch: Sorry. I was quoting the original article. |
| devnet Aug 09, 2006 4:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:The core issue is what is the Linux/FOSS target user? The common assumption is "Linux needs to be designed to appeal to the masses." If that's the case, then yes, bring on the binary blobs, the closed codecs, the "open source" DRM. Because it's going to continue be a struggle to get hardware vendors to support Linux and other non-windoze platforms. As stated in my lil ditty up there... It doesn't need to appeal to the masses. It needs to be usable to the nth degree. Mass appeal would be a byproduct of this. Linux will succeed no matter what happens because it already is a success. To appeal more to everyone or to anyone it needs to become the most usable operating system on the planet. Through trial and error I feel we'll get there...eventually. We'd get there a lot sooner if programmers and application designers would keep usability in the forefront of the mind while creating programs. |
| NoDough Aug 09, 2006 6:23 PM EDT |
Stories and threads like this really get my goad. Linux is failing to penetrate the market of the masses! Oh no! What ever shall we do!? Puh-lease! Can anyone else show my an OS that has achieved double-digit growth year over year for its entire existence? I don't think so. If this is failure, then three cheers for failure. |
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!