Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 22:07 UTC
Linux With Linux on the desktop going from a slow crawl to verging on an explosion, many have toiled with the question: How do we make this happen faster? A well-known Austin-based Linux Advocate thinks he has the answer.
Thread beginning with comment 297556
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Simple answer
by Brendan on Thu 24th Jan 2008 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Simple answer"
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

" This alone is probably the single most prominent deterrent for *nix
adoption. A platform can hardly gain relevance by sharing everything it
has to offer to the dominate players. The dilemma here is... porting to
Windows has many benefits to the project--attracting more users and
potential developers.

I vehemently disagree with that statement. Allowing users to get
comfortable with open source applications like FireFox, for example
would make switching to an another OS seamless.
"

Seamless or pointless? If you're a Windows user running KDE, openOffice, GCC, etc then what reason do you have to become a Linux user running running KDE, openOffice, GCC, etc?


I think we need to
agree on why people would move from Windows in the first place. My
opinion is that it will be because they are fed up with Windows.


Despite wishful thinking, Windows is "adequate"...

There
are some like me who just feel more comfortable having all of my tools
at my fingertips (like bash, grep, find, ls, sed, awk and more).


Can't you just port all of these tools to Windows instead of using Linux (or download the Windows binaries and/or Cygwin)?

The reason they will move is because the want the freedom that comes
with Open Source OS's.


No. Most people (except for everyone who is already using open source OSs) really don't care at all, and it doesn't matter how much wishful thinking open source advocates do, people still won't care.

When you buy a car do you ask if the engine management computer is open source? I doubt it - most people don't even think about it.

The same applies (for most people) when they're buying mobile phones, games machines and other devices. Normal people think the same way with computers - they buy the computer, it comes with Windows, they plug it in, it's "adequate", then they use it and continue to use it (without ever thinking about it).

They will get tired of the never ending BS from
Microsoft. They will move *AWAY* from Windows in search of something
else. They won't move *TOWARD* Linux for the applications.


Unfortunately not, people are silly and don't know the difference between price and worth. They'll think "Linux is free so it must be worthless" and "Apple is expensive so it must be better" then they'll buy an Apple/Mac... :-)

Imagine if I had 2 identical fire extinguishers. One cost me $2000, came with a nice pretty box and has a 20 year guarantee. The other one cost me $80, came in a clear plastic bag and has no guarantee. Even though these fire extinguishers are identical, which would you choose in a life or death situation?

The funny part is that (for these people) if you tell them there's an excellent piece of software they can get for free called Linux they won't be interested; but if you tell them you bought a copy of Linux for $800 they'll probably beg you to "pirate" a copy for them before they know what it is... :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Simple answer
by lemur2 on Thu 24th Jan 2008 13:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Simple answer"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you're a Windows user running KDE, openOffice, GCC, etc then what reason do you have to become a Linux user running running KDE, openOffice, GCC, etc?


More secure. No need to run Windows ... so no Windows Update backdoor. No spyware. Phishing sites and malicious websites and spam in general no longer hold any danger to your system. No forced upgrades. 23000 searchable packages available to you to install from one easy-to-use point, guaranteed malware free and all zero cost. There are other reasons, but those will do for starters.

Despite wishful thinking, Windows is "adequate"...


Matter of opinion. It is not good enough in my view, it is fundamentally flawed, and one of its main design objectives seems to be to try to lock you in and limit your choice. Ugh.

Can't you just port all of these tools to Windows instead of using Linux (or download the Windows binaries and/or Cygwin)?


There are bits that are in the core of the OS that you can't really port, such as (as examples) SVG support, multiple filesystems, execute permissions, true multi-user (as in, more than one user on the one machine at the same time), lack of the single-point-of-failure registry, and so on.

When you buy a car do you ask if the engine management computer is open source? I doubt it - most people don't even think about it.


When you buy a mobile phone, would you buy one that only works with only one network (lock-in), or would you want to have one that can work with any network you choose (open)? A television that works with only one broadcaster? A CD player that plays only Sony CDs?

Most people will avoid lock-in where they can see they have a chance to do so.

Imagine if I had 2 identical fire extinguishers. One cost me $2000, came with a nice pretty box and has a 20 year guarantee. The other one cost me $80, came in a clear plastic bag and has no guarantee. Even though these fire extinguishers are identical, which would you choose in a life or death situation?

The funny part is that (for these people) if you tell them there's an excellent piece of software they can get for free called Linux they won't be interested; but if you tell them you bought a copy of Linux for $800 they'll probably beg you to "pirate" a copy for them before they know what it is... :-)


You have something of a point here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Schiller#Quotations
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

Edited 2008-01-24 13:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2