As Rich did, I would like to address this article by going through the
authors statements one at a time. Becuase of this, this is a fairly
long-winded message.
C-Ya,
Kenny
1)
"Too many Linuxes. The desktop customer doesn't want to worry about
different--sometimes very different--versions of the same OS."
Who is the desktop customer? Is it the average home user? Or, is it
the corporate employee? If this sentence is meant to be about
corporate employees, then I think it is dead wrong. In a corporate
environment, the end-user is not the customer. The sysadmins are the
ones who build machines, and it is up to them to standardize on a
distribution. Choosing a Linux distribution is no different than
choosing between Win95, Win98, WinME, WinNT, or Win2K.
"This only highlights compatibility and complexity concerns."
What concerns? There is no evidence of incompatibility given, or even
a single example. As for complexity, it isn't up to the end-user to
deal with those issues. The user, as the term implies, only needs to
use the system. They do not have to install software, or do any major
configuration. It is easy to roll out identical Linux systems to all
users.
"And business customers don't want an operating system called Mandrake
or an interface called KDE"
As opposed to what? Computers named LISA and MacIntosh, or an
interface called CDE? I think that this is a fairly silly argument
with no real merrit.
2)
"The Linux community needs to learn to speak the language of the
common user. And I mean the very common user. Education is key--for
everyone involved."
This argument is one of my pet-peeves. My question is "Why?" His third
sentence is made impossible by the first two. How can you educate
someone without teaching them something new? The language that is used
is part of what users need to learn. It doesn't help them any to
dumb-down terminology. When a college professor teaches a class, they
use the terminology relevant to that subject. The reason for this is
the specific intent to educate. I think that the real problem is that
users need to learn the terminology so that they can properly
communicate their needs and problems to the community so that we can
help them better. I think that an effort needs to be made by the
community to be more patient with new users.
3)
"Getting the Linux community to rally around a single "preferred"
Linux distribution and desktop would vastly improve the marketability
of the operating system to desktop customers."
Again, there is no definition of who the "desktop customer" is. I also
feel that this is a redundant argument with number 1. However, to
address the argument in it's current incarnation, it is not up to the
Linux community to market anything. We can advocate, but since we are
not a corporate entity, we don't market. Also, if there were only one
distribution, that would seriously limit the choices in many areas. If
that one distribution were a corporate entity, then they would be able
to do as they please with that distribution. Case in point: Microsoft.
I think that there is a common, and extremely unhealthy perception
that competition in any arena is a bad thing whether it be in
operating systems, office suites, or any other software. Many people
feel that there should be only one of everything. This stiffles
innovation because the one product that emerges no longer needs to get
any better.
4)
"The "free" software model turns customers off. They don't understand
it. It sounds like communism. How do we deal with this?"
Picture this: A government controls everything. They decide what the
citizens should have. No citizen is allowed to have anything that the
government doesn't approve of. If smaller nations around it become to
powerful, or have a resource that they want, they invade and consume
the smaller nation. That is what the former Soviet Union was like, and
it is exactly what Microsoft is like. Which model sounds like
communism now?
5)
"We'd need a major (by that I mean top 10), Intel-based, desktop
hardware vendor to ship this preferred desktop Linux as a second
operating system on all its machines, offering customers a very real
choice. Those who preferred Linux could order the machines without any
Microsoft content and save some money."
I guess Dell doesn't count:
http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/topics/linux_000_linux_products.htm
http://search.dell.com/redirect.asp?link_name=http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/topics/linux_linuxhome.htm
Or IBM:
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/
6)
"Some people say the lack of Microsoft Office for Linux is a major
limiting factor, and it is. Having Microsoft Office has certainly
saved Apple from oblivion, but it hasn't really helped Apple gain
market share. Microsoft is highly unlikely to develop a Linux version
of Office. I suspect they are also having considerable problems with
the idea of building a Mac OS X-native Office because it would
essentially be a UNIX port. That could start Microsoft down a slippery
slope--especially if some future court ordered the Mac OS X Office
ported to Linux."
I think that this is very misguided, especially in light of the
authors former assertion that "education is key". I don't think that
it is any more important to have Microsoft Office on Linux any more
than it is to have any other word processor for any other operating
system. I feel that what is needed is standards. I also think that
users, corporate entities, and the like need to be educated on the
problems with proprietary text formats. Microsoft Office isn't
important because everyone uses it. Everyone uses it because it is
incompatible with everything else. WordPerfect is the same way. It was
great when Corel released WP for Linux, but it is still a proprietary
format that is incompatible with everything else. If people could
choose their word processor, and the formats were the same, it would
force companies like Corel and Microsoft to innovate and add value to
their products by adding features that matter to the users. As for a
future court ordering a port of Office to Linux, I think that that is
the most incomprehensible argument to date. I can't even conceive of a
reason that something like that would even be possible.
7)
"Running Windows atop Linux would be a good thing, especially if it
can be made to work as well as the current crop of tools for running
Windows atop Mac OS 9.1. This is more a propaganda victory than
anything, but it would provide support for apps that will never be
ported over but users feel they need."
While there are obviously tools like VMWare and Win4Lin that the
author is oblivious to, I don't really see this need. If his intention
is to replace Windows on his desktop with Linux, then I think that his
focus should be on finding software for Linux that is equitible to
it's Windows counterpart. "Running Windows atop Linux" defeats two of
the authors previously stated goals: First "Education is key" -- If
you only stick with what you know, then you will never learn anything
new. Second "machines without any Microsoft content and save some
money". If you run Windows on top of Linux, you still have to pay for
the licenses. It doesn't magically become free just because it is
running on top of another layer.
8)
"Customers need to see important software developers announcing Linux
versions of their products. It doesn't really matter how much free
software exists; we need popular commercial apps."
I am going to assume that the author means companies, not developers
here. I highly doubt that the average user could name a single
developer for MS Office. As for the commercial apps, I'm not sure what
he means. Corel released the entire WordPerfect suite for Linux, and
from what I hear, it is fairly popular amoung the legal profession.
What else does the average user need? A web browser? Take your pick
(Netscape, Opera, Mosaic...). E-mail? OK, so commercial e-mail clients
are limited.
This argument also uses circular logic. People won't use it until
there are apps, but companies won't port apps until people use it.
It's a good argument, and one that is hard to refute. However, my
rebuttal is that it is a matter of education. Teach users that the
name on the application doesn't matter as long as the functionality is
there. If they accept that, then there is most likely an open source
app out there that meets their needs.
9)
"The more lines-of-business apps--the sorts of things that run vet
clinics, law offices, and small retail shops--we can get ported to
this preferred desktop Linux, the better its chances for success."
I can honestly say that I have no idea what the author is saying here.
10)
"Improving Linux's support for multimedia is critical. Linux must do
all the important things Windows does."
Again, this is a very vague argument with no examples. As far a
multimedia goes, I can't think of anything that Linux doesn't do.
There are several major graphics programs, such as LightWave and 3DO
that have been ported to Linux. There are plenty of music apps. There
is a DVD player. There are games. What else does it need in the
multimedia arena?
All in all, I found this to be a poorly thought out article. The
author says that this is his "plan" for Linux on the desktop. I don't
see a plan at all. What I see is half thoughts. He makes complaints
based on no imperical evidence of a real problem. I'm not saying that
Linux is going to take over the desktop market tomorrow. There are
some real problems facing Linux on the desktop, but the ones that he
lists seem to be due to his own lack of education on the subject.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Kenneth E. Lussier
Geek by nature, Linux by choice
PGP KeyID 0xD71DF198
Public key available @ http://pgp.mit.edu
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
