On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 10:38:22AM +0100, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote: >On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 02:23:35AM -0600, John Buttery wrote: >> This may sound a little more harsh than I mean it. This isn't a >> flame, just a statement of opinion; please take it as such... >> >> One of the worst things that is happening to Linux (and when I say >> "Linux" I'm including the BSD children and the rest of the new wave of >> open-source OSes, software, etc) is people's apparent deep-seeded need >> to legitimize it to Windows users (and when I say "Windows" I'm not just >> talking about RedmondOS, but a certain mindset that prevails regardless >> of OS). > >You know, enlightening people, showing them a better, easier, more >elegant, powerful way of working is part of a generous mindset, it's >called fraternity.
I didn't say/mean that you shouldn't show them, give them a push in
the right direction. I just think that once you've led the horse to the
water, maybe there's better things to do than shove its head in. :)
>It's not "us" versus "them", we share all the same world and one can't
>live in supreme isolation. As I already stated on this list: if you
>don't evangelize Linux and its wonderful tools to the masses then you
>will follow the path of all elititist groups: obsolescence. Hapiness
>alone is not hapiness.
I don't see how obsolescense follows from lack of evangelism. Linux
and the open-source movement grew up from nothing, and continues to
thrive and grow today. And I don't see how letting someone else use
Netscape Mail is "happiness alone". They email me, I email them. We
coexist with our own MUAs.
>Do you think Linux would have thrived as it does without any evangelism?
>The lower you place the barrier to entry into a better world, the
>stronger we will be collectively.
That, in my opinion, is only correct for certain values of "lower".
Let me use the example of Windows; Microsoft has spent tons of money and
resources making each successive version easier to use and "more
accessible", and has it changed the percentage of (what some people
call) "clueless lusers"? Maybe a little, but not really. And the
reason is, that the barrier is not that Windows is hard to use, which
it's not, but the mindset in people that it's hard, or that they can't
do it. Continually lowering the bar perpetuates that mindset.
Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely plenty of values of
"lower" that _are_ valid; I'm not saying it should be twm or bust for
anyone wanting to learn Linux, or mutt, or anything. All I'm saying is,
mutt has a target demographic and not everyone is in it...and maybe we
should stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes. One of my
roommates is more than competent, has used mutt for longer than I have,
and recently switched to Evolution and loves it. It's what's right for
him; not everyone needs folder- and send- and pgp-hooks and 6 layers of
mailcap fallthrough logic etc etc.
>In your ideal world you'll be part of the 1% who uses "correct"
>software; with whom will you be able to communicate once the other 99%
>use a proprietary mail protocol, because free tools were too hard to use
>and nobody cared to promote them?
Now you're talking about a totally different concept. If it gets to
the point where Microsoft (and if anybody does it, it will be them)
moves toward proprietarizing SMTP (well, beyond internal
Exchange-controlled networks) then yes, it's definitely time to start
beating the war drums. But until then, my RFC-compliant messages reach
them fine, and their (almost-)RFC-compliant messages reach me fine.
We're not talking about converting Netscape users because we can't
communicate with them.
There are plenty of free MUAs out there that are perfectly easy to
use; pine and Evolution spring first to mind. Usability is not going to
be the barrier to conversion if it comes to that. The barrier is
mindset (and, in Outlook's case, proprietary mailbox format).
>> Show them the mutt web page. If they don't see the advantage, well,
>> why waste time trying to convert them?
>
>Paraphrasing Paul Léautaud: "Let's stop right there. There is an abyss
>between us. I would only shock you, and you would make me laugh."
>
>Too bad the world your attitude prepares is no laughing matter...
I think you're misinterpreting my attitude. To me, there's only one
good reason to do more than a simple push toward "a better client"; if
they are your friend, etc., and you care about them enough to badger
them until they use an MUA that doesn't make their system vulnerable
to waves of VB- and Javascript-based scripting attacks. Anything
beyond that, and you're talking about pushing information about someone
solely for their own benefit. If they don't want to help themselves
after being shown the way, well, that's their problem. Or, maybe the
MUA/OS/whatever that they have now really is the right thing for them.
Now, I'm willing to admit I'm a little jaded on the subject, but I
still think I have a good point. Over the years I've done an awful lot
of the sort of evangelism we're talking about, with one or another of my
group of not-so-nerdy friends; trying to convince them to install Linux
or, failing that, VMware (or, more recently, Cygwin now that it's been
created). Trying to show them the benefits of pine (I don't even try
mutt unless I get a bite on pine first). Pointing out the hardware you
need for a good WindowMaker/Blackbox setup that runs well vs what you
need to run Windows98, or Ximian GNOME vs XP. And a good percentage of
the time, I just get the nod; you know, the one where they want you to
know they know you mean well, but they're just not really listening to
you because you've gone into the realm of "techie stuff". Making Linux,
or mutt, or Windows more accessible is not going to help unless that
mindset changes, and if it does change, then the last 6 iterations of
"bar-lowering" will be redundant. To put it a different way: Don't
spend time making the software easier, spend time empowering the users
to use it in its current form. But at the same time, don't let
"empowering" be confused with "spoon-feeding"; people should be
responsible for their own education.
So that's where I got this attitude, in case you're wondering. I still
show people the web pages. And of course, all of this becomes
irrelevant at the point someone actually shows interest; if someone
actually _asks_ a question they'll be lucky to shut me up for an hour.
:) My point is, trying to push the horse's head down into the stream
just seems like time that could be better spent elsewhere.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Buttery
(Web page temporarily unavailable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
msg24881/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
