My kid hates Linux (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 15, 2008 9:13 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891)
In reply to: My kid hates Linux (ZDNet) by Janne
Parent article: My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

To continue my previous comment (and this time the text-spacing should work OK ;)): As you
might have guessed, I use OS X. But I do have history with Linux, and I'm a paying member of
my national LUG. But there are reasons I use OS X mainly these days.

I have now used OS X mainly for about 1.5 years, while being part-time Mac-user for a while
longer. And during that time I have seen the drastic difference between Linux and OS X. On OS
X, the level of polish in insane. And I'm not talking about just the OS and it's GUI, I'm
talking about the apps as well. Apps like Pixelmator, Scrivener, Delicious Library, Aperture
and the like. I don't understand why I can't see that level of polish in Linux-apps.

Some might say that the polish is useless, functionality is what matters. But the thing is
that those apps are not lacking in features either. And that polish makes those apps enjoyable
and easier to use.

Now, some people might say that I'm "giving up on freedom" or something like that. But the
thing is that I don't see it. Do I have the ability to tinker with the internals of Aperture
(for example)? No. But since I'm not a coder, that loss is meaningless. What I DO care about
is what I can do with the software.

Now, since I'm a nerd, I do like Linux as well. So I don't have to be convinced on the
benefits of it. To me, using a new system and learning to use it, is a reward in itself. But
normal folks just want to use the system to actually do something, as opposed to using the
sytem for the sake of using it. If I were a Joe Sixpack, and I was being asked to move to
Linux, it would be very hard task to do, since it would mean giving up on many things I take
for granted on other systems. Instead of having beautiful and functional apps, I would have
apps that are... um, "utilitarian". And some kind apps would be missing entirely.

And (I'm going a bit off-topic here, but....) what about innovation? Why does some new app
have to become available in Windows or OS X first, before making an appearance in Linux? For
example, Photobooth in OS X. Only after we got Photobooth in OS X, did we get something
similar in Linux: Cheese (although with a lot less polish). Why couldn't Linux be the
trailblazer for a change? Why couldn't Linux come up with a easy to use, incremental,
versioning backup-system (Time Machine...)? And why do I get the feeling that if some
Linux-distro DID ship with just that kind of tool, it too would be "utilitarian", as opposed
to fun and beautiful?

I think all this show the roots of Linux: By coders, for coders. Coders don't see the world
and software in similar light as mere users do. Therefore the software scratches the itch of
coders, while mere users are left in the cold. If Linux got a versioning backup-tool, I bet
that the coder would not bother with fancy animations and the like, since to him, those would
be unnecessary fluff. But all that "fluff" makes for a nicer user experience, and it makes the
system more desireable to new users.

(Log in to post comments)

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 15, 2008 9:52 UTC (Tue) by modernjazz (subscriber, #4185) [Link]

I don't know any details, but for what it's worth, students in my 
department now advise each other not to rely on the OSX backup tool---too 
many of them have had bad experiences when it comes to restoring 
(corrupted databases, I think, but I'm not certain). One of them called 
customer service and basically got the response, "look, if you want 
enterprise-level functionality you need to buy higher-level tool." Most 
of them now use other, free software, backup tools that are not quite as 
user friendly but are more trustworthy in the end.

I don't disagree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the user 
experience with Linux. But one trait of geek software is that the 
internal implementation, at least, tends to be solid, even if the 
wrapping with a pretty interface may not always be done with as much 
polish as, say, OSX (with which I have essentially no personal 
experience, so I can't comment).

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 15, 2008 10:41 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

I have heard of few isolated incidents of TIme Machine failing for some reason, but nothing
widespread. But that said: Linux at the moment doesn't have ANY kind of backuptool. Sure,
there are probably zillion apps in sourceforge or somewhere that can back up the system. But
what we need is a system that is integrated in the distro. back when Time machine was first
demoed, I wrote a feature-request to Ubuntu, saying that we need something similar. AFAIK,
that suggestion didn't go anywhere. No backup, no undo (that Time Machine handles beautifully
as well), no nothing. We are constantly reminded by the importance of backing up, yet we are
not provided with the tools to do it. Only Time Machine managed to make me actually back up,
since it's so easy. Plug in a drive, and forget it. No hassle, no teeth-grinding. Considering
the importance of user-data, it just boggles the mind that distributions have dropped the ball
on this so badly.

Like you said: the tools available in Linux might be more reliable. But does that reliability
matter one bit, if those tools go un-used? I would MUCH rather have unreliable backup-tool
that actually gets used, as opposed to worlds most reliable backup-tool that goes un-used.
Hell, I could see my in-laws (who use OS X) using Time Machine just fine, but asking them to
mess around with rsync or some esoteric Linux-tool that does the same thing, seems
far-fetched. And the process of restoring files in Time Machine is just so intuitive that
anyone can do it. I feel that that level of ease of use would not manifest in Linux. Linux and
it's apps tend to be "traditional". File-restore in Linux would propably present the user a
list with bunch of files, asking the user to pick the one he wants. In Time Machine you have a
timeline with graphical representation of the app you are restoring data for. Fluff, maybe.
But it's so pretty, intuitive and cool that it actually amkes the app fun to use. Imagine
that, a backup-tool that is _fun to use_?

The thing with Linux and OS X is that they both let the user get their job done. But whereas
Linux simply lets the user do his job, OS X goes the extra mile in satisfying the user. The
mundane tasks that are mundane in Linux or Windows, are made less mundane in OS X through use
of clean UI's, animations, polish and simplicity. That's what I mean with Linux-apps being
"utilitarian". They present the user the things he needs to do the thing he's doing, but
nothing extra. In Linux, backup-tool would present the user with a list of files, whereas in
OS X, it gives the user a timeline of app-windows floating is space. Functionally they both
manage the same task, but one of them is polished and covered with candy, whereas the other
is.... utilitarian.

To quote Vader: "Search your feelings, and you know this to be true".

Now, I might write some kind of "article" or comparison where I compare OS X and Linux (KDE or
Gnome, I'm not sure yet) with screenshots and all, depending on my resources and time.
Hopefully that comparison will be constructive and help make Linux better. But we shall see.

Need for easy and reliable backup tools on Linux

Posted Apr 15, 2008 16:24 UTC (Tue) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]

You are saying 'Linux doesn't have an integrated backup tool', but there are hundreds of Linux
distributions, of which perhaps ten have a big share of the market.  If you look at these
distros, many of them do have integrated backup tools - certainly Kubuntu, Puppy and Damn
Small Linux all do.  

Of course they may not be as slick as Apple's Time Machine, but they don't need to be - all
that's needed is to make it really easy, and automatic if at all possible, to back up the most
critical user data, and ideally the whole system if storage allows.  Yes, Time Machine is very
nice, but it's much more important that backup is so easy to enable that it's harder to not
have backups.  

Most of Time Machine's slickness is about the restore user interface, which is hardly a major
requirement, since restore is a fairly infrequent operation, as long as it's reasonably easy -
people are usually highly motivated to restore!  Simply letting people navigate the backup
data store interactively via a Konqueror/Explorer type tree view, or a Gnome file manager
view, is fine.  In fact, this is what Windows/Mac tools such as Mozy do - and they do offsite
backup which is very important to protect against theft, fire, etc.  Carbonite is a Windows
only backup tool that has an incredibly simple UI (literally 4 configuration options that are
just checkboxes, and that's it), and lets you browse a special Carbonite drive via Windows
Explorer to locate files to restore.  

Having an unreliable backup tool is worse than not using a backup tool - you can't tell when
an unreliable tool will fail, yet you think you have valid backups... I don't think Linux
backup tools are more reliable than on Windows or Mac, necessarily.

JungleDisk is quite a nice tool for offsite backups (to Amazon S3 storage), and works on
Linux, Mac and Windows - its UI is not bad but I can't use it currently because, even after
quite a complex install process involving enabling FUSE, setting /etc/fuse.conf options, etc,
I was still not able to make it reliably work as a target for rsync (it provides a local FUSE
filesystem).  So I'm back to a more complex approach using the excellent s3sync to copy to S3,
with my main backup tool being the excellent command-line based DAR (which does encryption and
compression at the block level so even a bad disk block doesn't mean you lose the whole backup
archive) - once I have the DAR archives for a machine, I rsync them to a local server and
(will) also copy them to S3 storage or a web host.  There are actually no GUIs involved here,
but that's just because JungleDisk is unreliable...

Some links:

http://mozy.com for Mac/Windows, good features and control, but more complex for end user than
Carbonite

http://jungledisk.com for Linux and Mac/Windows (if you can get it to work reliably)

http://s3sync.net (requires Ruby and SSL, works well so far).

Need for easy and reliable backup tools on Linux

Posted Apr 16, 2008 8:45 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"You are saying 'Linux doesn't have an integrated backup tool', but there are hundreds of
Linux distributions, of which perhaps ten have a big share of the market. If you look at
these distros, many of them do have integrated backup tools - certainly Kubuntu, Puppy and
Damn Small Linux all do. "

Really? where? Is it automatic? Does it require user interaction? Does it back up everything?
I HAVE seen some Ubuntu-tools that lets the user burn the home-directory to CD or something,
but that is NOT what we are talking about here.

"Of course they may not be as slick as Apple's Time Machine, but they don't need to be"

Why not? "slickness" is a positive value in just about everything, why should those tools be
"slick"? Should we just accept the fact that "Mac is smooth and slick, Linux is clumsy and
utilitarian"? Why?

I noticed this difference last week in a concrete way. I was testing KDE 4 with a Live-CD on
my MacBook Pro. As I was running it, my wife happened to walk by. The following discussion
took place:

Wife: "That's not MacOS, that's Linux"
Me: "How do you know?"
Wife: "Well, it just looks a bit clumsy and awkward, while Mac looks chic and polished".

Why should it be like that? That "chicness" and "polish" in Mac comes from all those things
that you think is unneeded. And that includes that slick data-restore view in Time Machine. If
we just stick to "utilitarian" UI's, Linux will always look "clumsy and awkward" when compared
to OS X.

Take a look at something like Delicious Library. There might be similar apps for Linux. But I
bet that they have nowhere near the polish as DL does. And while some might say that that
polish is useless, it makes the whole app very pleasant to use.

"Most of Time Machine's slickness is about the restore user interface, which is hardly a major
requirement, since restore is a fairly infrequent operation, as long as it's reasonably easy -
people are usually highly motivated to restore!"

But why shouldn't the process be made as nice as possible? When user finds that he has lost
some files, he's nervous and anxious. making the restore pleasant and smooth is a very
positive quality.

That's one of the differences I have noticed between Linux and Macs (and Windows and Mac as
well): Mac-developers tend to make the software smooth and slick even when there's no obvious
benefit for that slickness. But even if the benefit is not obvious, it makes the whole
experience of using that software very pleasant and soothing.

You might say that Time Machine's restore-process is useless eyecandy, since presenting the
user with a simple list of files achieves the same goal. But that's just it. One is slick and
polished, the other is "utilitarian".

I maintain that software that is pretty and "slick" is better than software that is
utilitarian, everything else being equal.

"Simply letting people navigate the backup data store interactively via a Konqueror/Explorer
type tree view, or a Gnome file manager view, is fine."

Sure, that might get the job done. But the whole process is less pleasant. It's "utilitarian".
Would you rather have slick and smooth process, or "utilitarian" process? And note: the "slick
and smooth" does not have to mean that it's less powerful or somehow worse process. Why should
the apps and OS we use be gorgerous, slick and smooth? Why should we just stick to software
that presents us a "utilitarian" UI that just gets the job done? Why shouldn't we have
software that looks and feels gorgerous and slick, while getting the job done? Is "looking
ugly" some kind of positive value these days?

"Having an unreliable backup tool is worse than not using a backup tool - you can't tell when
an unreliable tool will fail, yet you think you have valid backups"

But if you have no backups, you have no backups. Even with unreliable backup (and I haven't
heard about that many issues regarding TM, other that the restore-process is a bit slow) you
at least have the hope that you have a backup.

serisously

Posted Apr 17, 2008 12:06 UTC (Thu) by deleteme (subscriber, #49633) [Link]

Lets play game, you are only allowed to write comments shorter than a 100 words.

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 16, 2008 10:19 UTC (Wed) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

openSUSE does have an integrated backup tool (yast/System/System backup). Just 
because the few distributions you've tried are lacking, doesn't mean that Linux in general 
hast that problem.

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 15, 2008 10:17 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

> [W]hat about innovation? Why does some new app
> have to become available in Windows or OS X first,
> before making an appearance in Linux? For example,
> Photobooth in OS X. Only after we got Photobooth
> in OS X, did we get something similar in Linux:
> Cheese (although with a lot less polish).

What about Amarok and K3B, to name a couple well regarded Linux/FLOSS 
apps?  I don't believe there's anything like K3B on either OSX/natvie or 
or MS/native platforms, nor do I really expect it from an OS made not 
primarily for its users, but to pad the pockets of its masters and other 
powers that be (the media conglomerates, etc), and while iTunes could 
conceivably be compared to Amarok in some ways, there's major differences, 
including the array of online streaming music sites and wide degree of 
choice of supported music players, again something iTunes isn't likely to 
support, because it simply doesn't pad the pockets of its master properly.

The point isn't that Linux/FLOSS, or other OS for that matter, has the 
advantage here (tho arguably MS does in pure numbers terms simply by sheer 
market share), but that each has its innovatively strong products without 
reasonable compare on the other OSs.  As such, that point is essentially 
null and void, and if you aren't seeing the innovation, it's simply 
because you haven't looked very far.

FWIW, I personally choose freedom.  I didn't dump a decade on MS and take 
on the hassle of learning an entirely new way of doing things, just to go 
and let some proprietaryware master be /my/ master once again.  If I were 
willing to do that, why the hassle in the first place?  Much like a 
defector who forsook his old life for freedom, I know I can and will never 
go back -- unless per chance there's a revolution and the old land becomes 
as free as the new world of freedom I live and work and play in today.  
However, again much like that defector, I must respect the decision of 
friends and relatives I left behind, who have different priorities and 
values, who haven't come to that point yet, and may indeed /never/ reach 
that point.  If and when they do, I'm more than willing to help them 
adjust to their new home just as others helped me, but until that point, 
while I respect them and know they will and must make their own choices in 
their own time, there remains a chasm between us that can never really be 
bridged.

(I couldn't run most proprietaryware even if I wanted to, since elements 
of the EULA might be binding here, and (1) I no longer sign away my rights 
to reverse engineer or use as I see fit, on principle, regardless of my 
ability to code or not, and (2), the only time I consent to release from 
liability is if I and/or an agent of my choice am/is/are free to examine 
the code for security and fitness for purpose, without yielding my rights 
in the process.  Since a developer, free or proprietary, would have to be 
pretty close to insane to distribute code without a liability disclaimer, 
and I'm not going to take responsibility or liability for code I can't 
examine without surrendering my rights, that pretty well precludes 
proprietary code.  Again, I'm not a coder myself, so this is a pure stand 
on the principle that I'm not going to surrender rights I consider 
inalienable, period.  If that means no proprietaryware, as it does, so be 
it.  But that's just me.  Again, you have your own priorities, values and 
conscience to live by, so live by it as you will, just don't mess with me 
doing the same and I won't mess with you.)

Duncan

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 15, 2008 12:06 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"What about Amarok and K3B, to name a couple well regarded Linux/FLOSS
apps? "

Um, K3b is an app for CD-burning. It was not the first app of it's kind, nor will it be the
last. Amarok? It wasn't first of it's kind either, there were plenty of music-jukeboxes before
Amarok.

Sure, both of those are good apps (although compared to something like iTunes, Amarok seems so
overtly complex and confusing that I can't understand it when I look at the screenshots), but
they aren't really anything groundbreaking. you might say that they do some things better than
some other app does, but that doesn't make them groundbreaking.

And, FWIW, iTunes does support other music-players besides iPods. But even if it didn't, it
would be irrelevant for me, since I happen to own an iPod.

"The point isn't that Linux/FLOSS, or other OS for that matter, has the
advantage here (tho arguably MS does in pure numbers terms simply by sheer
market share), but that each has its innovatively strong products without
reasonable compare on the other OSs."

What are those innovative apps in Linux? Don't get me wrong, there are loads of good apps on
Linux, I'm talking about _innovative_ apps. Something that makes you think "damn, why hasn't
this been thought of before?". Why didn't Linux get something like Expose before OS X did?
Time Machine? Delicious Library? Scrivener? Hell, even PhotoBooth?

"FWIW, I personally choose freedom."

I would like to do so as well. But if I want to edit and organize the RAW-pictures I take with
my camera, I have yet to find a better app than Aperture for that task. And that's just one
example. Are we really free, if we can't really do anything?

I guess the difference here is that before, computers were my hobby. Nowadays, I want to
actually do something with my computers. I don't use computers for the sake of using them, I
use them to accomplish something. And it just happens that for the things I want to do, I
can't really use Linux. I might get a secondary system that runs Linux, just so I can keep
tabs on it's progress though.

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 26, 2008 19:04 UTC (Sat) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

> Um, K3b is an app for CD-burning. It was not
> the first app of it's kind, nor will it be the
> last. Amarok? It wasn't first of it's kind
> either, there were plenty of music-jukeboxes
> before Amarok.

It would seem you've never (really) used either one or you'd know the 
innovativeness.  Calling k3b an app for CD burning is rather like calling 
Photoshop an image editing program, or to use OSX, ITunes a media player.  
Sure it's true, but that rather misses the point, and DEFINITELY misses 
the reason people actually use either app.  Similarly with amarok.  
There's really no comparison in the proprietary world.

Picking k3b first, as I said, the CD burning really isn't the point.  It's 
more (but not just) the way it integrates format conversion,  say ripping 
from DVD (killing the CSS if the support is on the system) to AVI or XViD 
or VCD, creating the new ISO if desired, and burning it, all from the same 
app.  Similarly with audio altho that's not quite so rare any more AFAIK.  
It can rip CDA and directly transcode it to MP3, OggVorbis, WMA, whatever, 
or to lossless FLAC etc, create the ISO and burn it.  Or the 
reverse, converting MP3 or whatever to CDA and burning a standard CD, 
playable in any standard CD player.  In fact, it can do it on the fly 
even, with a decent system.  (Doing high compression high quality video 
recompression on the fly isn't entirely practical yet due to the CPU 
cycles it takes, but in theory it's possible, if you had the machine to do 
it, but audio is definitely less challenging.)  That sort of flexibility 
and "innovativeness" simply isn't likely and hardly even possible in the 
proprietaryware world because the likes of the RIAA/MPAA would have a fit.

Amarok is equally "innovative" and quite comparable to ITunes in that 
regard altho they take somewhat different directions.  Newer versions 
integrate with not just one online store, but multiple stores and multiple 
online media sites such as last.fm.  Play lists can integrate tracks from 
multiple sources, both online and off, with tune scoring and the like 
similar (I guess) to ITunes, pulling covers from Amazon, tune data from 
CDDB if appropriate, lyrics, browsing the artist entries if available on 
wikipedia, etc.  While proprietary apps may do this to some extent, they 
aren't likely to work with the wide variety of otherwise often competing  
sources amarok is now integrating support for, again, because with 
proprietaryware, commercial realities too often get prioritized above user 
convenience.

As these two examples demonstrate, one strength of FLOSS that 
proprietaryware for the most part can't match is user over commercial 
priorities.  As a result, that's where FLOSS innovation tends to be 
strongest comparatively.  Proprietaryware certainly has its strengths as 
well and it's no surprise they score innovations in these areas, but it's 
certainly not the case that FLOSS has no innovative products at all, any 
more than it would be that proprietaryware has no innovative products at 
all.

Duncan

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 15, 2008 10:26 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

>Now, some people might say that I'm "giving up on freedom" or something like that. But the
thing is that I don't see it. 
>Do I have the ability to tinker with the internals of Aperture (for example)? No. But since
I'm not a coder, that loss is meaningless. What I DO care about is what I can do with the
software.

It is far from meaningless, since the Free Software community is bigger than "I". It helps to
think instead of "I" as "someone, somewhere, who is technically able, enjoys software freedom,
and wants to help me get those freedoms as well".

Will I ever write a fully featured replacement for a graphics driver ? The chances are slim at
best. 

But will "someone, somewhere, who is technically able, enjoys software freedom, and wants to
help me get those freedoms as well" ever write a fully featured replacement for a graphics
driver ?

Chances are yes, and far be it from me to discourage that by saying "That's nice, but I'll be
using a proprietary replacement in the meantime. So call me when it's ready and I'll complain
online about how crappy it is compared to its proprietary counterpart. Now, chop-chop, get to
it!"

Now I realize that's overstating the case a little, but if we, as a community, are not there
to support our own initiatives, who is ?

Having a lot of users is nice, but a 100 online articles about how a free system doesn't do
something quite as stellar as a proprietary counterpart isn't worth a single bug-report.

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 15, 2008 12:25 UTC (Tue) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"It is far from meaningless, since the Free Software community is bigger than "I"."

It's meaningless for me. How exactly does the ability to tinker help me, since I do not have
the skills needed for that tinkering? That benefit might be great for coders, but not everyone
is a coder.

"It helps to think instead of "I" as "someone, somewhere, who is technically able, enjoys
software freedom, and wants to help me get those freedoms as well"."

What freedoms are we talking about here? Freedom to modify the source? Like I said: since I'm
not a coder, that particular benefit is meaningless to me. I HAVE had ideas that I thought
were really great. I lack the skill to bring those ideas to reality, so I have spent
considerable amount of time telling the various developers those ideas (and I could do that in
OS X as well, FWIW). Just about every single time those ideas have been shot down.

"Chances are yes, and far be it from me to discourage that by saying "That's nice, but I'll be
using a proprietary replacement in the meantime. So call me when it's ready and I'll complain
online about how crappy it is compared to its proprietary counterpart. Now, chop-chop, get to
it!"

I'm not telling anyone to jump when I tell them to jump. What I AM saying is that "I want to
do certain things with my computer, and for my needs, Linux is not suitable". What do you
suggest I should do? Give up my photography-hobby (for example) while developers work on an
Aperture-replacement? Make do with apps that have maybe 10% of the functionality I can find in
those evil proprietary apps? And for what? For a benefit (open source) that does not directly
benefit me?

"Now I realize that's overstating the case a little, but if we, as a community, are not there
to support our own initiatives, who is ?"

I sure as hell support them. But does that mean that I should live with an app that does
fraction of what some other app does? Yes, Linux is wonderful for many users. Hell, I have
personally converted several people. But fact remains that for some other people, it's not
suitable, and the strict adherece to "only free software!" is going to make that situation
even worse.

"Having a lot of users is nice, but a 100 online articles about how a free system doesn't do
something quite as stellar as a proprietary counterpart isn't worth a single bug-report."

Why should we consider Linux to be the "also ran"? You just said that it's utterly meaningless
if Linux-app isn't better than it's proprietary competitor. That kinda smells like we expect
the Linux-version to be inferior. Why couldn't it be superior? Why shouldn't we strive for
that superiority? Like it or not, proprietary software is the competitor. It's the yardstick
Linux will be measured on. people thinking of switching will think "I can do X, Y and Z with
Windows/Mac, how about Linux?". We should be able to tell them that "you can do all of that,
plus you can do A, B and C". But instead of that, we too often tell them that "Well, you can
do those things, but....".

Linux does not exist in a bubble. If Windows or Mac do the things users want to do, while
Linux does not, there's no chance for Linux. People will keep on using proprietary software.
Is THAT what we want?

Now, don't get me wrong. I love free software. If it were up to me, all software would be free
software. But that doesn't mean that I will insist on using only free software, even when
superior alternative is available.

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 15, 2008 13:45 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

>What freedoms are we talking about here? Freedom to modify the source? Like I said: since I'm
not a coder, that particular benefit is meaningless to me. 

For example the freedom to help your neighbour. It doesn't always mean you're the one giving
help, it also means the freedom to be the one helped, the neighbour in this case. 
Those who cannot code Free Software should not get in the way of those coding Free Software.
And in my view being a champion for installing non-free software on a free system does mean
"getting in the way."

>I'm not telling anyone to jump when I tell them to jump. What I AM saying is that "I want to
do certain things with my computer, and for my needs, Linux is not suitable". What do you
suggest I should do? Give up my photography-hobby (for example) while developers work on an
Aperture-replacement? 

That's a bit of an overstatement. I think it was perfectly possible to have photography as a
hobby before computers even existed. I see no harm in reverting some of the practices that
demand the use of proprietary software to a more basic form, especially since it's just a
hobby.

>Make do with apps that have maybe 10% of the functionality I can find in those evil
proprietary apps? 

It's a start. You could fill in the other 90% with technology that has been around for a long
time now.

>And for what? For a benefit (open source) that does not directly benefit me?

Well, I guess there's the point of contention. If all one seeks from software is how it
benefits one directly right at that moment, without regard to anything or anyone, then it's
true there are, and will likely always be, better systems available.
I don't feel you see it that way, but I'm trying to explain why some (like me) are opposed to
the advocacy of adding "mostly harmless" non-free software to an otherwise free system.

>Linux does not exist in a bubble. 

GNU/Linux *does* exist in a bubble. Within that bubble it is blissfully shielded to some
degree from anti-social practices. And any software that threatens to upset that should be
rejected.

>If Windows or Mac do the things users want to do, while Linux does not, there's no chance for
Linux. 

For me this means the wants of users just have to change. If they cannot appreciate the
freedom, and to some degree, the social responsibility that comes with it, it's lost before
they even got it.

>People will keep on using proprietary software. Is THAT what we want?

The difference between people running (for example) Ubuntu with all proprietary "additions"
and OSX or ms windows is negligable.

So, yes, since adding proprietary software to free systems and propagating it as "value added"
is a zero-sum game. These users might just as well keep running their old proprietary os.
And, no; since it is not what we want, we shouldn't even begin adding proprietary software to
a free system.

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 16, 2008 8:15 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"For example the freedom to help your neighbour."

My inlaws use Mac. And I have helped them with various questions they have asked. Am I missing
something here?

"Those who cannot code Free Software should not get in the way of those coding Free Software.
And in my view being a champion for installing non-free software on a free system does mean
"getting in the way.""

I'm sorry but that seems like fascism to me, where someone dictates what can and can't be
done. If I choose to use proprietary piece of software because the free alternative does not
cut the mustard, that does not mean that I'm "getting in the way of those who write free
software". I'm not REQUIRED to use free software. They (free software developers) are not
entitled to have me (or anyone else for that matter) as their user. Just because some people
choose the proprietary alternative does not mean that they are "getting in the way".

"That's a bit of an overstatement. I think it was perfectly possible to have photography as a
hobby before computers even existed. "

And no-one wants to go back to those times. We have come to expect certain things from the
tools we are provided. Would you be A-OK going back to 66Mhz Pentium as your main computer?

"I see no harm in reverting some of the practices that demand the use of proprietary software
to a more basic form, especially since it's just a
hobby."

I do see the harm. And no, I'm not willing to switch to inferior tools just because they are
"free". Hobby is something you enjoy doing. And if some proprietqary tools gives better
results and is more pleasant to use, why exactly should I NOT use it? You should understand
the fact that my hobby is not "using Aperture" (or some other piece of software), the hobby is
photography.

"It's a start. You could fill in the other 90% with technology that has been around for a long
time now."

Such as? Darkrooms? Thanks but no thanks.

"I don't feel you see it that way, but I'm trying to explain why some (like me) are opposed to
the advocacy of adding "mostly harmless" non-free software to an otherwise free system."

And that mentality makes sure that millions of people will keep on using systems that are 100%
proprietary. That mentality makes sure that loads of new users who try out Linux will after
few days of usage think "this thing sucks!". Go ahead and tell them about the nirvana of
freedom, but to them, it does not matter.

"GNU/Linux *does* exist in a bubble."

No, it doesn't. Sure, it might do so for the hard-core free-software crowd, but 99% of the
people are not part of that crowd.

"And any software that threatens to upset that should be rejected."

feel free to do just that, just don't start dictating to others what they can and can't do.

"The difference between people running (for example) Ubuntu with all proprietary "additions"
and OSX or ms windows is negligable."

We are talking about something like people running Ubuntu with NVIDIA-drives and Flash, as
opposed to people running proprietary OS filled with proprietary software.

"These users might just as well keep running their old proprietary os."

And since Linux with nothing but free software does not meet their needs, that is exactly what
they will do.

"And, no; since it is not what we want, we shouldn't even begin adding proprietary software to
a free system. "

Who is this "we" you talk about? Do you speak for the entire community?

The point I was making is that we should just lace Linux with proprietary software and be done
with it. Point is that if we can't sell Linux to users because we want to stick to just free
software, and therefore can't provide the users with equal or better experience than what they
can get on those proprietary OS'es, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. We will drive
millions of people to proprietary software.

And before you say "but letting them run proprietary software on Linux does the exact same
thing!". Well, there are differences. If we let those users run those apps on Linux, we expose
them to the free software ecosystem, since everything else around them will be free software.
And they just might notice that some free alternative does the job of that proprietary app
just fine, easing them in to replacing that app with free alternative. If we shun those people
and drive them to Windows and Macs, we lose that opportunity, while further strengthening
those two platforms. Where is the benefit? IS the only benefit that some free software
greybeards can feel good inside knowing that no-one is running proprietary software on Linux?

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 16, 2008 11:27 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"The point I was making is that we should just lace Linux with proprietary software and be
done with it."

I obviously made an error there. That should read "The point I was making is NOT that we
should just lave Linux with proprietary software and be done with it".

My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)

Posted Apr 16, 2008 12:07 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

You seem to confound what I think you *should* and what I think you *must* run on your
computers.
Thankfully it is (still) impossible for me or anyone else to decide what you can or cannot run
on your computer.

The Free Software movement is a social movement, but hardly anyone can afford to be 100%
social all of the time; we as a species are just not build and bred that way.
This means there are indeed acceptable reasons to run non-free software at times, and where
that line in the sand is drawn is different for everyone.
But even though you might have installed and are running proprietary software for an
acceptable reason, it should never be thought of as being right or being anything *but* an act
of anti-social behaviour.

Now human beings don't like to be thought of as participating in anti-social behaviour, so we
start inventing reasons why our behaviour isn't really that anti-social; we just tell
ourselves, "well, I'm just being practical", "everyone else is doing it", "It doesn't really
matter if just I do it". And what's worse is that we might even try and convince others that
those reasons are valid, just so we can feel better about ourselves since now we're only part
of a larger group that behaves that way.

I cannot (and would not) dictate what kind of software you run. But I can (and will) point out
that regardless of whether someones reasons of running proprietary software are acceptable,
that at its core it remains anti-social behaviour.
The fact is that people will run non-free software and there is nothing I can change about
that. But as soon as those people try to convince others that running non-free software should
be an socially acceptable practice, I might be able to explain why it should not, so I speak
up. You might see that as "dictating", but it is not very different than someone else speaking
about how great a particular piece of non-free software is, and how people should really use
it.

FLOSS benefits non-coders too!

Posted Apr 18, 2008 20:24 UTC (Fri) by kevinbsmith (subscriber, #4778) [Link]

"How exactly does the ability to tinker help me, since I do not have
the skills needed for that tinkering? That benefit might be great for coders, but not everyone
is a coder."


You don't have to BE a coder to benefit. You might benefit simply because a random coder
somewhere in the world happens to fix a bug that was bothering you. Or you might have a friend
who is a coder who could do some work for you. Or you could pay a coder to make a change you
really want. None of those are options with closed source.


I won't claim that these benefits outweigh what you perceive as the negatives of FLOSS
products. But to dismiss them as meaningless is...looking for a word that isn't
flamey...incorrect.

There are other benefits too, such as avoiding lock-in and avoiding your favorite app being
abandoned by its author, leaving you with no hope of running it on your next computer. But
that's a different thread.