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

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 (guest, #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.