On Nov 5, 2007 9:01 AM, rbw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Randall Shimizu wrote: > > There is probably 3 or 4 areas hurdles for Linux to become widely accepted > > [Snip] > > >
> Now I hope this doesn't sound like piling on > Randall because it's not but there is an > interesting thought I had about this whole > discussion... > > First the OS is is most definitely not the > application and its capabilities. I think this > type of thinking is the Windows trade rag type > of thinking about the relationship between the > OS and the apps that run on the OS. I agree, my fault for not making that clearer in my previous posts. The trouble I often have is that the decision to use Linux, rightly or wrongly on the part of the customer, boils down to one or two tasks that the customer considers important. If Linux can't do one of them, Linux doesn't get adopted because the customer usually doesn't want to run two desktop OS systems, even if they do run multiple server OSs. [snip] > Linux doesn't suffer from this contrived > relationship. Things get built because they can > be built and they don't even have to be usefully > functional at the v.01Beta release. There is a > "Wow, that really can be done factor" married to > the GPL type idea that it will/maybe > incrementally improved until it is fully > functional. Compared to 1993-1999 and even > 1999-2004, Linux today it light years advanced > in the broad range of apps that work with the > kernel. The has no meaning to a Windows only user. > > But that's not really your point. I think you > concede that Linux is not Windows and probably > shouldn't be but what about all those people who > don't use Linux and are the subject of this > Linux "Desktop" adoption craze? Well what about > them? We know how they participate in computing > technology, the Linux world needs to present > them with an analog that mimics their experience > without the brokenness that they really don't > even notice. That has nothing to do with Linux > being standardized. Fair enough, I have never been a fan of standardization and regard it as a necessary evil to be kept to a minimum. > > I have been helping someone who is a Windows > programmer set things up at his house so he has > an environment that mirrors work. They use a > bunch of Windows workstations for those who need > them and the entire back end is Linux. But they > also use Ubuntu so now he is motivated to learn. > Now most of us have used Linux long enough to > know that what you see on the display device is > a result of an X server, display manager and > presentation manager in a client server > relationship. The Windows user and even advanced > Windows user will usually find this to be one of > the most unfathomable concepts they have ever > run across. Similarly things like Samba and how > resources are shared across the network is a > little less mysterious but it is a monumental > crisis for them to conceptualize that some free, > couple megabyte server app and a well configured > flat file is something they can personally own > and that the difference between 10's of > thousands of dollars of per seat licenses and > the same functionality for free is a free and > legal download (Windows/Linux configuration > expertise being a wash). There are many examples > (distro package installs) of lack of even > awareness how what has always been in front of > them works and it has never made a difference in > their experience. We don't need to change Linux > to BE what they are used to they just need a > distro that lets them SEE what they are used to. > The rest of us can then ignore that distro and > continue to enjoy the flexibility we want. You articulated this much better than I did. It is exactly what I wanted to convey. I like this distro idea better than the standardized approach I suggested earlier. The standard GUI is something a number of my business customers have asked for, but that doesn't require standardizing the whole OS or even the GUI. > But again their inability to comprehend doesn't > mean they don't exist and that they aren't the > "800lb gorilla bending the Linux tree". So what? > I think Linux has the flexibility to create a > distro that presents itself as a desktop surface > experience that doesn't feel any different from > what they have now. [snip] > Their Linux distro > should put the learning curve on the other side > of a clean, ready to sing and dance distro > installation (That means codecs are in place > right after install; Windows can do it but it > will take a little more time for Linux). We agree. My original point was that there are certain tasks that most busineses want to use their computer to do that Linux, as yet, can't. Since I want that business, If Linux can bridge those last gaps(My customers tend to want an HTML editor that has the capabilities of DreamWeaver, an easy- to-use video editor, and accounting software that can do online banking for payroll and reconciling transactions.), the number of people who might be predisposed to use Linux will go up dramatically, at least in my customer base. ;-) [snip] > Finally I think whether any given accounting > program (app) does or doesn't do double entry > accounting (feature) and how well it acts as an > interface for online activities is a whole > separate matter that is an application > requirements, programming and perhaps interface > reverse engineering issue that doesn't come > anywhere close to needing to make things like > installation package method or > display/presentation manager subsystem or file > system support homogenized for the sake of > people who don't even know these things happen > even on their current Windows system. I think we agree on this too. In my posts I was referring to availability not ease or method of installation. It is not important that the application be able to install or do things the same way or use the same icons as Windows, but it has to be able to do the same things that the customer currently does in the normal course of business. In fact I > have been telling people the real importance of > Google Apps (and anybody that makes that kind of > on-line thing) is that they are making an end > run around the whole OS/Hardware paradigm that > has always ultimately had the ability to limit > applications in some way by being a toll booth > to get to the applications. This is very good > news for us that want to use Linux. I have been trying to get these customers to use web service types of solutions, but, just yet, they are uncomfortanle with that. > I say "Don't ask them what they want, and don't > tell them how they get what they want". It will > be our little secret until they are motivated to > learn more. If that means never, I'm good with > that too. Ironically, the whole discussion with my customers stems from the fact that they don't really like Quickbooks and were asking me about Linux alternatives.They love the apache and Moodle servers, but want the online banking features and don't want to run two accounting systems or have to switch over more than once. RD -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
