An interesting post to read following our discussion about "dumbed down Linux" at the MyLUG meet yesterday.
S. On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:05:16 +0530, Srini Ramakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I love my command line. I also hate that Linux is becoming mainstream > - well it's love+hate really. I like what it's doing to some of the > apps; but I hate what it's doing to the community. > > Cheeni > > http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/12/26/1745214 > > Is the command line necessary for most Linux users? > Monday January 05, 2004 (08:42 AM GMT) > By: Robin 'Roblimo' Miller > > Every time I write an article about normal people using Linux with > little or no training, a few weisenhimers inevitably accuse me of > being an overly optimistic advocate by not warning readers that it > takes a least some knowledge of Bash to run and maintain a Linux > installation. The problem with this accusation is that it might have > been true in 1998, but it is not true in 2004. It is now possible to > run Linux without knowing any commands beyond point-and-click, > cut-and-paste, and drag-and-drop. Indeed, those are the only ones I > use for everyday computing myself. > > I made a conscious decision to use as much point-and-click and as > little command line arcana as I could back in 2000. My reasoning was > simple: If I wanted to have command line computing, I might as well go > back to an 8088 running DOS instead of having all kinds of fancy > modern computer gear around me. I became totally unreasonable on this > subject. If a Linux distribution forced me to type abbreviations like > /mnt/moretyping/moretyping/ to play a music CD instead of clicking on > a desktop icon, I would find a distribution that gave me the icon. > > At the time, Mandrake was the pointiest and clickiest Linux > distribution around, so I started using it instead of Red Hat, which > was the first Linux flavor I tried. (I stuck with Mandrake through > 2002, when SUSE started exceeding Mandrake in user-friendliness; I'm > currently experimenting with several Debian-based distros, notably > Mepis.) > > Back in 1998 and 1999 I often felt like I was the world's only > non-geek Linux user. Eric S. Raymond flamed me hard and long on a > Gnome email list for my refusal to use vi or emacs instead of > searching for a GUI-based text/HTML editor. And if I wanted one that > badly, he said, I shouldn't try to get others to write it, but should > write it myself or I wasn't fit to use Linux. I'm just as hard-headed > as Eric, so I came right back at him. The reality was -- and still is > -- that most people who use computers as tools instead of toys want > their computers' operation to be as simple as possible, but this > concept had not yet penetrated "the Linux community." > > Those of us who refuse to become at least jackleg programmers just to > write and print a letter aren't necessarily stupid. We just have other > things on our minds -- like our jobs -- but getting this point through > to some of the self-styled "Linux community leaders" was not easy. > You'd think they would have gotten the message when they watched Ralph > Nader -- as strong a free software advocate as you'll find anywhere, > and a man no one can possibly call stupid -- use Windows to show > slides during a speech about why free software ideals would > revolutionize computing, not because Ralph wanted to use Windows, but > because he didn't have time to learn how to make and display a simple > presentation with the Linux tools available at the time. > > I always considered the "scratch your own itch" hacker ethos an > essentially masturbatory thing. It would be like me writing articles > *I* want to read instead of articles I think *you* want to read. Much > of the free software programming tide has swung away from that > attitude in the past few years, and we're seeing more software > developed that satisfies the programmers' friends' and families' needs > at least as much as their own. One of the prime examples of this is > Bluefish, a lovely GUI-based text/HTML editor I have used since early > in its development cycle. It is the editing tool I longed for back in > the 20th century. Today I have it -- along with a stable, feature-rich > Mozilla Web browser, OpenOffice.org, and other excellent, user-level > programs that make Linux as smooth a work tool (for my humble needs) > as any desktop operating system in the world. > > A lot of this advance in Linux "community" thinking has come about > because the stereotype teenage open source hacker working on obscure > command line projects his parents could never figure out has gone > away, replaced by an image of adult open source developers who want > their coworkers and families to use Linux so they'll stop pestering > them with Windows support questions. > > The funny thing is, yesterday's inward-turned free software hackers > and today's outward-looking free software developers are often the > same people, just a little older, with their acne cleared up. And > members of the next generation coming up have always used GUIs on > their desktops -- they are too young to remember DOS or CP/M -- so we > can expect to see increasingly sophisticated open source desktop > environments, even as the underlying structures keep improving. > > A stable Linux desktop will run for years > > This point is apparently lost on the people who still believe even the > humblest Linux end user needs command line training, but I tell you > from personal experience that if you set up a desktop Linux system > correctly in the first place, it should not need any command > line-level maintenance. Most people don't run around experimenting > with webcams or other expensive periperhals. They buy a computer, > monitor, printer, and perhaps a scanner and digital camera, and use > them until they wear out. "Normal" people don't open up their > computers and install the latest Nforcia 5-D GameMeister UltraVideo > HDTV card as soon as it hits the market; they use what originally came > in their computers and don't think about upgrading at all beyond > (perhaps) adding some RAM. If they want fancy games they buy a PS2 or > an Xbox, and if they want better stereo sound, they buy a better > stereo. They buy standalone TiVos instead of trying to make their > computers into digital video recorders or, more recently, simply sign > up for the TiVo-like services now being pushed by cable and satellite > TV providers. > > Most "real world" desktop (and laptop) computers function as > combination office machines and Internet terminals. It is easy to > install a desktop Linux system that will do these jobs. Heck, you can > now buy computers preloaded with Linux, and buy printers and digital > cameras certified to work with them, all from the same vendor. And > once you have one of these systems, there is no need -- ever -- to do > anything beyond point and click until the thing breaks down and either > gets sent off to a repair shop or gets replaced by a newer model. > > Warning: Automotive analogy ahead! > > Many years ago I decided I wanted a cool custom van. I bought a used > (windowless) Ford Econoline, put in hatches and opening windows, added > chrome wheels, installed a monster stereo, put in a floor and -- I > hate to admit, but it was the early 70s -- yellow shag carpeting. I > installed paneling and built some simple (varnished wood) bunks and > other interior furniture, then talked a girlfriend into sewing some > cushions and curtains. I added overload rear springs and heavy-duty > shocks to give my van a slight "rake," and put on a chrome roof rack, > added a CB radio and a high-stick antenna, painted the thing bright > blue and had my body shop buddy Juan do some exotic pinstriping, and > when it was all done I had the perfect machine for cruising Van Nuys > Boulevard. > > Now you can buy "custom" vans, brand new, from car dealers. Young men > no longer commonly dress out their cars' engines and park with their > hoods open so passers-by -- hopefully cute females -- can "oooh" and > "aaah" over their chromed-up powerplants. You can still find a few > extreme performance mods out there, but true Hot Rod Culture has > largely been replaced by blanded-down, TV-advertised "performance" > cars (Warning: professional driver on closed course) that are not > nearly as cool as something you create with your own hands. > > Rap has gone from the hallmark of an underground culture to part of > mass market America. And so it is going with Linux, which is -- sorry, > hard-core hackers -- becoming an operating system choice, not a club. > You can now drive along Van Nuys Boulevard in a store-bought "custom" > car or on a chopped and custom-painted Harley you (shudder) bought > that way, carrying a store-bought Linux laptop hooked to the Internet > through your cellular phone, and no one will sneer at you. > > Well, hardly anyone. A few old-school types might, but we are on our > way out and we know it. Such is life. (sigh) > > Slick paint doesn't mean 'dumbed down' > > A car with a cool paint job can still be a fine machine under the > hood, and a Linux distribution with an attractive GUI interface can > still have all the powerful GNU and other command line tools anyone > could want. Anyone who wants to tweak and tune SUSE or Mandrake or > Fedora or Xandros or Mepis or even Lindows can do so to his heart's > content, just as I like to do my own oil changes, tuneups and other > minor Jeep maintenance and improvement tasks, even if most drivers > hardly know how to find the hood release these days. > > I don't sneer at people who own cars and don't know how to fix them > (at least not much, and never in public), and I don't think > command-line Linux people should openly sneer at those who prefer > icons to terminal windows. > > Those who don't modify or repair their own computers or cars don't > suffer much by not maximizing their machines' performance. They > probably don't notice the difference, and even if they did they'd > shrug it off as unimportant. Maybe *I* think it's studly to get an > extra two miles per gallon and 15 - 25 horsepower more than stock out > of my Jeep Cherokee, but is it really worth spending over $300 on a > Jet Module, plus $150 or so worth on premium ignition parts and a > hi-flo air filter, not to mention 20 cents per gallon extra for > premium gas every time I go to the gas station? > > Then, of course, we can start doing internal engine modifications and > overclocking our computers. And the quest for more speed and better > handling can go on and on, until we spend all our time and most of our > money modifying our cars and computers while other -- I really should > say "saner" -- people go to parties, play sports, watch movies, go > dancing, and travel. > > World Linux domination! > > The old line was "Linux world domination." Perhaps this will come to > pass one day, but what's more likely is that the world will come to > accept and dominate Linux, not the other way around. > > The Linux of 2010 will be a totally smooth operating system. It will > have a GUI so much more evoloved than anything today that you'll want > to cry when you remember what you put up with back in '03 and '04. > > Other operating systems will also advance. Microsoft, finally faced > with real competition, is not going to sit there passively or rely > solely on lawyers and lobbyists to keep sales up. Apple will keep on > thinking different. BeOS might get resurrected. A consumer-level BSD > Unix might be developed. And something entirely new might come along; > there are several incipient operating systems out there that show > major potential. > > I'm sure there will always be a fully-malleable command line interface > beneath the evolved version of Linux, but it will be purely for > programmers. Ordinary people will never need to use it or even be > aware that it exists. If they have system problems that can most > easily be corrected through command line manipulation, they will > probably allow their Linux provider to log into their machine(s) and > repair the problems -- and chances are the Linux providers will use > automated remote diagnosis and repair tools by then, not human > programmers, except in the most drastic cases -- which will probably > turn out to be hardware problems that require physical action to fix, > anyway. > > What I'm predicting here is exactly what members of the old "Linux > should only be for geeks like us" club have always feared: Linux that > Sam Sixpack and Polly Pina Colada can use it as thoughtlessly as they > use Windows today. It is part of the "World dominates Linux" process, > and it is going to happen whether you like it or not. > > The funny thing is, most of the best Linux and free software > developers I know are not against Linux becoming massively successful. > Indeed, some of the more forward-looking ones see this move as a > business opportunity. They know that someone is going to need to > develop (and profit from) the services that will inevitably surround > consumer-level Linux but don't yet exist, and the most forward-looking > developers of all are already working so hard to develop those > services that they don't have time to worry about whether or not it's > good to see user-level Linux moving farther away from its command line > roots and deeper into the GUI camp a little more each day. > > -- "And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!" -- Homer J. Simpson
