Here we go again,
Bryan Phinney wrote:
I don't really need one, and I am not questioning whether you have contributed or helped someone. I am questioning the tone of your second message that was basically, if I can't get this to work and no one helps me to get it working, then Gnu/Linux isn't <insert FUD phrase here>. First of all, whether ogo works or not is no reflection on Linux. Second, whether or not that particular package works for you is not a reflection of anything more than that that particular package is not working for you. I never fault anything else first before I fault myself.
I often use the term Linux as a general term which is intended to include Open-Source software and the concepts behind it. This is mostly due to the perception of consumers whom I deal with daily. In order to shorten those conversations, I will often use Linux to represent both the OS and the Open-Source software . After all, Mandrake calls it "Mandrake-Linux", not "Mandrake-Linux plus a whack of Open-Source software", and neither do I. I will however make an effort to point out that I mean both the OS and the extra software when I refer to them collectively as Linux. I'm probably not the only one to do that.
When I mentioned this earlier, I meant that the public's perception of Linux extends to include most Open-Sourced software which runs on Linux. That being the case, I too have adopted that attitude, for better or for worse, but it tends to keeps my conversations with clients a lot shorter than they could be. That said, there is no way on this green earth that it should take 4 days to get something the likes of OGO to work.
I fail to see how you interpreted my exasperation at the difficulties I was having with OGO as a FUD statement, or that I was comparing OGO to Microsoft.
My second post states;
"If Linux is going to make a bigger dent in the world, it's going to have to fix this type of problem."
To clarify this, I meant that consumers will expect Linux (read as Linux and Open-Source software) to be installable and usable without the type of problems that I've encountered with OGO. While they may experience no difficulty in getting Linux installed and running, they will not be very happy about switching to Linux if other applications are as difficult to set up as OGO has shown me to be. They certainly won't spend 4 days on it. Most IT's and sysadmins won't be allowed that much time to get it working.
Many people and/or companies making the switch have been used to installing and configuring Microsoft-based software and applications. In most cases, that software is not difficult to configure and on those occasions when it is, the documentation is clear enough to walk them through the complicated parts and to get them up and running. OGO doesn't even come close.
In many of these instances, they have switched to Linux because they've been told of the virtues of Linux, only to be disappointed with something that has proven to be too difficult to install or to get running. In some cases it was due to a management decision, and as we've seen on this list lately due to people getting fed-up with the problems they've faced with Windows.
Does it make any sense for them to swap one set of problems for another?
That said, I have often come out vigorously against people who have seemed to suggest that if they didn't get what they wanted, then somehow Linux was at fault and it was not worth bothering with. I still find the tone of such a suggestion infuriating.
As infuriating as it might make you, I was reffering to the user
experience and all O-S software, including the O/S. Take it whichever way you'd like but that's just the way things are. They will assume that Linux (et al) is far too complicated, especially if they can't even get OGO running enough so as to get to the main configuration page. At least a running OGO will give them confidence in their abilities to learn more about it or to recommend it for deployment. Worst-case scenario, they'll have an opportunity to see if they can at least get it back to defaults if they screw something up afterwards.
"Like I said in my previous post, I fail to see why anyone would bother to make and include the RPM's for something that can't be installed easily. If Linux is going to make a bigger dent in the world, it's going to have to fix this type of problem."
FYI, I consider 4 days sufficient time.
Well, you know your own levels of expertise better than do I. Usually, I get something working the first time and then calculate sufficient time in future against the baseline. For what it is worth, my first Linux installation/configuration took about 6 months before I got things working well enough that I felt comfortable dumping Windows entirely. YMMV.
Yes, I do know my own levels. Getting something to work the first time seems to be the norm for both of us. However, my approach is to immediately find ways to save the installation procedures, config files and any customizations I might have done for the next time. I find that this speeds things up considerably. Then i proceed to fond out how the software can be broken and how I can fix it quickly. That way in the event of a total failure, I can re-install and re-configure in the shortest time possible.
My switch to Linux took me about 2 weeks on my servers, and a few years ago, I switched to the Linux desktop in a similar time-frame, keeping Windows solely for comparitive value. My mileage did vary.
However, like any smart consumer, I am not about to buy a package or pay for support for
something that I haven't seen, and I would hope that you wouldn't
either. All I've seen are a few screen shots which don't tell me whether
or not the product is stable or flexible or how customizable it may be.
No, I probably wouldn't myself. Then again, I am not in need of an enterprise level groupware application and my understanding is that enterprises who are in that market do so all the time. Not that it is a good idea, mind you, but they do buy them sight unseen.
If my interpretation of your above statement is correct, your POV of enterprises could use a bit of an update. Enterprises spend as much time as possible evaluating new solutions, and when a Linux-based application is considered, they either do their own in-house evaluations or hire a company or consultant such as myself (et al) to provide that information or service. They don't simply switch overnight or rush off and buy the first thing that looks good because they can't afford to be wrong.
However, for the record, the web site has an image of a Live-CD based on Knoppix that they say that you can pop into a CD-Drive, boot the machine up and then immediately use for testing and demo purposes. Would this not serve that particular purpose for you?
Yes, I have seen the links for the LiveCD demo, and yes, I was
considering it, but I was also interested in finding out why the install
scripts weren't working properly and why they weren't thorough. I also
realize that the LiveCD runs on another distro of linux and didn't want
to have to spend any more time trying to figure it out where the differences between that distro and Mandrake might have an affect on OGO.
As I said, I spent 4 LONG days trying to find the problems and I still wasn't able to get even the main config page up and running. I was hoping someone else had found the problems and knew the solution. My experience has shown me that some of the bugs in Mandrake-Linux are due to what can only amount to minor "quirks". These can be easily worked-around and do not cause major delays if you know about them. However, I am not about to start the whole procedure over again so that I can experience the quirks or bugs existing in other distro's just so I can get OGO working on Mandrake.
I can relate to your points here, but again it brings me back to the point that if the script file can't find these answers or ask the person installing it for the answers, then they should make a point of locking down the dependencies so that it's easier to install. I've seen many scripts do exactly that, and they have worked flawlessly for me and probably for many others.
Well, to be fair, many applications are installed much more often than are enterprise level groupware apps so it is possible that over time, those scripts were able to be polished. More use, usually means better anticipation for deviation. Also, the more complex a package is, the harder it is to tailor an installation script that works out of box. But, I am repeating myself.
Fact is, some of these scripts were built by people for themselves, not necessarily for the use of others. One shouldn't expect them to have anticipated anything really.
And install scripts for Microsoft Exchange might be easier than ogo as well. That is very much totally beside the point. You are not working with those packages or those developers, you are working with ogo.
Well, since I'm not now, nor never have used MS Exchange, despite acquiring and maintaining my MCSE status for the last 6 years, but my point was simply that programs that install on MS-Based PC's and Servers are specifically written so that installation and configuration are as easy as possible. With all the additional functionality and power than Linux and Open-Source provide, putting together a clearly defined list of dependencies (Ie; MySQL and PostgreSQL, Apache 1.3.X and Apache2) would narrow down the variations in the script file, thereby alloowing the writer to put a single, comprehensive install script together. After all, it's not like we're unfamiliar with dependencies, now are we?
And the point that I made still stands. When you have a multi-variable environment, it is harder to anticipate. When you have a unified environment, it is easier. When you are being paid to deliver ease of installation, that is what you deliver. When you are being paid to develop new features, that is what you deliver. Every single thing in life involves making trade-offs and this is simply one of them.
The point here is that any company or community organization building Open-Source solutions has the ability to make their products easier to install and configure. In doing so, they also have the ability to define the requirements of their software. That type of definition could solve much of the problems which seem to plague the installation of OGO.
Feel free to handle that in any which way you like, but tone or no tone, I expect certain things to work. If they don't I'll take some very expensive time and try to make it work. If I can't, I'll then ask for help, and yes, maybe I'll vent a little about what I perceive as the problem.
Well, I consider this part of the price we pay for an absolutely stunning and "free as in speech" product. So, my personal frustration is always tempered by my appreciation. And, nothing personal, but my usual response to venting about the quality of the gift that I use and supremely enjoy is along the lines of David Spade's steward(ess) character on SNL: "Buh-bye"
Well, if OGO was in fact a gift as you say, I'd probably agree with you. However, it strikes me that anyone gifing me a gift would want me to enjoy it, and if it was broken before I even opened the package, either they or I would get it replaced with one that wasn't broken.
On the other hand, if I wanted to promote a commercial product by rebuilding the RPM's and putting the Open-Source version on a contribs list, it would certainly give the product some free exposure to a wider target market, now wouldn't it? I wouldn't be inclined to elevate the placement of OGO on the contribs list as a noble gesture or a donation to the Open-Source community if I realized that one of the intentions of placing it there was to have a larger audience of Linux users who might try to find the problems with the installer and to fix it for them. If the installer on the commercial version is flawed, what better way to get those flaws fixed? It would also serve to promote the commercial product and the support that they sell.
One other point to mention here is that PostGreSQL and Apache come up as dependancies when installing OGO. That tells me that a decision was in fact made by the person(s) responsible, which means that they were aware of what would be installed, and therefore had the ability to write a comprehensive installer, but didn't. Looks like they made choices for us after all.
Whether or not you or I or anyone else in the Linux community likes it
or not, Linux will be getting compared to Microsoft-based products for
some time to come. That's just the reality of it.
Certainly, and I personally feel that they compare very well. Just not on the same points. You don't compare a Formula 1 to a Bentley by noting that the suspension on the race car is stiffer and that there is more noise. Or you just end up looking like a complete idiot. Not that people looking like complete idiots is newsworthy or anything.
It's always easy to make a point when overstating the obvious. I agree that the O/S compares well, and in fact I believe that it comes out far ahead, but my beliefs and yours won't mean diddley to the buying public, and neither will the distinction between the O/S and the Open-Source software. They are and will continue to be grouped into one term which will probably end up being called Linux.
And I think that anyone comparing a Formula 1 to a Bentley would either see them as two completely different kind of cars built for completely different purposes, or else they would spend time noting the differences between the cars for the sake of conversation or preference. However, that anaolgy doesn't fit in this conversation.
So the majority of your previous paragraph is irrelevant.
Consumers are more concerned about getting it to
work quickly and easily than they are about our perspectives on which is
better.
Then they should BUY a product then. Buy a computer with Linux preloaded or pay someone to come and install and configure it for them. Then they will get quicker and easier. If they want better, reflecting their own needs and uses, cheaper, customized, then perhaps they should consider investing the effort to do things themselves. If all the consumer wants is quicker and easier, then let them eat MS. It is very quick and supremely easy.
Here we are back at the same point. Most consumers will want to see and try a product before buying it. While there are ways to try Windows (et al) before buying, none of them have anything to do with acquiring a download copy of the OS or software to try out, before buying - at least not legally. Most have to do with trying the OS and software on someone else's computer, in a store or on a friend's or co-worker's computer.
Pre-loading is an option, as is having a technician install it, but the reality is that many will need to re-install at some point, so a practical solution would be to make it easy to install and set up. I don't see this to be an issue of any sort. Your statement above about consumers wanting quicker/easier borders on the arrogant, Bryan.
There is no reason at all that Linux and Open-Source software needs to be complex in installation or configuration. Someone just needs to make the effort. I see this as a possible feature of Linux not a drawback. Keeping Linux difficult to install or configure solely as a choice intended to keep others away from Linux and O-S software is an elitist attitude. I find it hard to believe that Linus or Richard might have called and asked for your opinion on this matter before implementing or spreading their concepts.
In fact, IIRC, Richard's whole concept was to make software free to the world and to give them the freedom to do what they wish with that software. If making it easier to install and configure becomes a part of enabling people to use Linux and O-S software, then who are we to contradict that?
The trick is to make Linux easier.
Sorry, I simply don't agree. If making it easier means sacrificing features, freedom, customization, then I don't want it to be any easier.
That attitude may be fine for you and possibly some others, but it's just arrogant and irresponsible. I'm sorry but that's the truth. Linux in general wasn't built for Bryan Phinney. While you make these grandiose statements about your viewpoint, you're using Mandrake-Linux to do so. Mandrake-Linux includes all sorts of things specifically built to make things easier. Perhaps you're using the wrong distro then?
The beauty of Linux and the concepts behind Open-Source and the GPL means that Bryan can build his own distro which can be designed from scratch to be as difficult and complicated to install, configure and use as Bryan sees fit to make it. You might also want to consider going back to punch cards. That should keep things interesting for a while.
(We can, of course, argue about this point, but bottom line, every minute spent on improving ease of use is a minute not spent on features, customization, etc. Some ease of use is necessary, but making something so easy that a braindead consumer can do it, is not only unnecessary but, IMO, it should cost money for the consumer, they should provide something. And a lot of the ease of use currently being discussed involves standards and unifying the platforms and that will inevitably reduce security, customization, etc unless it proves impossible.)
Once again I have to disagree. Your bottom line is flawed. Some people are good at programming, others are good at graphics, and still others are good at making things easier to use. The Information Industry as a whole has become segregated or divided into specialities and ergonomics has always been one of the unsung but prevalent ones. There are a multitude of people who earn a living doing exactly that. Apple and Microsoft have made enormous amounts of money by making their O/S'es and products easy to use. While I don't like or condone the shortcuts that Microsoft has taken to do this, I respect Apple's efforts in that direction. Either way, their bottom lines are much more respectful than yours or mine!
I think it's completely silly to think that any or all ways of making something easier makes that item or product by definition, more open to problems. It is up to the persons responsible to persist in coming up with features and customizations, and yes, they should feel free to charge for that.
I don't know about these supposed discussions you mentioned, but at the same time, I too want to ensure that Linux stays secure. But I highly doubt that all or most of the distros will continue to work towards a set of standards that will compromise the benefits of Linux. Even so, progress being what it is, I'm sure that they will also find ways to maintain the features that you hold so dear, lest they fall into the trap we call Microsoft.
If you can get easier without sacrificing in any other area, then I am fine with it, but, and this is most important to me, I have no right to DEMAND anything unless I am willing to do it myself or pay someone to do it for me.
In normal situations, I would have to agree. However, if OGO or any other Open-Source project is going to succeed (by any usable definition of the word), they will have to address the issues of ease of installation, configuration and/or use. It is a fundamental component of evolution that things either become obsolete, are disgarded or are improved to meet the demands of the market or users. Every commercial distro of Linux is painfully aware of this and constantly strives to make their distros better, as do all the organizations who contribute components of those distros.
It's already better than the commercial closed-source alternatives - no question. But it needs to
surpass, not to be the same.
Linux requires more effort than something that you buy from someone. That is the nature of it. Comparing a free product that was given to you
with a product that earned the authors millions of dollars in revenue is
simply not a material comparison. Give me money and I have an incentive
to make you happy. Give me nothing, and my only incentive is what makes
me happy. If that also makes you happy, then great, if not, oh well.
Another generalization? OK. But Linux requires more effort because Linux has evolved that way. By definition, Linux does NOT have to continue to be difficult in the ways that it is perceived by the end-user. I'm sure that some distros will continue to evolve based on a "purist" mentality, but that doesn't mean that all distros MUST follow suit. If you agree with the fact that people have choices, then you should see this as a question of choice.
When a Linux distro or an Open-Source project goes commercial, they make a choice to do so. When a commercial product uses an Open-Source derivative or version to subtly solicit the help of the community to assist them in making the product work, that's exploitation. OGO was (IMNSHO) contributed to the Mandrake Contribs list with the sole reason of finding a solution to the installation and initial configuration problems. If that were untrue, then it would have included a comprehensive and FUNCTIONAL installer script. Plain and simple. Otherwise, the effort was for nothing. The only other reason to make it this difficult would be to sell support, so the altruistic value of contributing it is moot.
Your absolutely right about Linux requiring more effort, but my point is
that it doesn't necessarily have to require more effort.
Well, we will just have to disagree about that. Either it requires more effort or it requires more resources. One or the other. You don't get something for nothing.
This statement is just SO full of holes. Suffice it to say that most of the Linux users on the planet get something for nothing each and every time they download and install a distro. Unless you want to count the cost of the bandwidth they consume or the cost of the blank CD's used to burn it. I don't think I need to elaborate on this.
Companies, organizations, and individuals will always strive to make products easier, and of course they will use more resources to do so. But to stop evolution or progress simply to please Bryan is way out of the realm of logical. By no scale that exists today can you directly associate easier with less secure for every single improvement in technology and yet your analogy and points say exactly that. Perhaps you opinions are meant in a specific way, but they are presented in a generalistic sense.
Using a comparison to your analogy of the Formula 1 and Bentley, I could say that the steering wheel belongs in the back seat of both cars while the gas pedal should be under the hood. That way driving the car would be impossible and more lives would be saved. Then I would beat my mate with a club, drag her into my cave and have my way with her.
Technology has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last ten years. Right alongside of this obvious statement, much of the technology has also become easier. It's not very often that you or I have to set jumpers on a motherboard for the CPU settings or IDE channels or IRQ's for that matter. Has this made technology more insecure?
Many of the improvements in technology have caused security problems, however most of those security flaws can be directly aimed back at Microsoft. 100 years from now, they will not be credited with making a secure OS or stable products, to be sure! But they will be credited for laying the groundwork for making things easier. If the world realizes that difference, they will be able to improve user-friendliness while maintaining security. I don't see this as necessarily being a conflict . All it takes is good, old-fashioned human ingenuity.
Linux is/was developed by technical people with technical minds and perspectives.
This was/is a necessary part of the whole process. But Linux needs
people who are just regular people, who can look at it and say that this
or that is too complicated and needs to be made easier. If the technical
powers that be are smart enough to pay attention to that, we'll see a
faster adoption of Linux throughout the world.
We are already seeing the commercialization of Linux, Sun has announced plans to compete against Linux and MS is in the process of redefining Linux from a free/better software method, design architecture to just another software company (IBM) so they have a target to go to battle with. I don't necessarily agree that that is the right path to go down. Obviously, there is room for disagreement about that as you seem to be sitting on the other side.
Bite your tongue! Grin! For shame Bryan! Tsk! Tsk! I don't agree either, in any way shape or form. But instead, I believe that we should learn from Microsoft's mistakes, as well as the short list of benefits they've provided, and use those as partial guidelines when making a superior set of Operating Systems and applications or software. Just because they did it first, doesn't mean they did it well. They didn't create quality products, they just marketed inferior products very well. They leveraged their ever-increasing dominance and monpolistic control to do it, rather than relying on quality products and great support. They had their shot at it, and blew it.
Now it's our turn, and I firmly believe that we can do it a hell of a lot better. Now, having gotten to that point, all we have to do is to convince the rest of the world! Grin! Linux wasn't created for us enthusiasts to horde to ourselves, it was created or evolved into something that should empower us. But it servers a smaller function or purpose if it is too difficult to install or use.
If you redefine Linux to be just like MS, you are going to have to sacrifice what makes Linux special and ultimately gives Steve Jobs and Bill Gates the night sweats and you will end up with just another company going head to head against a business that has crushed all of its competition ruthlessly up to now.
If that is the future, I just may have to go the Debian route and become religious.
No kidding! If things go that way, save a seat in the church for me! But of course, that's not what I'm saying at all, and after all of our lengthy emails back and forth, you still don't seem to get the point. Linux is by it's nature better than anything Microsoft can throw at it, but it can also be easier to use. I don't understand why you can't see that, or why you can't acknowledge the possibility. Linux has SO much to offer, so much power and flexibility that it makes no sense that it can't be made easier to install or use, while maintaining the underlying benefits. It just requires that people exercise choice, and decide to do so.
But to be more specific, the fact that OGO is included as a significant or even a contributed application implies that it should be ready and able to install with little help, not that it should be virtually useless. From a common sense standpoint, why bother making Mandrake specific RPM's if it doesn't work?
Look, I can configure, make and build source and produce RPM's automatically using Checkinstall. Doesn't mean that because someone did it and contributed the RPM's that they were vouching for the completeness of the install package. Fact is that the reason that they are in contrib and not in the official repository is because no one was willing to vouch for it.
No, it was there because the commercial company wanted someone to finish the work they didn't want to have to do. Period.
You implied that it has to do with the fact that I've made a mistake, since the author of the script got it to work, but looking at the script, it seems fairly simple, and yet 4 of my developers who are far smarter than you AND I put together could figure it out either.
Well, you could start with the Live-CD version, get it up and running and then go and look at the configurations that they are using to see how they have it running and then compare to yours. Not that you need me to tell you how to do things but I know a lot of developers who are absolute idiot's when it comes to troubleshooting and diagnosing problems. That is why QA people like me have jobs. Or at least that is what I tell myself with when the nightmares of homelessness come.
Asked and answered.
So, while I can understand your views, I also see that you haven't tried installing it which means that you don't know what the difficulties are any more than I do.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. And that is not a poor reflection on Linux/OS, it is merely the reality of the world that Linux/OS resides in.
True that it is not a reflection of the Linux/OS, but it's only a reality of the world because no one has taken the time to envision a solution for it which retains the benefits while improving the user-experience.
Well, here we are at a crossroads again. The world that the Linux OS resides in IS a Microsoft world. That's just a fact that we have to deal with. None of us like it much, but that's the way it is. Until Linux dominates the OS world and Open-Source applications dominate the software world, we'll just have to bear the stress on our collective shoulders.
Again, we violently diverge. Linux is not about crushing Microsoft or becoming a dominant player. Linux is about choice. Co-existence. Options. Go peddle the "we need to do this to beat MS stuff" to the anti-MS zealots, that is not what it is about to a lot of us who are dedicated to Linux.
The whole philosophy of free software is not about beating MS. It is about being free to choose what works for you.
Violently? Hmm. Now who's being a Zealot? Linux is not about crushing Microsoft, agreed. However, no matter what part of the IT/IS world you work in, we are asked to solve the problems that plague a Microsoft world. Many of those problems can already be solved by means of Linux and the O-S softtware that's currently available.
We don't need to beat Microsoft, we just need to level the playing field, and then let the merits of our O/S and O-S solutions do the rest.
In an idealistic world, co-existance would be the preferred choice. But, of course, that's not the world we live in, by any means. If that were true, all politicians would be honest as would lawyers, and I'm sure the list could be endless.
However, while the philosophy isn't about beating MS, it is inevitable that it will, as long as it continues to evolve. I see nothing wrong with nudging Linux and O-S applications in that direction by making them easier than the alternatives. Richard Stallman (et al) had a vision that computers, O/S'es and software should help to empower humanity to achieve higher goals, and while it's taking longer to happen than they originally conceived, it is happening nevertheless.
I see no justification to adopt an isolationist attitude or to continue to make it harder for humanity to reach those higher goals simply becuase people can fatten their wallets. Let's keep it hard to use so we can capitalize on something that is free? Nonsense! Let's make it easier to use and let's earn a fair living while helping others. Let's work towards a compromise between idealism and practicality.
In order to succeed, it will have to show the world how MUCH better it is. Until it becomes more install and config and user friendly, the battle will be a lot harder than it NEEDS to be. End of story.
Again, IMO, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. 180 degrees different from my viewpoint and I suspect, Linus Torvald's, Richard Stallman's and many of the biggest forces behind Linux and free software.
I wish I was wrong, but I'm willing to compromise with you. I respect your right to your opinion, and as they say, I will respect your right to have and express your opinion, even going so far as to respect your right to so wrong that you seem to be way out in left field long after the rest of the team and the patrons have left the field and turned off the lights! Just remebre to lock the gate on your way out! Grin!
I don't have a problem with your "free lunch" point of view, since I pay for virtually everything as it is. But I'm not going to buy OGO or anything else without seeing it perform and without knowing the ins and outs of the install and configuration process. No one should have to.
If they download the Live-CD and they shouldn't have to.
I'll tell you something that may shock you, and anyone who can't handle the truth should plug their ears and close their eyes, cuz it won't be pretty. People don't want that much choice. Of course, I'm not talking about us Linux newbies, experts, geeks or guru's, but about the general consumers. They certainly don't want as much choice as Linux and open-Source provides.
Yes, they do. They want to be able to choose to buy something that just works and that doesn't require any learning. Others want to be able to get something that requires learning but works better. Still others want something that is complicated and works fantastically, like it reads your mind. The diverse marketplace is a reflection of what people want. Every time someone tells me what people want or don't want, I automatically write them off as hopelessly clueless. There is nothing in this world that someone, somewhere didn't want. If this is a vibrant, thriving marketplace of ideas, software, etc., it is because that is what people want. If they don't want choice, we would probably all still be running Unix.
<rest snipped because I found it useless>
Calm down Bryan. You're gonna wear out the G & R keys on your keyboard!
Lanman, if I thought you were a total troll, I would simply ignore it. It is when someone that I think is reasonable spouts what I think is totally unreasonable stuff that I get irritated.
Irritate away Bryan. But here we are doing the one thing you hate most. wasting resources on something that probably won't be decided for years to come. I admire your tenacity, but I think you're going to get an rude awakening when you see how Linux evolves. What's more, I intend to do everything in my power to make sure that Linux does become easier and more prominent that it currently is. Sorry fella! You might want to start looking for a different distro soon.
But even I have to face reality and deal with the real world, and that
world is a Microsoft one.
Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. - Sun Tzu
Just because he said it doesn't make it so. Besides, when he said it, Microsoft wasn't around. While his philosophies seem wise, his reality was considerably different than things are now. He was also referring to the fact that war need not be violent or messy, and that there are advantages to this method.
While Linux domination may take time, I don't think the process will be violent. messy - possibly, but not violent. Still, I wonder if he'd be saying the same things if his PC was always Blue-Screening on him? The world will never know.
Perhaps you should reconsider your comments.
Okay, done. I stand by what I said. If you think that Linux will die if only it doesn't fulfill what you have stated that it needs to do, which if I read correctly, is to replace Microsoft in all things, then I disagree and think that you are misguided at best and dangerous to my own vision of what I want at worst. If I thought that the powers that be were going to take your counsel and trod down that path, I would immediately begin looking for some other OS that would stick with technical excellence and free as in speech, as the primary goals with quality, security, features, performance, and ease of use coming in dead last.
Sorry to disappoint you Bryan, but I'm not simply stating my opinions, but those of experts and consultants who have been on Television, Radio and Newspapers. They all say the same thing, whereas you are relying on your own unsupported opinion. I simply see the logic of what they say and agree with it. ease of use doesn't need to be dead last, it needs to be balanced with the other goals of Linux. It is inevitable that some alternative to Microsoft will eventually take over as the dominant O/S and application platform, and no amount of tilting at windmills will stop it. You might want to start looking for "Bryan-OS" soon.
Well, I do. I work in the software world and have to deal with the problems caused by monolithic software structures centered around ease of use. Linux has put a jump in my step and a sparkle in my eye that was almost squashed out by having to deal with people convinced that they could be stupid because the software they used encouraged it. I am not eager to go back down that road again. I would rather raise sheep.
I can understand and sympathize with your POV regarding monolithic structures, but I believe that the nature of Linux and O-S software will prevent Linux from becoming a monolith.
We're in for a hell of a fight against the Big Bad in Redmond, and it would be
nice if we could stop fighting amongst ourselves before we try to take
them on.
MS may be fighting us but we are NOT fighting them. And discourse and disagreements, vigorously discussed makes us stronger, not weaker. If you go along to get along, you won't get very far at all.
Tell that to Novell, Apple, RedHat, Mandrake and any of the other commercial offerings. I'm sure they'll chuckle at your idealism for a minute or two. These companies are in for the fight of their corporate lives and they know it. I agree about the statement concerning "discourse and disagreements, vigorously discussed makes us stronger, not weaker". I don't go along to get along, but I'm willing to meet then halfway. You don't seem to be though.
No matter how good linux is or will become, it won't make a bit of difference if the community as a whole is constantly at odds with
each other. Like the saying goes,... if you're not part of the
solutions, you're part of the problem.
Well, we seem to both be pointing back at the other and saying that you are the problem. I guess that goes with the territory.
Well, if nothing else, I've learned that asking for your help will apparently lead to a bevy of long and detailed emails. Personally, I don't like wasting the resources or the time on something like this, preferring to spend the time making Linux easier for my clients. Suffice it to say that i won't be asking for your advice, help or opinions regarding OGO!
--
Lanman
Registered Linux User #190712
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
