[KLUG Advocacy] What users want from Linux?

[Andrew Thompson]

On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 10:36, Adam Williams wrote:
> > >Here is a supposedly positive (overall) article on Linux adoption.  It
> > >starts out with saying that the biggest hurdle is probably FUD -
> > >http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/1020linux.html?docid=8139
> > >- then goes on to reveal itself as so hopelessly unresearched that it
> > >itself might qualify as FUD.  
> > Clueless cheerleaders?
> 
> 
> 
> > >I just want to know where they find these experts?
> > Actually, they make themselves available. When experts don't have full-
> > time work experting, they have to write articles to keep the wolves 
> > from the door, so we get these things. Sometimes those who can't do, 
> > write.
> 
> I've been called several times by trade rags and asked for quotes;  as

Quotes as in single sentences? Short answer to that: 'I don't do sound
bites.' As an addendum, if you're able/willing to make the time: 'Would
you like to arrange an interview?'

> > >Half the people at a KLUG meeting are more knowledgeable than
> > >these twerps.
> > Maybe we would do well to get them to write articles!
> 
> Not a bad idea,  except I'd have no idea how to go abou doing that.

That would be a trick. Maybe a newsletter? I know, we sorta have one
already, much thanks to Ralph. Maybe if he (or the rest of us) were to
start buttonholing people who mouth off about something and tell 'em,
'write that up!', it could get something started. I dunno, just a silly
thought.

> > >2. Reliability
> > >I like the quote "Commonly used applications such as OpenLDAP need to be
> > >made cluster-aware.". &*&^(@ *$&*(@ $(@*$)@@#$_$%@ #$*@*#$&(  Can't

Actually, at first glance that seemed to read 'duster-aware' on my
browser. The quote's from a guy in Australia. I could see duster
awareness being an issue down under there. Oh, and Adam, that's
#$*@&%$&(, not #$*@*#$&(. *grin*

> > >6. Cohesiveness
> > >Whatever this even means.
> > Is this the same as "Integration"?

>From the first paragraph here, I would say they're concerned with
'balkanization' of Linux, "where vendors created their own proprietary
versions that made it difficult to port applications to one from
another." Not an entirely unfounded concern, but probably not as much of
a problem as they seem to perceive. It's not entirely clear what they
mean by 'patchwork', or what "big drawback" they find in "the difference
between major distributions" (PLEASE tell me these guys are still using
Windows 3.1!). I presume they don't the idea that software from more
than one person/company/organization might find itself into one set of
disks. Presumably, they would prefer to use Microsoft Word instead of
Corel (or whoever) Word Perfect, Money instead of Quicken, Draw instead
of Illustrator, Paint instead of PhotoShop and Visio instead of AutoCAD.
(Well, if they're that stupid... *grin*) In short: 1 computer x 1 OS x 1
supplier = cohesiveness, QED.

> > >7. Applications
> > >"Support for Windows-based applications would be a definite plus," God,
> > >No!
> > This is one of those ideas that seems simple and obvious to the user.
> > The devil is in the details of course, and it's another symptom that 
> > people simply don't want to see any alternatives.

I thought I might add something to this, but really, what hasn't been
added already? Is there no Linux user out there who hasn't already
stomped this argument into the ground? If so, throw a Windows user at
'em and let 'em get it over with.

> > On the whole, competent programming is a skill-set that is to a great 
> > degree independent of platform. That said, good craftsman prefer better
> > tools... and the incompetent generally could care less.
> 
> So true,  this statement should be on a plaque somewhere.  
> 
> Maybe in Latin so the incompetent can't read it and aren't offended. :)

What? They can read?? *grin*

> > >9. GUI
> > >http://www.ximian.com
> > 18-36 month lags, maybe more. The drumbeat of "Linux is CLI-only, like DOS"
> > is silly and harmful, regardless of the merits of a particular desktop.
> 
> "Silly" and TIRED.  Even the same magazines that print this crap have
> run articles about the advancements on the Linux desktop.

I wonder if some of these people don't hear about how graphic
applications are started in X and think, "Oh, that's not a REAL GUI."
Pfeh! Hidden command line is how Windows does it, too. I think some of
these people don't consider it a 'real' graphic environment unless it
just isn't POSSIBLE to start a program from a command line, but I'm
probably off base with this. I mean, even OSX offers a command line
these days. What does it really say when the bastion of all things GUI
actually stoops to that?

> > >10. Consolidation

"Instead of having basic tools spread around the operating system, users
would like to see them all in one easy-to-find location."

What? Why??

This is the sort of point Bob addresses well, like the time I told him
I'd like to be able to pop out a CD-ROM just by pushing the button, as
under Windows. He had some REALLY good reasons why this could be a BAD
idea, and I think most Linux users have a good idea what's wrong with
dumping 'all the eggs in one basket' with Linux tools. For one thing,
that's a LOT of eggs, and they don't all belong together in one heap.
I've actually read some of the reasoning behind having separate program
directories like /bin, /sbin, and their /usr equivalents. Some
universally accepted applications directory (say, /usr/app) might be
nice, but I don't really see much need for anything over and above the
structure that's already there. Most users don't need to know just which
directory contains the application they want to use, and if they do,
that's what 'which' is for. Of course, I'm just preaching to the choir.
Then, too, they could be talking about anything from physical file
locations to the arrangement of the GNOME/KDE menus or just having
something like Evolution to handle all their email/news/websurfing
needs. Just out of curiosity, Adam, for which of those issues were you
suggesting Ximian?

> More annoying than I think actually harmful; a real waste of resources
> and page space.  At this point I suspect there are people open to Linux
> (likely to dismiss this as tripe they've read 100 times before) and
> people who think M$ should just whack Torvalds and get it over with (who
> won't read an article about Linux anyway).  Thats the two camps I
> encounter,  rarely does one find a "Linux, huh?" person anymore.

Would that be the "Linux, eh?" or "Linux? Huh???" type? Again, just
curious. *grin*

-- 
Andrew Thompson <apthmpsn@imagerie.com>
The Imagerie (www.imagerie.com)