[KLUG Advocacy] What users want from Linux?

[Adam Tauno Williams]

>>>>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?'

I was just nieve.  I gave like a paragraph long answer, a slice of one sentence
was actually used and in that context meant the opposite of my entire statement.

>>>>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.

That idea has been kicked around before.  We'd need people commited to regularly
submitting a piece;  and we'd need some way to get it out there - there are a
myriad little Linux newsletters with a readership of ~one.  Are you thinking an
e-zine or an actual hard copy? 

>>>>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. 

Ha!

>Oh, and Adam, that's #$*@&%$&(, not #$*@*#$&(. *grin*

Sometimes when I get that angry I stutter. :)

>>>>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

It isn't one I loose a wink of sleep over.  What all these guys forget is that
distributions are collections of projects,  projects over which the
distributions have little if any influence.  What would the Samba project's
response be if RedHat "told them to do" something?  My guess - "Whatever!"
Blakanization in an significant sense would be really hard.

>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

What software isn't a patchwork?  Start browsing around the licensing files
present on you Windows box....  You may not install anything that doesn't have
"M$" on the box,  but you'll have hundreds of non-M$ owned technology routines.

>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.

Of course, 'cause Paint ROCKS!

>>>>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.

Yep.

>>>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*

Yes, they can read.  They just don't do it very often.

>>>>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."

I doubt this is the case, since most of the time when I try to explain X to
these people their eyes gloss over.  A GUI is a GUI is a GUI.  Remote display,
etc... is a concept that doesn't even exist in the psyche of most people - a
window on a screen is the result of a program on the little box attached to the
monitor.

>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?

Intesting isn't it.  And there are lots of articles out on the 'net for Mac
users about how to use their new command line.  Symptomatic of a demand?  Does
even the devote Mac community see the utility of a CLI?

>>>>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

And you'll notice that Windows now treats new forms of removable media (USB,
etc...) in a rather mount/unmount manner.  Just yank the cable and you'll
probably end up with a screwed "filesystem".

>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

I doubt this is what they are talking about - it seems too close to the metal,
and if these were metal-heads they wouldn't site some of the problems they do. 
My only guess is that they want something like mcs.exe;  where in XP/2003/...
one can do most administrative tasks from a single point - one can even manage
other 2000/XP/2003... machines.  Personally I think mcs.exe is a really slick
app.  They've got Linux on this one; for now.  Ximian is working on a CORBA
based control center.

>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?

The biggest thing with Ximian is that it -just-works-.  Otherwise one has to
hack & tweak GNOME to get the same functionality.

1. VFS modules installed and work - SMB, NFS, WebDAV, FTP, etc...

Going to all my resources via one app (nautilus) is a real time saver,  I can
book mark *anything* and just go back to it.  Figuring out how to get/put is
GNOME's job.

2. **** PRINTING WORKS **** Hallelujiah!  

Need I say more.  I can print a website without having to type "lpr
-Pbarbel:grds" into a stinking text field.  There are *76* printers, you want me
to remember the names?  Sure, I named most of them - but I've been awake for 10
hours already.  And CUPS automatically adds/removes printers as they become
available/unavailable on the network.  Did I mention that I love CUPS?

3. The menus make sense.  Administrative tools that require root access are
seperated out from mere-applications.

4. "Recent Files" works - again major time saver.

5. Open Office is integrated with the fonts, VFS, and CUPS.  *HUGE* time saver
and much less frustrating to use.  And they themed it so that OO is gorgeous,
rather than garish.

6.  Red Carpet - updates, etc.. are a simple click.  I've got other things to do
than chase down dependencies and grab them via FTP.

That would be my top list.  It was longer in RH8.0,  but RH9.0 did alot to fix
their GNOME setup (mime associations, applications included, font config, etc..)

And what is coming next is absolutely fabulous: the UNO(OO)/Bonobo bridge, CORBA
based control center,  groupware integration, yet more VFS integration (still
has a few limitations), and easy scripting since remoting CORBA (and hence
bonobo) objects is now laughably simple - and the Linux desktop *****NEEDS*****
some type of real/usable scripting mechanism.

>>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*

This is the Kalamazo Linux user group,  not the UP User Group. (UPUG?  Cool
acronymn).