I had the opportunity recently to ask the Lead developer and main man of Linux Mint, Clem Lefebvre, a few questions. It turns out that not only is Clem a nice guy and extremely helpful in the Mint forums, but he is funny, creative and a truly good sport. We threw some oddball questions at him and he not only took them in stride, he was up to match every step of the way.
PBP - What was your first "favorite" Linux distro? Why?
CL - Slackware, for a very long time. I started with it in 1996. It was solid, reliable and very fast. It was also very easy to use and it taught me many things. As other distributions were focusing on developing their own tools and graphical interfaces, Slackware focused on keeping things simple and components in their pristine form. The kernel, X11, the init system, the configuration files, nothing was cluttered with distro-specific hacks. Everything was clean and made easy to understand. I tested many distributions such as SUSE, Mandrake and RedHat and I always came back to Slackware. Back in the days when you had to compile things yourself you needed clean components for everything to work, and Slackware was excellent at that.
Eventually I became addicted to Debian's package manager and that brought me away from Slackware.
PBP - Do you think of yourself as "average" Linux knowledgable, A "Guru" or somewhere in between?
CL - I develop websites, software and scripts in many languages, I design software for a living, I maintain a Linux distribution and I sell commercial support. That makes me a Guru I guess :) I still learn a lot from others though.
PBP - As you are/have been a Distro reviewer, are you, or have you ever been, a distro "fanboy"?
CL - I like some distributions more than others and for different reasons. Apart from Linux Mint (obviously), some of my favorites are Fedora and Debian. Each distribution has pros and cons compared to others and I don't believe one is right for everybody. As a reviewer I tried to underline these pros and cons as objectively as I could. I don't believe in distro-bashing or in the perfect distro. People have different tastes and different interests and that's why there's so many distributions out there.
PBP - With Ubuntu's interests moving more and more into the "commercial" arena, do you see Mint as "tagging along, coming to the forefront or staying away from commercial entirely, preferring to stay in the "Community" arena?
CL - I don't think Ubuntu's interest is shifting away from the desktop. When you look at the innovations which came in Cassandra, nearly half of them came from Ubuntu. With every release they prove to be a better desktop system. Of course as a company most of the money they make is with servers and support, but they never left the community behind and more than most distributions they've done a lot of things to improve their desktop.
Linux Mint's purpose is to produce an elegant desktop operating system. Our main focus is the desktop and we're currently funded by our community. The people who actually develop and maintain Linux Mint are doing so in their spare time though. If we want to grow and put more resources into developing the distribution we'll need bigger sources of income. We can be funded by the community (through individual/commercial sponsors/donations) or by customers (through support mostly). Most likely we'll become a company like Canonical, with a strong focus on the desktop but also side activities (like support).
PBP - What is your favorite Mint "feature"?
CL - mintInstall.
PBP - In response to what is your favorite Mint feature, you said MintInstall. How is mintInstall different from what Linspire offers? What effect do you see mintInstall having on the linux user experience?
CL - Linspire developed a lot of good software by the past. I have no doubt. Click'n Run is a very good tool and it would probably offer the same features if not more than mintInstall. But Linspire is also a commercial company which focuses primarily at making money and who is run by somebody who:
- spat on GPLv3 (two weeks ago)
- signed a patent protection deal with Microsoft (one week ago)
- basically indirectly accused us and most distributions of software piracy (this week)
Needless to say Linspire is not a company we want to work with and definitely not a company we want to depend on.
Click'n Run, as an open-source solution, is not ready yet. It started as a commercial software which you had to pay in order to use, which you couldn't get the source code for and which was only made available for Linspire itself. I'm not complaining about it but Linspire never made it attractive to other distributions. They recently announced they would open it and decided to support a few distributions.
Ubuntu announced they could use Click'n Run but it's not clear whether this is going to be free for Ubuntu users. It's not clear how well integrated this will be and how much freedom, both on the client and on
the server, will be given by Linspire to Ubuntu. What's the point having an open-source client if you can't manage and get the specifications/source for the server and for the protocol?
Finally, the main advantage of Click'n Run is to automate installation of software. This is something relatively easy to develop. If we favor open-source alternatives to commercial software, we certainly also favor our own implementation to commercial software.
We now have our own alternative. It's open source. It's using a file format and a protocol anybody can use. Our community is actively producing mint files and anybody can make a mintInstall portal. We also
developed it to be as scalable as possible. At the moment it supports installation of repositories, keys and packages. It also supports execution of code and it can contain files and resources. Although we're
using it as a way to remotely pilot APT, we could use it for all sorts of things (installation of Gnome themes, automation of complex operations..etc).
The way we see it, package management is a very important component in a distribution and it ought to be 100% open, 100% integrated and 100% free. Software development is easy and we see no reason to use a 3rd party software and become dependent of Linspire for something we can do ourselves.
If Ubuntu or Fedora decide to integrate Click'n'Run we'll keep a close eye on it, and whatever people like about it we'll add to mintInstall. We don't do software piracy, we don't spit on the GPL, we don't believe
in software patents, we don't pay for protection and we don't want to rely on Linspire for something we can do ourselves.
I don't believe in boycotting commercial solutions but if something is easily implementable or if an open alternative exists we have no reason to go for the closed or semi-closed solution. I wasn't interested in
Click'n Run in the first place and I fell personally offended by Kevin Carmony's last three newsletters.
Kevin is welcome in my house. I'll cook if he brings the wine but I really don't think Click'n Run will ever replace mintInstall within Linux Mint. If it proves to be excellent it might make it to our
Software Portal for Linux Mint users to install... via mintInstall that is.
PBP - You offer paid support service for Mint. Do you see Mint as a future competitor for Ubuntu or any other Distro in the business marketplace? As a desktop or more?
CL - Maybe in the future but not at the moment.
PBP - When asked about Mint as a future "competitor" with Ubuntu and others, you said maybe in the future. As most Distros who use an existing distro as a base do, Mint has stayed close to the Ubuntu base fairly closely but as each version comes out, you add a little bit more "custom" apps and unique attributes, Like mintInstall. At what point do you see Mint as being an almost entirely "unique" distro?
CL - Linux Mint is compatible with Ubuntu, it uses Ubuntu repositories and 99% of it is made of Ubuntu packages, so technologically speaking it is Ubuntu. In a lesser extent the same could be said of Ubuntu and Debian. What makes Ubuntu unique compared to Debian, and Mint unique compared to Ubuntu is that the user experience is different. As an Ubuntu user nearly everything you can do in Debian can also be done in Ubuntu. As a Linux Mint user, nearly everything you can do in Ubuntu can be done in Linux Mint. But both Ubuntu and Linux Mint bring their own innovations to their Debian base, and consequently change the user experience. They provide new ways of achieving simple tasks and make it simpler for the users to use their system.
Among other things a Linux Mint user can install 3rd party software without setting repositories, he can mount NTFS partitions without using fstab...etc. This is what makes Linux Mint unique, because although it can be used the exact same way as Debian or Ubuntu, it provides additional repositories, tools and use-cases which considerably simplify common tasks.
We're not and probably won't be a competitor when it comes to providing support for Debian based distributions and Linux in general, because we don't have the resources and the scale to compete with other actors in this business. We can be more attractive to small companies because of our flexibility but it's really on our own innovations and the tools we develop that we can be the best at providing support.
As we innovate and develop new technologies we become better at supporting our own desktop solution. We also develop knowledge about Linux and other desktops but although we can offer support for this,
there are a lot of more interesting actors in this market and we don't plan on competing with them.
PBP - Do you see a day where you can/will "step back" from Mint, either to let it sink or swim or turn it over to another so you might pursue another project? Or maybe just to take a break?
CL - I've never had so much fun :) I would only step away from it if it became boring and repetitive, which is highly unlikely... maybe when Linux is all over the World in people's home and has become so common it's something like an appliance. Then I'd find something else I guess :)
PBP - In many of your comments in posts on your community forum, you have been very "open" towards other distros and Linux in General. Do you think that Linux really is "here to stay" or can distro competition cause deterioration from within?
CL - I think Linux will become number 1 on the desktop operating system market and companies like Apple and Microsoft will slowly shift their focus towards other markets. The only question is when.
Some people are afraid of the growing number of distributions. To me it means more choice. It's definitely a good thing.
PBP - Do you believe Linux can achieve "Desktop" marketplace postion While drivers/proprietery issues stand unresolved? Or can the opensource community find a way to eventually circumvent or go around proprietary drivers and software?
CL -This problem is not going to last. Open source drivers will get better and better. Also, as the number of Linux users grows manufacturers will start to take interest and invest efforts into opening their drivers. Dell is already distributing Linux and if this is successfull they will put pressure on their suppliers to make things work on this platform.
PBP - Tux is a very publicly used image. Have you ever considered using an image of Tux with something like a mint leaf, perhaps in a hat, or as a badge, in his "flipper". You get the idea. In that same line of thought, is Tux, as an image and "mascot" overused or traded on too heavily now?
CL - Long before usplash ever showed a mint leaf, Slackware's boot sequence was showing Tux. If I remember well this was even before X worked without running xf86config (which answers people used to know by heart :) ) and I thought it was the coolest thing ever. So if you think Mint is cool, think again! Tux is the man... or the penguin..oh well, let's just say he rocks! :)
That one can come to my house anytime, I'll cook fish AND I'll bring the wine :)
(now when he's drunk and asleep on the sofa.. I might get a mint leaf and a digital camera..)
We here at Polar Bears and Penguins want to thank Clem for his time and good spirit. He shows us all that being one of the top people in the Linux field is not just all tech manuals and pocket protectors. He comes through as a great example of sharing and the Linux "Open" thinking the whole way through.
Polar Bears and Penguins
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Professional vs The Amateur
There is an article written, discussing a book written by a man who shows disdain for the "amateurs" among us. The author in question is wrestling with the tragedies of less educated, less experienced people with technology in their hands having a bad impact on the "professional" world.
The writer of the review seems to mostly agree with the author, pointing out the few exceptions of raw talent shining through a bleak, poorly produced world.
One of the hallmarks of professionalism is elitism. The " I went to Harvard" or Berkeley or Yale, or whatever University impressed their credentials upon the "Master"
The "professional" having an air of respect and dare I say, prestige, is one of the most appealing concepts that attracts people to want to undertake "professional" studies in many cases.
Being a professional though, has roots far deeper than being "educated", which seems to be a sticking point for both writers. They both lament the lack of "Serious" education" in the realm of the amateur.
I am not a professional writer. I express an opinion. I do my very best to provide an informed opinion and to present it in a way that will communicate it as well as I can.
But, at heart, I am a network tech. I DID get my education in computer sciences and networking. I like to think, that mixed in with setting up a few hundred ( or thousand?) machines and systems over the past years, I might have accumulated some kind of experience gained by good old trial and error and the ability to learn from other peoples advice and experience.
One can go back hundreds, nay, thousands of years to see the "professional" in society. It hasn't been until the very relative recent past that "higher" education has been a necessity or a prerequisite to being a professional.
The most common and obvious examples of professionals in history regardless of society or where on this earth they come from, originates in the Master/Disciple model. For those who stare, blinking at those words, I will explain.
A person who had displayed a great talent and finesse in his/her body of work, worked through their life to show a level of discipline and experience as to be nigh unmatched in their field, was considered a Master of that craft or field. Be it stone masonry to art, leather working to writing. The person ws considered as having mastered that field, thus being referred to as Master.
A disciple, was a student and trainee to the Master. They were the existence of the world's first on-the-job training program. In order to learn the basics, then the finer aspects of that field, great discipline was needed and expected. which is , of course, where Disciple comes from.
these are very old words from a very long time ago. The underlying ideas haven't changed though. The combination of information and experience will take the student to the world of the Master.
Today's professional is practiced a bit different from then though.
They focus more heavily on the education part and the credentials one receives from their institution rather than the experience, which is seen as something one can get along the way.
There are people who take their chosen profession very seriously and take it upon themselves to throw themselves into situations in which to gain more experience. I have nothing but respect for that kind of professional.
Then there are the multitudes looking for the fast track. They don't care about the finesse, the artistry and the labor of love a true Master has for his/her craft. They just want the money and the accolades.
Far too often, it is the second group of "professionals" who cry out the loudest when someone they see as an amateur, wade into their end of the pond. Especially if that amateur shows more talent and discipline than they, the professional does.
I am not knocking true professionals, who have honed their craft as art form, if only to themselves. I recognize their education and accomplishments and always come away from working with a true Master having learned something and one more step along the path to being a true Master myself someday.
The "knock off" professionals, well, all I can say is. Sorry for all the amateurs, we all have to start somewhere.
Big Bear
The writer of the review seems to mostly agree with the author, pointing out the few exceptions of raw talent shining through a bleak, poorly produced world.
One of the hallmarks of professionalism is elitism. The " I went to Harvard" or Berkeley or Yale, or whatever University impressed their credentials upon the "Master"
The "professional" having an air of respect and dare I say, prestige, is one of the most appealing concepts that attracts people to want to undertake "professional" studies in many cases.
Being a professional though, has roots far deeper than being "educated", which seems to be a sticking point for both writers. They both lament the lack of "Serious" education" in the realm of the amateur.
I am not a professional writer. I express an opinion. I do my very best to provide an informed opinion and to present it in a way that will communicate it as well as I can.
But, at heart, I am a network tech. I DID get my education in computer sciences and networking. I like to think, that mixed in with setting up a few hundred ( or thousand?) machines and systems over the past years, I might have accumulated some kind of experience gained by good old trial and error and the ability to learn from other peoples advice and experience.
One can go back hundreds, nay, thousands of years to see the "professional" in society. It hasn't been until the very relative recent past that "higher" education has been a necessity or a prerequisite to being a professional.
The most common and obvious examples of professionals in history regardless of society or where on this earth they come from, originates in the Master/Disciple model. For those who stare, blinking at those words, I will explain.
A person who had displayed a great talent and finesse in his/her body of work, worked through their life to show a level of discipline and experience as to be nigh unmatched in their field, was considered a Master of that craft or field. Be it stone masonry to art, leather working to writing. The person ws considered as having mastered that field, thus being referred to as Master.
A disciple, was a student and trainee to the Master. They were the existence of the world's first on-the-job training program. In order to learn the basics, then the finer aspects of that field, great discipline was needed and expected. which is , of course, where Disciple comes from.
these are very old words from a very long time ago. The underlying ideas haven't changed though. The combination of information and experience will take the student to the world of the Master.
Today's professional is practiced a bit different from then though.
They focus more heavily on the education part and the credentials one receives from their institution rather than the experience, which is seen as something one can get along the way.
There are people who take their chosen profession very seriously and take it upon themselves to throw themselves into situations in which to gain more experience. I have nothing but respect for that kind of professional.
Then there are the multitudes looking for the fast track. They don't care about the finesse, the artistry and the labor of love a true Master has for his/her craft. They just want the money and the accolades.
Far too often, it is the second group of "professionals" who cry out the loudest when someone they see as an amateur, wade into their end of the pond. Especially if that amateur shows more talent and discipline than they, the professional does.
I am not knocking true professionals, who have honed their craft as art form, if only to themselves. I recognize their education and accomplishments and always come away from working with a true Master having learned something and one more step along the path to being a true Master myself someday.
The "knock off" professionals, well, all I can say is. Sorry for all the amateurs, we all have to start somewhere.
Big Bear
Monday, June 18, 2007
The rush to Microsoft
Linspire, Xandros, Novell.
What do they have in common? They are big time Linux Distros who have cozied up to Microsoft.
Microsoft says it wants to , boil it down, indemnify those distros users from IP litigation, stating consistently that Linux violates some 200 plus patents.
Everyone knows that Microsoft is in violation of several patents also. It would be interesting to see any of them listed somewhere someday. After all, the verbose linux advocates who bandy about that Microsoft should show exactly which patents are in question are the same who proclaim loudly that Microsoft is a hypocrite for saying such things, citing what I said earlier, that Microsoft violates patents also.
Be an example, a role model. Someone who speaks legalese somewhere should cite cases of Microsoft specifically in court or past findings of Microsoft in violation of IP.
I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't violate. I know they do. I am not a credible source of legal information though and I know it. We want the high powered types to come out swinging.
Linux needs a hero right now. Someone who won't just be all talk but has the power, the resources to tell Microsoft that while it is fine for Microsoft to try to bring distros in to it's fold, most linux developers and users want a Linux that can perform without depending on handouts from a monolith proprietary company to be the sugar daddy of interoperability.
That's why open standards are just as important as open source. There needs to be a neutral standard for certifying the capabilities of an Operating System. Not using an existing OS as the measuring stick, but a protocol or standard that says, X system should be able to perform xxx and yyy and zzz tasks to be considered at W level .
In the long run, it could help ALL OS's with interoperability. Because without the world leaning toward one specific , proprietary system as the measuring stick and the source for interoperability, maybe a TRUE open source and open standard system of interoperability could be devised by a panel of reps from all the major OS's coming together and creating ONE system of open sharing. a system that is equally beneficial to all of them and the users.
What do they have in common? They are big time Linux Distros who have cozied up to Microsoft.
Microsoft says it wants to , boil it down, indemnify those distros users from IP litigation, stating consistently that Linux violates some 200 plus patents.
Everyone knows that Microsoft is in violation of several patents also. It would be interesting to see any of them listed somewhere someday. After all, the verbose linux advocates who bandy about that Microsoft should show exactly which patents are in question are the same who proclaim loudly that Microsoft is a hypocrite for saying such things, citing what I said earlier, that Microsoft violates patents also.
Be an example, a role model. Someone who speaks legalese somewhere should cite cases of Microsoft specifically in court or past findings of Microsoft in violation of IP.
I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't violate. I know they do. I am not a credible source of legal information though and I know it. We want the high powered types to come out swinging.
Linux needs a hero right now. Someone who won't just be all talk but has the power, the resources to tell Microsoft that while it is fine for Microsoft to try to bring distros in to it's fold, most linux developers and users want a Linux that can perform without depending on handouts from a monolith proprietary company to be the sugar daddy of interoperability.
That's why open standards are just as important as open source. There needs to be a neutral standard for certifying the capabilities of an Operating System. Not using an existing OS as the measuring stick, but a protocol or standard that says, X system should be able to perform xxx and yyy and zzz tasks to be considered at W level .
In the long run, it could help ALL OS's with interoperability. Because without the world leaning toward one specific , proprietary system as the measuring stick and the source for interoperability, maybe a TRUE open source and open standard system of interoperability could be devised by a panel of reps from all the major OS's coming together and creating ONE system of open sharing. a system that is equally beneficial to all of them and the users.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Command Line anyone? why would I want to do that?
The Linux Command line.
I've posted on it before. Many, countless thousands, if not more, posts have been made discussing this.
I talked the last time about how the Command line is our friend. Now let's talk about what real place the command line has in the new, evolving Linux world.
Other operating systems have all but obliterated the command line presence. They have removed access to it to a point of almost requiring special instruction just in how to find how to access it.
This has, over the years, led to what many people call the "dumbing down" of the "average" computer user. ( We have also discussed average elsewhere, but I won't get too far into that here. )
We have seen that using the command line can often be the quickest, most direct way to making modifications or accomplishing tasks on the computer.
We have also seen the GUI make some inroads to usability and make a more visually stimulating method to navigating ones way around the computer.
As a matter of fact, I would suggest the number one contribution the GUI has made is exactly in navigation. Being able to "see" where you are or where you want to be.
There are signs that both worlds are merging to find a the best working relationship.
For example, in the KDE environment, ( just as one example ) using the GUI file browser konqueror, on can navigate to a file they are trying to find a bit easier (in some peoples estimations ) and once there, you have an option of opening a "terminal" at that exact point of navigation.
so, how is that useful?
I could enter :
cat /home/bubba/articles/comdlne/easy/maybe/whoknows/isit.doc
that's a bit of typing and trying where you have that file, especially for those who aren't much of a typist.
You could just "click" on your konqueror icon, then successfully click down to "whoknows" open a terminal and walla, you are in that directory in the terminal as well. simply enter: cat isit.doc and you have it.
Yes, I know once there in the GUI you could just right click on the doc and "open with" whatever editor you want. The point is for whatever commands you are trying to perform on the command line, there are ways to use both the GUI and C/L together in one setting to accomplish your task.
Depending on your definition of what a "step" in a process is, it is able to help minimize taking those extra ones.
If you see each "click" in a window as a step, then it may take you say 5 steps to get to a file in GUI. Contrasted by only 1 step in the command line by typing the one line or command, provided you remember your path and syntax.
If you see a click as so trivial as to be meaningless as a "step", then you can just whiz through the clicks with just a flick of the wrist and pointer finger movements, and Walla! without any typing whatsoever, you have your file.
Much of it really depends on how much you dislike typing. or how much you like finding the "hacks" that are not present in the GUI side.
That is another thing. There are many commands with lot's of extra functionality because of the many switches and ways to manage them.
GUI's are often built only using a few, most commonly used switches, often leaving many out.
So then the Command line has become the secret weapon of the folks who hunt out the commands with their many switches and variables. The ways to pipe commands and merge.
They are then able to do things the GUI just cannot do, often in just a couple of typed lines.
Linux is often referred to a a "hackers paradise", now without going into the definition of "hackers" too much let's just say that the command line is THE hackers tool.
Why? Precisely for the above mentioned switches and variables, the ability to merge and "pipe". You can "hack" lots of things together in Linux on the command line. it's one of the reasons why it is considered to be as powerful as it is.
Big Bear
I've posted on it before. Many, countless thousands, if not more, posts have been made discussing this.
I talked the last time about how the Command line is our friend. Now let's talk about what real place the command line has in the new, evolving Linux world.
Other operating systems have all but obliterated the command line presence. They have removed access to it to a point of almost requiring special instruction just in how to find how to access it.
This has, over the years, led to what many people call the "dumbing down" of the "average" computer user. ( We have also discussed average elsewhere, but I won't get too far into that here. )
We have seen that using the command line can often be the quickest, most direct way to making modifications or accomplishing tasks on the computer.
We have also seen the GUI make some inroads to usability and make a more visually stimulating method to navigating ones way around the computer.
As a matter of fact, I would suggest the number one contribution the GUI has made is exactly in navigation. Being able to "see" where you are or where you want to be.
There are signs that both worlds are merging to find a the best working relationship.
For example, in the KDE environment, ( just as one example ) using the GUI file browser konqueror, on can navigate to a file they are trying to find a bit easier (in some peoples estimations ) and once there, you have an option of opening a "terminal" at that exact point of navigation.
so, how is that useful?
I could enter :
cat /home/bubba/articles/comdlne/easy/maybe/whoknows/isit.doc
that's a bit of typing and trying where you have that file, especially for those who aren't much of a typist.
You could just "click" on your konqueror icon, then successfully click down to "whoknows" open a terminal and walla, you are in that directory in the terminal as well. simply enter: cat isit.doc and you have it.
Yes, I know once there in the GUI you could just right click on the doc and "open with" whatever editor you want. The point is for whatever commands you are trying to perform on the command line, there are ways to use both the GUI and C/L together in one setting to accomplish your task.
Depending on your definition of what a "step" in a process is, it is able to help minimize taking those extra ones.
If you see each "click" in a window as a step, then it may take you say 5 steps to get to a file in GUI. Contrasted by only 1 step in the command line by typing the one line or command, provided you remember your path and syntax.
If you see a click as so trivial as to be meaningless as a "step", then you can just whiz through the clicks with just a flick of the wrist and pointer finger movements, and Walla! without any typing whatsoever, you have your file.
Much of it really depends on how much you dislike typing. or how much you like finding the "hacks" that are not present in the GUI side.
That is another thing. There are many commands with lot's of extra functionality because of the many switches and ways to manage them.
GUI's are often built only using a few, most commonly used switches, often leaving many out.
So then the Command line has become the secret weapon of the folks who hunt out the commands with their many switches and variables. The ways to pipe commands and merge.
They are then able to do things the GUI just cannot do, often in just a couple of typed lines.
Linux is often referred to a a "hackers paradise", now without going into the definition of "hackers" too much let's just say that the command line is THE hackers tool.
Why? Precisely for the above mentioned switches and variables, the ability to merge and "pipe". You can "hack" lots of things together in Linux on the command line. it's one of the reasons why it is considered to be as powerful as it is.
Big Bear
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Just what is an "average" user?
We see the term used in forums and articles all the time.Whenever someones wants to refer to simplicity and ease of use, they refer to the elusive " Average user".
Who or what is an "Average" user? Is it someone who has accumulated some PC skills in keyboarding, knows a bit of what types of applications there are and how to use them generally. Is it someone who has x amount of time invested in "using" a computer?
We see the word "average" used haphazardly. Used incorrectly and in a misleading manner all too often.
The biggest use of the term "average user" typically comes out of an intent to prove there is a problem with something, so much so that the "average" user cannot function with it.
Also, with the awareness of the term "average user", there is a hierarchy that follows or that it is a part of.
It insinuates that if there is an "average" user, there must be a lower level, or a user of less experience and ability working with computers.
One would suggest that "newbie" has been bandied about to refer to novice users enough to qualify as a base point. one who is not familiar or experienced enough, lacking education and knowledge about the general workings and usage of a computer.
in as far as we use the term "user" we must conclude on the opposite end of the spectrum is the consummate user, the highly knowledgeable and experienced user who is very familiar with functions and capabilities, uses and the overall workings of the computer.
We might call this user the "power" user. Again, it is a commonly used term, which when used, is often used to refer to a user with the previously mentioned skills.
Now, if we are using the term " average" user, it would suggest that the user is of an experience and knowledge level roughly in between the "newbie" and the "power" users.
Which means in order to adequately describe the "average" user, we must admit the user has acquired a tolerable amount of experience and familiarity with computers that they are not intimidated by the use of one. While they are by no means and advanced or "power" user, they certainly have the ability to make reasonable decisions and have shown an ability to "learn" the necessary skills to somewhat proficiently use a computer.
If this is the case, why then would so many articles and forum posts denigrate the "average" user as incapable of using at least the rudiments of command line usage, after all, there was a time when early in the DOS stage of MS and IBM, etc, even with Apple, the command line was all there was, and the "average" user was able to comprehend the fundamentals of that.
I think it's high time posters and article writers started showing more respect for the "average" user.
After all, One must have have displayed some amount of know how to be no longer
considered a "newbie".
Big Bear
Who or what is an "Average" user? Is it someone who has accumulated some PC skills in keyboarding, knows a bit of what types of applications there are and how to use them generally. Is it someone who has x amount of time invested in "using" a computer?
We see the word "average" used haphazardly. Used incorrectly and in a misleading manner all too often.
The biggest use of the term "average user" typically comes out of an intent to prove there is a problem with something, so much so that the "average" user cannot function with it.
Also, with the awareness of the term "average user", there is a hierarchy that follows or that it is a part of.
It insinuates that if there is an "average" user, there must be a lower level, or a user of less experience and ability working with computers.
One would suggest that "newbie" has been bandied about to refer to novice users enough to qualify as a base point. one who is not familiar or experienced enough, lacking education and knowledge about the general workings and usage of a computer.
in as far as we use the term "user" we must conclude on the opposite end of the spectrum is the consummate user, the highly knowledgeable and experienced user who is very familiar with functions and capabilities, uses and the overall workings of the computer.
We might call this user the "power" user. Again, it is a commonly used term, which when used, is often used to refer to a user with the previously mentioned skills.
Now, if we are using the term " average" user, it would suggest that the user is of an experience and knowledge level roughly in between the "newbie" and the "power" users.
Which means in order to adequately describe the "average" user, we must admit the user has acquired a tolerable amount of experience and familiarity with computers that they are not intimidated by the use of one. While they are by no means and advanced or "power" user, they certainly have the ability to make reasonable decisions and have shown an ability to "learn" the necessary skills to somewhat proficiently use a computer.
If this is the case, why then would so many articles and forum posts denigrate the "average" user as incapable of using at least the rudiments of command line usage, after all, there was a time when early in the DOS stage of MS and IBM, etc, even with Apple, the command line was all there was, and the "average" user was able to comprehend the fundamentals of that.
I think it's high time posters and article writers started showing more respect for the "average" user.
After all, One must have have displayed some amount of know how to be no longer
considered a "newbie".
Big Bear
Friday, June 1, 2007
The GPL and Microsoft
The folks who are putting the newest version of the GPL have Microsoft dead in their sights. They have provided language that almost specifies Microsoft in the licence.
I am certainly no fan of the big M, and I am one of those who believe it's should be illegal to use the words ethical and Microsoft in the same sentence.
I am not sure though, if it truly is in the best interests of Linux and Open Source software in general, to go to such lengths to "beat" MS at their own game.
MS has the legal wrangling business sewn up. That is their true area of mastery. It is shown by their prowess in the courtrooms of America and around the world.
Buying little companies or smaller competitors, either buying the software they want or stealing it, or simply suing the pants off the little guy by throwing more money than the little guy can afford at the courtroom till the little guy is no more or caves in and gives MS what they want. code and/or IP.
It's no secret and no lie. It is all a matter of public record. Journaled by many a tech and courtroom reporter and magazine editorial since MS's early days.
There are those who say that Microsoft doesn't innovate, it litigates. While it's funny, there is certainly some truth to the comment.
Now before you write this article off as just another MS hit piece, I want to get back to my point. The changes and direction of the new GPL may not be in the longterm best interests of Open source software and GNU/Linux.
Does the new GPL go to great lengths to protect GNU/Linux and Open Source software? Yes it does. But, does it REALLY need to go to such lengths? Is the head on ram like approach really in the best , long term interests?
There are some, who out of frustration and a hyper-extended sense of "fairplay" who will say it doesn't go far enough.
However, coming from a "fairplay" forum like Linux Geeks United and being the Linux Lucha Libre Comissioner, I think the best idea is to keep a wary eye on a sneeky opponent like MS but don't let it rule your career.
Instead of making every move timed to out do MS, perhaps it's better to work to position GNU/Linux as a solid OS in it's own right. Push the facts that Linux is the best server OS for a reason. Let the accessibility and easy customization of Linux speak for itself.
Can GNU/Linux meet specific needs without having to be compared to MS products every time? IS there a "neutral" set of standards that all OS's must be able to meet. in order to be "ranked" as a certain level or quality, without constantly having to use another OS as the proverbial "measuring stick"?
Not that the competition isn't good. MS NEEDS to have a worthy competitor to knock it down a few pegs, to draw some of the attention away and perhaps make it go back into the "training gym" to restyle itself to meet new challenges and be a true competitor again.
I like to think of MS as the heavyweight champ who got to the top by fighting middleweights because there weren't that many other heavyweights in it's weightclass at the time and it was able to always buy off the judges or refs or even the other luchadores from time to time in order to keep the title belt without ever having to really compete anymore, just go put on a good show and hope the spectators didn't see the ref miss a count or the opponent pull the punches.
So maybe what GNU/Linux needs is not so much a harder stance in the GPL, but rather to work on it's freestyle moves instead. Just become so much better a competitor through practice and design that when the big match comes down, that heavyweight "champ" will fall like a ton of bricks.
Viva Linux!
I am certainly no fan of the big M, and I am one of those who believe it's should be illegal to use the words ethical and Microsoft in the same sentence.
I am not sure though, if it truly is in the best interests of Linux and Open Source software in general, to go to such lengths to "beat" MS at their own game.
MS has the legal wrangling business sewn up. That is their true area of mastery. It is shown by their prowess in the courtrooms of America and around the world.
Buying little companies or smaller competitors, either buying the software they want or stealing it, or simply suing the pants off the little guy by throwing more money than the little guy can afford at the courtroom till the little guy is no more or caves in and gives MS what they want. code and/or IP.
It's no secret and no lie. It is all a matter of public record. Journaled by many a tech and courtroom reporter and magazine editorial since MS's early days.
There are those who say that Microsoft doesn't innovate, it litigates. While it's funny, there is certainly some truth to the comment.
Now before you write this article off as just another MS hit piece, I want to get back to my point. The changes and direction of the new GPL may not be in the longterm best interests of Open source software and GNU/Linux.
Does the new GPL go to great lengths to protect GNU/Linux and Open Source software? Yes it does. But, does it REALLY need to go to such lengths? Is the head on ram like approach really in the best , long term interests?
There are some, who out of frustration and a hyper-extended sense of "fairplay" who will say it doesn't go far enough.
However, coming from a "fairplay" forum like Linux Geeks United and being the Linux Lucha Libre Comissioner, I think the best idea is to keep a wary eye on a sneeky opponent like MS but don't let it rule your career.
Instead of making every move timed to out do MS, perhaps it's better to work to position GNU/Linux as a solid OS in it's own right. Push the facts that Linux is the best server OS for a reason. Let the accessibility and easy customization of Linux speak for itself.
Can GNU/Linux meet specific needs without having to be compared to MS products every time? IS there a "neutral" set of standards that all OS's must be able to meet. in order to be "ranked" as a certain level or quality, without constantly having to use another OS as the proverbial "measuring stick"?
Not that the competition isn't good. MS NEEDS to have a worthy competitor to knock it down a few pegs, to draw some of the attention away and perhaps make it go back into the "training gym" to restyle itself to meet new challenges and be a true competitor again.
I like to think of MS as the heavyweight champ who got to the top by fighting middleweights because there weren't that many other heavyweights in it's weightclass at the time and it was able to always buy off the judges or refs or even the other luchadores from time to time in order to keep the title belt without ever having to really compete anymore, just go put on a good show and hope the spectators didn't see the ref miss a count or the opponent pull the punches.
So maybe what GNU/Linux needs is not so much a harder stance in the GPL, but rather to work on it's freestyle moves instead. Just become so much better a competitor through practice and design that when the big match comes down, that heavyweight "champ" will fall like a ton of bricks.
Viva Linux!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
