How "Free Beer" is holding Linux back

Free as in "Free Beer". That's one of the biggest, most well accepted ideas of the open source "movement" people like to get into.

There is also Free as in " freedom of expression " and " freedom of use " that are just as, if not more important to open source, in my opinion.

I have always believed that the time has come to accept that the Operating System on a computer should be free, as in free beer as well as the other "free's" to boot. ( heh heh, "to boot, an OS on a computer, get it? oh well )

It's like buying a car only to find that you must buy a steering wheel and instrument panel for it separately. I don't think so. If I buy a car, I want to drive it " out of the box" same as when I buy a computer.

Having said that, I believe there is an argument to be made for reasonably expecting to pay for an OS, especially when it allows the car/computer dealer to offer variety and choice. After all, it took a lot of work and time to make the OS, to make it usable and presentable. The creator of it deserves to be able to make a living.

Open source is not just about sharing though, it's about making things accessible. It's also about keeping business "honest" and products "clean". Open source allows for people to make customizations to make something work the best for their intended use of it. It allows anyone to find a flaw and "fix" it, then enter that fix back into the source pool and make a total better product. It allows the user to "see" what kind of code is in it, to see if "malware" is being snuck onto your computer against your will and unknown to the user.

Open source is about so much more than "free beer" yet many a Linux user will be adamant about not using anything but " free beer" apps and insist that all apps are " free beer " also.

Think about this for a moment. If all Linux apps were to be "free beer" apps, then the creators of said apps need to find another way to make income. Usually that becomes service and support. But, if someone is going to sell support, they will likely build the need for support into the app, thereby making the more difficult than necessary simply for the sake of selling support.

The business world needs to use some innovation in creating a way to "sell" Linux apps without being greedy of overcharging, yet being reasonable. I think it's possible, but it's going to require both sides to take a different approach to charging and buying. It's not about getting rich or being a cheapskate, it's about finding ways for Linux to create solutions and create opportunites for people to make a living creating for Linux.

For a follow up to this article, I would like to ask you to vote in the Poll on Linux Geeks United in the "Open Discussion" area. You will find a simple poll asking about paying for Linux apps. We will close the voting in 8 days and report back on what Linux users really think about paying for quality Linux apps.

Big Bear

Getting to the "Root" of it all.

Reading the the posts in various "newbie" threads and in threads where it ha been made the focus, the question of whether to log in as root is one of the most contentious topics in the computer world.

There is a good reason why some folks give advice to not log in as Root and use Sudo or time limited root access sessions instead. It can save a lot of headache and heartache if don't pay attention to what you are doing and most folks say, why risk messing up a solid install just for a power trip.

Having said that, there are some people who border on zealotry in trying to advise you not to log in as Root. They will call you names, condemn you to an eternity in fire, and many other quite unnecessary things to convince you to not log in as Root. They really do believe that by using shame and "negative" tactics, it will prevent someone from doing it.

Yet, if you ask a "victim" of the anti-Root zealots, they will tell you one of the worst things they experience in a forum is that kind of dressing down. A nice suggestion is sufficient and for some people, they feel it is their install and they learn best by learning from their own mistakes.

I say, Live and Learn.

It does not help to chastise and sermonize someone who isn't here to go to "Linux Church". They simply want an answer to a question, ( ie.. " how do I set my login to allow root to login?" etc... )

Every single user who has logged into Linux, at some point in time has logged in as Root. Now maybe, you burned yourself doing it and became a "Born-Again Sudo-er" Very understandable, yet, it does not require you to harp on and on to others who want or have an interest in logging in as Root themselves.

If you are frustrated seeing those questions then don't read them, no one forces you to read a question about Logging in as Root. As many of our Grandmothers told us when we were young, " if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." and it is good advice indeed.

To the would-be Root user, I offer you this, if you want to avoid the sermon and nastiness, then try a search on logging in as Root, I guarantee it has been asked and answered several times and some things do not require a whole new discussion on such a simple topic.

Unless of course, you're one of those who like to tweak or bait the Sudo-ers into action. Just to watch them carp about. That's just annoying to those who just want to find answers.

To Root or not to Root, this brings me to another question. Just because you can do something, does it mean you always should?

Sure, you can log in as Root, do what you want, it's your computer, knock yourself out.

On the other hand, the minute you bork something because you felt the need to run as Root, when you go running back to those in the forum who tried to warn you about that exact possibility, don't expect a warm welcome. Because, when you choose to run as Root on your machine, it's just you and your computer. When you go back to the forum afterwards, you have made it their problem also, and they may not want a problem just because you wanted to be "Da' Root"

Big Bear

If Linux isn't "there", then where is it?

One of the most popular posts, comments, questions, is " Is Linux 'there' yet ". or, " When will Linux get 'there'? "

We first need to discover where 'there' is.

Right off the bat, most of these discussions tackle install issues. Can Joe User install Linux on his own? Inevitably. someone will reply, " Can Joe User install Windows from a disk on his own?"

The answer to that is obviously no. Joe User cannot install Windows from a disk onto a computer on his own without help. Windows is no more 'there" than Linux is. ( Neither is Apple, but we already knew that, right? )


But, another question is, why do Linux users expect Joe User to be able to install an OS on their own? Is it some macho geek attitude that says one must be able to install an OS on to a computer?

Joe User is exactly who we expect him to be. Joe User. He is a guy that doesn't have an interest in computer things beyond a little surfing, doing his checkbook and email. Some games maybe even watch a movie on his PC because he likes horror movies and everyone else in his family is a big chicken and he has to watch them somewhere they can't see or hear Micheal Myers ripping someones innards, outwards. I digress.

The point is, Joe User is the reason there is a support market to begin with. Joe User says not everyone in the world is or wants to be a Geek. ( Geek meant in the chummy, computer oriented person way ).

So, this begs the further question, what are the further derivations of Joe User? maybe Joe Geek or Joe Newbie-but-wants-to-be-a-Geek?

Can Joe NbwtbaG install Linux on his own?

Maybe with some docs or a forum to help? Why I bet he sure can. Why? Because he is still not Joe User who doesn't want to be a Geek and therefore has no interest in installing an OS in the first place.

Linux has stretched the boundaries of imagination when it comes to ease of install, especially when it comes to LiveCD's.

Of course, our Geek friends reading this will say " But what about when they have to partition? virtually ALL installers insist on partitioning and even more so on a dual boot machine."

This is true. Almost all ( I think it is all but can't prove it, so I say "virtually" all ) installers enter a partitioning phase at some point.

Much as I hate to bring it into the conversation again, even windows forces partitioning choices onto the person wanting to install it. the difference is, Windows gives no opportunity or option to accommodate for any other OS that may already exist or may end up sharing the hard drive with it.

Yet, for the relatively simple partitioning phase that Windows enters, I have received more than a few calls on "What do I do now?" from the Joe Users of the world installing Windows.

Is ANY OS "there" when it comes to installing then? I have yet to meet it.

In truth, Linux has more important things to worry about in regard to being"there" in terms of usability AFTER the install.

What about UDF CD/ DVD RW. or drag n drop transfers to said UDF cdrw's etc? Nope, still not "there".

What about printing, I know a fella who positively rails at the Linux community o enter the world of "real" printing, wanting some very high 'bits" and not just RBG or KBG or whatever the printing "thingies" are ( I am not a printing oriented person, is it obvious? ) What I do know is that Linux drags behind in that area as well according to printing people in the know.

How about a "serious" PDF editing/creating app for Linux? Still not "There" yet either.

So, if Linux is not "There" yet, where is it?

I will tell you. Even with those things not ready for primetime yet, what Linux does, it does very, very well and I can tell you, without a doubt exactly where it is.

It's on my computers.

Big Bear

Linux is NOT a replacement.

Have you ever gone through a forum or been reading through news/blog sites and counted the number of references to " If you want to convert windows users...", or " you can replace windows with...".

Give it a shot sometime, you'll lose count. The popular but misguided concept that Linux is a replacement for Windows is out of control. There is nothing to be gained from "competing" against Windows but stress and frustration.

Linux, as described by the man who made the Linux kernel, had nothing to do with windows at all. It had more to do with creativity, a personal challenge and not having enough money to buy a shiny new OS for a computer.

Linux shouldn't try to replace Windows, because inevitably, that which seeks to replace, becomes.

Which is duplicitous at best. Why have two OS's that are the same? You can have an OS that does the same thing, work on the computer, but do it in a way that goes about it on it's own, without trying to imitate, duplicate or replicate another.

Due to the nature of an Operating System, the outcome is going to be the same anyway. Your computer will be able to be used and perform with hardware and provide output in a variety of ways.

That's it. That's what an OS does. not much more to it.

Where many many people get lost is in the fact that there are many programs and applications that come with an OS to make life for the user a bit easier in using the computer right away instead of having to hunt down or buy applications before they can use it.

In the strictest sense of the word, Operating system, Linux is incredible, it's durable, stable, consistent, it just flat out performs. end of story. It's a success.

Let's discuss applications for a bit now. Because that's where the problem is. because so many apps are delivered already installed on an OS, Both on Linux and Windows, it's a marketing strategy, people have blurred the line between OS and apps.

Microsoft is a multifaceted company. They have a dept that just makes the OS. They have another that makes applications. See where this is going yet? It's in their best interest to install apps, their apps, at least trial versions or free versions, on the OS they ship because it offers sales leads for the apps side and offers out of the box usability for the OS side.

Many users of Linux see the plethora of apps that come pre-installed in many distros and assume something similar. In actuality, it is a collection of apps written by amateurs, pros that work for other companies and companies that make software on their own, with no distinct connection to any OS.

Big difference here. One makes apps with the OS, the other simply makes the OS. nothing else. A huge community of folks provide the apps.

So, the argument that "I don't want to switch to Linux because I don't want to learn new apps" is correct, but, it bears on the apps, not the OS. To suggest that Linux, the OS is deficient in some way because the apps don't look or work the way you like them too is the wrong way to look at it.

Linux was not originally a replacement OS. It was a project that became something great. It was meant to stand on it's own and not be measured against anything but what an OS should do, not what the other OS does.

It should stay that way. Linux doesn't need Windows to be successful. It only needs to be the best it can be and it would be great if apps makers would use some creativity and imagination writing apps to run on it. It's not all that hard, there are a lot of very good apps out there already result of some of that creativity.

Linux is Linux, Windows is Windows, Two totally different OS's that do the job of running a computer in their own way and trying to make them the same is the wrong way to go. Enjoy the difference.

Big Bear

Journalism ( or the lack of it )

In the Linux world, there are scores of articles and news items written just like everything else. And, just like in everything else, there is an abundance of writers who cannot write an article or a news piece without inserting their own opinion or agenda.

In the "regular" tv and print news magazines, tv new programs etc, there is almost no such thing as true "journalism" anymore. We find ourselves assaulted constantly by items that insist on telling us if the information or event is good, bad, smart, dumb, or any number of things.

The "true" journalist is concerned with facts. that's it. That's why it's called journalism to begin with. They are supposed to document events and things as they happen. sticking only to the factual details as they pertain to the situation.

I recently read an article in which the writer seriously related Microsoft as a company to someone raping a person's daughter. That is not only irresponsible, it adds nothing to the story itself, an example of writers injecting opinion and dramatic wording only to excite and incite readers. To make their article "sell able" because it will generate conflict and draw on readers emotions.

What the world needs is some true journalists to band together and print the news. Let the readers decide for themselves what conclusions they should come to.

Help us Build Linux Geeks United

Linux Geeks United, the home of Polar Bears and Penguins, is looking for some people interested in helping all Linux users develop, grow and learn in a Distro neutral and friendly community. We present the "NextStep" idea of learning Linux. Which is basically where do I go to move beyond "noobie'? Lot's of great distro oriented sites often find themselves focusing on providing assistance to users who are new to their Distro and often, new to Linux entirely. Once someone finds themself wanting to learn more about Linux beyond the "noobie" stage, they are many times on their own. There is a plethora of documents and advanced information available, but not always presented in a way to ask questions of someone or share working examples, to see it in action.

Linux Geeks United is a forum dedicated to presenting Linux as more than a collection of distros but as a robust, cohesive OS that offers versatility, stability and adaptability. We strive to avoid the FUD and war-waging that goes on between OS's and distros and focus instead on how we can make the best use of linux and become the best we can be at using it.

We are looking for mods to patrol their favorite distro forum for decent language and to answer questions and provide info about the distro. Mods also provide reviews and posts on any number of other topics.

Admins will be able to take on specialty fields and we rely on them to over see whole categories of topics. Not that we expect them to be "Guru's" or pros, but the willingness to answer questions, research the filed and help with what they can.

Admins also provide new, unique material for our blog/newsletter resource, "Polar Bears and Penguins"

It is a volunteer position and there are some expectations to be active and involved, but this has the potential to be a great site for a lot of Linux users who are moving beyond the "newbie" phase of their Linux experience.

Come on over and help us to build an open, helpful Linux community.

Linux, money, making a living and striking it rich.

Linux is shaking a lot of things up. not just Operating Systems and applications either.

Linux and open source is having an impact on business models and entrepreneurship as well. It is changing how people look at making money with Linux.

Here in the U.S. People dream of the Big Hit, striking it rich with a bombshell that sells for huge bucks. Whole corporations exist simply to find the next Big Hit. They pour countless hundreds and thousands of development hours into software that will be the next wildly successful and madly popular, can't live without app.

Obviously, some darn good software has indeed come from it. True, much of it is geared towards being used ONLY on the MS Windows OS, but the fact is, MS has been dang near the only game in town for quite a We're not going to get into the legitimacy or legalities of how they accomplished that, but suffice it to say, they have managed to keep their OS in the limelight.

MS is not only the King of proprietary software, they "own" the proprietary business model as well. They almost pioneered it.

find an app that fills an established need ( or want ) and throw it out for scads of money, limiting it to only using it one one system and in limited capacity.

people are almost forced to pay for it if they want to be remotely productive. Sure, they can use the shareware and freeware that's available, but how much of it is really worth a nickel? For every thousand freeware/shareware apps available, you find maybe one Firefox or OpenOffice.

There's another type of person out there. The ambitious programmer or developer who doesn't want to get rich as much as they want to get known. They wouldn't mind being rich, but will gladly accept making a good living and are willing to be creative and ambitious and offer a killer app for use on Linux that can do what the "big boys" do, only in Linux. He or she will be willing to charge only $20 for the disk and also make a good business out of providing training and support for using their great new app/tool.

Where is the Linux customer who is willing to pony up the 20 to buy the app. instead of insisting that the best software be free in both the Free thinking and free beer ideologies?

The free beer analogy is the worst thing to ever hit Linux. It creates whiny, cheapskate "users" ( in more way than one ) who are only willing to support an open market and open source as long as it costs them absolutely nothing in time or money.

I am in no way saying that all or perhaps even most of Linux users are this type, but it can't be denied this is not a small bunch of people who make themselves be known in the Linux world.

If Linux wants to make it to the "next stage" of survival and development, it is going to take the users to be willing to put out a little cash for some really good products and it will take some non greedy, creative developers to be willing to make these apps and tools and not charge an arm and a leg for them, but be satisfied for "making a living" instead of "striking it rich".