"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sad654-eg5.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
> <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Yes, this is exactly my intent. People don't know what they want.
>> They
>> *think* they want Linux to look like XP. So we give them a Linux
>> distribution which looks like XP. Then they play with it a bit and
>> realize
>> that this isn't what they want after all. Instead, they want Linux to
>> *act*
>> like XP. And we're progressively getting closer to what it is these
>> people
>> *truly* want.
>
> Careful. I'm not sure users, Linux or otherwise, want
> an XP interface, despite the massive amounts of research
> money Microsoft has presumably poured thereinto. (Did the
> research group postulate a search doggie and an animated
> paper clip? :-) )
Right. I'm not saying that users *want* an XP interface. I'm saying that
they *claim* they want an XP interface. By giving them an XP interface in
Linux, we either discover that they really did want an XP interface (in
which case everybody is happy), or else we discover that they didn't really
want an XP interface, and now we're slightly closer at finding out what it
is they actually want.
[...]
>> You're right. These are all significant issues. We may all agree here
>> that ActiveX at worst was a dumb idea and at best was an okay idea but
>> poorly executed, but some users *want* their browsers to support ActiveX
>> (if
>> only because the use a bank or other financial institution whose website
>> requires it).
>
> As you've probably already noticed, there are multiple issues here.
>
> - The bank interface wants ActiveX.
> - The bank may have subcontracted with a company who likes to develop
> websites which use ActiveX.
> - Microsoft may have leaned on the bank (or the subcontractor) to
> use ActiveX.
Right, but from the user's point of view, I suspect they don't really
care about any of this, and will just take the path of least resistence. If
it works on XP, but doesn't work on Linux, then they're going to use XP,
regardless of whether Microsoft is evil or not.
>
>> People who want Linux to be "better" than Windows would
>> probably consider implementing ActiveX support to be a step backwards,
>> and
>> would actively fight it.
>
> Define "better". I have problems with such a generalized metric.
> (Probably comes from being a software engineer too long. :-) )
I didn't want to, as I didn't have the energy, hence the scare quotes,
to emphasize that I'm being vague about "better". Basically, the people who
want Linux to be "better" than Windows are the people who think making Linux
more like Windows would be detrimental to Linux.
> After all, ActiveX is a powerful, flexible system (too powerful
> and flexible, as it turned out) and exists in more controlled,
> limited forms in OpenOffice, Java's JEditorPane, and Web browsers
> (applets and Flash).
I'm not saying ActiveX is better than Java applets or anything like
that. In fact, I'm avoiding saying whether anything is better than anything
else. I'm making speculations about public perception. I'm guessing what
other people may think is better in a given scenario, without saying what
*I* think is better.
I'm saying there's a group of people who want their computers to "just
work" with their ActiveX using banking site will prefer whatever software
stack (OS, browser, etc.) which supports ActiveX. I'm also saying there's a
group of people who think Linux is already better than Windows, and to make
Linux more like Windows would be to make Linux less good (a step backwards).
And of course, I'm not saying either of these groups of people are right
or wrong about their beliefs. This is all opinion, and everybody's entitled
to one. Personally, I don't like ActiveX, so lack of ActiveX support isn't a
drawback of Linux in my eyes.
>> People who want Linux to be a "replacement" for
>> Windows want it to emulate Window's behaviour, poor design decisions and
>> all, like you said. This is why I really don't think getting people to
>> switch to Linux is as easy as some of the posters here seem to imply, and
>> why I'm trying to point out that a lot of the so-called "advocacy"
>> techniques I see employed in this newsgroup simply aren't all that
>> effective.
>
> What effectiveness? We beef here. Might be useful. :-)
I guess I sometimes imagine this group as a club for advocates to gather
and share advocacy strategies. If Roy would stick primarily to pro-Linux
stories in his [News] posting, that'd be great, because we'd all learn about
these stories and can use them in our advocacy efforts. For example, I had
never heard of Amarok or Zimbra before subscribing to this group. But now I
know of them, and they're really great looking Linux-only programs. I can
point to them as some of the really cool software that's available for
Linux.
I think this demonstrating-the-strength-of-Linux is more effective in
converting people than telling them "Hey, you know, the Zune really sucks."
or "Apparently, Microsoft's stock is falling, but they're trying to hide
it." or "The XBox360 tends to overheat", etc.
>
>>
>> I *want* more people to switch to Linux.
>
> Why?
Explained in the next sentence.
>
>> Having more people use Linux
>> will make my life as a Linux user easier, via the network effect.
>
> Too vague. I'll admit there's a plus in having more Linux users out
> there (for starters, support people won't give one funny looks over the
> telephone), but other than that, it's far from clear whether we want
> more Linux users, more people aware of Linux, or simply more choices
> of which one is Linux.
I'm not speaking about what *we* want. I'm speaking about what *I* want.
And *I* want more people to switch to Linux. That's clear to me. More people
aware of Linux sort of automatically comes bundled with more people to
switch to Linux. As for more choices, I'm open to the idea, but I don't
expect anything to come along to displace the three big ones (Linux, MacOSX,
Windows) for the dekstop, so I'm not going to put much effort into
advocating, say, QNX to home users.
>> And since
>> I want more people to switch to Linux, I want the people in this
>> newsgroup
>> to become more effective advocates, so that they can actually convert
>> more
>> people. Unfortunately, when I criticize a person's particular advocacy
>> strategy, they seem to interpret it as a criticism of Linux itself, and
>> thus
>> label me a troll or a Windows advocate (in the pejorative sense).
>>
>> As a recent convert, I'm trying to shed some light on the thought
>> process of a typical Windows user, but my advice seems to be largely
>> ignored
>> here.
>
> Try the thought process of a typical *user*, Windows or otherwise, and
> you may hit closer to the mark.
Perhaps, but that's not my area of expertise. I'm not sure I have more
insight than the others on this group about what a typical user, Windows or
otherwise, might be thinking, but I'm confident I do have more insight on
what a Windows user is thinking. I try to contribute in the ways that I can.
> It may also depend on the task: one
> might play games, browse the Web, compose research papers, or send
> messages to relatives.
I don't know much about the light-gamers, but I suspect Linux is
adequate (and in fact, better than Windows) in that regard. Windows has 2
card games, minesweeper, and pinball. Most Linux distributions I know come
with much more than that, and the Mahjong game is very addictive.
Browse the web is very good on Linux. There's just the issue of ActiveX
(which is thorny, as discussed above) and some versions of
Flash/Shockwave/Something-like-that? I haven't encountered either of these
issues, which only highlights how minor I think they are: So Linux gets a
very good grade here, but not a perfect one.
For research papers, I haven't played with OpenOffice Writer much, but
last time I did, it didn't feel quite as nice as Microsoft Word. I don't
have the energy right now to go into a in-depth analysis of the so-called
"problems" with Writer, though.
Send messages to relatives is one thing. Typically, there's one "geek"
in the family, and everyone else is a non-geek. And so sending messages
tends to fall to the lowest common denominator, which means not using fancy
features, and just doing plain text. Sending messages to friends is another.
Geeks tend to have friends who are also geeks, and so you'll see these
cliques exploiting the full power of their messaging software. There's a lot
of features in MSN that Gaim hasn't implemented. And so I use GAIM to
replace AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, etc., but I keep the official MSN client around.
- Oliver
|
|
