On Aug 9, 10:41 pm, "[H]omer" <s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just say "no Viruses or Malware". That ought to get their attention.
Possibly, but not entirely true.
>
> And yes, GNU/Linux is cheaper (and paradoxically better). Breaking that
> stigma will be difficult.
>
I find the best way to break it is to explain that the people who work
on Linux make money from donations and sales of commercial versions
(not entirely true, since kernel programmers make no money from Red
Hat sales, etc.). Linux is properly funded, it just has managed to
make the software free while receiving funding.
> Have you used Mac OS X? It is *not* very similar to GNU/Linux at all I'm
> afraid. It is a proprietary GUI (Aqua) slapped onto a heavily hacked
> BSD-ish back-end (Darwin).
Not exactly the same, but its Unix roots, the presence of a Terminal
(despite a Terminal many users have never seen) and more make it much
closer then Windows. Then again, with all of the modification
possible, I assume that a Linux desktop could be made to look/function
very similarly to Mac or Windows (without adding support for
proprietary software or losing functionality, of course).
> As for the learning curve; learning something from scratch is never
> easy, but GNU/Linux is no more difficult to grasp than any other OS. The
> "difficulty" is in the perception. People already have *familiarity*
> with Windows, therefore everything else seems like a potentially hostile
> environment. There's no point in trying to convince them that it will be
> "easy", but rather one should try to motivate them in other ways, to
> convince them that the effort will be worth it.
Exactly. Different, not difficult. Essentially, any OS without a start
button is inherently "harder" to use then Windows to a Windows user
(not even mentioning the scary looking terminals. If you have the
ability to show off Linux, show off Beryl, not Apache).
> Having said that, IMO modern distros are trivially easy to install and
> use, and there are many reports on the .Net of GNU/Linux noobs having no
> difficulty grasping it at all. I suppose it just depends on the individual.
Some modern distros. Gentoo is modern, but designed to appeal to the
group that wants control over everything. Ubuntu, Mandrake, and Debian
have beautiful UI installers.
> This is a deeply essential element of GNU/Linux, but I wouldn't hit a
> noob with this on day one, it'll just intimidate him.
Hence the reason it was low on the list. This is still useful if the
person you are talking to has some skill with computers/computer
programming. Anyone who took a basic CS class in high school should be
able to pick up shell scripting (even if they took it 20 years ago).
> True, but then GNU/Linux software development is an order of magnitude
> more accessible than proprietary platforms too, since the toolchains,
> IDEs, APIs, toolkits, etc., are free (and Free), and there are vast
> communities for development support. Anyone with an inkling to
> participate can do so with little effort. Proprietary software
> development, OTOH, is expensive and secretive; immediately precluding
> all but the most determined (and affluent) participants.
Certainly there are Linux-only Open Source IDEs and APIs, but the vast
majority work on Windows and Mac as well. Many times software
(including programming tools) is created for Linux, then made
available on other platforms, since people want to have a larger
possible audience (like Firefox).
I do agree that these tools are more talked about on Linux platforms.
The huge proprietary tools are not made available on Linux, so
programmers are forced to find alternatives.
> I think you'd be surprised how many people "would if they could" engage
> in software development. I was writing programs when I was 12 years old,
> purely because the information was available and it fascinated me.
Most of my friends find it interesting that I know how to program, but
express no interest in learning how, even when I tell them it is
simple. I think that it is one of those things where if you enjoy it,
you know early on (I personally was interested since I was 8, when I
checked out a book on C++ from the library. Of course, I didn't
understand a thing in it, but I learned a few types of Basic and Java,
then went back to Python and Perl, and finally learned a bit about C/C+
+).
> That's a true, but weak argument. A better one might be to talk about
> overall efficiency - e.g. look at the machine spec required to run Aero,
> versus the spec required to run Compiz. GNU/Linux is just a leaner,
> meaner system. Cheaper *and* faster. That's the convincing argument.
True, but speed and security were my first point. The file system
seems like a small deal, but it is very important-it is much of what
makes the system faster, technically, and makes data more safe and
stable. After finding an entire folder missing (well, to be completely
accurate, ***not*** finding a folder) on Windows, I started backing up
all my Win files to my Linux drive (there are certain applications I
need, and that I cannot get to run in Linux, like Flash CS3).
> > 10. Add on to fit your audience.
>
> Yes, everyone has their own unique interest, and there's something for
> everyone in GNU/Linux, but I've found it much easier to point out the
> very obvious crippling flaws in Windows, than try to second-guess what
> might interest someone in GNU/Linux. Potential switchers are already
> painfully aware of what it's like to run Windows, and walk the upgrade
> treadmill - continually reminding them of the futility of what they
> endure, versus the far less painful alternatives, is probably the most
> effective advocacy; unless one is talking to a brainwashed fanboy, in
> which case they're a lost cause anyway.
The "potential switchers are already painfully aware of what its like
to run Windows" part is the key. Most Microsoft bashers are actually,
indeed, Windows users. People using Mac/Linux/Insert OS here don't
care enough. The thing is, if the only way to prop yourself up is to
crush others, you do not deserve to be proped up in the first place.
Yes, Windows has its flaws-but they don't make Linux better, they just
make Windows worse. If all someone argued was that Windows was a
crappy OS, they are just as likely to get me to switch to Mac as
Linux. Not to mention that you should not call anyone who stands by
Windows a "brainwashed fanboy." Microsoft did not brainwash them-just
because you believe that Windows has too many fallacies to be a
reliable OS does not mean they have to-perhaps they understand
computers and believe that Linux's flaws are too much (can't recover
files easy, lack of drivers for some hardware, minimal corporate
support (that is, few corporations supporting Linux usage of products,
including software and hardware companies), etc.). Really, there is no
need to say that "Windows is bad" when "Linux is better" works just as
well. Either way you are downing one and supporting the other-just it
is much more positive to point out the good in one then the bad in
another. Not to mention that if you want to switch a Mac user, all
your argument just died.
-Dylan
|
|
