New article in the Economist criticizing Linux usability

Sun Apr 8 02:17:43 UTC 2012

Actually I beg to differ with your assertions.  Linux is an operating
system, which can be applied to many uses.  What you're saying is that the
people that you've noted, such as engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc., would
not benefit from using Linux.  In fact, I feel that these are the target
market that developers should be seeking to ensure wider adoption.  In other
words, Linux is only for high school kids and those without real work to do
on their computer.  If that's the case, then I'll stop using it immediately,
since it seems that I have no real use for Linux.

Alex Gabriel

Dimensia Design Studio

alexgabriel-Nmj6Sl6vboSovDFt+AQlJdBPR1lH4CV8 at public.gmane.org

From: owner-tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org [mailto:owner-tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of charles
chris
Sent: April-07-12 10:10 PM
To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [TLUG]: New article in the Economist criticizing Linux
usability

Hey!  Linux is for people who live on Facebook and YouTube.  They download
videos, songs, copy and make DVD, burn audio CD, perform basic picture and
video editing, create resume, etc. Conduct research on the Internet

They may need Skype to work with an internal webcam:  We need hacks here!

Linux is NOT for graphic artists/desktop publishers/printers, video editors
Linux is NOT for tax preparers, financial services people
Linux is NOT for engineers who use Autocad 
Linux is NOT for doctors and lawyers
Linux is NOT for the near blind who need ZoomText!

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Alex Gabriel
<alexgabriel-Nmj6Sl6vboSovDFt+AQlJdBPR1lH4CV8 at public.gmane.org> wrote:

While I applaud the scale of the vision you put forth, I do see a number of
issues that would arise as a result of these deployments, of which three of
the most pertinent [in my mind at least] are noted below.

1.       Training - who is going to ensure that the end users are familiar
enough with Linux to ensure they continue to use it, and don't revert to
Windows/Mac?

2.       Support - please provide details on the individuals willing to
provide ongoing support for 1248 Linux deployments per year.

3.       Compatibility - many programs released today, for which users may
or may not have paid money, are developed specifically for a particular
platform.  Sure, it may be possible to show them that free alternatives are
superior to the closed source versions they've used, but they will be
resistant to such knowledge.

While I think that your plan could work in general, it's not bloody likely
going to do so because, really, most users are accustomed to Windows or Mac
OS.  As a result, even if you do deploy Linux as much as expected, there's
nothing to prevent an individual user [or large groups of users] from
migrating back to an alternate [i.e. more comfortable for them] operating
system.

Given the propensity of individuals to resist drastic change, I sincerely
doubt such action would have lasting effect, on the scale you've envisioned.
I see no problem with trying it, of course, I simply think that it won't
reach the proportions you may expect.

Alex Gabriel

Dimensia Design Studio

alexgabriel-Nmj6Sl6vboSovDFt+AQlJdBPR1lH4CV8 at public.gmane.org

From: owner-tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org [mailto:owner-tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of charles
chris
Sent: April-07-12 8:52 PM
To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [TLUG]: New article in the Economist criticizing Linux
usability

Well I am going to do my part to help deploy Linux.  However, I need the
help of others.

I envision weekly deployments onto 2 dozen machines. That's 1, 248
deployments annually.  If all local groups could match this pace then 1
million Linux deployments is possible annually nationally or throughout
North America.

I believe weekly 10am - 10pm, 12 hour shifts should produce 24 Linux
deployments onto computers brought in by the general public.
These Linux deployments would be offered as free computer repairs.

That's 1 million new Linux users each year!

So far I have deployed Linux onto 4 computers (1 mac and 3 PCs) belonging to
4 different paying customers.  Feedback so far has been positive!

Remember my image of Linux is barely 30 days old!

Another high growth usage market would be Africa, the Caribbean, China,
India, etc.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:

| From: charles chris <cccharlz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>

| The usage of Linux can be greatly increased by providing an easy
| deployment method to computer stores, recyclers and non profits like
| Free Geek Toronto and Computers for schools in Mississauga.

This is the second message where you seem to be saying:

1) "what Linux needs is X"

2) as if that were the answer to the problems listed in the Economist
  column

3) where X is already the case

Perhaps you need to phrase your answers in the form of a question
"Does Linux have X?".

As I understand it, Free Geek does deploy Linux on their used
computers.

| Many computer stores do NOT load Windows on used computers because
| they cannot afford the license fees.

I don't know.  Used computers aren't that common in stores -- new
computers are so inexpensive now and old computers are usually weaker
/ obsolete.

There are a few places that sell off-lease computers.  They don't load
OSes because it is labour intensive (off lease computers that I've
bought usually have stickers with Windows licenses).

|  Recyclers and non profit
| organizations like Computers for Schools in Mississauga and Reboot
| Canada should deploy Linux onto the computers they donate or sell.

I think that they do.  It scares Microsoft enough that they have a
program for cheap or free licenses for some operations like this just
to crowd out Linux.

| Also, good support is needed to help people with Linux boxes install
| peripherals.

Labour intensive!

These days, skilled labour to deal with that kind of random minutae
would seriously increase the cost of a used computer.

The arithmetic of recycling most things is like this.  When producing
a computer in the first place, the runs are 10k to a million (pure
guess), resulting in economies of scale.  With recycling computers, you are
lucky if you get any run at all.  Think of Walmart vs Value Village --
the run lengths have drastic effects.

The hardest computers to deal with are the most worthless: the oldest.
Although I use computers that are a dozen years old, it makes no
practical sense to redeploy a machine older than perhaps four years
old.  As a hobby, the rules are different (my oldest hobby computer is
approaching 40 years old; older if you count my sliderules).

There are stores that sell used Macs.  I think that this is viable because

1) the Mac world has much less diversity than the PC world

2) Macs retain their value much more than PCs

3) the stores selling used computers gain an edge selling new ones
  since they can offer to take the old ones in trade.

| I believe my method of deploying operating systems onto standalone
| computers is most efficient.  See http://drpcdr.ca/LMLXDE.pdf

A pretty strong claim.  Since you haven't even enumerated let alone
discussed other methods, I find that hard to credit.

Do you know the other methods?  Heard of Kickstart?  PXE booting?  Live
Fedora or Ubuntu CDs?  And there are plenty more.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists

-- 
http://drpcdr.ca
http://jobcircle.ca
416 398 3772 <tel:416%20398%203772>  OR 647 453 3327 <tel:647%20453%203327> 

-- 
http://drpcdr.ca
http://jobcircle.ca
416 398 3772 OR 647 453 3327

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20120407/38d00fa9/attachment.html>