Reply to “Five crucial things the Linux community doesn’t understand about the average computer user”
May 23rd, 2007A couple of points (not in the order of your arguments) [with edits to my original reply]:
1. *Desktop* linux is brand new — it, and the dozens of application software projects necessary to make a desktop linux go has only begun to come together over the past two or three years. To wit: Ubuntu, now the most popular distro, is only four years old. Keep in mind this principle: once you written the third or fourth version of something like .pdf/web viewers, or word processors, little further innovation is needed. How much different is MS Word 95 from 98, 2000, XP, or 2007/8, or Abiword and OpenOffice for that matter? Not much. MS got the word processor gui right when it still was on the Mac, where it ironically began. So, there will be an open source equivalent for every type of software, and many are just now getting to an 85% to 95% equivalency to their proprietary cousins.
2. If you have any doubt as to the profound power of a monopolist to retain control of markets without juridical oversight, or of the mechanics thereof, it might be time to take a cursory review of Microsoft’s misdeeds, or of Standard Oil’s.
The latest catastrophe about to be visited on world wide consumers by the prostrate and corrupt US legal system? Vista’s draconian DRM.
Here’s an excellent run-down of what will probably result in the break-up of Microsoft, or the US loss of software hegemony: A Cost Analysis of Vista Content Protection, by Peter Gutmann.
3. Everything you say regarding Linux based Desktop environments’ need to pay attention to gui usability, and to test, is spot on. Gnome still feels clumsy, and KDE does fine, once cleaned up by somebody like the Ubuntu project. Gnome and KDE are vastly improved from even a year or two ago, as are many of the other window managers out there.
4. Diversity in Linux distributions is a strength, not a weakness. You badly underestimate the scale of development unleashed by open sourced software. In addition, what you’ve said is akin to arguing that the West has been hurt by the free exchange of knowledge that characterizes its universities; that a closed, peer-reviewless, proprietary system of academic inquiry would serve humankind the best. This is demonstrably false.
The US constitution of 1787 sought to balance the need to reward innovation with the need for open academic inquiry. From the the broken US patent system to the DMCA, to the moribund state of US Anti-trust enforcement, this system is now in dire need of reform.
The plethora of linux distributions, ranging from 50 MB fully functional gui’d desktop environments to multi-gig distros such as Ubuntu, openSuse, et al., to embedded systems vetted for stability — the Linux ecosystem’s diversity is a testament to the virtues of free inquiry, the absurdity of patenting software, and the novel scale of intellectual work made possible by the internet.
5. The command-line: this is just silly. The command line exists on Windows boxes. One can hack the registry or talk to the OS via the Windows API, or, conversely, one can never see a jot of code on a Windows box, same as on Linux boxes. If Linux desktop environment and application users too often are subjected to command-line fixes, that just supports your argument that desktop oriented Linux environments still need work. That work is progressing at an astonishing speed, thanks again to the scale of development made possible by the internet and open access to code.
What I have found, however, is that the Windows command-line environment is gravely impoverished compared to Unix/Linux. Yes, I have done extensive work on both platforms. The Microsoft command line environment has come a long way, but it still lacks the depth and richness that the Unix/Linux environment possesses.
The article that this post is a reply too: Five crucial things … .