[techtalk] Desktop OS?

[Michelle Murrain]

At 3:47 PM -0400 6/5/01, Martin.Caitlyn at epamail.epa.gov wrote:
>Hi yet again Michelle :)
>
>This has been a really good running dialogue, hasn't it?

Indeed it has!
<snipped lots of things I think we have come to an agreement on - 
points well taken, and I agree with your analysis of windoze, 
actually>

One comment about the issue relating to the default installation of 
lots of stuff in Linux distros. One problem is that unless the folks 
putting the distro together are really focused on security, 
installing all of those extra things leads to the possibility of all 
sorts of security holes that one needs to know something to deal 
with. The fact that these days, a larger and larger percentage of 
people are sitting at the end of fatter pipes with much longer living 
IP addresses makes this even more of an important issue. Security has 
got to become user friendly too!

That said, Windoze certainly isn't secure - so I'm not making that 
argument at all!!!

One thing we didn't mention, which will make everyone's life a lot 
easier, and will do lots to move Linux forward, is Linux Standard 
Base. Anyone know what stage that's in? Does that have any hope of 
making it?

>Look at what you are saying.  You're not saying GIMP is in any way inferior
>to Photoshop.  You're saying it isn't marketed well (or at all).  I agree.
>Many of the "subsititute" apps are truly excellent, and GIMP is a wonderful
>example.  Konqueror and Mozilla are excellent alternatives to Internet
>Explorer, but how many people know about them?  The thing we, the Linux
>community, needs to do if we want Linux to become mainstream is to educate
>the public and to teach them that they shouldn't have to pay for
>applications, period.  We need to convince them that they are throwing
>their money away.  That is key.  The thing is, do we, the Linux community,
>ever want it to truly go mainstream?  Can we fight it if companies like IBM
>($1 billion invested in Linux this year alone) decide that they should take
>it to the mainstream desktop?  Food for thought.

This is actually, I think, the crux of the issue. There is no 
question that some of the "substitute" apps are as good as the "real" 
ones - and given time to mature, many will become better. The problem 
is, how do we as the Linux community market products that are free? 
But who has the time or energy, when one is pretty busy trying to 
make a living? Photoshop is well marketed because Photoshop costs 
money, and they use some of that money in marketing. Apache, 
PostgreSQL, mySQL, sendmail, etc., the cool server tools we all use 
and love, depend not on marketing so much as the knowledge base of 
the folks (geeks, mostly) responsible for implementing those 
applications. I always thought it was really stupid for IBM, or 
Oracle to advertise on TV. What's the point? People use those server 
tools because they know about them technically, or, in some cases, 
it's what's easily available (like people who use IIS, SQL server and 
Exchange because they got a copy of Back Office with their server.)

But the kinds of tools we use and like, like the Gimp, have no such 
economic backing. They are developed by a bunch of geeks in their 
spare time, and they give the product away. How can that be matched?

But the truth is, we are up against a lot more than just the 
marketing $ of big software. Not paying for software (and therefore, 
not getting money making it either) goes against the dominant 
paradigm of the software industry - hell - it goes against the 
dominant paradigm of everything! Most people buy software in CompUSA, 
or stores like that. Well, those stores are never going to have free 
software in them. So in a sense, it's a catch-22. The apps don't get 
good publicity, and aren't easy to find - so Linux languishes on the 
desktop.

>Isn't it sad that if we make Linux successful we inevitably destroy it for
>ourselves?  That is ironic, IMHO.

Actually, I thought of something - the beauty of Linux is that it's 
UNIX. UNIX has such a strong foundation. If I wanted to, I could 
spend lots of time on the command line of MacOS X, and compile and 
add new window managers, etc. Linux is actually an OS that could 
evolve some really user-friendly front ends, but still be a nice 
place for geeks to play with. I'm sure once the KDE/GNOME/Whatever 
battle is settled, someone will come up with a new incredibly 
powerful and totally incomprehensible window manager (maybe 3-D???) 
that we can all be happy with. :-)

Michelle
--