[svlug] Fedora or Ubuntu for novis

[Chris Miller]

Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008, Chris Miller wrote:
> 
>> Up until two years ago Linux on the desktop was cumbersome unless you
>> had a machine that was more or less hand-picked for Linux compatibility.
> 
> This is debatable, IMO.
> 
> I think it was very usable in the late 90s when I was working at VA, and
> a good number of folks had IT manage their system and were able to get
> their work done just fine.

If your hardware wasn't just right though....  you could try
ndiswrapper, or maybe you'd have to just live with no hardware graphics
acceleration because ATI couldn't get their act together with their
drivers... or oops, your modem isn't supported, sorry.

To me it's cumbersome if it doesn't work out of the box (maybe just
apt-get a few drivers), but anything more technical beyond that and it
annoys me.  I'll move to a distro which doesn't make me do that.  More
to the point, you just lost that kid who's just dabbling with Linux and
finds that it doesn't work as well as Windows.  To him, he sees Windows
install and work.  If Linux cannot do that, then logic dictates that
it's not as good.

It's getting much better, even in the last two years.  It recovers from
hardware driver mishaps better, and responds to a lack of drivers
better.  The drivers are also getting more filled-in, stable, and more
universal.  In other words, give it another two or three years at this
pace, and you could really see Linux giving Microsoft a really big run
for their money.

>> You're missing the point of Open-Source.  It's not about controlling
>> the source and who gets to use it - it's about /not/ controlling the
>> source and who gets to use it.
> 
> I agree with you, but think you may have missed my point. What I was
> trying to point out is that companies who work in open source don't
> always develop with that intention, nor do they think about the
> community before their own interest. As an example, a company makes
> changes to open source, but doesn't push the changes upstream. This gets
> worse for the ones that sell services, support, or make distributions
> from open source.

Yes, the unwillingness to share alike is depressing.  But Open-Source is
viral.  If they don't send out their modifications to the world, then
their modifications aren't included in the process or community
development.  This means two things:

1) Any changes they make will have the potential to conflict with
changes introduced from the community.  This means merging source, which
introduces bugs, which takes time and money.

2) They are debugging all of their changes by themselves.  They loose
all benefits of community development.

It's just easier for them to keep it public.  Sooner or later they will
realize this.  And they will change.

>> The best one is that Adobe is getting requests from special effects
>> studios for a Linux port of Photoshop.  Apparently it's cheaper to run
>> Linux than it is OS X or Windows.
> 
> I don't know how you quantify that, what does "apparently" actually mean
> in this context?

Oh, there was some Microsoft propoganda about four or five years back
which cited some rigged study to say that the total cost of ownership
for a Windows IT infrastructure was less than a Linux IT infrastructure.
 Which is total bull:

1) Windows licenses cost lots of money.  Desktop licenses, server
licenses, exchange licenses...  yuk!

2) Windows-trained IT guys cost lots of money.  They have pretty
certifications and education that lets them hold up their employers for
more money.  Linux guys...  not as much.

So apparently after those probably very expensive studies, Linux is
cheaper after all.

>> They want to sell contracts.  If open-source becomes a better means to
>> that end, then they will come in relatively quickly. Until you can
>> find a way to demonstrate that Andriod is a better way to make their
>> phones more attractive to customers, then they will not budge.
> 
> I want them to sell contracts, and I want them to do it with open
> source. I will buy my service from them if they provide me service for
> an open source phone.

So do I, but are there enough other people that think the same way?