How to help / support Linux ? - your idea's

[crazycheese]

I don't know if that asbestos suit is meant to kill you or us.


Linux needs more third party software support. We need more companies producing proprietary, closed source software that you have to pay for.

No we don't need it. While for some extremely rare cases proprietary closed source is the only way (and even this is HIGHLY questionable as recent case with default & recommended so(!) passwords on Siemens system running on outdated Visual Basic(!!) on top of Windows(!!!) driving Nuclear plant in Iran clearly shows) due to the extremely small market(like live television mixing system, inclusive studio hardware and service), in absolutely most cases it will wreak havoc instead of benefits.

Android has already got viruses due to the cases you two provided:
- closed source software
- running in standartized environment
- with stupid userbase

This is for sure not what linux needs.
Windows is much better, already set platform for closed source mass produced corporation crap. Use it. Dump your stuff there.

Corporative entities are able to provide opensource code, if they stop selling bits and start selling solutions or their implementation. This is big shift in understanding, instead of playing trader role - start actually inventing. Very hard no?

For that case, linux does not anything standardized unless there is need for it.
It does not need reduction in amount of projects, because if it was needed - it was needed.
It does not need proprietary, for proprietary deadlock IS why linux exists in the first place and there is already enough proprietary trash.

Why does linux have proprietary then? Its fairly easy.
1) Make something very popular, or even better - essential (ISO/IEEE standard).
2) Put a lock on it - both implementation(obfuscation) and logic(patends, NDA).
3) Start milking everyone dependent.

Now this scheme is great for making money, but it has nothing with freedom, nor with actual innovation work.

If you really want help linux that way, I have an instant solution for you.
1) Buy Linux label.
2) Put in on Microsoft label on your PC.
....
3) PROFIT

[superppl]

Linux is about choice. If you want a pure open source solution, then use Debian.

I need a product that works, and I honestly don't care about the logistics. I drive a proprietary car, I eat proprietary foods, I wear proprietary clothes... I do care about my privacy and issues regarding freedom, but there is a far cry between paying money for something privately owned by a small corporation, and selling my soul to check my email.

Don't attack me for what I've said; this is how the market works. No one is going to buy a car because it's free speech, people buy whats safe, reliable, and inexpensive.

I'm not saying we need a marketplace dominated by scams and ripoffs, and I'm certainly not saying I want free software to disappear. I think this debate between you and I is about choice, and we probably won't convince each other.


In any case, we might actually be arguing the same thing: don't we both want corporations and professionals to take notice of and treat Linux and free software seriously?

What can a group of small people accomplish?
I'm not Muslim, so don't take this as preachy; in the start of Islam, Mohammad was preaching ideals that were heretical to the people of Mecca so they exiled him. Yet in a few years he raised up an army of millions and took his city back.
A small group of well motivated individuals can do a lot.

I think a more important question is WHAT can we do to get some results? I suppose that's also the question of this thread.

A few people voting with their wallets and spamming support forums for Linux support hasn't done much, and probably won't.


My idea, which is aimed at what I want, is to write to the executives of software companies and sway their opinion towards linux. I'm not a very convincing writer though. It may also be more effective to call.

[»John«]

You should program for money if you are a professional programmer, and only professional programmers bring very good results.

Well, that's just not true because it depends on your definition of "professional" - but if you really meant "resourceful, skilled and responsible", then you're absolutely right and there's no doubt that it's in our best interest to cherish and support such people.

Linux will be professional and everyone will have family, house and car.
But the difference is that result will be open and available for free as well. For further study and development(involving money).

I don't see anything particularly "unprofessional" about Linux (the kernel), even GNU/Linux (OS), but more polish can never hurt if that's what you mean.
However, you made an excellent point with implied difference between buying libre and proprietary software - I have absolutely nothing against paying for software I'm using as long as it's free and open and therefore comes with certain guarantees.

More money, more developers, more code, less bugs, more support, more linux user base, more money->

The difference though is that
a) people push features, not companies push features on people
b) it is distributed
c) the code will live up to the point it is needed
d) security
e) no artificial boundaries
f) people with no money or huge financial troubles may use, learn and contribute - legally.

That's exactly why I came to GNU/Linux and why I'm never ever coming back. It's kind of funny how many people are having serious trouble understanding such reasoning, but never mind.

Anyway, back to the topic.
This is how I support GNU/Linux and libre software in general:

1. I no longer provide free tech support to M$ crapware lusers while doing whatever I can for GNU/Linux fellas at the same time. (If you wonder why - Why the hell should I volunteer to sacrifice a part of my life so that I could help a vicious corporation that's obviously screwing even their own customers? Why the hell should I be helping anyone who's gonna turn everything I've done for him against people like me for his own selfish purposes?)
2. I'm encouraging people to replace proprietary software with libre alternatives wherever it's possible and then helping them with whatever problems they might have, but I'm never forcing or manipulating anyone because it always has exactly the opposite effect than desired.
3. I keep telling people why libre software and open standards are good for everyone, unlike closed and proprietary stuff (especially my all time favorite DRM).
4. I recommend purchasing hardware only from manufacturers playing nice with libre software.
5. I'm making donations (both cash and hardware) whenever I can.

Throw in some help with debugging and translations and you should be rocking.

[renkin]

I am donning my asbestos suit.


Kill off the damn distros and enforce a bit of discipline in the community.

stop jamming everything in the kernel.

Get it down to maybe 3-4 distros tops, focus developer efforts.

unify the tool kits and GUI enviroments.

Work closely with hardware manufacturers.

Improve the latency issues with audio, video and system responsiveness.

Be polished and professional and couterous.

Polish existing applications and canabilize redundant ones, you don't need 400 programs that rip CD to mp3's just 1-2 really good ones.

then once you achive those goals, PC builder and OEM's will be knocking on the door. The only good way to improve linix is to objectively look at the weakest parts of the system cuasing low adoption.

OEM's don't like takining risks.

Linux should be as easy to use as windows " for the average dummy"

To be honest Linux should have a tennet that it should ship without a terminal, however that gets achieved. when its reach that point. Put the terminal back in.

Does anyone agree with this?
Anyway. I'll go nitpicking from this list.

How do you kill off distros anyway? They're community driven. People fork when they want to.

Also, having different distros may not be a bad things. All these distros are based on the same kernel, same userspace utilities and run the same programs. All the non-distro specific work goes upstream, where it then goes downstream and everyone gets to benefit from it. Everyone benefits from everyone's work.

About jamming things into the kernel.. How else is linux going to have broad hardware support if they don't jam things into the kernel? Plus the kernel is modular, which means that you can compile a kernel for your own specific hardware.

Even if you include every single driver in the kernel as modules, it still doesn't add any bloat, since those extra modules won't be loaded if they're not needed by the hardware.

Unify the GUI? Lots of people will be angry about this. Not everyone uses GNOME or KDE. Some people don't even use desktop environments. I personally use Pekwm as my window manager because it allows me to bind any key to do anything.. It's amazing..

Unless by "Unify the GUI" you mean to make ONE desktop environment that has all the features from all the other window managers and desktop environments (and you can set which features you want and which ones you don't want) -- Then there's no point, because everyone's "unified" gui would still be unique.


Working closely with hardware manufacturers is a must. I can't wait till the day AMD graphics drivers are awesome and also allow UVD video acceleration.

I haven't noticed much latency issues even with Pulseaudio, but I don't do any multimedia or studio work (but there are distros that are optimized for this). Pulseaudio is a good step in the right direction IMO. Every application has a server to plug into to reach the sound devices.. The problem is that sometimes ALSA emulation isn't perfect. Audio should definitely be standardized. ALSA + Pulseaudio.


"Ease of use" is subjective. Linux distros are easier to use than Windows. That is true (for me). I can easily set up a webserver to transfer files to all devices in the house, stream videos, bind arbitrary keys to play or pause my music and even use crontab as my alarm (I actually do that). Anyone who's curious and open minded can adopt linux as their primary OS.. It's not about being smart or computer literate.


As for scrapping the terminal. That's just silly

[renkin]

An integrated, distributed, transparent, independent or venture solution - payment platform for opensource software development.

1. User has a problem or has a wish.
2. User browse for similar problems or wishes and looks at their state.
3. Developers offer a solution for money and put the required implementation time.
4. More devepers offer a solution for money and put the required implementation time.
5. Users browse available developers and sets his money on developer.
6. Once implementation time matches with estimated time, the machine calculates ideal team.
7. Machine gets money from users to bank account and gives green light for devteam.
---
8. Once the solution is implemented users are to test it out and vote.
9. If it is very acceptable, the machine opens moneyflow to developers.

10. Everyone is happy, the money is sharply distributed and the result is a quality opensource solution.


And no, it SHOULD NOT be lead by ANY Canonical crap. RedHat should take on this or similar PRODUCTIVE company.

I think Google might have something similar to this for Chrome. Whenever Chrome has another stable release, on their release blog, you see Devs or bug reporters that are awarded money for their work. Occasionally, people are awarded $1,337 for the good stuffs.

[Thatguy]

Does anyone agree with this?
Anyway. I'll go nitpicking from this list.

How do you kill off distros anyway? They're community driven. People fork when they want to.

Also, having different distros may not be a bad things. All these distros are based on the same kernel, same userspace utilities and run the same programs. All the non-distro specific work goes upstream, where it then goes downstream and everyone gets to benefit from it. Everyone benefits from everyone's work.

About jamming things into the kernel.. How else is linux going to have broad hardware support if they don't jam things into the kernel? Plus the kernel is modular, which means that you can compile a kernel for your own specific hardware.

Even if you include every single driver in the kernel as modules, it still doesn't add any bloat, since those extra modules won't be loaded if they're not needed by the hardware.

Unify the GUI? Lots of people will be angry about this. Not everyone uses GNOME or KDE. Some people don't even use desktop environments. I personally use Pekwm as my window manager because it allows me to bind any key to do anything.. It's amazing..

Unless by "Unify the GUI" you mean to make ONE desktop environment that has all the features from all the other window managers and desktop environments (and you can set which features you want and which ones you don't want) -- Then there's no point, because everyone's "unified" gui would still be unique.


Working closely with hardware manufacturers is a must. I can't wait till the day AMD graphics drivers are awesome and also allow UVD video acceleration.

I haven't noticed much latency issues even with Pulseaudio, but I don't do any multimedia or studio work (but there are distros that are optimized for this). Pulseaudio is a good step in the right direction IMO. Every application has a server to plug into to reach the sound devices.. The problem is that sometimes ALSA emulation isn't perfect. Audio should definitely be standardized. ALSA + Pulseaudio.


"Ease of use" is subjective. Linux distros are easier to use than Windows. That is true (for me). I can easily set up a webserver to transfer files to all devices in the house, stream videos, bind arbitrary keys to play or pause my music and even use crontab as my alarm (I actually do that). Anyone who's curious and open minded can adopt linux as their primary OS.. It's not about being smart or computer literate.


As for scrapping the terminal. That's just silly

Linux is a pain in the ass for most people.

terminal is a crutch for poorly written software period.

the average users doesn't want to deal with it.

You may not likel hearing it but as a former windows udser and having done quiet a bit of tech support. Its what I hear about linux and its from first hand experiences.

don't shoot the messenger.

[renkin]

Linux is a pain in the ass for most people.

terminal is a crutch for poorly written software period.

the average users doesn't want to deal with it.

You may not likel hearing it but as a former windows udser and having done quiet a bit of tech support. Its what I hear about linux and its from first hand experiences.

don't shoot the messenger.

What really drives my Linux usage is curiosity, and I was an all-windows user until three years ago. Windows is a pain in the butt, but at least it's familiar, and if there's a problem, there's always that geeky cousin or uncle that can help out.. With Linux Distros, people can sometimes get frustrated because there is no Start button, but that is not a design flaw. Its only crime is having a different design.

Also, the terminal is not a crutch for poorly written software. I prefer programs that can be accessed by the terminal (example: Deluge torrent has both command line and also graphical interface). It makes the program scriptable, and you can make it do things GUI programs won't be able to do. Just get creative.

As for the average user not wanting to deal with linux problems. The average user doesn't want to deal with ANY problem, they ask other people to help anyway. As for linux adoption for the average user.. Well..:

Everyone has a say in linux. That's why there are so many different distros. People want their Linux OS to do what THEY want to do, so they form another distro.

There are people only interested in Linux as a server platform, people interested in Linux as an embedded OS, and there are different groups focusing on desktop usability. That means linux grows in all directions. I don't think it was ever the goal of linux to be an OS for the average user. Even the creator Linus Torvalds said that he wants linux to succeed on the desktop, but what he meant was for it to succeed on his own desktop. However, there are many communities that concentrate on bringing linux to the average user (example: Ubuntu, mint, whatever distro) and they're making good progress..


But really. We really need to get together and decide which sound implementation to stick with.

[Thatguy]

What really drives my Linux usage is curiosity, and I was an all-windows user until three years ago. Windows is a pain in the butt, but at least it's familiar, and if there's a problem, there's always that geeky cousin or uncle that can help out.. With Linux Distros, people can sometimes get frustrated because there is no Start button, but that is not a design flaw. Its only crime is having a different design.

Also, the terminal is not a crutch for poorly written software. I prefer programs that can be accessed by the terminal (example: Deluge torrent has both command line and also graphical interface). It makes the program scriptable, and you can make it do things GUI programs won't be able to do. Just get creative.

As for the average user not wanting to deal with linux problems. The average user doesn't want to deal with ANY problem, they ask other people to help anyway. As for linux adoption for the average user.. Well..:

Everyone has a say in linux. That's why there are so many different distros. People want their Linux OS to do what THEY want to do, so they form another distro.

There are people only interested in Linux as a server platform, people interested in Linux as an embedded OS, and there are different groups focusing on desktop usability. That means linux grows in all directions. I don't think it was ever the goal of linux to be an OS for the average user. Even the creator Linus Torvalds said that he wants linux to succeed on the desktop, but what he meant was for it to succeed on his own desktop. However, there are many communities that concentrate on bringing linux to the average user (example: Ubuntu, mint, whatever distro) and they're making good progress..


But really. We really need to get together and decide which sound implementation to stick with.

I started using linux in 1998 it was actually far less fractured then. Its gotten to out of hand.

Linux needs one really good solid API and they need to hold binary compatability. They need to get application developers on board or the boat is going no where.

My beef with terminal is thats its often needed to do simple thing that should be GUI.

[renkin]

I started using linux in 1998 ...
My beef with terminal is thats its often needed to do simple thing that should be GUI.

I don't use much GUI programs. I only run X for the graphical terminals, web browsing and for watching videos, so I can't really say what the GUI can or can't do. I'm not familiar with it (anymore).

What are those simple things you speak of?

[Thatguy]

I don't use much GUI programs. I only run X for the graphical terminals, web browsing and for watching videos, so I can't really say what the GUI can or can't do. I'm not familiar with it (anymore).

What are those simple things you speak of?

it depends on the circumstance but there are situation where installer don't run etc etc etc and your only hope is terminal, Ubuntu has made alot of useability strides.

I don't want a command line OS. neither do alot of other people. Point click and go. until linux as a OS accomplishs this on the desktop, its doomed to be a no show on desktop.

Its great for server though. My ubuntu howmeserver is a nice machine, always up, never crashs but its pretty stripped down.

I don't have a beef with linux, I am trying to exspress why it hasn't been a sucess on dekstop despite nearly 2 decades of development.