Open source products need to be more usable to replace corporate stuff
Fri, 2008-07-25 04:01
#1
Open source products need to be more usable to replace corporate stuff
Fri, 2008-07-25 04:01
#2
I've often thought this myself - I'd use Linux and other open source stuff, but I've watched a non-techie relative get locked out of her computer (and eventually buy a new one) because someone techie-inclined set it up for her, moved away, and she had no idea how to add or remove programs from it because she didn't know the administrator password and couldn't find it out from anyone and couldn't get any tech support for it.
Anyhow, this is Wayne MacPhail's take on the [url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=91cc186834649440baf1a0... version of the iPhone.[/url]
quote:
I really wanted the NEO to succeed. Philosophically I'm all for open source software and hardware, when it makes sense. And, as a couple of my Twitter pals have pointed out, I shouldn't dismiss the entire open source movement because of one or two failures. I don't mean to, I'm just pointing to a trend even though its equivalent to telling a mother her child is dumb and homely.I think the NEO is destined to be the Lego Mindstorms of cell phones - a tinkerer's toy.
Unfortunately, tinkerers' toys don't set us free, they just give us something to do with our free time.
Fri, 2008-07-25 04:19
#3
Frustrated Mess
quote:
I've often thought this myself - I'd use Linux and other open source stuff, but I've watched a non-techie relative get locked out of her computer (and eventually buy a new one) because someone techie-inclined set it up for her, moved away, and she had no idea how to add or remove programs from it because she didn't know the administrator password and couldn't find it out from anyone and couldn't get any tech support for it.
You can lock yourself out of Windows too.
The issue I find for many Linux users is that they have geeks set up their computers for them. Geeks often forget they know many tricks and shortcuts and the many, many other ways to skin a cat.
The typical computer user has very few requirements. They use a limited number of applications, they want them to be easy to find, and easy to use.
This is entirely possible with Linux. The success of the Asus Eee (my only-ever-used-windows non-tech-savvy sister bought one and loves it), gOS, and other Linux versions aimed at the non-tech end user.
When a system is set up, whether Linux, MacOS, or Windows, it should be set up with the end user in mind and not the requirements, or lack or requirements, of the techie setting it up.
Of all the Linux systems I have set up for end users, they are all still being used. I get few phone calls and no complaints.
But I do know of one person using Ubuntu who hates it and considers it a curse. And, again, this is because it was set up by a geek for a geek without consideration for the needs of the person using it. For example, the geek didn't install Acrobat Reader which is still a superior product to any of the free replacements. It is that sort of thing that can really sour a user's experience.
I have offered to set it right for him by setting it up according to his requirements, but he insists the guy who set it up originally should be the one to solve his problems. Oh, well.
Fri, 2008-07-25 05:30
#4
Catchfire
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000669#0... I have to wonder why the tech columnist on a progressive website writes a column about open-source software that reads like an advertisement for a designer gadget company like Apple. There is no analysis as to why the open-source approach has a few hitches in it (even though Wayne claims to be 'rooting for the plucky' open-source alternative). Or why people seem to prefer the iPhone to other gadgets. Apple's i-series demonstrates more than any other commodity that comestible demand has little to do with function and everything to do with socially engineered desires with invented commodified 'solutions'. I enjoy the 'clickwheel' interface of the iPod and the iPhone seems to have similar appeal, but I would expect a leftist, socially conscious journalist to depart from the [i]Wired[/i] Magazine paean to Steve Jobs line and offer some critical perspective.
For one thing, there are hundreds of OS projects that are focussed and determined to produce a single, unified and coherent product. ubuntu's success should make that obvious. Anyone who dismissively refers to Open Source technology as 'plucky' clearly has little grasp on the movement, or at least fails to construct a view complex enough to realize that the 'tinkers' that do Open Source technology and the geniuses, if not gods that work for Apple are the same bloody people.
It's too bad radiorahim isn't around to give all of us a lesson.
[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
Fri, 2008-07-25 05:34
#5
N.Beltov
Wow. radiorahim. Now that's a babbler I haven't heard from or about in a while.
Fri, 2008-07-25 07:39
#6
Wow, I'm coming straight down the line with catchfire on tis one.
How about we hear a little more love for the 'plucky' people who create and distribute firefox.
Linux can take a bit more work. I've been using windows for the last two weeks, since I got a new laptop and haven't had the time to fight with network drivers to get the install going (the laptop is too new), but one of the first things I did was install firefox. Internet explorer is just two frustrating. Linux, and many other open source projects might be too rough for mass use, but firefox/mozilla has been a real success for open source development.
Fri, 2008-07-25 08:30
#7
So has anyone informed Wayne that the software rabble.ca is moving to is open source?
Fri, 2008-07-25 09:13
#8
quote:
I think the NEO is destined to be the Lego Mindstorms of cell phones - a tinkerer's toy.Unfortunately, tinkerers' toys don't set us free, they just give us something to do with our free time.
I have an iPhone. It's extremely cool, there's no disputing it, but frankly, it's all about restriction, not setting anyone free.
In order to develop for the iPhone, you have to accept a SDK license agreement that requires you to not communicate anything about the SDK to anyone. There are no support forums for iPhone development, no books about it, nothing except what Apple gives you. The SDK license agreement makes all of those things illegal.
For those who manage to develop an iPhone app despite these restrictions, they can't simply distribute it. They have to pay $99 to Apple, submit their apps to the app store, and see if Apple will accept them. One of my favourite iPhone apps, NetNewsWire, was just updated to 1.01 on the app store today, despite the fact that the author had finished development on that version 2 weeks ago. Apple just couldn't be bothered to review it. Turn by turn navigation apps are explicitly forbidden by the license agreement. TomTom created such an app for the iPhone, but Apple says they can't release it. And you can forget about any app that might compete with one of Apple's (iPhone Firefox, anyone?)
I agree that the Neo, as it stands, sucks. I hope they improve it. The iPhone is, at the moment, simply the best phone out there. That said, Apple's restrictions are a ball and chain that will seriously hold it back once the competition catches up. Even if the Neo never goes anywhere, Google's Android platform is due out later this year, and Symbian (another phone platform, which will be open-sourced) isn't standing still either. Hopefully this competition will force Apple to really "set us free".
Fri, 2008-07-25 09:26
#9
I use a notebook (paper) and I used a secondhand psion computer (from 95) (until it failed about 3 months ago) to do useful work.
I think the reason that tech people buy into the hype is that they are one of the channels for selling the stuff so if they write a good review, they get that (and the replacement product) for free.
Kinda like junkies as advertizers or dealers.
For sure, linux is not perfect.
But I have used it on the net, despite its quirks for years. My computer came with windows, and I just disabled the network drivers (thanks to a babble suggestion, i think) and use the windows exclusively off the net. I still get nag screens by the way! And "no firewall is installed". With network drivers disabled, none of this matters!
The viruses and worms cannot get in!
My windows is frozen in time from 2 years back but so what?
The only windows program i really need is my video editing software. I got it as a present.
All the video software that comes with computers seems crippled!
Anyways my windows works fine and I do not have to shell out 40 bux a year on antivirus that might not work and that WILL slow down your computer by 50%. I have windows versions of the gimp, openoffice, dia, etc and a second windows partition for moving files between systems.
It is a little bit of work but my computer lasts longer, hasn't got viruses and I can spend my virus money on programs or hardware.
The iphone is a hypefone. It is purely a consumer product. You need something to be productive too.
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000669#0... I have to wonder why the tech columnist on a progressive website writes a column about open-source software that reads like an advertisement for a designer gadget company like Apple. There is no analysis as to why the open-source approach has a few hitches in it (even though Wayne claims to be 'rooting for the plucky' open-source alternative). Or why people seem to prefer the iPhone to other gadgets. Apple's i-series demonstrates more than any other commodity that comestible demand has little to do with function and everything to do with socially engineered desires with invented commodified 'solutions'. I enjoy the 'clickwheel' interface of the iPod and the iPhone seems to have similar appeal, but I would expect a leftist, socially conscious journalist to depart from the [i]Wired[/i] Magazine paean to Steve Jobs line and offer some critical perspective.For one thing, there are hundreds of OS projects that are focussed and determined to produce a single, unified and coherent product. ubuntu's success should make that obvious. Anyone who dismissively refers to Open Source technology as 'plucky' clearly has little grasp on the movement, or at least fails to construct a view complex enough to realize that the 'tinkers' that do Open Source technology and the geniuses, if not gods that work for Apple are the same bloody people.
It's too bad radiorahim isn't around to give all of us a lesson.
[ 25 July 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ][/b]
Fri, 2008-07-25 09:52
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b][url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000669#0... I have to wonder why the tech columnist on a progressive website writes a column about open-source software that reads like an advertisement for a designer gadget company like Apple. [/b]
He said that he likes the idea of open-source software and gadgets, but that they're going to have to be able to compete with the corporate brands if they want to actually get ordinary Joes to use them.
He has also been quite consistently critical of corporations (including Apple) making proprietary software and locking their gadgets. He likes gadgets (particularly Apple stuff) but wants them and the software associated with their gadgets to stop locking stuff down.
He likes the idea of the open source movement coming up with alternatives, but he's saying that no one will use them if they're poorly designed and are hard to use.
Why WOULDN'T a progressive web site run that?
Fri, 2008-07-25 10:09
#11
We should remember that north america is in a bit of a timewarp because they use several different signaling technologys and this cuts the market into little chunks. All of europe uses one signaling technology. I think this means less radio towers to cover a country?
So we are saying that the Iphone is the best phone based on very limited experience.
[url=http://www.symbian.com/phones/index.html]http://www.symbian.com/phones/i... should give you some idea of how many different smartphones are out there and the incredible number of shapes and sizes and abilitys, and of course price plans.
Most, it seems are available just in japan.
90% of the rest are just available in europe.
The hype fone is just one of very many and we do not really have any idea what is out there.
Hype is a powerful force and apple are brilliant at using it. Perhaps it is time to nip this thing in the bud?
Some people might like phones that can play ANY mp3 or wma file, some might like ones that can record a lot. some might like phones that let you type a lot.
The devellopers might like a phone that lets them sell their software easily.
The hypephone seems to me to be a money pit.
There will be a lot of people suckered in and very upset after a few months of a 3 year plan. Especially when something else comes out with similar features and a much lower price.
Fri, 2008-07-25 10:18
#12
Brian, I'm going to respond to your comment [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000669]in this thread[/url] since that one seems to be more about the iPhone in particular as a product.
Fri, 2008-07-25 14:03
#13
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[QB]I've often thought this myself - I'd use Linux and other open source stuff, but I've watched a non-techie relative get locked out of her computer (and eventually buy a new one) because someone techie-inclined set it up for her, moved away, and she had no idea how to add or remove programs from it because she didn't know the administrator password and couldn't find it out from anyone and couldn't get any tech support for it.
People who don't know computer basics are simply at the mercy of the technology. The OS and software choices are minor considerations when one doesn't know what one is choosing.
Sat, 2008-07-26 03:33
#14
Catchfire
quote:
I mean, God love open source folks. Their hearts are in the right place but, man, a lot of open source software is the worst looking, unusable junk I've ever seen this side of a Microsoft Windows ME hack-a-thon.[...]
Like it or not, an elegant, responsive and insanely popular device like the iPhone could only come from a company that controls the hardware and software and has its eye on design, elegance and user experience first. It is the product of obsessive artists, not obsessive engineers. It is the product of a top down environment where one guy, Steve Jobs, calls the shots. I don't like that, I wish it were different but, as Leander Kahney argues in his book Inside Steve's Brain, that's the way it is.
This does not sound to me like criticism of Apple and encouragement or constructive criticism of OS. It sounds like dismissal of the "geeks" that write OS and uncritical praise for the "obsesive artists" that work for Apple. OS people are "tinkerers" and Apple workers are "artists." Hmm. Of course, we know that many of the people that work on some of the best OS projects are also employees of places like Apple and Microsoft. Do they check their "artist" credentials at the door when they leave work?
My concern is when Wayne advocates the corporate approach to design without understanding the least bit about how it works. First of all, the iPhone is a multi-billion dollar development project based on generations of the iPod and other technologies. What groundwork does the NEO have? Wayne doesn't ask this question, he simply assumes it's because the OS people aren't "artists." Furthermore, he fails to see how the iPhone fulfills a consumer desire that is deliberately constructed: even before we knew what the iPhone did we wanted one--and so too, apparently, did Wayne. How does Apple accomplish this? What chance does OS have against Apple's cultural clout? Instead, OS's game is "plucky", not "rigged."
See, we like the iPhone not because it is a wonderful technological device, but because Apple has launched an incredible, decade-long campaign to create consumer desire for a product that no one needs. It's this kind of consumerist culture that OS tries to fight, so when Wayne points out that the NEO isn't as good as the iPhone, he's missing the whole point. The point is that the iPhone isn't as good as the iPhone, but Apple doesn't care because you'll want it anyway. They've preprogrammed us to hate the NEO (which, to be honest, is rather a poor choice when it comes to condemning the OS project--what about Firefox vs Safari? Or, to be bolder, Ubuntu vs OS X?) an Wayne bought Apple's pitch wholesale.
If I wanted to read how Apple does everything right and OS does everything wrong, I'd read [i]Wired[/i]. Oh, don't worry, they provide Apple with a stern talking-to when it comes to DRM too. It doesn't mean that [i]Wired[/i] isn't anything else but a transglobal capitalists wet dream.
Sat, 2008-07-26 04:46
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]
If I wanted to read how Apple does everything right and OS does everything wrong, I'd read [i]Wired[/i]. [/b]
As a neophyte in open source matters, I know next to nothing about all this. I installed some version of Linux years ago - and then one of Ubuntu in more recent years - but they wouldn't recognize my peripherals (particularly my high-speed modem) after a fair bit of tweaking. My reaction was: "Sheesh, why bother." So I use Windows XP and as many free or open source applications as I can.
So, my question: Is there an equivalent of [i]Wired[/i] that I can read which supports and believes in the open source movement?
Sat, 2008-07-26 05:17
#16
Frustrated Mess
Hmmm.
I had a guy come in yesterday quite frustrated. His computer wasn't usable at all. Seems he had something called XP Antivirus 2008. Took me little more than an hour to clean it up and then a few more hours to run a complete scan.
I've been using Linux on my desktop forever and have yet to get a virus or adware or any of the other crap that causes people to lose the use or enjoyment of their computers.
As well, I use a white-label desktop at home and I have a HP Compaq notebook. Both run Linux, right out of the box without any problems.
My OpenSUSE KDE4 is as artistic, beautiful, and elegant as the MacOS or Windows Vista. And it works.
I can edit images, edit web sites as though the remote files were sitting on my desktop, I can create graphics, render 3D, and exchange files, even the new MS Office 2007 formats, with anyone, and not one part of it cost me a single cent.
My computer experience is complete with the install as opposed to other OSes where the install represents the point where you begin paying for software or stealing it.
I would also note the MS has just poured $100,000 into Apache, an open source project and the software that runs most of the world's web sites, including, I bet, this one.
Oh, it ain't pretty. But it sure does work.
Sat, 2008-07-26 05:52
#17
[b]Mac Jesus[/b]
Sat, 2008-07-26 06:01
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Toby Fourre:
[b]People who don't know computer basics are simply at the mercy of the technology. The OS and software choices are minor considerations when one doesn't know what one is choosing.[/b]
Yes, well, that would be just about everyone except for a few people with degrees in computer science. You have to know more than "computer basics" to install operating systems on computers. No, you don't need a degree in computer science to do it, that's an exaggeration, but you do need to have some specialized knowledge.
I'm also completely at the mercy of car mechanics, TV repair people, drywallers, electricians, plumbers, lawyers, and doctors. I probably wouldn't buy an "open source car" either if I had to hotwire the thing to get it to work instead of just turning the key in the ignition.
Sat, 2008-07-26 06:23
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]This does not sound to me like criticism of Apple and encouragement or constructive criticism of OS. [/b]
Of course it doesn't. You just cherry picked a couple of his comments from the article.
Here's the constructive criticism of OS:
quote:
Back then I was rooting for the plucky NEO. I even considered buying a developers' edition just to see what could be done with such a mobile, open device. Then delays started to plague the software development, and the hardware and the little NEO fell off my radar screen.Fell off, that is, until recently when John Gruber's blog, Daring Fireball pointed me to a video demonstration of the finally released NEO's interface. The video features the NEO FreeRunner now available for sale, and hackable to beat-the-band. Unfortunately it is a phone/mobile platform only a hacker could love.
Two years ago I thought being the anti-iPhone was a compliment. Now, not so much. From demonstrations I've seen online, the interface is embarrassing awful, slow and, really, unusable. The keyboard on the NEO is so small you have to use a stylus to type on it and, even then, the thick bezel on the side of the screen makes hitting certain keys all but impossible even with a sharp point.
Physical buttons are placed in ergonomically awkward positions, the drop down menus are slow and the screen scrolling is lethargic and unresponsive. This would be a phone you would use as a prop in a comedy sketch about bad Russian Cold War products.
...
I really wanted the NEO to succeed. Philosophically I'm all for open source software and hardware, when it makes sense. And, as a couple of my Twitter pals have pointed out, I shouldn't dismiss the entire open source movement because of one or two failures. I don't mean to, I'm just pointing to a trend even though its equivalent to telling a mother her child is dumb and homely.
And here's the criticism of Apple and support of the philosophy of Open Source:
quote:
One was the iPhone, now in its second incarnation as the iPhone 3G. The iPhone was locked down by Apple and by an exclusive contract with AT&T. No one could develop applications for it but Apple, no one could offer it for sale but AT&T. Yes, unlocked iPhones sprang up everywhere as did rogue apps for "jailbroken" iPhones, but that wasn't Apple's intent.
quote:
It was to be the phone that would set us free of greedy carriers, a phone anyone, anywhere could develop apps for without getting anyone's permission or using anyone's application store.It was, in short, the anti-iPhone.
And here, [url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=91cc186834649440baf1a0... a previous column,[/url] is some more criticism of Apple and Rogers:
quote:
Because it has cell phone capabilities, it's being distributed in Canada by Rogers. Unfortunately, Rogers has done the job with all the social grace of a chubby high school nerd who finally scores a date with a cheerleader and then takes her to a strip club and suggests she hop up on stage.The first data plan prices and three year contract for the iPhone were so archaic, onerous and insulting that it was as if someone, months ago, had walked up to a whiteboard and written, with military finality, "How can we make everyone hate us for offering them the best cell phone on the planet?"
It was only after 50,000 plus Canadians signed an online petition that Rogers got the message that maybe they might want to offer plans at least within a bus ride of the ballpark where the rest of the plans worldwide hangout.
Are you getting the picture yet? He loves the technology, thinks it's useful, enjoys analyzing tech trends and new innovations, but hates the corporate marketing and protectionism and wants to see this stuff available to the average person to use as tools for communication.
I think that a lot of the tech "fanboys" - as well as the unlockers and piraters and crackers - are in many ways the MOST successful at populist civil disobedience that really hits corporations where it hurts - in the pocketbook. And they don't do it by supporting open source alone. They do it by taking cutting edge technology (which is often corporate) and trying to get it to the masses by cracking the locks and creating easy ways to spread the technology without the insane contracts that the corporations would have us all adhere to.
Now, I don't know whether Wayne does this sort of stuff or not - maybe he doesn't. But when he writes about new technological innovations, he also discusses critically the corporate control over the technology. It's a recurring theme throughout his columns.
I don't see any problem with combining tech trends with commentary on the corporate control of new innovations.
Sat, 2008-07-26 07:15
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Here's the constructive criticism of OS...[/b]
No, that's criticism of a single open source project from which the author generalizes about all open source software even though he says he's not going to. So Wayne's seen other (unnamed) o/s apps that were poor examples of craftsmanship? I've seen proprietary software that was absolute crap.
Meanwhile there's no mention of any open source success stories like the fact that about half the internet runs on open source. (And if you want anecdotal evidence, I've used Open Office for years and found it to be all I really needed and I run a business too.)
At this point I would submit that open source covers so much territory and encompasses so many projects of various kinds that it's dangerous to make the kinds of generalizations that Wayne reaches for in this article. So whether or not this piece belongs on a progressive board, I don't think it's a very constructive look at open source as a method of developing software.
Sat, 2008-07-26 07:23
#21
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I installed some version of Linux years ago - and then one of Ubuntu in more recent years - but they wouldn't recognize my peripherals (particularly my high-speed modem) after a fair bit of tweaking. [/b]
That was then; this is now. My first excursions into Linux were equally frustrating, (though not as frustrating as Windows NT). Anyway, I persisted. That was a dozen years ago. Today, most Linux distros are very good at hardware recognition.
************
Michelle, when one is at the "mercy of car mechanics, TV repair people, drywallers, electricians, plumbers, lawyers, and doctors" one is open to be taken advantage of by any and all. Learning how things work can be empowering.
There's a computer retailer near here who is quite frank about why he likes Windows. It breaks and he gets the repair business.
Sat, 2008-07-26 07:27
#22
Yes, this is true, pogge.
As for open source - my problem is that I don't run my own business, and I need to be compatible with the world around me, including my day job and all the people I communicate with on a regular basis who don't use open source software.
So, that means that I have to be able to read MS Office files. It sucks, but there you go. I have Open Office installed on my computer, but I practically never use it because every time I want to do something, I have to think first: "Will I ever need to share this with anyone? Who will I need to share it with? Do they have Open Office? Nah, probably not. Okay, MS it is. Sigh."
I do, however, use Thunderbird as my e-mail program, and it's great. That's an example of a successful O/S program. And it really ticks me off that the corporate providers of internet don't support it when you call them up. At least, they used to not support it - I think, actually, that they might be finally getting onto supporting more than Outlook Express. And it's high time.
That's another reason, of course, why OS is hard for people who aren't really tech savvy to get into. Because unless you know what you're doing, none of the "mainstream" providers of any tech services like internet will offer tech support for them - they only offer tech support for one or two corporate products.
[ 26 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Sat, 2008-07-26 09:07
#23
Catchfire
With respect, Michelle, I think that your conclusion is different from the one Wayne reaches. I think that there is a problem with OS's usability--although I also think that "usability" is often defined by market leaders like Microsoft and Apple, so when OS programs are different from those standards, we think they are unusable rather than different. A case in point is O.o.: most problems stem from the fact that Microsoft commands the marketplace, not from any deficiency in the programming.
At any rate, Wayne's conclusion is not that OS needs to become more user-friendly. As pogge points out, he calls OS a fundamentally doomed project and praises the corporate approach as the only structure capable of producing decent technology. The section I quoted about Apple's "elegant" approach is Wayne's conclusion: "I don't like that, I wish it were different but...that's the way it is."
Followed is the claim that while "philosophically" OS might sound good, practically, the "NEO [and in the context and logic of the article, the NEO is a stand-in for OS technology] is destined to be the Lego Mindstorms of cell phones - a tinkerer's toy." His tone regarding OS is mocking and dismissive, not hopeful or disappointed. Of course, it's fine to be skeptical of or even fully against open source, but Wayne's reasoning and rhetoric is specious and generalizing.
I am not a tinkerer or a computer guy. I like, study and write about technology. I am a user, not an engineer. Ubuntu is the primary OS on this computer (although I am currently using Windows) and I have my own frustrations with the platform. In fact, if you complain about usability on the ubuntu forums , which are otherwise very helpful, you will inevitably get a response that if you want ease-of-use, use windows or OS X. There is certainly room for criticism in this respect, but this is not what Wayne is saying.
Sat, 2008-07-26 11:52
#24
Frustrated Mess
quote:
I've seen proprietary software that was absolute crap.
I've bought it!
quote:
So, that means that I have to be able to read MS Office files. It sucks, but there you go. I have Open Office installed on my computer, but I practically never use it because every time I want to do something, I have to think first: "Will I ever need to share this with anyone? Who will I need to share it with? Do they have Open Office? Nah, probably not. Okay, MS it is. Sigh."
HAH! I was opening the new office format with Open Office long before MS released the office compatibility patch and then sending them to Windows users who couldn't open them. And you know what else? You can even save to MS office formats.
And soon Open Office will let you edit PDF docs ... just wait ...
One of the great advantages of Open Source is the lack of boundaries. It is like the IP commons.
ETA: Geez, and I just thought of it:
quote:
We've now reached a first milestone with the PDF import extension, in that we're able to import typical PDF documents with good layout fidelity in Draw and Impress ... this enables users to perform basic editing in formerly read-only PDF.
[ 26 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Sat, 2008-07-26 12:24
#25
I run into the Microsoft bias frequently. People won't try something else precisely because it is something else. I know technicians who install Firefox, Thunderbird and Open Office on customers' machines and change the icons, and even the label at the top, so that the customers won't know. These guys swear that they get complements for fixing it, "Finally!" The thing is, a tech can't ask because he/she will not be given permission to tamper with the sacred Microsoft cow.
Sat, 2008-07-26 12:40
#26
Frustrated Mess
If I were running an organization were money mattered (is there any where it doesn't?), I would outfit all desks with Open Office and if compatibility is really an issue (PDF should be the default send format, IMO) then set the default save to a .DOC format. And for those fancy formatted Office files that OO doesn't do so well, keep one MS Office system (or more depending on size with a ratio of one MS for every 10 OO) to open and potentially convert them (there is also an ODF converter).
You'd save a bundle in licensing and reduce your costs for outfitting per unit by $150 bucks or better.
Sat, 2008-07-26 13:19
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]He said that he likes the idea of open-source software and gadgets, but that they're going to have to be able to compete with the corporate brands if they want to actually get ordinary Joes to use them.
...
He likes the idea of the open source movement coming up with alternatives, but he's saying that no one will use them if they're poorly designed and are hard to use.
Why WOULDN'T a progressive web site run that?[/b]
I like the idea of public health care, but can't see it really competing with the wait times and level of care offered by private facilities. Sure public health care is quaint, and its advocates are plucky, but let's get real, when i need surgery i'm not going to wait around for eight months to get it, i'm going to fly to a private facility and get the care that i need.
It's not that i have any philosophical objection to public health care, in fact philosophically i'm all for it--i just think that when implemented, public health care isn't anywhere near as usable as health care services offered by corporate providers.
Please read on to find out how enjoyable my stay was at a semi private clinic. The food was much better and the staff was much friendlier (probably due to being adequately compensated). Until these public hospitals can get their acts together and offer a comparable service, i know where i'll be getting my health care.
Sound progressive to you?
Sat, 2008-07-26 14:10
#28
No, because it's not true. In fact, public health care is much more efficient and egalitarian than private health care. Open source, on the other hand, appears not to be as efficient. Money-wise it's more egalitarian, I suppose, but ability-wise, it is not.
Public health care is not only free for everyone, but also widely accessible to everyone, for the most part, and it doesn't take any special ability on the part of the recipients to use it. Public health care systems have much better design and implementation than private ones. So it wouldn't just be non-progressive to state otherwise, it would also be simply stupid.
Sat, 2008-07-26 14:11
#29
quote:
Originally posted by wage zombie:
[b]...Sound progressive to you?[/b]
Sounds like a square peg being driven into a round hole.
That computer article was just one guy's take on an issue. It wasn't reactionary, and wasn't a tract from the class warfare manual, either. I don't see why it should not appear on this website---right before one written by some of the people in this thread who think they can do better.
Sat, 2008-07-26 14:53
#30
Excellent post on open source hospital care! and you probably notice the price differential (if you can pay for it) too.
Open source software IS usable. You can pick out a shitty phone and paint everything with that brush. Fine! didn't java go almost open sourse? well, thats on almost every phone and computer in the world.
I think linux is on almost every home network router.
A big difference is that you can go down the road and get your excell training or photoshop training or msword training. You cannot get that training so easily in open source software.
I am slowly learning my (bought) sony vegas software from the help stuff that directs me through almost everything. It is taking a long time! Almost as long as open source!
Now, I find inbuilt training stuff or web video explainations links in blender too, much more help in the gimp. I just checked and Kino is beginning to work. It used only to import saved mini dv but now it imports more file types.
I think that if you buy a basic computer, disable the network connections in windows, and install ubuntu on half of it for the net you have a good deal. No more antivirus nag screens alone is worth it!
Open solaris is a free download too if you want an uber operating system.
quote:
Originally posted by wage zombie:
[b]I like the idea of public health care, but can't see it really competing with the wait times and level of care offered by private facilities. Sure public health care is quaint, and its advocates are plucky, but let's get real, when i need surgery i'm not going to wait around for eight months to get it, i'm going to fly to a private facility and get the care that i need.
It's not that i have any philosophical objection to public health care, in fact philosophically i'm all for it--i just think that when implemented, public health care isn't anywhere near as usable as health care services offered by corporate providers.
Please read on to find out how enjoyable my stay was at a semi private clinic. The food was much better and the staff was much friendlier (probably due to being adequately compensated). Until these public hospitals can get their acts together and offer a comparable service, i know where i'll be getting my health care.
Sound progressive to you?[/b]
Sat, 2008-07-26 15:41
#31
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]No, because it's not true. In fact, public health care is much more efficient and egalitarian than private health care.[/b]
Well it depends. If someone has the money to pay for private care, and isn't ideologically opposed to a two tiered system, then private care will seem much more efficient than public care. Compare the wait times. This is the justification that we're seeing now for the introduction of private clinics. The public system isn't efficient enough for people to get the care they need when they need it, or so goes the successful court cases.
quote:
Open source, on the other hand, appears not to be as efficient.
Appears not to be as efficient to who? Which open source products are you talking about? Was open source as a methodology being dissed in the article for not producing efficient products, or for not producing usable products?
Sat, 2008-07-26 22:36
#32
Our deliberately sabotaged medicare in Canada is still hobbling along. Health care in the U.S. is broken because they've got private insurance companies and HMO's dictating to doctors who they can treat and how much or how little they can treat sick people. Half of doctors in the U.S. hate their own system and are in favour of various forms of socialized medicine.
And, Windows still sux. For all the profits they've squeezed out of Windows and stolen the idea for GUI interface from Mac, who borrowed it from Xerox guys who developed it while working as researchers and academics on the public payroll - it surely isn't a real time OS. Windows doesn't crash and hose your puter like it once did, but I'm sure glad Windows doesn't run a lot of real time switching and control systems, or we'd be in the dark too often, trains would collide and derail more often, and telephone service wouldn't be as reliable.
Mon, 2008-07-28 12:20
#33
I haven't posted here in quite awhile, but someone mentioned that my previous alias "radiorahim" had been mentioned...anyway...I'd long since forgotten the password for that account. So I guess this is an "open sock puppet" account.
Anyway...I've come not to support "open source" software. That might surprise you.
What I do support is "free software"...and there is a big difference.
The "open source" movement is mostly concerned about how powerful and reliable a software application is...and how much it costs...or how much it doesn't cost.
The free software movement is concerned about the freedom of computer users. It's a movement that's inherently political...and IMHO is the embodiment of the anti-corporate, anti-globalization struggle when it comes to the use of computer software.
The free software movement also is global...but not the globalization of corporate domination. Instead it's the globalization of folks working together in a community to build something...namely computer software. In fact, I can't think of a better example today of people working together globally in a community to accomplish great tasks.
The Free Software Foundation, the political movement which launched the free software movement back in the 1980's defines software as "free" if the software programme gives you four essential freedoms:
[b]Freedom Zero: The freedom to run the programme for any purpose that you wish.
Freedom One: The freedom to study the source code of the programme so that you know what it is doing, so that you can change it and adapt it to your needs.
Freedom Two: The freedom to help your neighbour by making copies of the programme.
Freedom Three: The freedom to publicly issue your own modified copy of the programme.
Any software programme which gives you all four of these freedoms, without limiting them in any substantive way meets the FSF's definition of "free software". Any software which restricts these four freedoms is non-free or proprietary software.[/b]
You'll note that none of these freedoms says anything at all about money. A programme might not cost you anything, but isn't free because it restricts one or more of these four freedoms.
The Free Software Foundation's "GNU General Public License" (GPL), the most commonly used free software license goes a step further and "copylefts" the software, to make sure that the freedoms you received, you must pass on to others. Freedom becomes viral.
Some free software licenses do not do this...notably the "FreeBSD" license. The FreeBSD license allows software developers to take free software, use the community's work, lock it up and turn it into proprietary software. The result are things like the "MacOSX" operating system.
If you aren't a computer programmer, for the most part Freedoms Zero and Two are the only ones that are immediately important to you. But Freedoms One and Three are also important to you because at the very least, somebody out there in the world, other than whoever developed the programme can figure out what that software programme is actually doing. They can also collectively work to improve the programme...or create a "fork" and create a completely new programme based on the work that others have done.
Our society is becoming increasingly digitized. The way we work, play, entertain ourselves, communicate with friends and family, conduct business etc. is increasingly taking place in a digital world. If the tools we use to do these things are completely locked up by transnational software companies and nobody outside of those transnationals has a way to figure out what's going on then we are in some serious trouble. We will have given up a substantial part of our lives and placed it in the hands of global conglomerates. This trend toward digitizing our lives is not going to decrease over the years to come, it's only going to increase.
You are not free to use proprietary software any way you wish. Try installing MacOSX on a PC and making it available to the public and see how quickly Apple lauches a lawsuit against you. Try sharing a file or folder on a Windows XP machine over a network and then try to make more than ten simultaneous connections to it. Microsoft will block you from doing this. I know...I've run into this problem.
Are you looking for a file on your Windows machine? If your machine is connected to the net (and most are these days), Windows XP will "phone home" and report what you searched for. If you play a file with Windows Media Player, it phones home to Microsoft and reports what file you just played. Real Player does the same thing.
When you do a "Windows Update", your machine reports home to Microsoft every single programme that's installed on your computer.
Microsoft has cooperated with the U.S. National Security Agency in the development of Windows Vista. Does that make you feel comfortable?
Finding out that Windows and Real Player do these kinds of things wasn't easy...because the source code for these programmes isn't publicly available the way it is for free software.
Some countries have used voting machines loaded with proprietary software to conduct elections. While I personally would prefer sticking to "paper and pencil", the only way that you can use electronic voting machines and prevent fraud is if the voting machines are running free software. This is what they are doing in Brazil...but then Brazil has mandated that all government departments at all levels of government migrate to free software.
The term "open source" was coined in 1998 by a group of folks who wanted to make it easier to get businesses to make use of free software. They created the "Open Source Initiative" and accepted some software licenses as being "open source" that the FSF would never accept as being "free software". The OSI recently even accepted a couple of Microsoft licenses as being "open source"...and even at that Microsoft violated the "Open Source Definition" with one of them.
The idea was to downplay all this "lefty radical" stuff about "freedom" and instead concentrate on technical issues, development models and cost issues...or lack of them.
If you read the business computer trade publications they have lots to say about "open source"...but you will almost never see them mention "free software". They'll refer to Linus Torvalds as "the inventor of Linux"...when in fact what he invented was the "Linux kernel" which together with the Free Software Foundation's free operating system "GNU Project" lead to the creation of the GNU/Linux operating system.
It's not to say that "open source" movement people are evil...they do alot to develop and encourage the use of free software. But it's not enough. It's important also to spread the politics of free software.
One term that I think is a bit better than "open source" is "Free and Open Source Software" (FOSS) or "Free Libre and Open Source Software" (FLOSS)...both of these terms better embrace the politics of freedom.
Because if you don't understand the politics of software freedom, as soon as it's a little bit "inconvenient", you'll immediately reach for that proprietary software. Defending freedom (in the anti-corporate sense of the term) is always going to have varying degrees of inconvenience. There are lots of things that progressive people do that are inconvenient, like not shopping at a store that's being picketed by striking staff...or refusing to buy somebody's product because they do nasty things to the environment or treat workers like crap.
I recall that after the air traffic controllers strike in 1981 when Ronald Reagan fired all of the controllers, that the staff and activists in many U.S. unions adopted a "no fly" policy...and kept it in force for quite awhile as I recall. I'd say that it's alot more inconvenient to take the train from New York To Los Angeles, then to use "Open Office" instead of "Microsoft Office" to type your resume.
Having said all of that, I fully understand that people can't move from proprietary software to free software overnight. Governments (like those in Brazil) who have adopted a free software policy are making the move over a period of years.
The important thing IMHO is to start somewhere. Many free software programmes are "cross-platform" and have versions available for Windows, MacOSX, GNU/Linux and other operating systems.
Over time you may find that you use free software on your proprietary operating system more than you use proprietary software. That's the time to start looking at dumping your proprietary operating system in favour of GNU/Linux.
There are so many easy ways to test out a GNU/Linux operating system these days that it can make your head spin. For example, the latest version of the Ubuntu distribution of GNU/Linux has a "Wubi" installer. It allows you to run Ubuntu as a programme from within Windows XP. Just pop the CD into the drive, a message pops up asking you how much space you want to allocate on your hard drive for Ubuntu...a few mouse clicks and 20-30 minutes later you have two operating systems on your machine. When you boot you'll have a "choice" between booting into Windows or booting into Ubuntu.
Just about every GNU/Linux distribution can run in "live" mode...where it can be run off a CD or DVD disk without interfering with your other operating system at all. This is definitely something that can't be done with a proprietary computer operating system.
And of course there are plenty of somewhat older computers that can be obtained for free (or very cheaply) at yard sales, on Freecycle or even tossed on the street for trash pickup (last summer I found three Pentium III's and an early vintage Pentium IV that way), that might not run "Windows Vista" or might not even run "Windows XP" very well...but will run a GNU/Linux operating system quite nicely.
If you tried a GNU/Linux system three or four years ago and ran into some problems, that's ancient history. You need to try it again. And if you "just tried Ubuntu" and had a problem, you're thinking like a user of proprietary operating systems. There are literally dozens of "distributions" of the GNU/Linux operating system...some put out by a couple of basement hackers, some put out by corporations large and small, some put out by global teams of developers. If you don't like one...then just try a different one.
Some GNU/Linux distributions adhere very closely to the political philosophy of software freedom, others less so, and some just barely. Somewhere along that curve you'll find one that you like.
As for Wayne's comments about the Open Moko Free Runner, give me a break. We have had over twenty years of locked-up proprietary mobile phones. The Open Moko is the very first "free as in freedom" mobile phone. It's the first mobile phone in history that gives the end user the freedom to install any software they want on it. If Bill C-61 passes, it (and others like it) will be the only phones that you will be free to hack.
If you can think of a first generation product that has come on the market that didn't have some "teething problems", please let me know. But over the medium to longer term, I expect that the problems with the Open Moko will be fixed alot quicker than the problems with the iPhone...and on the iPhone...the "freedom problem" will never be "fixed".
For "progressive computer users", the "default" position should be that we use free software. The use of proprietary software should be the exception to the rule. Right now it's the other way around. We need to change that.
Over my years in the labour movement, I often heard members complain about this or that aspect of their union. But when you ask if they attend meetings or otherwise participate in the union they would answer that they did not.
Free software is participatory...even if you aren't a programmer. If you find a "bug' or a problem, most free software programmes have extensive online forums. They'll also often have "wish lists" of features that you'd like to see in future editions of the programme.
Very often, you'll hear back from one of the developers around a problem...something that will never happen in the proprietary software world.
You can also participate by writing documentation, user manuals or articles, translating stuff into other languages etc. Even showing folks on this board how to do something is useful.
How often do people say "write your MP, MLA, city councillor" etc. when you want something done.
Well I'm saying "write your free software programme developer". You're much more likely to get a positive response.
[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: leftylabourtech ]
Mon, 2008-07-28 12:36
#34
Catchfire
Thank you!
Mon, 2008-07-28 13:46
#35
The other thing that really irks me about Wayne McPhail's condescending post is that his arguments aren't all that different from the leftish liberal types who are "too cool to vote NDP"...you've all heard it before... "yes I believe in all that lefty social equality stuff but the NDP's never going to win and so you've got to get in with the 'big boys' who really make things happen, so that you're an 'insider' etc. etc. ad nauseum"
Maybe if there was a Rabble convention, Steve Jobs would be invited and presented with a "Rabble jacket".
Mon, 2008-07-28 13:54
#36
Welcome, radiorahim, and thanks for the wonderful post(s). Inspiring. I wish I understood these things better, but you've certainly pointed me in the right direction.
Mon, 2008-07-28 14:45
#37
Hey, this whole thing was worth it just to see radiorahim again! I'll have the system e-mail your password to the e-mail you signed up with. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2008-07-28 16:25
#38
Unionist...as a union activist I'm sure that the reason you're involved in the labour movement is not simply because having a trade union in the workplace is "technically" the best way to setup relations between workers and employers and/or that it's more "cost efficient" (for workers that is)...in terms of better wages/benefits.
There might be some members who feel this way, but I'm sure that most active union folks are involved in the labour movement because they believe in some way, shape or form in collective worker empowerment...or let's say collective "worker freedom".
The same goes for folks involved in other social movements...it's not about "technical and/or cost things" alone ...it's about empowering the particular community...that community's "freedom".
The "four freedoms" that the Free Software Foundation has established represent the first attempt to codify the freedoms that computer users should have, and they've been made real by means of a software license.
If you use software that's licensed under the GPL...or similar free software licenses you can "compute in freedom".
Michelle...not sure what e-mail address I was using when I first signed on here...way back when...so it may be awhile.
BTW, while in "exile" I (and others) have posted on alot of these issues over on enmasse.ca
Mon, 2008-07-28 16:37
#39
quote:
Originally posted by leftylabourtech:
[b]I'm sure that most active union folks are involved in the labour movement because they believe in some way, shape or form in collective worker empowerment...or let's say collective "worker freedom".[/b]
Couldn't agree more.
You should lecture on FSF (if you don't already do so). You have a persuasive way. How about a YouTube series or something similar?
Tue, 2008-07-29 16:01
#40
As a guy who learned how to program a 6502 way back when and a long time user, I'm afraid I don't much see the distinction between free and corporate software. But , as a photographer, when I get back from a trip and I have 700 images to process, I sure as hell do care that what I'm using is fast, cost effective and does all the right things (preserves my originals, has a built in cataloging system etc.)
At that moment in time, facing that job, I rather do photography that figure out how to get something loaded and make it work. One of the worst days of my life was the day someone dumped a Unix manual on my desk and said "we're going to make you responsible for keeping the network up in the drafting room". You can talk open source or freeware and it may ideologically appeal to you. But I have to ask, do you actually use your computer for anything but word processing? Because guys like me, if you put something on my desk that does what we want we'll use it. Even if it's complicated to install. But complicated to use, forget it. I won't sacrifice my time to an ideal. A couple of hundred bucks now to save hours of wasted effort is a good deal. It's a question of efficiency. I don't have anything against open source or freeware. I've just never found any of it that made my life easier.
And really, I wonder how people would feel if people made "open source "cars or "free cars" is your job was building cars. I believe in a "free" world, but I can't live in it. If everyone else gives me what I need for free, I'll be happy to chip in what I can, also for free, maybe we shouldn't start saying what should be free and what shouldn't till we're all on the same page. Designating areas where things should be open source or free, is great, as long as you open whatever it is you do to the same logic.
[ 29 July 2008: Message edited by: retiredguy ]
Tue, 2008-07-29 17:58
#41
They do make open source cars. In fact, one of the open source analogies that most caught on was to cars--'you can look under the hood'. If autoware was proprietary like software can be, then you'd see a big metal box under the hood hiding everything.
And i'm sure people are sick of the analogy but the above post reads a lot to me like arguments for allowing private health care.
Tue, 2008-07-29 19:30
#42
The arguments about the difficulties installing or using Linux, or open source or FOSS fall flat. For me, it's the opposite. I've been using Linux for so long (about a dozen years) that I find Windows to be clumsy and awkward and I can't understand how or why anyone, anyone at all, would tolerate such junk. People ask me how to use, or fix, their computers and I tell them to find a 12 year old because I am somewhat embarrassed that I don't know how to do it.
My suspicion is that if everyone who posts to this site had initially been introduced to computers that were pre-loaded with Linux and used it for years that they would find it as difficult to adapt to Windows as they presently experience with Linux.
Tue, 2008-07-29 22:48
#43
[url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0659.html?printable=1]Globalization and Open Source Nano Economy[/url] ...and avoiding mad bomber syndrome Giulio Prisco 2006
quote:
In this essay, I wish to raise my concern over some of the problems of today's world, and try to suggest how they can be eliminated, or at least their negative impact be reduced, by developing operational worldwide molecular design and manufacturing capabilities.The Unabomber Manifesto ("Industrial Society And Its Future") by Theodore Kaczynski is one of the most interesting documents of our times, in terms of both its history and its content. Thanks to the work of Information Technology pioneers such as some of the people he targeted, you can read the full text of the Unabomber Manifesto online. . .
I can almost see a future where the means of production are owned by local communities and workers themselves
Wed, 2008-07-30 21:26
#44
radiorahim
Hey...it came to me...I remembered my old password...so no more need for my temporary "sock puppet".
quote:
You can talk open source or freeware and it may ideologically appeal to you.
I'm not sure if you were addressing those comments to me, but I was speaking of neither. "Freeware" might not cost anything, but it isn't "free software". It doesn't meet the "four freedoms" definition I outlined.
And I don't generally speaking support "open source" because it removes the politics from free software.
And yes your car analogy falls flat. How cars work is pretty much fully documented. You can go to the store and buy a Chilton's manual or whatever for the particular model of car you have.
Car manufacturer's haven't made how their cars work a secret.
Now some of the software for the new computerized gizmos may not be publicly documented...and that may be worrisome down the road. Although I understand that some automotive software is/will be running on embedded GNU/Linux...which is a good thing.
There are in fact some folks working on using the free software methodology with cars and down the road we'll see how this pans out.
[url=http://www.theoscarproject.org/]Oscar Project[/url]
There are also folks applying this set of principles to beer:
[url=http://www.freebeer.org/blog/]Free Beer[/url]
You are free to brew the beer any way that you want to, you are free to study the ingredients that go into the beer and change them as you wish, you are free to copy the beer recipes and give them to your neighbours, you are free to make your own modified version of these beer recipes and release your modified beer recipe to the public.
The beer that you make can be given away or sold...depending of course on local alcohol distribution laws.
quote:
A couple of hundred bucks now to save hours of wasted effort is a good deal. It's a question of efficiency. I don't have anything against open source or freeware. I've just never found any of it that made my life easier.
Again, you fail to understand the "free" in free software. It's a weakness of the English language. Free can mean "doesn't cost anything" or it can mean "freedom". It's in the second sense of the term that I am using the term "free".
Here's an alternative business model. You can go out and spend $500 on some photo editing software produced by a faceless corporate conglomerate that doesn't respect user's freedoms. Or, you can install software that does respect your freedom and pay someone locally that same $500 to get it working for you...and/or maybe to teach you how to use it to accomplish the tasks you want to accomplish. And just maybe, because you've had a bit of training, you're actually more efficent using it then you are the proprietary software.
In any case, I would no more promote the use of proprietary software than I would promote shopping at Walmart.
I would not get on a self-described "progressive" board/blog and say that shopping in a unionized grocery store is expensive and the workers are lazy ...and then advocate shopping at Walmart instead because the prices were lower and the staff were more "efficient".
People are of course free to make whatever decisions they want and take whatever actions they want...but actions that are "convenient" are not necessarily "progressive".
I would also echo what Toby Fourre said. I find that most folks who dump on free software either a)have never used it or b) maybe played with it a little bit some years ago, ran into a problem and gave up.
The slogan of most free software developers is "release early and release often". Betas and even "alphas" are released to the public so that you can "test" software that hasn't even been "officially" released yet...so that ordinary folks can "bug test" new software. Yes this happens to some degree in the proprietary world...but not in the systematic way it happens in the free software world.
So there is constant incremental change. Most Linux distros for example are on a six month release schedule.
A problem that you might have had three years ago is likely fixed now...or there is a simplified method to deal with the problem.
OO.o Version 3.0 is scheduled for release in September. You'll be able to do some basic text editing of .pdf files amongst other things.
BTW...the problem Michelle referred to at the start of this thread where someone didn't have their root password isn't a "Linux problem", it's a problem created by the user not getting the password. If the individual didn't have the Windows administrative password, they'd have the exact same problem.
I've never had to reset a Linux root password...because I've never lost one...but for others I've have had to "crack" the admin password on a number of Windows boxes...it's pretty easy (but it shouldn't be).
In any case I was able to find the instructions to reset a Linux root password by doing a thirty second google search. It's a bit more complicated a process (and that's a good thing), but it can be done...it might take 10-15 minutes vs. 2-3 minutes on a Windows box.
Wed, 2008-07-30 23:24
#45
[url=http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/tech/2F5C3C5D68A380EDCC257423006E71C... source 3D printer copies itself[/url] Self-replicating printer frees-up 3D printing under GNU
Fri, 2008-08-01 18:02
#46
1 allowed my ubuntu to upgrade to a whole new version (8.04 LTS) over the internet a couple of weeks ago. I guess thats like going from xp to vista over the internet.
Its kinda neat because I did not have to get any dvd's or anything. And over the last week, firefox, openoffice and kde have all gone to new version too. You do need cable internet for all this upgrading. I like it because there is always new functionality to stuff.
Anyone use an eee laptop? Can you do basic websites on them?
Brian
quote:
Originally posted by Toby Fourre:
[b]The arguments about the difficulties installing or using Linux, or open source or FOSS fall flat. For me, it's the opposite. I've been using Linux for so long (about a dozen years) that I find Windows to be clumsy and awkward and I can't understand how or why anyone, anyone at all, would tolerate such junk. People ask me how to use, or fix, their computers and I tell them to find a 12 year old because I am somewhat embarrassed that I don't know how to do it.My suspicion is that if everyone who posts to this site had initially been introduced to computers that were pre-loaded with Linux and used it for years that they would find it as difficult to adapt to Windows as they presently experience with Linux.[/b]
Fri, 2008-08-01 18:18
#47
From the inimitable [url=http://xkcd.com/456/]xkcd:[/url]
[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cautionary.png[/img]
![http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cautionary.png[/img]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cautionary.png[/img]){kind=link}
The caption is "This really is a true story, and she doesn't know I put it in my comic because her wifi hasn't worked for weeks."
Sat, 2008-08-02 11:27
#48
I saw that, loved it [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Anyway, re: open source.
I've actually taken a bit of a shine to [url=http://www.pcbsd.org/]PC-BSD[/url]. In fact, I used it for almost a month on my Core 2 Duo system because it was largely idiotproof by that point. My only reason for switching back to Windows was that I wanted to play SimCity Societies and had a chance to get a cheap Windows Vista copy legitimately. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2008-08-02 13:40
#49
radiorahim
The cartoon is satire...and like any form of satire it exaggerates issues in order to make a point.
And the point is "give up". There is no alternative to the corporate status quo.
I'm happy that over the years that folks involved in social movements haven't given up. I'm glad that the labour movement hasn't given up, I'm glad that the women's movement hasn't given up, that the LGBT movement hasn't given up, that the peace movement hasn't given up along with movements against poverty, racism and everything else under the sun. Because if these movements had given up, we'd have made no social progress at all.
I recall a strike by members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that took place in the summer of 1981. There were all kinds of satirical editorial cartoons making fun of CUPW's key issue.
What was that issue? Paid maternity leave. To the editorial writers and editorial cartoonists of 1981, this was a "silly" demand. Not only that, but it was those so-called lazy, strike-happy postal workers who were taking this issue on.
CUPW didn't give up. They staged a six week strike and they won. Paid maternity leave soon spread to other major collective agreements. It then lead to changes being made to the Unemployment Insurance Act which improved the lives of millions of women across Canada.
Most of the so-called "Linux problems" with certain types of hardware aren't "Linux problems".
at all. They are the result of hardware manufacturers writing drivers solely for the monopoly Microsoft operating systems.
Although this is becoming less and less of a problem as hardware manufacturers "get with the programme", there are still some holdouts.
These holdouts either a) Don't write a GNU/Linux driver for their hardware or b) Don't release the documentation on how their hardware works so that the community can write a driver for their hardware (with no development costs at all to the hardware manufacturer).
So, the free software community is forced to "reverse engineer" a driver without the benefit of any documentation.
The wifi card chipset makers have been amongst the worst of the "holdouts"...and the "worst of the worst" as I understand it, has been Broadcom.
Just this past week, Atheros one of the major wifi chipset makers has released a totally free software wifi driver for their chipsets to the free software community.
You can read about it here:
[url=http://www.fsf.org/news/ath9k]Atheros releases free wifi driver[/url]
This driver has been released under a free software license and can now be included in the "Linux kernel".
Since GNU/Linux distributions are generally released every six months, this driver will work its way into upcoming distributions.
When it does so, support for Atheros wifi cards will actually be better than support under Windows. There will be no need to install a driver because the driver will be built right into the operating system.
At the last meeting of the "Linux Foundation", major PC hardware vendors like Asus, HP, Lenovo and Dell announced that in the next round of OEM contracts, they will be demanding "Linux compatible" hardware from them.
No doubt, the hardware manufacturers are feeling the heat.
[url=http://www.linux.com/feature/134125]Computer makers push for Linux compatible hardware[/url]
For the time being, if you're looking at perhaps some day converting a computer over to GNU/Linux, take a few minutes of your time and first do a search to find out whether a device has good GNU/Linux support or not.
For instance I bought a Samsung laser printer. Why? Because there was GNU/Linux support "out of the box". I just plugged it in and it worked. There was no need for me to install some bloated Windows application along with it.
Sharing it with the other computers on my home network was a breeze.
If a hardware vendor doesn't provide me with GNU/Linux support, I don't support them with my dollars.
My portable audio player is a "Cowon". Why? Because "out of the box" it supports patent-free media formats like ogg vorbis and FLAC. I'm not restricted to using proprietary media formats and therefore my player is more "usable". Not only that, but my Cowon player was cheaper than an "iPod".
And unlike certain Creative and other portable audio players, I'm not locked in to transfering files using Microsoft's proprietary "MTP" which forces me to use Windows Media Player. That's another way my player is more "usable".
"FUD" (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) has been the main weapon that Microsoft and other proprietary software corporations have used to scare people away from using free software.
I find that it's not a whole lot different than the kind of propaganda that corporations put out to scare people away from organizing unions.
Sat, 2008-08-02 15:05
#50
radiorahim
quote:
Anyone use an eee laptop? Can you do basic websites on them?
I have an Asus EeePC and love it. I took it with me on a month long trip to Europe and really put it through its paces.
My only complaint is the same as everyone else's...the somewhat cramped keyboard...but you do get used to it.
The GNU/Linux version that comes pre-installed on the EeePC is a heavily modified version of Xandros, that's been specifically customized for the EeePC.
It comes with alot of applications... mostly free software i.e. Open Office, Firefox, Pidgin, Amarok, Gwenview, MPlayer and proprietary applications like Skype.
However, there isn't a web page creation tool installed "out of the box".
For that you'd have to enable additional software repositories, and install additional stuff through Synaptic (or apt-get if you prefer).
Because Xandros is heavily customized, you want to make sure that you "pin" Xandros...so that certain essential files don't get overwritten and you end up hosing Xandros.
There's also a version of Xubuntu (Ubuntu but with the lightweight XFCE desktop) that's been especially customized for the EeePC. Using Xubuntu, you can install whatever you want in the normal way.
Also, the "Mandriva 2008.1 Spring" release apparently is "EeePC ready"...and can be installed on the EeePC.
BTW...Mandriva 2008.1 Spring has been getting some great reviews.
You can boot an EeePC from a USB thumb drive...and so that becomes another option. You can leave the existing Xandros alone...and then when you want to use a different GNU/Linux distro (with whatever additional applications you want/need) just run it off the thumb drive.
There's an extensive EeePC users group with lots of helpful folks around. You'll be able to find help there with just about anything.
[url=http://www.eeeuser.com/]eeeuser.com[/url]
One problem that you will find with some "big box retailers" like "The Source"... they have removed the GNU/Linux versions of the EeePC's from the shelves. It's not because they weren't selling well...(they couldn't keep them in stock!) all indications are that Microsoft has been using its market power to "lean" on Asustek.
So if you're looking for a GNU/Linux EeePC, you'll find them in the smaller computer shops...like those in Toronto's Spadina & College "Computer Alley".
Sat, 2008-08-02 16:44
#51
Hey radiorahim, do you have a recommendation for a store in that area that's good? I got my current laptop at one on College across the street from Augusta, and it's turned out pretty well, but then, I'm running Windoze and all that on it. I know, I know. (Hanging my head in shame...)