Slashdottedlearning Unix For Mac
Linux and the thousands of other open source projects that make a usable desktop remain Free, while the others do not. Even if I concede that open source clones of proprietary software are often inferior (which is certainly not a given), I'm ok with that given the benefits.
If you.need. pivot tables in Excel or the bazillion features in Photoshop, then spend the money for your single license, possbily DRM'ed, binary-only product that can only be installed and run on a single OS a single hardware platform. More power to you! Isn't choice wonderful? I, along with many others, choose cost-free software that affords us the freedom to copy it indefinitely, install it on whatever OS/hardware we have, and tweak and fiddle with it without fear of DMCA violations or SPA audits. Your snide 'not quite as good' remark totally ignores the benefits beyond technical features. Ok, but I'm not a driveling whiny developer enthusiast that needs to have the bazillion levels of freedom that you need to hack the bejeezus out of your computer.
I'm a burger flipper, a tire guy, a mechanic, a professional, or a housewife and I just want the stuff to work. I don't want to have to make a stupid decision about which distribution I should download and I don't want to have to answer nine billion technical questions just to get it installed.
Something I have never gotten from Linux. Ok, but I'm not a driveling whiny developer enthusiast that needs to have the bazillion levels of freedom that you need to hack the bejeezus out of your computer.
I'm a burger flipper, a tire guy, a mechanic, a professional, or a housewife and I just want the stuff to work. In that case, the bazillion programs available for Windows shouldn't matter - only the few you need to work. Additionally, the lack of a need for antivirus, and the ease of keeping your system up-to-date and secure, should appeal to you. In fact, even a package manager and a distribution should benefit you, in the long run.
Choosing software supported by the distro means it'll be maintained, likely forever and for free. Using a distro like Debian or Ubuntu, which has separate stable and unstable versions, means that as long as you're on the stable version, all of that software is known to work together - no 'dll hell', no other strange cases of one piece of software causing another to not work.
Just because it's free doesn't mean it is going to be good and just because it costs a lot of money doesn't mean that it's evil. This is true.
However, the fact that it is free, in a truly level market economy, would mean that anything that costs money would have to come with a lot of added value. As it is, the closest competitor, in the sense of something for which most software is compatible, might be Solaris (and other commercial Unices), but Solaris was recently open sourced - Linux dominates that market. OS X might count, except their GUI is so proprietary that a truly native OS X app can't be much more easily ported to Linux than a Windows app can. Why should I recommend Ubuntu. Is it the right distro for everyone.
No, but it is popular, and it is better than Windows. Popular, in open source, tends to correlate to goodness, except in extreme circumstances. This is because popularity doesn't just attract consumers, it attracts developers. This has both the indirect network effect Windows does - anything that works on Linux, you can bet someone's grafted it onto Ubuntu, and either thrown up a package or written a howto - and it has the more direct effect of speeding development on anything Ubuntu considers a core techn. I watched a few of these videos and I'm going to admit that it's very tough to push an operating system in less than a minute.
So that leaves you in the very department you don't want to be in-marketing. I will congratulate Linux and the winning contestant on achieving what Apple did and Microsoft tried to. And that is simplify Linux down to an idea easy to grasp with no actual numbers or ideas surrounding it. Like the Mac ads, it's just 'cool' to be a Mac. I like that they imply that to be Linux is to enjoy freedom but it's no more convincing to me than the Mac ads.
I'm a Linux fanatic but I'm realistic. I don't think Linux needs this kind of advertising. I would prefer the software to speak for itself-warts and all. I hope all the participants had fun and I also hope that this doesn't make an easy target for anti-Linux folks.
The winning ad sidesteps some of Linux's difficult aspects (usability, third party support, etc.) and promotes its trump card. Linux is freedom. I will congratulate Linux and the winning contestant on achieving what Apple did and Microsoft tried to. And that is simplify Linux down to an idea easy to grasp with no actual numbers or ideas surrounding it. Like the Mac ads, it's just 'cool' to be a Mac. I like that they imply that to be Linux is to enjoy freedom but it's no more convincing to me than the Mac ads. I'm a Linux fanatic but I'm realistic.
But, see, there's a big, big problem with the winning ad. Unless you already know what Linux is, which many, many people do not, it is utterly meaningless. I know it has become popular to make ads that don't really explain what they're for in recent times, but that only works if the brand they're advertising is already recognizable, at least among their target demographic. But The Great Unwashed Masses don't even know what Linux is yet.
Knowing that 'it's freedom' tells them nothing, and the cute little animated graphics don't give any indication that it's even something to do with a computer—yeah, the graphics themselves are sometimes clearly computer-related, but these days, what isn't? When Linux is already as recognizable a name as Mac, iPod, Coke, or Nike, and everyone knows that 'it's just another alternative to Mac or Windows,' then we can make ads like this to push the 'freedom' aspect of it. But until then, this ad doesn't tell a non-geek anything.except that Linux is pretentious.
I'm not crazy about the ad, either, but to play devil's advocate, youtube.com didn't exactly tell you what it was advertising either. On many levels, that ad should have been a flop (no information about the product, decidedly intellectual metaphor, etc) But you left the ad knowing that you wanted to know more. I think that's the approach the Linux folks are trying here. In my opinion, that approach is fine, but this ad doesn't really make me want to find out more. Maybe they need to hire Ridley Scott. Maybe you are just totally uninformed?
Ffmpeg supports flv just fine. And it comes preinstalled with every desktop distribution. The only thing missing, is the small Firefox script, that transforms flv playback into a mplayer (or vlc) playback window. (pretty simple.
I have done it for many sites myself). And so could every preinstaller. But in reality (hellooo, yeah. That world out there!), this all is completely and totally irrelevant. Everybody just has flash preinstalled from his bought compu.
It is worth noting that each item relates to interfaces to proprietary hardware and/or proprietary media. This is the weak point of open source for obvious reasons. If standards and specifications are open, then an implementation can be implemented with N man hours of work. However if reverse engineering is required, then N.10 - N.100 man hours is required, depending on how much effort was put into obscuring the hardware/software interface.
This is basically a struggle between Computer Science, where we build f. I took a gander at all the finalists of this contest and I felt like I could point out some problems with most of them. 'Origin' had exceptional visuals but the voiceover suffered from poor pacing, another had a good script but Film School-esque visuals. I had a real soft spot for the French entry in a faux operating room - I watched it without subtitles, and I don't understand French. The image of a nurse-chasing Tux speaking an incomprehensible language had me cracking up, but I think it may have been too. The problem is that it's hard to pin down the advantages in a manner that people will 'get it'. I don't know how many times I've shown (honestly so and in a way the people were just gobsmacked.) those advantages- and people will still use XP or Vista, because they 'like' it, never mind that they're always bitching about all the problems they actually HAVE with the stuff and never once twig onto the fact that it really doesn't have to be that way and you don't have the crap going on in the large on Linux.
And this doesn't even get into the people with the mindset that something as good as what Linux has become could ever be 'free' or that handing copies out to people could be anything but illegal. Spelling out 'advantages' isn't going to get you there right at the moment. I'm glad they went with an ad that didn't scream 'Me too!' Out of necessity, Linux already copies Microsoft which copied Macintosh which copied Xerox in terms of GUIness and perhaps other programs. But it didn't need to do the same with commercials: copying Microsoft copying Apple.
The only thing bad is that unless you already know what linux is, the commercial doesn't exactly inform you, even visually, albeit a single cartoonishly animated mouse cursor. It might leave common people scratching their heads. Not surprising that a budget can produce results. I'm not sure where to start on the 'winning advertisement'.
For a start: the quality of presentation and graphics is poor. The medium is visual, but the visuals serve no purpose: we'd know just as much (or just as little, as the case may be) with audio only. The copy is generica: we're talking about freedom and liberty. Is it an airline? Is it a panty liner?
The voice for the audio is a poor choice. It's not the accent that's the problem, it's just not an engagin. A lot of people have been posting this.
The ad doesn't tell you what Linux actually is, just that it's gives you freedom. But that's OK. That's actually what makes it a good ad. It focuses on a single concept. The problem is not the ad itself, it's those that are focusing on a single ad and not thinking about a wider marketing campaign. Unless the product is very self explanatory, you don't introduce something new with a single ad, you serve up multiple ads, possibly with an overall theme, each one highlighting something different about the product. To be simple, look at Apple's ads.
Note that I use the plural form of ad. Each one talks about one thing. 'Ease of use' is one ad. 'No viruses' is another ad. 'Interoperabilty' is another. They don't do this all in one ad, its impossible. Some of the entries tried to do this and it failed miserably.
You only have thirty seconds to get your point across. Say too much and no one will get it. So this is only the beginning of a campaign. It's the initial buzz creator.
It gets people asking the questiong 'what is this linux thing?' Some will go look it up, but they don't have to, because your next ads are coming out that go deeper. They use the same overall style, but instead of talking about freedom, they talk about security, or reliability, or open standards, or whatever. There's a lot of reasons Linux is great, but you have to pick only one reason per ad. I went down to microcenter in cambridge, ma, a half mile from mit and harvard.
They don't even stock linux computers. I do my taxes on the computer (so even if they make linux tax software, i have to import, or run wine) my kids use windows for gaming (so i have to know something about it to help them). I actually installed ubuntu under wubi on my last laptop: it worked fine: so what why should i switch if there is ZERO incentive for me to use linux - i get absolutely nothing from linux that i don't get fr. It's okay if you're happy enough where you are.
It sounds like you're used to a certain level of pain. Everyone's experience is unique. For me, the math happens to run the other way. Here at work I'm forced to use Windows. I've been doing systems work for more than thirty years now, but fortunately it's almost never involved Microsoft products. The kinds of work I do have been in areas where Microsoft doesn't go, so it hasn't even been an option.
When I switch to Windows it's endless irritation. Slow performance most of all, but everything, just everything is a little bit below par.
My Linux systems are running on older hardware, never a problem, and easily eight or ten times more responsive. So stay with Windows if you think it's faster and does what you need. After all, it's a free choice. Nobody is forcing you. The ad brings up the idea that Linux is about freedom. Does Linux follow through on that promise? I started using Ubuntu in December (hand in my geek card, I know).
I tried once before with Mandrake about 5 years ago and it was too much work (honestly) for a hobby OS. How free are people under Linux?
I understand that it's about freedom of information, but when I think about the other possibilities that I might want to have in terms of User Interface manipulation (like the ad seems to suggest) I begin to wonder. Is there an easy (non-code, maybe even scripting) way to change the look of the UI? Is the UI as easy, fun, and colorful as the ad seems to suggest? These may seem like dumb questions to some, but if Linux wants market share they need to build a brand and follow through on that brand promise. About freedom and intuition in applications: When trying to play a DVD on my girlfriend's brand new Ubuntu build it was necessary to download 3 different media applications (settled on VLC, but even that had a fatal bug sometimes) and sift for a while through google just to install the correct libs.
I understand that the DVD format isn't free, but getting everything to work correctly was a bit of a chore. THAT is not freedom. THAT is frustration to a new user. If I hadn't been there I know she would have ditched the OS and gone back to Windows.
She even picked up an 'Ubuntu for Dummies' book (which did not fully describe getting a DVD to play) so she's by no means lazy about learning Linux. She doesn't use the computer for too much but shouldn't the bare basics work immediately? 'Basics' are different for everyone (Aha! Another chance to have Linux be about freedom!) so shouldn't there be an option to walk people through what tasks they might use the computer for, then show them to the new user and make it enjoyably interactive to CHOOSE those programs, with an option somewhere to try out and learn other programs? It's about freedom AND communicating that freedom effectively, and I feel the Linux community would benefit greatly from taking the time to concentrate on that aspect. Re: gnumeric for mac. If Linux (whatever flavor) is really about freedom, then that gift of freedom from developers comes with responsibility. That is a responsibility to coherently express how and what the OS can do.
If there really are a lot of people taking Linux notebooks/netbooks/desktops back, don't you think they at least.tried. tinkering with the OS?
To me that says that the initial impression Linux gives may not be a helpful one. If Linux is trying to get new users, shouldn't the focus be on effectively presenting the OS to new users? In short, the ad seems cool, but Linux should get that ad out there and they should find a way to follow through on what effectively seems to be Linux's biggest shortcoming. I want an operating system that does what I tell it to and offers tools for facilitating this such that each new task does not require a new application. That is Linux/UNIX.
Point: Operating systems don't want anything. That's anthropomorphism. People want things. Linux users don't want other Linux users. Linux users want Linux. That's why it looks like it does after Linux users built it. They built what they want.
And it serves them well. Somewhere this 'Linux wants users' meme got blown out of all realistic.
That's how to do it? Nowhere did I find something about restricted-extras. I so feel your pain. I stopped using Windows about 10 years ago, I just couldn't bare it anymore. I observed many of the same issues as you have mentioned over the years. Graphics cards, this or that hardware dvd's, flash on 64 bit, wine for games, yes problems I eventually solved, but not without effort on my part. I have installed Linux for friends, Fedora which I use was a disaster for them - Ubuntu much better.
Personally I am t. When trying to play a DVD on my girlfriend's brand new Ubuntu build it was necessary to download 3 different media applications (settled on VLC, but even that had a fatal bug sometimes) and sift for a while through google just to install the correct libs. Or, you could have done it the Windows way: buy proprietary DVD-playing software, install that, done. canonical.com Click on 'Software' and there it is: PowerDVD. She doesn't use the computer for too much but shouldn't the bare basics work immediately? I don't think Windows XP comes with a DVD player pre-installed by default.
If you buy a new Compaq or Dell or something it probably does have a DVD player, but nobody seems to be selling Ubuntu pre-installed with PowerDVD. If Linux is trying to get new users, shouldn't the focus be on effectively presenting the OS to new users? Who do you mean by 'Linux' here? The Ubuntu guys are doing one thing, the Fedora guys are doing something else, etc. But here's what a new Ubuntu user should be reading: ubuntuguide.org I found Ubuntu Guide through Google. There are resources out there. Yes, the world of Linux, even Ubuntu Linux, is not yet a shiny gleaming perfect place.
But I know several people who are far less geeky than me, and they are perfectly happy using Ubuntu. The best thing is for a geek to set everything up, and then the user can just use the system.
I always tell people: 'There will be problems. There are always problems. But, with Linux, they are different problems than you get in Windows. And I like Linux's problems better.
The problems in Windows tend to be things like 'My machine has spyware now and it stopped working!' The problems in Linux tend to be 'I don't know how to get it to do what I want', but once you solve the Linux problems they tend to stay solved.' That's not a tidy message you could have Jerry Seinfeld deliver in a few seconds; I guess that's why I'm not in marketing. If there are window managers and fun UIs then that's great!
After reading a book about Linux, tuning a system for someone, and walking her through it, why did I have to post on a technology discussion website to find out about it? While I can appreciate picking apart my post, I feel like the spirit of it is being lost. The average user (whatever that means) needs convenience with something like an OS. Otherwise they won't use it. I work with something similar to computers: Finance. It's REALLY complicated stuff.
If you don't present it in the right fashion then you will not be listened to or you will scare the crap out of people. As an analytic I struggle daily with this lesson. Same goes for computers! Linux is trying to get new users. We need to give them more convenience with intuitive freedom to customize.
If it leads to the ability to learn more and not need the convenience, then great! I'm all for it!
I would use it too! Having to poke around all over the internet to find what should be fairly readily available options seems to be self-defeating for Linux as a whole. Maybe I'm just using the wrong flavor of Linux? That's another issue entirely. 'If there really are a lot of people taking Linux notebooks/netbooks/desktops back, don't you think they at least.tried. tinkering with the OS?' Honestly, no, I don't.
Have no fear, though, I'm not here to flame:) The opinion that I've formulated over the last several years is that most people don't want a computer. They want appliances.
Slashdottedlearning Unix For Mac Free
The Mac does this the best. Windows is mediocre at it, succeeding mostly because IBM was the 'must have' 30 years ago. (My opinion on Windows usability comes from the l. The problem with marketing Linux, or at least.Linux. people marketing Linux, is that they seem to think that your typical layperson will place value in the same things that a technical Linux user does. What we have here is an overly-vague advert that places emphasis on it being 'free and open' and 'choices.' A typical end-user does not care about these things.
They want a complete, integrated product that works. Free and open means little if nothing to these people. Where people advocating the wider adoption of Linux truly fail is in realizing what people want, and instead trying to tell them what they want and what they should place value in. What makes Linux so great for some people is what makes it less adoptable for most. The real question is, does your desire for wider Linux adoption trump your desire for an loosely coupled OS with little integration and many choices?
. Possibly Related. Most Popular Posts. Recent Posts. Categories.
(12). (10). (10). (1). (1).
(1). (2). (4). (11).
(1). (3). (13). (4). (10). (1).
(2). (4).
Slashdotted Learning Unix For Mac Os
(21). (2). (2).
(1). (3).
(4). (4). (5). (3). (4).
(3). (5). (25). (1). (7).
(3). (3). (2). (1). (3). (26). (2).
(2). (23). Archives.