Modify Colors
Posts in Promotion
A recent post on WorksWithU warns the new branding-ubuntu package team that, while making minor tweaks to the back of solitare cards is a fnie idea, excessive branding of everything could be a problem.
Without any question, taking credit fo the work of OpenOffice or the GIMP is a bad idea, but using this new ability to integrate other applications more effectively with Ubuntu is a great idea.
Through this new feaure, I hope that, in a few years, Ubuntu can be perfectly integrated between applications, without climing them, of course.
A lot of discussion goes into how to talk about FLOSS – free libre open-source software (for starters how about not using strange acronyms that sound like something you keep with your toothbrush). A recent Earthweb article discusses this topic, pointing out some of the mistakes that are made.
I don’t agree with every point, though. One, in particular, seemed to emphasize two different points of view:
“Within the community, FLOSS is not just a license. It is a view of the world, a collaborative method for running projects, a declaration of the proper relation between users and their hardware and even a vocation. It is an activist worldview, one that hopes for a genuine social transformation.”
“All these could be powerful elements in a successful FLOSS brand. Yet almost none is mentioned. So far as a FLOSS brand exists, it is simply one business strategy among many possible ones.”
While I recognize that developing code in the open with tons of volunteers from all around the world is incredibly cool, free software isn’t exclusively, or even mostly, about that for me. Free software means that I don’t have to worry about a small company going out of business or a big company trying to squeeze every dollar out of me (even in commercial free software, people can fork the code). It also often just means a really good application, since so many more people are able to contribute. Finally, it means that I can be a little more confident that my data is secure, since I know that others have probably examined the code for anything malicious.
Open-source software shouldn’t be marketed as a radical social revolution, just as good software.
Would You Use Linux If It Were Just Another Proprietary OS?
Several days ago, I wrote about the real reasons why I, and so many others, use Linux.to an overwhelming response. One of the often-cited reasons for using Linux in my post that I dismissed is that it is open-source. Most people seemed to agree, but here is my question:
If Linux was exactly as it is now, except it was proprietary and closed-source, would you still use it?
Personally, I am fairly sure I would still use it. I am far more concerned with the security, desktop environment, and other features than I am with the freedom, but is this the same for you? What would you do if Linux was proprieatary?
Dvorak Likes Linux Now, More Will Soon
John Dvorak, a well known PC Mag columnist and cranky geek, announced today that Ubuntu 8.10 is “a winner.” Even the cranky geek likes Linux? It must be great. It is, and that’s why we’ll be seeing a lot more of this soon.
So many people’s first experiences with Linux only a few years ago were plagued with hardware-compatibility issues. Not anymore, though. Now it is amazing how many different pieces of hardware work out of the box with Linux. Another problem has been application support, but, more and more, people do their computing “in the cloud,” otherwise known as in a web browser, which of course just about every Linux distribution has.
My prediction is that as tech journalists decide to give Linux a try, they are going to like it a lot more, largely due to the last bit of polish that has been added in the past couple of years. Dvorak’s testimonial for Linux is just the beginning. His post will probably inspire more mainstream technology writers to try Linux who will likely have similar experiences.
It is true that these sorts of “my experiences with Linux” posts have been happening in the blogosphere for a long time, but when they become more mainstream they take on a completely different nature. I am hopeful that this will be the start of a trend for Linux.
In response to yesterday’s post about the real reasons why we use Linux, a number of readers responded with their own reasons for using Linux. Below are some of the most common reasons that were mentioned in the comments.
- Compiz Fusion While other operating systems have some eye candy and desktop effects, most of them require fancy graphics hardware. Not Compiz Fusion, though. Compiz can be run even on four year old hardware.
- Easy Installation/Update of Software Unlike other systems, Linux handles the installation and updating almost completely seamlessly, rather than opening tons of different update boxes and making you search for every piece of software online.
- No EULA or Activation One of the indirect benefits of most open-source software is that it does not come with a EULA or any complicated activation. Believe me, having to call Microsoft and ask them to reactive your license is not fun.
At some point, nearly everyone who uses Linux has someone ask them “what’s that?” This question almost invariably leads to “why is it better than <other operating system>?” What do you say when someone asks you this?
It’s free, it’s open-source, it doesn’t need a super fast system, and “just because I hate Microsoft” are all common answers. Are those really why you use Linux, though?
I might have tried Linux, because it was free, but that’s not why I’m still using it. Open-source is a nice addition, but it was probably not a deciding factor for me. In some cases low resource requirements are great, but this computer I am typing on could run Vista. I hope I don’t even have to address the “just because I hate Microsoft,” because that’s a terrible reason (also, get over it). Why do I really use Linux?
For one thing, it is out of the mainstream enough that it is not usually a target for viruses. I also find that Ubuntu has one of the best UIs, since it mixes functionality with eye-candy very well (and please don’t tell me docks are the best thing ever, because they aren’t). Finally, there are some Linux applications that I love, such as Grsync and Gedit.
These are the real reasons why I use Linux every day. I am sure yours will be different, but I urge you to think about why you use Linux, so that you can give a better answer to the question “why should I use Linux instead of <another operating system>?” the next time you are asked.
One of the things you hear a lot is that Macs “just work.” As nicely described in this article, Linux “just works” just as well if you only run it on hardware it was designed to run on. I would like to take the post one step further, though. I would recommend that new Linux users, perhaps after testing out the Live CD for a bit, should actually buy a computer with Linux pre-installed.
Buying a new computer is, of course, a huge jump for a lot of people, but it comes with many advantages. For one thing, you don’t have to worry about actually installing the operating system and there is no risk of accidentally losing data. The real reason, though, is that all of the hardware is known to work well with Linux.
Of course, wouldn’t it be easier to just look up what hardware works and make sure that all of your existing hardware is OK? Even if you are going to buy a new computer, why restrict yourself to the Linux choices? The problem is that there is no simple and easy way of verifying that all your hardware works. The only exception to this might be a live CD. If the live CD, after extensive use shows absolutely no problems, you’re probably fine. If, however, some problem occurs, it is often hard to track it down. The worst is when you simply experience crashes. Most likely that is due to some hardware fault or incompatibility, but what piece do you blame?
While this is not an ideal situation, a new user is most likely to get the best experience with Linux if he or she starts with a fresh, new computer that comes pre-install with Linux.
The big question everyone asks when it comes to Linux is “why doesn’t everyone use it?” That is, obviously, what I plan to address today, but first I want to get a few things out of the way.
No one knows what Linux’s market share is, so don’t argue about it. Do you count server users or just desktops? Do they have to be going online to count? Do they have to install updates and, if so, how frequently? Do they have to visit certain sites? Do they spoof their user agent strings so they look like Windows? And so on… The guesses out there vary widely from just about nothing to about equal to OS X, which is a pretty wide range, so don’t even bother arguing about it.. No one knows.
You don’t have to use the terminal to use Linux, as I have demonstrated with my Terminal Test.
For the most part, the problem is not technical issues. I don’t want to go all the way to saying technical issues are not a piece of the problem, but the average user does not use multi-monitor setups, crazy SLI/CrossOver dual-graphics card setups, or anything else crazy. They use computers – the kind Dell and HP sell. Yes, I have built custom computers, but most people don’t and, if they do, they should be able to troubleshoot their own issues.
It’s never an even playing field for the little guy. Almost no one has the luxury of starting with an even playing field. If you’re smaller, you have to prove you are better –as in a lot better. Sometimes even that isn’t enough. No it’s not fair, but it’s not going to change either.
So what is it?
The answer is marketing. No, not big-budget TV commercials, but ordinary word-of-mouth “hey, give this a try” type marketing.
Look at Apple. Not long ago they were in a similar position to desktop Linux. What was it that got them from there to where they are now? TV ads? They were certainly helpful, but no. Steve Jobs? He definitely helped get the Apple fanboy movement started, but no – at least not directly. Word of mouth marketing? Yes.
Passionate users encouraging their friends and co-workers to try a new type of computer (seriously, most people don’t use the words “operating system”) is what drives people to try that new computer.
Yes, but that already happens.
True, there are already a lot of passionate (perhaps too passionate) Linux users out there marketing Linux to just about everyone they come within twenty feet of. The problem is that Linux also suffers from the problem so perfectly described in this XKCD comic:
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 2.5. Image from XKCD.
(Side note: if you haven’t already heard of XKCD, you need to check it out.)
It’s not that you have to be geeky to use Linux, it’s that a lot of people enjoy becoming geeky while using Linux. (*cough* don’t know anything about this myself). That’s fine. I have nothing against people who like exploring and tweaking their systems, but, please, when you suggest Linux to your normal (not interested in the internals of their system) friend, try to be user-friendly in introducing it. Set everything up for them and help them through any problems without taking terminal-based shortcuts (we already demonstrated you don’t have to, remember?)
And one more thing: don’t recommend “Linux.” Recommend Ubuntu. Or Fedora. Or OpenSuSe. Or whatever distribution you like, but pick one and tell them to try that specific one. Preferably, pick the one you use on your own computer, so that you can best help them out if they run into any issues.
Conclusion
Word of mouth is the most powerful way forward Linux has. The key is just to keep in mind who you are talking to. Not everyone is as interested in comptuers as you are.
It’s unfortunate, but an operating system’s reputation can, and usually does, have as much effect on its success as its technical merits. For example, this video shows a number of people praising KDE 4, because they think that it is the next version of Windows. Or think about the difference in perception between Windows Vista and Windows 7 versus the real differences. The reputation of an operating system does matter a lot.
What does this mean for Linux? Don’t call it Linux. Linux is just a kernel with either a bad reputation or no reputation at all. Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse, and other distributions are the real operating systems. These provide a blank slate to start from as far as reputation goes and won’t confuse new users (“what do you mean there are thousands of versions?”).
Just changing the name, though, won’t help on its own. You also need to treat it differently. When discussing Linux with a new or perspective user, be as user-friendly as possible. Make it easy for them to accomplish what they are trying to do and convince them Linux is best with arguments that make sense to them as a normal user.
Without this, Linux will always have a slighlty negative reputation and will have a great deal of difficulty taking off.
Recommending Linux With Confidence: Where We Need To Go
It is not uncommon for people to ask me my opinion on operating systems or ask for help with computer issues. If I wished to recommend Mac OS X to someone, I can tell them to buy a Mac and be confident they wouldn’t run into issues with it. I know that if they take my advice for their next computer, they will pull it out of the box, turn it on, and it will work. Apple, even if I don’t like everything they do, has made it very easy for me to recommend their computers. (Ever wonder why there are so many people promoting Apple for free?) If I feel that Linux would be a better fit for the person in question, though, it is less clear what I should recommend. Ubuntu is, of course, a given for me, but how?
Do I recommend a pseudo-install with Wubi, that they install it normally on their existing computer, or that they buy a new computer pre-installed with it? I am not going to advise most people to go through partitioning on their own. Even if the Ubuntu installer makes it easy, there is too high a risk they destroy their data by accident or end up with a non-booting system. (And you know who gets to fix it, right?) Wubi isn’t a real install, so it is a good transition, but it runs more slowly than a real install. Plus, like the standard installer, there is always the risk of incompatible software. Ubuntu might be compatible with 90% of what’s out there, but that means 10% of the hardware will cause problems or require advanced setup.
So what about buying it pre-installed. Great! Just find me a vendor that pre-installs legal media and DVD playback codecs, makes all the hardware work out of the box without issue, and promptly ensures their hardware is compatible with the latest release. See that’s the problem. I can’t tell someone to go buy a <vendor name> computer and be confident that everything will work as soon as they turn it on.
Am I suggesting Canonical needs to get in to the hardware business? No. A partenership might not be a bad idea, but no, I do not think it would be smart for them to make their own hardware. I do think that there is a market for Linux-powered computers that are guaranteed to work as soon as they come out of the boxes. If a solution like this existed, I would be a lot more confident recommending Linux to everyone.