Sneaking Open Source Software Through the Front Door 316
the_1000th_Monkey writes "LWN daily pointed out this new project today. It aims to be 'a compilation of high quality open source software (OSS) [that] will be made
available as a CD distribution in order to help promote OSS to users of
Windows and MacOS.' There are hopes that this would make it easier to encourage universities, OEMS, and your parents/friends to take advantage of this software and eventually bring them over to a completely free system on their own time. Help for suggestions/discussion is being sought." Newsforge is carrying a slightly more in-depth look at this project. Anyone care to design some attractive, downloadable CD-graphic images?
Didn't this fail before? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Didn't this fail before? (Score:2, Insightful)
Comparing software now to what it was a decade ago is a little unfair (yes, by saying that this idea has already been tried is pretty much saying "the software sucked then and nobody used it so why use it now"). It's like comparing a 1960's car to a 2002 car, the old is a classic, but you really wouldn't wanna use it everyday.
Re:Didn't this fail before? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of things that Mozilla does that IE dosen't now.
One example I ran into recently is PNG alpha transparency.
IE dosen't do it, Mozilla does.
The other feature that has made all of my friends that run windows look into looking at/running mozilla is the lovely "Scripts and Windows" preferences, that can stop pop-unders and pop-up ads.
I can't speak as well for abiword. Tables are quite a necessary thing.
Re:Didn't this fail before? (Score:3)
An initiative that focuses on slicker installation procedures for OSS (which they would have to do if they want to be taken seriously by less than geeky types) will benefit the entire field of OSS development.
For a big number of OSS projects, various GUI config and setup tools are already available, but have never been packaged together with the software itself. Bringing all these components on a coherent easy to use CD, would further the movement greatly.
(I may be wrong of course :)
Re:Didn't this fail before? (Score:5, Insightful)
Orville: Didn't some guy in Switzerland crash into a lake a few months ago trying this?
Wilbur: You're right. What were we thinking? Let's just go back to the bicycle shop and forget about all this nonsense.
success? (Score:2, Interesting)
So why aren't people taking the plunge?
Whatever the reason, it isn't the lack of an easy to install CD. If you think about it objectively, well, what are the differences between most, say, Windows software (commercial or shareware), and most open source software? Well, cost is right at the top, no question. And flexibility, for the small number of people who care. And next? Well, hate to say it, but polish, ease of use, help systems: anything that could make OSS usable by any but the most freakish, repressed, zealous, skinny Linux geek. And sticking it on a CD will never change that, ever, despite what the "community" would have you believe.
Re:success? (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, we're not ALL freakish, repressed, zealous, skinny Linux geeks.
Some of us are fat.
Re:success? (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, open source software has been available for years on Linux ISOs...a lot of distros will install on a normal FAT32 filesystem.
The idea proposed is far different from a Free OS that will install on a FAT32 filesystem. It is modestly an introduction to the great big world of free software. Bringing a collection of Free Software that runs on thier existing windows system will allow for a smooth transition and eventual disconnect from the Borg that so many people could benifit from.
It is true that M$ has made a near science of useability and has made software that a well trained monkey could use. However, the Free Software distrubuted on this CD also has many of the "help systems" and useability features that the M$ bloatware has levreged to gain so much of the market share. There is no reason why any open-minded person would not swithch, or at least try out the software on this CD. They may even find that they can get just as much done for about $600 less than they could with thier M$ alternatives.
Re:success? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say the killer app for getting OSS into Windows boxen would have to be either rpm or apt-get.
If we could make installing software easy, painless, and reliable, we would have an open-source competitor to the Windows Installer. Just think: how many small apps use a full-blown InstallShield or Wise wizard when all they really need is to copy a couple of .EXEs and set up some shortcuts? But how many technophobic users would never install software by reading the README, unzipping the files, and putting them in the proper places?
Once you have a back-end like rpm or apt, all you need is a one-click graphical front-end that launches it. If installing the program all happens automagically, the users will think it is a Good Thing(TM). They will notice how they don't have to click through a gazilion stupid steps like ""C:\Program Files\Company-Name\Product-Name" does not exist. Do you want to create it?"
And then they ate Sir Billy's minstrels. And there was much rejoicing.
Gateway will love this (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if Gateway would want to promote this as a branch-off from their free music initiative. They already ship computers bogged down with other stuff, might as well put something useful on there too.
That could be a big deal for them. This software would add 'value' (as in functional or sales value, even though the software itself is 'free') to their products without costing them much(I say 'not much' because installing that on each computer will cost them).
Re:Correction Re:success? (Score:2)
I know, I know, all it takes is a quick Google search, download the file, double-click, follow the wizard -- what could be easier? -- but do you know how many Windows users don't even know about Google? For a lot of people, AOL search is the only thing they know how to use.
Never assume that ordinary people of average intelligence will manifest anything short of utter stupidity when confronted with a computer. For most of the /. community, computers and technology in general are intuitive; they can generalize knowledge of one application, interface, or platform and quickly begin using another. For the average non-technical person, computer "logic" is 100% counter-intuitive.
I believe this confusion stems somewhat from the fact that what the average person calls "logic" is nothing of the sort: rather, it's "common sense." Most people conclude that something is logical if it "makes sense." But computer logic is a cold, unforgiving mathematical concept, which is totally foreign to people who haven't been exposed to it. I think this is the major link between proficiency with computers and mathematics -- it's not that, on an everyday level, the details have much in common, but the underlying logical model is well-nigh identical.
Hmmm... seems I've gotten carried away. Sorry 'bout rambling on like that...
Not quite clear on this..... (Score:3, Insightful)
To answer the headline question. Sneaking a non-existant CD "Through the Front Door" is rather easy. I do it all the time.
This is the correct way to fight the MS monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that can stop Linux from eventually succeeding Windows on the desktop is either laws to prevent it from happening or not enforcing laws that will allow it to happen.
Re:This is the correct way to fight the MS monopol (Score:2)
Re:This is the correct way to fight the MS monopol (Score:2)
This is, in fact, exactly the tactic Microsoft has already used.
When Microsoft started developing Windows 95, they already had Windows NT 3.something. They knew they wanted everyone to move to NT, as it was more stable and performed better. So when they made the "Designed for Windows 95" logo program, they made one of the qualifications for receiving that logo to be that the program ran on both Windows 95 and Windows NT.
6 years later they were able to produce Windows XP, on which almost all software written for Windows 9x will run.
I'm no big fan of MS, but I appreciate their solution. And you're right, in order to move people off Windows and onto Linux, a similar migration would have to occur.
Perhaps someone (Red Hat?) can start a "Designed for WINE" logo program, and require software that receives that logo to run on both Linux (under WINE) and Windows.
Re:This is the correct way to fight the MS monopol (Score:2)
While I agree with almost everything you said in your post, this sentence was the one that got me.
Other factors can cause a product to suceed or fail other than its merits. This is especially true with (1) a monopoly, and (2) an entrenched monopoly, and (3) a monopololistic player who plays dirty, even willing to commit illegal acts.
I agree completely that a law is not going to make Linux magically appear on everyone's desktop. And I especially agree with what you say about making Linux usable by Joe User. But supposing that these conditions were to be met, I disagree that the merits alone will cause a product to succeed when an entrenched monopoly is willing to play dirty.
It is also good that you seem to observe that the inertia of the market can cause a superior product to fail.
Re:This is the correct way to fight the MS monopol (Score:2)
That won't make a difference if there is no compelling reason to the user to have Linux installed.
"Primarily because its free so the OEM's would love to push it. "
OEM's aren't that stupid... the Consumers have to want it.
"This can only happen if the Justice Dept. dishes out a meaningful punishment to Microsoft."
What you want is already part of the settlement the DOJ has offered.
But regardless, I hate to break this to you, but watching the past 20 years the desktop race is over. Microsoft has won, and there is no way of changing that.
But at some point the desktop and server paradigm that we currently know will go away. If someone had a vision, they would start working towards that... and be there before Microsoft realizes it. That, my friend, is how you become dominant. That is what Microsoft essentially did with the PC over the larger systems.
Mascot? (Score:2, Insightful)
How about
Re:Mascot? (Score:2)
Offtopic? You have got to be kidding. I better things to do with my time than post offtopic.
"Anyone care to design some attractive, downloadable CD-graphic images? "
Sounds like they wanted suggestions to me. I was making a suggestion for the mascot. Now if you don't like otters, then maybe you have a point.
Latex (Score:2)
Mmmmm. What you See is What you Mean editing. Mmmmmm. Yummy. Easy export of PDF, HTML or any other format from one document...
More on LyX, the BEST text processor in the world [lyx.org] or just download [lyx.org] it.
Linux users probably have it already.
matthewmiller.net [matthewmiller.net]
Shaped CDs (Score:2, Informative)
Take it one step further and put it on shaped cds. [cdfx.com]
Cygwin Too (Score:4, Interesting)
grep, awk, wget and others all easy to install.
fortune will be VERY popular!
Preaching to the choir.... Re:Cygwin Too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Preaching to the choir.... Re:Cygwin Too (Score:2)
It wouldn't have the mass popularity that, say Mozilla or OpenOffice offer, but it would get the CD in the door of shops like GM that have Unix boxes setup to run stuff like Unigraphics. These places have users that need a major Unix app like Unigraphics, but don't necessarily need it all the time. For instance, I supported Unigraphics at GM and didn't really need a UG seat all the time, so I ran Hummingbird Exceed.
But at GM, like all the Big Three automakers, its difficult to Hummingbird Exceed on your seat because it costs money. So some users that would otherwise be using Exceed end up walking up to a shared walkup Unix box.
If these people could access Unix boxes remotely from their Windows seat for FREE they'd do it en masse.
Just a thought.
Re:Preaching to the choir.... Re:Cygwin Too (Score:2)
Re:Preaching to the choir.... Re:Cygwin Too (Score:2)
The commandline tools in Windows (all versions) are pretty brain-dead, since they are leftovers from DOS.
Re:Cygwin Too (Score:2)
But I think Cygwin is a good idea, because it allows the CD to include a bunch of stuff that's written for a Unix-like system, just because a lot of really useful things are written that way, and Cygwin is a good way to package them up and install them together.
Cygwin lets you provide scp, which is always missing from windows ssh clients (and there are a lot of cool things you can do with ssh that windows clients don't support). There are also a number of other utilities that are really helpful in a mixed Unix and Windows environment, like cvs.
Re:Cygwin Too (Score:2)
Needless to say, I like Cygwin a whole lot better. Especially with X and WindowMaker.
you dont need sexy cd graphics (Score:2, Funny)
"Vade retro, $atana$"
Erm, not likely to win many converts to Abiword... (Score:2, Funny)
"Free Software on proprietary opperating systems"
Can you spell "spell checker"....
oops.
nbiar.
Re:Erm, not likely to win many converts to Abiword (Score:2)
Open Source for Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Most open source software is for our open source operating systems. If we put more open source software out for windows, that is quality, people will use them, because they are free legally. If there are enough quality open source windows programs we can get to the point where people are using like 2 or 3 major open source programs a lot. Like how just about everybody uses WinAmp and AIM/ICQ.
What I'm trying to say, and very poorly at that, is we can make some open source programs for windows that will be very frequently used my numerous users. Then we can switch them to linux more easily, because it has all the programs they use every day and more. The biggest fright about switching to linux is that you have to use all new software for everything. All of your beloved programs are gone or different. People tend to find one piece of software for each task and stick with it.
Re:Open Source for Windows (Score:2)
It will come with the 1.0 versions of OpenOffice, Mozilla, AbiWord and other programs as well...
The Windows port of GIMP might be cool, but its a bit buggy and is based on a buggier port of Gtk.
For programmers, the Free Pascal [freepascal.org] compiler (which has been 1.0 for a while now) and tools might be cool as well, along with WinCVS and Emacs or XEmacs. Vim, too.
The Cygwin ports of XFree86 and KDE might be cool, too.
The Windows port of PINE? (Or is that not Open Source) Ok, never mind, PINE sucks.
Look at GNU Software For Windows Site [gnusoftware.com] for more ideas.
Re:Open Source for Windows (Score:2)
Excellent idea, but it's not quite enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
People who learned to use Windows and MacOS expect things from their software that OSS programmers have yet to really give them. What it boils down to is a polished product. I'll admit - I think the KOffice suite, StarOffice 6, The Gimp, and many other OSS projects are incredible. They're complete, relatively bug free, and give me all of the features that I want. But when compared with similar software on Windows and MacOS, most people find the OSS stuff just feels klunky. Most OSS software (let me stress the most - certainly not all OSS software is like this) just isn't as polished-looking to the degree that a lot of common Windows and MacOS programs are.
It's not so much about stability for the typical user. Sure, they want stability. They also want something that's intuitive, compatible with what their friends and coworkers use, and looks clean. They want software with a very adequate and easy to use help system, for when they get stuck.
Also, they don't want something with the exact same features as what they're currently using. After all, why switch unless you'll also be going to something better? The better the software can meld into how they currently do things, the more likely they'll switch.
In other words: yes the software needs to look pretty. Yes, it needs to be functional. Yes, it should be relatively bug free. But it also needs to integrate just as well or even better than what they're using now. It can't just be a functional replacement - it really needs to be something different and offer something remarkably better than current solutions. Finally, price isn't as much of a concern as most people think. That's not enough to make people switch from something the way they do things now, otherwise we'd have already seen the mass migration away from Windows and other closed-source, proprietary products.
Easy to use Help? (Score:2)
Re:Easy to use Help? (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:Excellent idea, but it's not quite enough... (Score:2, Insightful)
- the OSS stuff just feels klunky
- Most OSS software just isn't as polished-looking
- They also want something that's intuitive,
... and looks clean
- the software needs to look pretty
I respectfully submit that most software (including OSS) on Linux/Unix suffers from these symptoms largely because of the X Window system. How does one design a polished, friendly GUI that integrates with the system and with other apps when X is standing in the way, with its plethora of toolkits and window managers, plus several major "desktop environments", each with its own look-and-feel? (Not to mention the brain-damaged font model!) Beats me.The bottom line is: UI consistency is important, and X makes it near impossible.
X doesn't have anything to do with it (Score:2, Informative)
There are only 2 major toolkits: GTK+ and QT.
Even though they both look different (default theme), they look similar enough to not confuse people. I have yet to meet a person who can't see that a GTK+ button is a button, or that a QT button is a button.
I also can't see how the window manager can make things look unpolished. If you like it, stick with it, and *ALL* apps will have the same window borders. If you don't like the current wm, then switch to one you do like.
As for the "brain-damaged font model": it has been "fixed" (Xft), and both GTK+ 2.0 and QT 2.2 supports Xft. GTK+ 1.2 also supports it, using GdkXft.
The reason why we still don't use 1 unified toolkit yet is because many people have different opinions. Person 1 loves the QT look but hates the GTK+ look, while person 2 loves the GTK+ look but hates the QT look. One person likes C++, the other sends his C++ compilers to
In the Windows world, there are different opinions too, except that people are more or less forced to use the standard Windows toolkit (though I have seen quite a lot of apps that don't exactly look like other Windows apps).
Missing the point... (Score:2)
Mind you, GTK works great under Linux, but its windows implementation is slow, weak, and buggy. It would be nice to see applications like X-Chat, The Gimp, and OpenOffice ported over to Windows using the standard Windows widgets. Yes, it would take more work, but it would also make them a heck of a lot more useable in the eyes of the average user. Nobody wants to use software that klunks.
The real bottom line is: On Windows, X has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that Windows ports are secondary to original Linux code, and don't get the attention they need to make them solid.
Problem is ease of use (Score:5, Insightful)
Take edge-detection. AFAIK, not a big deal in Photoshop. There are *three* different plugins implemented for gimp, each named after the algorithm they implement. This is cool if you're into image processing, not image editing.
If you run out and download plugins you can get cool stuff, too. The problem is that downloading, compiling, and installing plugins is not going to work for new users. And most of those plugins aren't oriented toward design sorts either -- more towards image processing engineers.
Let me give an example. A tasty-sounding plugin for the GIMP is Artistic->Oilify. Oil painting, cool! In Photoshop, if you run something like this, you'll get a little window with a preview, a bunch of bundled presets named "big gloppy brush", "Van Gogh", etc. In the GIMP, you get a frame called "Parameter Settings" containing a checkbox called "Use Intensity Algorithm" and a slider entitled "Mask Size". Now, maybe it's just me, but I doubt anyone but the original coder k(or someone that's looked at the code, or is familiar with this family of image processing algorithms) knows what the "use Intensity Algorithm" does. There's no preview, so no easy way to check. Mask Size doesn't mean anything to a non-coder.
The GIMP (1.2.3 ximian) still doesn't bundle even have a good, preset-capable, previewing drop-shadow plugin. This is something that people want, and usually they don't want to still run out and create another layer, fill the selection, gaussian blur and then offset the new layer. It's work, and the 1% of the time they want some weird effects in their drop shadow, they can do things the hard way.
That means you shouldn't have a "alpha squared" value slider, you should have a "hairyness slider".
And this is the GIMP, which is billed as just about the most consumer-oriented app on Linux.
AbiWord is probably one of the closest apps here to what I'm talking about. Any word processor user will be familiar with most of the options.
Every feature has to be documented, tooltips be included, etc. if people really want to try to take over the commercial app market.
Something like Apple Guide or Windows Help needs to be implemented. Tooltips should be implemented more than once in a blue moon.
Now, I'm not asking for anything -- I'm happily using and hacking on the software out there, and it works nicely for me. But if the intent is to go after the commercial apps market, then a few areas need to be addressed.
Re:Problem is ease of use (Score:2)
She hated it, just because it didn't *look* like Windows and nothing made sense to her (the algorithms and things you mentioned). I sent a message to Gimp-devel with some suggestions on how this could be helped (even asking for direction on how it could be implemented since I'm not a hardcore C coder), of course met only with flames. "Potato Shop Sucks!" etc.
I think half the problem with OSS is that developers implement what they think is cool and what is useful to them. Which is great! But if we want our software to take over the world we have to cater to the rest of people out there.
Re:Problem is ease of use (Score:2)
So maybe this ISO should be targetted at technical folks using Windows.
-Paul Komarek
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Excellent idea, but it's not quite enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excellent idea, but it's not quite enough... (Score:2)
You say obstinate, I say configurable
You say bug, I say feature
(And yes, to be totally serious, I do see your point...but to me, the fault is in the package management software and not the OS itself.)
Why not Cygwin? (Score:2, Informative)
New Linux Adoption Plan (Score:2)
I wonder how fast the BSA would shut down such a group?
Pretty pictures for the CD labels? (Score:2)
Maybe something like Hello [5inch.com] or Punchcard [5inch.com] is appropriate?
My suggestion is Qcad (Score:2)
Demolinux (Score:5, Interesting)
This is IMHO the best Linux distro for newcomers and it looks quite like what is intended for this project : See Free Software in use without touching one's HD..
Re:Demolinux (Score:2)
Of course, the basic idea is to demonstrate things on non-linux systems, but I was hoping that I could use it as an emergency disk.
This might actually work (Score:2, Insightful)
Kinda OT.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows doesn't come with any horribly buggy, barely working applications. None.
In addition, it installs one version of each "accessory" app.. calculator, notepad, browser, file manager, etc. It even puts shortcuts to them in the same place.
I'd like to see a linux distro that includes just one stable, simple version of each type of app in a basic install. One browser, one file manager, one word processor. Having a slightly more task-oriented set of menus and shortcuts in a distro would be a cool thing to see, IMO. I remember first installing red hat 4.something.. the choices of apps confused the living daylights out of me. The way I see it, this hasn't changed all that much...
Oh yeah, having a way to just "download and select run" to install new apps would be good for linux too
Re:Kinda OT.. (Score:2)
Re:Kinda OT.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kinda OT.. (Score:2, Informative)
Oh yeah, having a way to just "download and select run" to install new apps would be good for linux too ;)
I suppose typing apt-get install $APP_NAME is too much work?Re:Kinda OT.. (Score:2)
COREL tried this with their distro, and had good distribution channels, a widely recognized brand name, and marketing bucks. They even had the 'download and select run feature' you talk about thanks to an enhanced Debian
In the end they sold off their Linux division for $3M.
I think the lesson learned from this was that they weren't accepted by the Linux community, and that the Linux community is often too caught up in wars between distros or between Linux and BSD or GNU to focus on what really matters which is getting Linux accepted by the masses and crushing the MS monopoly.
Re:Kinda OT.. (Score:2)
And I thought the reason I sat in front of a computer was to be productive, but I guess what really matters is "crushing the MS monopoly"... learn something new everyday.
I don't care what platform I run on as long as it is stable and has the apps that I need. That's what really matters, getting the stuff done that you need to get done. That is the reason why I've got a unix desktop and a windows desktop, I'm most proficient on my unix system, but there are no unix apps that hold a match to the productivity of using Visio, MS Office, etc on a windows system (and before you say it, I've got a Sun workstation so no wine for me, and besides that why would I want to use wine that has more stability issues than windows).
Re:Kinda OT.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I never accepted Corel because they were a hybrid free/proprietary system. I love Linux, BSD, and GNU. I love RedHat and Debian, and would probably be happy with most of the other distros. I know there are flamewars, but I don't usually see them from the people I know in the community. (I usually browse slashdot at 4 or 5, though.)
The only war I'm really interested in is making sure they we are opposed to all proprietary software, not just MS. I could get along without MS but still be trapped in proprietary software from Apple or Sun. Plenty of people seem to think that attitude is petty, obstructive, or anti-business, but that's the one thing I'm passionate about.
My goal is not to get Linux accepted or to crush Microsoft. It is to get freedom and copyleft accepted. So, we're pointed in the same general direction, but at times you'll find me and people like me aren't focused in directly on the same things you are.
Free is good... but more is needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Replacing MS Office is, in my opinion, the Holy Grail of open source target product replacements. What a product needs to do to compete with Office is:
If the above were true, I believe the product might succeed in becoming more widely used and supported.
In the mean time, a free version of an Office replacement might make it in the door and onto my desktop if it was good, but it would take the above criteria for me to roll it out to all my end users.
I do, however, commend this effort. The open source community needs some help putting it's best foot forward to be seen. There are some pretty darn good open source projects, but there is also a lot of noise that makes open source stuff look like free junk.
Re:Free is good... but more is needed (Score:2, Informative)
I will recommend the opposite: fewer features. I've observed a lot of friends, colleagues, and coworkers use office, and two things stand out as being very common. First, people use software very inefficiently. They stay in newbie mode for years. Very rarely do they use advanced features, or employ advanced, more efficient techniques that they didn't learn initially. Second, most features cause more problems than they solve. I've seen more people get trapped by all the extra features and end up with, for example, documents with strange formatting they don't know how to get rid of, than I have seen people make use of even relatively basic features. People might like the idea of having 40 choices of font and 8 different border styles with 20 variations each, but it doesn't really result in a better memo or more informative annual report, and it adds complexity and opportunity for error. Presentation features are generally a problem anyway because most people don't know enough about typesetting to pick the right border style in the first place. Giving them fewer choices reduces the chance that they'll pick something completely inappropriate. Publishers and typesetters do need those tools, but they're a specialty market and they probably wouldn't be caught trying to typeset on Word anyway.
If you took Word Pad and added a handful of features, perhaps tables, automatic pagination, page numbering, and maybe a half dozen other simple features, you would end up with a program that, to most people, would probably be more useful than Word. What would really help people out is to create a set of simple tools that are easy to learn, efficient to use right from the start, and which don't have too many options; the thing should Just Work.
If you tell someone that you have a free word processor that has even more features than Word, they'll probably respond that they already have Word, know how to use it, and don't need any new features. If you told them you had a small, fast word processor that you could teach them to use in an hour, didn't have lots of confusing options and menus, and which made preparing letters, reports, and other common office documents extremely easy,a and by the way it's free, you'd probably get more takers.
Re:Free is good... but more is needed (Score:2)
(Yes, you could always do this in an Excel macro, but most users aren't that bright.
Re:Free is good... but more is needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the probability that one user will use all the functionality is pretty low, but in a group
of say, 20 users, all doing different sorts of work, the probability of obscure feature XYZ getting used increases greatly.
Fantastic (Score:2)
Re:Fantastic (Score:2)
Imagine it. A CD comes in the mail with a label like:
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU ANYTHING.
WE ARE SENDING YOU THIS EASY TO USE CD FULL OF QUALITY OSS APPLICATIONS TO USE FOR FREE ect..
A little insert with a description of the project and where to go to learn more would go a long way.
I wonder what the costs would be for a project like this, it's a really good idea. If it's practical it would really be cool.
What it takes (Score:4, Informative)
They use M$ Windows cos that's what it came with, that's what everyone else uses and, in business at least, that's the platform targeted by the mainstream application developers.
They use M$ Office and M$ Outlook and M$ Internet Explorer cos that's what it came with, that's what everyone else uses and they get email attachments and website downloads that presume the existence of this platform.
These people usually have little, if any, computer literacy, They have little, if any, awareness of the "politics" of the open source argument. The overwhelming majority will have no understanding of or use for the source at all.
If you want to change their habits, you won't succeed by selling the operating system. "What's an operating system and why would I care about it?"
If you want to change their habits, you won't succeed by trying to change everything all at once or by selling the virtues of "open source".
If you want to change their habits, you won't succeed by giving them a CD full of strangely named things that they have to "compile" or "make" or learn howto use a plain text editor to configure.
Pick one thing, say OpenOffice, make sure that it is idiot proof with an idiot proof install routine. List ALL its virtues and, particularly, why anyone would want to use it in preference to M$ Office that they're all used to.
That might do it.
Re:What it takes (Score:3, Informative)
Most people end up trying Mozilla and never going back to MSIE.
Getting closer (Score:2)
Re:Getting closer (Score:2)
Amen, brother.
If i had one OSS wish it would be to ban the letters 'K' and 'G' from all OSS applications names.
Does anyone like these kinds of names? It's not cute, it's not clever. Is it a lack of imagination? Are the developers too lazy or uninterested to come up with a meaningful and simple name?
When will the hurting end?
for Linux or for Windows? (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I would use the Windows ports. They're available for all the current shining stars of open source; OpenOffice, Mozilla, GIMP. Those are the big ones, they cover 90% of what people actually use computers for, and they're all available for windows. Get people to switch to those and you're more than halfway to getting them on Linux.
Someone else asked 'this stuff is already freely/easily available with easy install, etc, so why aren't people switching already?' Habit is why. They're used to using MS Office and they're afraid that it'll take too long or be to hard to learn a new package. I just went through that with my Dad when I built him a new computer. He was used to MS Office and wanted it installed. Of course, he didn't actually own a copy, and I tossed my pirated copy when I discovered OpenOffice. It took me a little while to convince him to just try OpenOffice, and if he didn't like it he could always go back. It's been 2 weeks now, and he's sold. He finds OpenOffice much easier to use, and he's comforted by the fact that he can open up his old MS Office documents without a hitch.
This is the way to get people to switch to OSS, one app at a time. Then, once they've switched for all their major apps, simply point out that they will all run on Linux.
For home users, it usually isn't that hard. In a business environment it's a different story, since even the thought of a productivity hit, no matter how small, sends chills down people's spines. I think the key there is to get them to switch at home, where they're more comfortable and can take some time.
Re:for Linux or for Windows? (Score:2)
Oh well, some people just like to complain, I guess.
From the Mac side... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've also found a number of Java apps on Freshmeat that run fine on OS X, and were certainly less painful than the only native alternatives. Those would also be worth collecting and distributing.
Besides, this is a great opportunity to grab the kind of mindshare apps like Newswatcher and Fetch had on Classic.
Re:From the Mac side... (Score:2)
I actually think that within a couple of years it will be the UNIX community that benefits most from the association with the Macintosh, rather than the other way around. Think about it. Tons of commercial applications running on OS X mean that porting some of them to other *NIX platforms might be on the black side of the cost/benefit analysis sheet for the first time ever. Bingo, you suddenly have Photoshop for Linux. You get the idea.
I guess my main point is that it's would mean a lot more to the *NIX community to get Photoshop than getting Gimp means to the Macintosh community. Whether it'll actually happen that way, who knows.
Lots of Free Windows Software (Score:2, Insightful)
App Bloat (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully for this Windows CD they can stick with just a few top qualtiy products.
/b
The main probelm seems to be... (Score:4, Insightful)
OSS = CD == bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
#1
Reading specs from C:/mingw32/bin/../lib/gcc-lib/mingw32/2.95.3-6/sp
gcc version 2.95.3-6 (mingw special)
#2
Reading specs from
gcc version 2.95.3-5 (cygwin special)
#3
Reading specs from
Configured with:
-cpu=arm7tdmi --without-local-prefix --with-newlib --with-headers=../newlib-1.9.0/newlib/libc/includ
terwork --enable-languages=c++ --enable-targets=arm-elf,arm-coff,arm-aout --disable-win32-registry --disable-threads -v
Thread model: single
gcc version 3.0.2 (DevKit-Advance)
etc...
In case they didn't notice OSS is not really stagnant software. Putting it on a CD will be kinda useless because the software will be outdated in a month or two at most. Sure I guess putting only full whole [e.g. v1, v2, etc...] releases on it would be nice but just grabbing any old piece of OSS is a bad idea.
Tom
I'd be happy to help... (Score:2)
Also would like to say donating time and spare cashflow to the development of these tools is critical to making these apps "polished". So practice what you preach and really support the coders creating these cool tools.
Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
But let me reiterate what others have said: it must be EASY to use. No editing text to config. No compiling. No weird choices between tools nobody outside the free software world has ever heard of. Just a small, coherent set of useful applications that just happen to be free. Do that and you'll be amazed at how many people use and distribute this.
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
Unfortunately, too many of the people in charge of specing out software don't understand the difference. Mozilla isn't too bad, and it certainly kicks IE's butt, but I really would like a command line option to specify mail or browser, so I can have two different icons on my desktop, one for mail and one for browser. It doesn't have to be complicated. Maybe that option is there, but I haven't found it yet through trial and error, reading the documentation, or consulting with Miss Cleo.
What's harder? Having the distribution/installer set up these icons once, or having the use always start a browser to send an email?
I'm not picking on Mozilla. It's really great, and that problem is extremely minor. But it's typical of a lot of software. Because someone decided that the command line is evil, all the intermediate and advanced users are penalized because the newbie might, just might, discover that there's a command line option to start the mail client and run away screaming in terror.
Quality is Relative (Score:2, Informative)
Pile O OOSoftware Won't (Score:2)
Yes, there's a lot of great open source software out there that many average people could find useful.
But there's a lot out there, too, that are just the 240th way to catalog MP3 titles.
What's needed is for the collection to be a subset of the OSS universe, applications which have been tested for being relevant, useful and reliable.
A well integrated CD like this could do wonders.
One of the hindrances that we contend with is fragmentation of a finite user community, in the sense that given 10 users of a specific kind application such as a Word-like WYSIWYG document preparation system, 2 will be doing Abiword, 2 will be doing KWord, 1 doing LyX, 4 doing StarOffice, etc.
The CD integrator has to be brave enough to choose one good application of each kind to build a complete, but minimal system. End users appreciate that orthogonality. [Not limiting them in any way - advanced users will find out about the alternatives and their benefits and limitations all by themselves.]
But most importantly, there's likely to be a larger community of people that can help new users with any particular application and also more developers furthering the particular application because of big marquee glory for something that's used by tens of thousands of users.
Parents & Friends - Not (Score:5, Insightful)
That implies running a "free" operating system, probably Linux.
"...your parents/friends..."
In my world this group would include people who aren't computer professionals and who's machines aren't otherwise professionally managed.
Having established all that... You're kidding me, right?
The last time I had run linux was
Uh...no.
I managed to get Yellow Dog 2.2 [yellowdoglinux.com] installed on my Titanium PowerBook, sure. But after having done it I was stunned at how...well, rudimentary the installer was. In spite of endless "the installer really has gotten good now" comments. Well, if by "good" you mean "nowhere near the usability of commercial desktop operating systems" then yeah I'll agree with that.
I managed to get my wireless networking going. I found out how to do a few other things. But the main thing I discovered is that Linux hasn't really gotten usable enough for novices. Somehow I expected more.
Frankly I don't care if some Linux zealot mods me down or lables my comment "troll" or "flamebait." While you're doing it, bear this in mind - I'm doing this for you. The Linux community really needs to take seriously the idea that a novice needs to be able to install, configure, troubleshoot, and maintain the thing without endless arcane documentation or professional help. If your fellow Linux users/developers won't tell you, I will.
Linux will never be more than a server OS and a geek toy until / unless the usability radically changes.
Parents & Friends - yes (Score:3, Insightful)
I managed to get Yellow Dog 2.2 [yellowdoglinux.com] installed on my Titanium PowerBook, sure. But after having done it I was stunned at how...well, rudimentary the installer was.
What do these two things have to do with each other? ``Ready for prime time'' and ``quality of installer''? Nothing. Granny can't install Linux, Granny can't install Solaris, and Granny can't install Windows. Despite the big advantage Apple has from their iron-clad control of everything which runs OSX, I suspect that Granny hasn't a prayer of installing OSX, either. There exists no OS which meets your criterion: `` ... that a novice needs to be able to install, configure, troubleshoot, and maintain the thing without endless arcane documentation or professional help.''
Toasters and refridgerators work that way, but complicated things like cars and computers don't. Do you think that cars aren't ready for the mass market? Once a knowledgable person sets up a Unix OS, it will run and run and run, for years. The user can't easily screw it up. That's ready for prime-time. Windows isn't, and may never be. Thanks to things like USB and Kudzu, Linux is pretty near there, once installed.
Have you tried a Windows installer lately? Some of them have pretty graphics, but their hardware detection and included drivers are way behind linux on Ix86. Installing Windows is HARD. Solaris is HARD too. Linux is a good deal easier to get running on intel hardware than those others. By the way, graphics doesn't make for an easy install. Good hardware detection and automated selection of the right drivers does.
Re:Parents & Friends - yes (Score:2)
You ask, "Have you tried a Windows installer lately?" To which I reply, yes - I have tried them all. Repeatedly. I didn't explicity say so earlier but I do work in IT. And I must take exception to your inclusion of Solaris in this mix. Solaris isn't a consumer desktop operating system.
Anyway, we could nit-pick forever about specifics. I'd like to propose the following hypothetical experiment. We buy 100 PCs. Store-bought, brand name PCs. We wipe the drives bare. Then we give 50 of them to novices and include a Windows XP CD. We give the other 50 to novices equipped with, say, Red Hat 7.2. No outside help allowed. No calls to "uncle Ed the computer nerd." Just for kicks let's buy 50 Macintoshes, wipe those drives and give them to 50 more novices, including an OS X install CD.
At the end of three days which group with have more fully functional machines? By fully functional I mean OS installed correctly, internet connection working, email set up, web browsing, installed a couple of 3rd party applications, maybe.
Obviously the Macintosh group will come in first, but this is almost cheating since Apple controls the hardware and the OS. Enough said. But what of the other two groups? Who will take that second place? If you think even for a moment that it will be the Red Hat group then I think you are seriously deluded about the state of Linux's usability.
Success is possible (Score:2, Interesting)
The best way to get people to use OSS... (Score:2, Insightful)
They're missing at least one major need (Score:5, Insightful)
Accurate, well-written, and current documentation is absolutely vital. They apparently plan to link to "full online documentation", which are probably the cobbled-together FAQs and HOWTOs that are already available, and that's not likely to be adequate.
Should include several familiar apps... (Score:2)
People will give a free handout a 3-5 second glance at the contents listed on the cd.
Such a CD should include Winamp and Winamp themes, at the top of the list. When people see that they might actually spin the cd up and not throw it away.
Also if companies can be talked into allowing netless installers for free with minimum junk, the cd should also include Realplayer, Winzip, Quicktime, Flash and so on...
Allow tastefull non-spyware(Real?)/non-nagware to piggyback but don't make it a GNU with a cross and a sword. People don't care about licences. Just worry about getting them to run .autorun.inf, a good explanation of each package from there will do the rest.
I didn't see anybody mention Dia (gnome diagram editor) which is Very solid on Windows.
Fortune should be recompiled as a Windows popup that installs so that it automaticly runs at login time. Remember the millions paying $30 a head for flying toasters. No reason it shouldn't just go.
In the future, Cygwin should install by default with X windows in mixed mode. Not a desktop in a big window.
I also did not see anyone mention Xemacs.
Simple Installations (Score:2)
The installer should be smart enough to install any components necessary for the program to run. If that means included libWhatever.so in the package, so be it. It's not good enough that most systems will have that library. Unless all systems have that library, it must be part of the installer. If the program fails because obscure shared object is missing, 99% of the users will remove the package (if they can figure out how). It won't take too many of these failures for someone to get fed up and go back to Windows.
Don't stop at getting the dependencies handled properly. Make the configuration just as easy. Either the installer must ask for necessary default information and create the default dependency, or the program itself must recognize the need and fire up a configuration wizard the first time it is run. For the typical end-user, wizards are great. They simplify what can otherwise be a tedious and error prone process.
Another area needing major improvements is manuals and help systems. All too often the developers do a damn fine job of producing a top notch program. Too bad only geeks can figure the software out, since the manuals suck, the online help is non-existent or minimal, and the web page says, "I don't have time to write anything" (I've actually seen this!).
The program isn't ready for public consumption until the manual is finished.
Put OSS CDs on cereal boxes like CheeriOS or ... (Score:2, Funny)
Open source is used to the degree that it's useful (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the political/religious free as in speech aspects of open source, you might as well be speaking swahili because most business brains won't understand what you're talking about and those few that do won't care.
If the idea behind this project is what I think it is, to make converts out of people so that they will shun commercial products in favor of free software irregardless of the quality of the latter, then the people behind this project are in for a nasty suprise: Non-hackers are indifferent to the open source movement. Some are going to be downright hostile in fact due to the way that some open source "advocates" behave.
What this project needs to do is promote the compilation based upon the quality of the software it provides, not on the basis that it is free. This will serve to educate the public that open source software can be just as good or better than commercial offerings. When this is accomplished open source will be able to compete with commercial offerings on an equal footing. It won't have a stigma attached to it and whether it is chosen or not will be entirely based upon quality and its suitability for a particular purpose.
I've been using Linux since 1995. I like the fact that it is free as in speech and in beer, but that isn't the reason I choose it over Windows. I use it because it is more powerful, more stable, and more flexible. If it were kludgey, flaky, or unstable then I'd do little more than play with it. I certainly wouldn't use it in a commercial setting where downtime equals dollars down the drain. This is the burden that all software must carry regardless of how much it costs or how accessible the source code for it is.
Lee
Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
While you're talking about doing that and figuring out graphics for installers, I have got...
ten thousand copies of the GPL onto Macintoshes with my CD mastering program, Mastering Tools [versiontracker.com]
Three hundred and seventy copies of the GPL onto an entirely different set of Macintoshes with Filmpaper [versiontracker.com], a new program I just put out a couple days ago, for screenwriting.
Both of these are seriously hardcore programs aimed at markets that are jammed with software so proprietary that in some cases it uses dongles and key disks. Both pro audio and professional screenwriting are full of relentlessly un-free, user-hostile software- some of the best apps in terms of performance have some of the worst copy-protection. Every copy of one of my programs that goes into such a market goes with source, 'COPYING' and a glimpse of another world- a world where you aren't jerked around by 'godlike software developers' but are allowed to take matters into your own hands if you need to, a world where you could take an active instead of a passive role with the software you use- not to mention a world where your software won't expire, annoy or selfdestruct.
It's pretty funny, actually, when you think about it- lots of Linux open source coders, deities at kernel hacking and C++ multiple inheritance, capable of coding back-end that REALLY WORKS, sitting around trying to figure out why GFX tweaks aren't loving The GIMP or why Windows consumers aren't rushing to grab ISO images of Linux for free. It's simple- DO WHAT YOU LOVE. And if all you love is heavy-duty code-monkeying, do back-end coding. But if you want free software to really build up steam, get passionate about something other than coding and apply your coding skills to it.
The important thing is to have the ONE BEST PROGRAM in any given situation be a Free Software program. I have done this in part with my CD mastering software- the area where it beats anything else out there is output sound quality, so far I can't get other aspects up to professional quality (like workflow, realtime audio and response to control adjusting). Someday I'll have that stuff together too.
You will never, never get to be the 'new Photoshop' by targetting the 'masses'. Ever. Not happening. Forget it. Guy Kawasaki had it figured out back when he was getting the Mac started- you target the TWEAKS. Do everything to target the uber-tweak heavy hitters, the early adopters, the influencers. If you are writing an OSS 'Pro Tools', talk to people in LA and Nashville- better still, BE one of the people in LA and Nashville, and code what YOU need, only then will you get it right. You have to be coding what you personally will need to put hours of use on.
We gotta find more reinassance-geeks. Biotech, robotics- I have sound engineering pretty well covered, but don't use a DAW- if you're writing a spreadsheet it had better be because YOU need to make heavy, heavy use of a spreadsheet, not because 'people in offices use these!'
This pep talk has been brought to you by Chris Johnson, who's placed over 10,000 copies of the GPL on computers where it had never been seen. He's going to continue doing this whatever you do- but if you want to show some freaking support, don't be paying for the SOFTWARE, instead go look into some of the stuff Chris cares about a lot, like his music [ampcast.com]... be totally unlike most people and buy a CD while you're at it, or just download + rate tunes left and right. Or please yourself- but that would be a BIG help
No! Charge them out the wazoo. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No! Charge them out the wazoo. (Score:2)
Right idea, but wrong price points. Relase 3 versions;
a "Gold" version at $395.00, a "Silver" version for $195.00, and a "Basic" version for $79.95.
Affordable and expensive at the same time.
-- this is not a
OT - it's getting there (Score:2)
Then there's also Transgaming. Native Linux ports are always the best way to go, but for that much needed gaming fix you can use Transgaming's version of wine. You should see Max Payne run in all it's D3D(Direct ms 3D lockin) glory. Winex is pretty sweet, for games that work they actually seem to be more stable than in windows. I've played a number of games all the way through without any problems whatsoever in wine.
There's also GarageGames. There's a ton of independent developers developing games using an engine that supports Linux, so hopefully lots of them will release Linux binaries of their games.
I'd say it's a good time to be a Linux gamer.
It's the other way around (Score:2, Funny)
Debian GNU/w32 (Score:2, Informative)
http://debian-cygwin.sourceforge.net/
Microsoft is proof that what you write is nonsense (Score:2)
I know this is a troll and I probably shouldn't respond, but someone needs to point out that what you say is, of course, is demonstrably false. If it were true, Microsoft would not have the monopoly it currently enjoys. Its products have consistently been inferior to its competitors in nearly every measurable degree since the late 1980s, yet they have a virtual lock on the desktop and have had for years. Why? Not because their products do anything well, but because of marketing muscle and a criminal willingness to violate the law again and again, even while in court defending against earlier such violations.
In short, it is all about marketing, conspiracy, and subversion