3 ms·

Seems dishonest and manipulative to me. Con a bunch of people into adopting something that doesn't really fit their needs, is just shiny, so that you can use t

by jlgreco 14y ago

Seems dishonest and manipulative to me. Con a bunch of people into adopting something that doesn't really fit their needs, is just shiny, so that you can use them as leverage... that is not something I am interested in. Meanwhile all of those unskilled users are not without a cost. Free software support infrastructure is not set up to handle that many unskilled users. If Canonical is going to be giving all of those people 3rd party support themselves, that is all well and good, but it seems to me they tend to punt the ball.

tg3 14y ago
I don't think it's conning them into something they don't need. I think it's giving them what they want (shiny, easy to use) so that they have something that they need but don't realize it yet (libre).
achiang 14y ago
The entire reason why desktop Linux has been a failure is exactly because it does not fit the needs of most people. And for that audience, "shiny" is equally important as "featureful". In the modern marketplace, you can't choose either/or. It has to be both. Ubuntu wants to do both and additionally add libre. The strawman fallacy you inferred from my statement has the additional fallacy of incorrect causality. People are initially attracted to Ubuntu for a variety of reasons, and we hope to keep them because we are fit for purpose, not for whatever ideological reason or niche feature, and certainly not due to any sort of con job. Desktop Ubuntu has failed to reach that critical mass of users to be taken seriously by industry (our good friends at Valve notwithstanding), and the only logical place to jumpstart the install base is the mobile world. The mobile market is brutally competitive. Ubuntu will succeed or fail on its own merits, not because of any dishonest manipulation of innocent users.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Has desktop Linux been a failure? By what measure, adoption of people who are not in it's niche market? Would it stop being a "failure" if we got a bunch of laymen using it? Compare community desktop linux distros with community distros of something more oriented towards the masses... say.. Android. The Debian Project is a well oiled machine, coherent and consistent. Everything has a well defined process. Technically capable users don't have to sort through piles of crap to get work done. Cyanogenmod on the other hand is an utter shitfest. Standard operating procedure there is wading through clusterfucked forums looking for undocumented unofficial fixes (in prebuild binaries mind, no source) in threads thousands of posts long filled with idiots saying "hurr durr, I dropped my phone in the toilet, now this patch doesn't work". They cannot handle the size of their technologically illiterate community, and everyone attempting to use their software, technical or otherwise, suffers as a result. (This isn't even touching the issue of shittier hardware support than you would ever expect to see with desktop linux...) If piles of unwashed masses were really what desktop Linux is "missing", then community maintained Android distributions should, far from being a nightmare, be the promised land. This is plainly not the case.
  - achiang 14y ago
    You keep putting up strawmen. Show me the desktop Linux equivalent of Android, not Cyanogenmod. It doesn't exist - and you can measure that failure with any number of metrics. If Ubuntu can achieve that type of success and protect the freedom of users with the GPL (instead of the permissive BSD model for hardware makers) then we will have accomplished something in the world.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      You have missed the point. Show me the Android equivalent of Debian. Show me an Android project, with all of the unskilled users that come with it, that is anywhere near as organized as the Debian Project. Show me that legions of unskilled users have allowed this Android project to achieve hardware compatibility at all comparable to what Debian achieves on the desktop. Such a project does not exist. I assert that it does not exist in no small part because they have too many unskilled users, and because hardware support does not materialize as soon as you reach some sort of "critical mass" of unskilled users. Idiot users are toxic; anything that touches them rots. Only corporations that are prepared to completely disregard community involvement are capable of wielding an idiot userbases. Canonical is neither up to that task nor does it even appear to be pretending to be. Why? Probably because the lunatics run the asylum.
      - hollerith 14y ago
        >Idiot users are toxic; anything that touches them rots. implying Firefox and Chrome will rot.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Firefox and Chrome have backing organizations that are willing to not rely on community support. (And frankly, I would argue that Firefox has been rotting for years now, though likely for unrelated reasons.)
      - mattkevan 14y ago
        Why do we want the layman to be using Linux? To give Valve more Linux customers or something? Idiot users are toxic; anything that touches them rots. Wow. The level of arrogance and elitism on display here is breathtaking. This is why Linux on the desktop is irrelevant. Not the fact that it's incompatible with most mainstream software, not the fact that it's low profile or the fact that most Linux desktops look and function like Windows' retarded younger brother – but because a tiny minority of the otherwise hugely welcoming community set themselves up as some sort of entitled priesthood and actively discourage 'idiot users' from getting involved. New users, even idiot ones, are good. Yes, they bring problems and stupid questions. Everyone has to start somewhere. But more people involved means more investment and helps challenge entrenched assumptions about how things should work. Making things shinier and more accessible does not equal dumbing things down. Why shouldn't everyone be able to use an approachable, thoughtfully designed system that 'just works' and yet shares our values of freedom, community and open source?
- Nursie 14y ago
  Failure? It's an incredibly useful tool, with a lot of very smart engineers contributing awesome stuff to it. It's a development platform second to none and far more capable than any other OS I know of. Oh did you mean market share? Who cares?

by jlgreco 14y ago

tg3 14y ago

I don't think it's conning them into something they don't need. I think it's giving them what they want (shiny, easy to use) so that they have something that they need but don't realize it yet (libre).

achiang 14y ago

The entire reason why desktop Linux has been a failure is exactly because it does not fit the needs of most people. And for that audience, "shiny" is equally important as "featureful". In the modern marketplace, you can't choose either/or. It has to be both. Ubuntu wants to do both and additionally add libre. The strawman fallacy you inferred from my statement has the additional fallacy of incorrect causality. People are initially attracted to Ubuntu for a variety of reasons, and we hope to keep them because we are fit for purpose, not for whatever ideological reason or niche feature, and certainly not due to any sort of con job. Desktop Ubuntu has failed to reach that critical mass of users to be taken seriously by industry (our good friends at Valve notwithstanding), and the only logical place to jumpstart the install base is the mobile world. The mobile market is brutally competitive. Ubuntu will succeed or fail on its own merits, not because of any dishonest manipulation of innocent users.

jlgreco 14y ago
Has desktop Linux been a failure? By what measure, adoption of people who are not in it's niche market? Would it stop being a "failure" if we got a bunch of laymen using it? Compare community desktop linux distros with community distros of something more oriented towards the masses... say.. Android. The Debian Project is a well oiled machine, coherent and consistent. Everything has a well defined process. Technically capable users don't have to sort through piles of crap to get work done. Cyanogenmod on the other hand is an utter shitfest. Standard operating procedure there is wading through clusterfucked forums looking for undocumented unofficial fixes (in prebuild binaries mind, no source) in threads thousands of posts long filled with idiots saying "hurr durr, I dropped my phone in the toilet, now this patch doesn't work". They cannot handle the size of their technologically illiterate community, and everyone attempting to use their software, technical or otherwise, suffers as a result. (This isn't even touching the issue of shittier hardware support than you would ever expect to see with desktop linux...) If piles of unwashed masses were really what desktop Linux is "missing", then community maintained Android distributions should, far from being a nightmare, be the promised land. This is plainly not the case.
- achiang 14y ago
  You keep putting up strawmen. Show me the desktop Linux equivalent of Android, not Cyanogenmod. It doesn't exist - and you can measure that failure with any number of metrics. If Ubuntu can achieve that type of success and protect the freedom of users with the GPL (instead of the permissive BSD model for hardware makers) then we will have accomplished something in the world.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    You have missed the point. Show me the Android equivalent of Debian. Show me an Android project, with all of the unskilled users that come with it, that is anywhere near as organized as the Debian Project. Show me that legions of unskilled users have allowed this Android project to achieve hardware compatibility at all comparable to what Debian achieves on the desktop. Such a project does not exist. I assert that it does not exist in no small part because they have too many unskilled users, and because hardware support does not materialize as soon as you reach some sort of "critical mass" of unskilled users. Idiot users are toxic; anything that touches them rots. Only corporations that are prepared to completely disregard community involvement are capable of wielding an idiot userbases. Canonical is neither up to that task nor does it even appear to be pretending to be. Why? Probably because the lunatics run the asylum.
    - hollerith 14y ago
      >Idiot users are toxic; anything that touches them rots. implying Firefox and Chrome will rot.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Firefox and Chrome have backing organizations that are willing to not rely on community support. (And frankly, I would argue that Firefox has been rotting for years now, though likely for unrelated reasons.)
    - mattkevan 14y ago
      Why do we want the layman to be using Linux? To give Valve more Linux customers or something? Idiot users are toxic; anything that touches them rots. Wow. The level of arrogance and elitism on display here is breathtaking. This is why Linux on the desktop is irrelevant. Not the fact that it's incompatible with most mainstream software, not the fact that it's low profile or the fact that most Linux desktops look and function like Windows' retarded younger brother – but because a tiny minority of the otherwise hugely welcoming community set themselves up as some sort of entitled priesthood and actively discourage 'idiot users' from getting involved. New users, even idiot ones, are good. Yes, they bring problems and stupid questions. Everyone has to start somewhere. But more people involved means more investment and helps challenge entrenched assumptions about how things should work. Making things shinier and more accessible does not equal dumbing things down. Why shouldn't everyone be able to use an approachable, thoughtfully designed system that 'just works' and yet shares our values of freedom, community and open source?
Nursie 14y ago
Failure? It's an incredibly useful tool, with a lot of very smart engineers contributing awesome stuff to it. It's a development platform second to none and far more capable than any other OS I know of. Oh did you mean market share? Who cares?