4 ms·

I think the problem is not so much with his message but with the steps that he suggests to address it. People are uncomfortable with doing things that severely

by jiggy2011 14y ago

I think the problem is not so much with his message but with the steps that he suggests to address it. People are uncomfortable with doing things that severely change their lifestyle and it's easier to rationalise someone as crazy than it is to change. In 2001 there were plenty of people who were critical of Microsoft and their market share abuse but this was at a time when saying "stop using Windows" was akin to saying "stop driving a car".

bmj 14y ago
In 2001 there were plenty of people who were critical of Microsoft and their market share abuse but this was at a time when saying "stop using Windows" was akin to saying "stop driving a car". Why was this? Perhaps because the state of free (as in speech) operating systems didn't allow most people to make the switch (put aside the corporate world for now). People want stuff that just works[0], and looks relatively pretty, and that was really not the state of GNU/Linux desktops at the turn of the century. I realize that the developers have fought against certain things outside of their control (closed source drivers, for instance), but there's always been that hacker attitude driving GNU/Linux development and usage, so the concerns of the non-power user are often an afterthought. If there existed a legitimate alternative to Windows with the same ease of use, it would be far less difficult to convince someone to switch. [0] Yes, I know, Windows crashes and Plug and Play is often not that.
- pekk 14y ago
  Installing Windows was often complicated at the turn of the century, too.
  - bmj 14y ago
    How many "normal" users actually installed Windows, rather than just having it because it was already installed on the computer they purchased from Best Buy?
dllthomas 14y ago
> In 2001 there were plenty of people who were critical of Microsoft and their market share abuse but this was at a time when saying "stop using Windows" was akin to saying "stop driving a car". In 2001, that wasn't the case at all. You still needed to put in some elbow grease, and there were corner cases for sure, but I was using Linux with no problems (except a lack of Counter-Strike), had been for years and so had my parents.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  That wasn't quite my experience. No decent office suite, lack of support for many soundcards and modems, severe distro / package format fragmentation wars. Lack of staples like Flash. Instant messenger clients didn't support all features that the Windows versions did. No gaming to speak of. Having said that I still preferred it to Windows on a number of axis but it was only practical to use on the desktop as part of a dual boot.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    > No decent office suite StarOffice met my needs just fine; I could get work done in it, and it supported more Word formats than the latest Word (with occasional breakage - but that was rare). > lack of support for many soundcards and modems I think this was the case, yeah. You still had to be picking your HW to be Linux compatible (as opposed to these days where it's just a good idea). > severe distro / package format fragmentation wars I think much of that started later; at least, insofar as it impacted me. My experience was RPM pretty much dominating at that time. > Lack of staples like Flash. I don't recall what the flash situation was; on the other hand, that probably means it either worked for me[1] or I wasn't noticing the lack of it which would imply it was less of a staple. [1] admittedly, this would undermine my initial point, as the question was really "a completely free-software desktop" not "a linux desktop", but I honestly can't remember. > Instant messenger clients didn't support all features that the Windows versions did. This is true, but it's hardly the difference between "car" and "no car" - more like a car with or without a CD player or something. > No gaming to speak of. I've played a lot of great games on Linux which were available then - I still go back to nethack from time to time. Admittedly, first-run commercial games weren't being released under a free license, but given Stallman's comments elsewhere that may be tolerable. There were some near-first-run games (and you weren't buying enough of them! 2001 is when Loki filed for bankruptcy) and Id was in the practice of releasing their games for Linux right away (and GPLing the whole thing years later). > it was only practical to use on the desktop as part of a dual boot. I wasn't dual-booting at that time, and it was practical for me. There were certainly things that might have demanded Windows (there still are a couple, although I think virtualization is slightly more in vogue than dual booting?), but most people didn't need them like they need their car - remember, that's what I was responding to. If you want to say a free desktop was like an ugly car you had to get up on blocks fairly often and source your own parts for, I'm much more on board.

bmj 14y ago

In 2001 there were plenty of people who were critical of Microsoft and their market share abuse but this was at a time when saying "stop using Windows" was akin to saying "stop driving a car". Why was this? Perhaps because the state of free (as in speech) operating systems didn't allow most people to make the switch (put aside the corporate world for now). People want stuff that just works[0], and looks relatively pretty, and that was really not the state of GNU/Linux desktops at the turn of the century. I realize that the developers have fought against certain things outside of their control (closed source drivers, for instance), but there's always been that hacker attitude driving GNU/Linux development and usage, so the concerns of the non-power user are often an afterthought. If there existed a legitimate alternative to Windows with the same ease of use, it would be far less difficult to convince someone to switch. [0] Yes, I know, Windows crashes and Plug and Play is often not that.

pekk 14y ago
Installing Windows was often complicated at the turn of the century, too.
- bmj 14y ago
  How many "normal" users actually installed Windows, rather than just having it because it was already installed on the computer they purchased from Best Buy?

dllthomas 14y ago

> In 2001 there were plenty of people who were critical of Microsoft and their market share abuse but this was at a time when saying "stop using Windows" was akin to saying "stop driving a car". In 2001, that wasn't the case at all. You still needed to put in some elbow grease, and there were corner cases for sure, but I was using Linux with no problems (except a lack of Counter-Strike), had been for years and so had my parents.

jiggy2011 14y ago
That wasn't quite my experience. No decent office suite, lack of support for many soundcards and modems, severe distro / package format fragmentation wars. Lack of staples like Flash. Instant messenger clients didn't support all features that the Windows versions did. No gaming to speak of. Having said that I still preferred it to Windows on a number of axis but it was only practical to use on the desktop as part of a dual boot.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  > No decent office suite StarOffice met my needs just fine; I could get work done in it, and it supported more Word formats than the latest Word (with occasional breakage - but that was rare). > lack of support for many soundcards and modems I think this was the case, yeah. You still had to be picking your HW to be Linux compatible (as opposed to these days where it's just a good idea). > severe distro / package format fragmentation wars I think much of that started later; at least, insofar as it impacted me. My experience was RPM pretty much dominating at that time. > Lack of staples like Flash. I don't recall what the flash situation was; on the other hand, that probably means it either worked for me[1] or I wasn't noticing the lack of it which would imply it was less of a staple. [1] admittedly, this would undermine my initial point, as the question was really "a completely free-software desktop" not "a linux desktop", but I honestly can't remember. > Instant messenger clients didn't support all features that the Windows versions did. This is true, but it's hardly the difference between "car" and "no car" - more like a car with or without a CD player or something. > No gaming to speak of. I've played a lot of great games on Linux which were available then - I still go back to nethack from time to time. Admittedly, first-run commercial games weren't being released under a free license, but given Stallman's comments elsewhere that may be tolerable. There were some near-first-run games (and you weren't buying enough of them! 2001 is when Loki filed for bankruptcy) and Id was in the practice of releasing their games for Linux right away (and GPLing the whole thing years later). > it was only practical to use on the desktop as part of a dual boot. I wasn't dual-booting at that time, and it was practical for me. There were certainly things that might have demanded Windows (there still are a couple, although I think virtualization is slightly more in vogue than dual booting?), but most people didn't need them like they need their car - remember, that's what I was responding to. If you want to say a free desktop was like an ugly car you had to get up on blocks fairly often and source your own parts for, I'm much more on board.