Re: tlug: PJE

[Jonathan Byrne - 3Web <jq@example.com>]

On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Christopher Sekiya wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Jonathan Byrne - 3Web wrote:
>
>> The really, over-archingly great thing is that a Linux system can be
>> built (and someday will be) where installing a package is as simple as
>> dragging it from point A to point B.
>
>I strongly disagree.  This is EXACTLY what I was railing AGAINST.
>
>Such a thing removes the clue factor.

I know what you're railing against; I just completely disagree.  If software
and hardware systems were adequately capapble, they would need essentially no
intervention from the user to function properly.  The fact that you need so
much of a clue to do so much stuff points up the fact that systems are still
extremely immature.

>We're moving away from Open Source, believe it or not.  Sure, the base
>system will still have source available.

I don't think so.  The things that are open will remain open, and new Open
Source material will not cease to be produced.  Regular commercial software is
an augment, and a good one, to Open Source.  It is rarely in competition with
it.  After all, imagine how good a proprietary product would have to be to
step in and take the market away from an Open Source product that is not only
Open but free; it would have to be very, very good indeed.  If a proprietary
product that good comes along, then the Open Source authors, too, must
innovate if they want to maintain market share.  That's competition.  That's
good.  That's the market system.  That's good.

>Do you honestly believe that Oracle will release source to their db?  How
>about Applix?

No, I don't.  But I honestly don't care if they do, either.  They have a moral
and legal right to not do so, and you and I have moral and legal rights to
choose to not use their software if it is proprietary.  It's freedom of
choice, ours and theirs.  If the Open Source movement is about choice, we
can't really say that people don't have the right to choose a proprietary
solution for some things.  And if they do, they are likely doing so because
the proprietary solution is a better one [1].

>Linux binary-only distribution is becoming acceptable.  Why provide source
>under GPL/BSD if the users don't demand it?

Under the terms of the GPL, that is acceptable.  You do not have to ship
source, you have to make source freely available to those that want it.
Putting it on a CD is a good, cheap, and practical way to do this for
everyone.  Those who do want source won't buy distributions that don't
included it as a standard item.  Those who don't want it/can't use it probably
will.  But the source will still have to be available to them if they want it.
The GPL binds all distributors that way, so I don't think it will be possible
to move Linux and it's Gnu components to a non-Open model, even if some
distributions do not standardly ship source.  BTW, which distributions are
those?  I wasn't aware that this was happening.


>> That should be trivial.  The fact that it's not is an indictment of the
>> current state of the system.
>
>It's an indictment of the user base that they (not WE, per Stephen's
>definition) are targetting.

No, it's not.  It's an indictment of the system (mostly).

>I maintain that users should UNDERSTAND how the system works.  Maybe
>that's too much to ask.

My experience providing user support indicates that it is indeed too much to
ask :-)

I'm curious about something, though.  I wonder what it is about computers that
inpires people to say "you should really know how it works if you're going to
use it."  (Yes, I'm guilty of that, too; maybe not as guilty as you, but
pretty guilty :-)   .) We do not usually make similar demands of the users of
other machines, even fairly complex ones.  When was the last time you told
someone they should thoroughly understand how their microwave oven works, or
they shouldn't heat food in it?  Ditto for storing food in their refrigerator.
How about cars?  How much should a person know about a car?  Well, they should
know how often they oil should be changed, they should know what it's service
intervals are so they know when to have it serviced.  New cars today will
actually tell you a lot of that stuff by themselves.  The computer takes are
of it and turns a service light on to let you know.  But should they know how
to actually work on their car and repair it themselves?  No.  That is not, and
should not, be necessary.  I know that some of the people on this list could,
but I suspect that many of them, if I substantially disassembled their cars
and then shoved a tool box in their face and said "Here.  Put it back together
again," would be at a loss.  And there is nothing wrong with that.

Computers should be the same way.  They should know how to get a software
update by themselves.  All you need to do is authorize it or not.  They should
be able to keep reasonable track of the health of their components and let you
know when a disk, section of memory, or other component appears to be failing,
so that you can fix it yourself if you know how or call a technician if you do
not.  A computer may never be quite as simple to use as a microwave oven, but
the microwave makes a nice ease-of-use model.  But unlike the microwave, Linux
will still let you get under the hood and do it all yourself if you feel like
it.  Being automatic for those who want it that way will not change that.
Linux is about choice, and the choice will remain.

But if I catch you disconnecting your microwave from the wall and attaching a
hand generator to it and cranking it furiously to heat up your food just to be
a do-it-yourselfer, I'm having you committed :-)

Cheers,

Jonathan Byrne
Media and Content Section
3Web - Your Internet Solution! <URL:http://www.threeweb.ad.jp/index.en.html>
3Web Channel <URL: http://www.3web.co.jp/>

--------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai: 18 September, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
Next Meeting: 10 October, Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate 12:30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp