Taking Linux advocacy to the "mainstream" tech press

[Tsuroerusu]

but he can install a program without any issue, and honestly, installing CentOS is not all that different from installing an antivirus program. I showed the guy a few screenshots of the Red Hat installation process, and he was like "Is that all?" because he didn't see a difference between that and installing say a larger program on Windows, yet I would not call him a "do it yourself" type of person.

There you go. He even doesn't see much difference between an OS and a "larger program".
Not that he should but that tells you that he really doesn't know what's going on.

That's not what I meant. When I say that "he didn't see a difference between an OS and a larger program", I meant it in the context that he thought installing Linux was some alien process of complicated procedures, but in reality it's just clicking some "Next"-buttons a few times, typing in a password and you're done. Not that he didn't understand what he was "doing". Sure he may not understand that a bootloader gets installed etc. etc. but that's beside the point, he knows that he's installing an OS and that's all one needs to know. If you want to install OpenOffice.org on Windows, you click a few Next buttons, tell it whether to associate MS Office documents to OpenOffice.org, and you're done. When you want to install CentOS, then you select the language, click a "Next"-button, tell it to use the entire hard drive from a drop down menu (In this case we're installing a home file server, so obviously it should take the entire drive), click a "Next"-button, type in a password and we're basically done.

What do you think it will happen after he finished the setup?
Read the documentation on how to setup a share? It's easy, just edit smb.conf
Guess who he's going to call.

If this:

http://www.irisnebula.org/screenshots/s ... nfig-1.png
http://www.irisnebula.org/screenshots/s ... nfig-2.png
http://www.irisnebula.org/screenshots/s ... nfig-3.png
http://www.irisnebula.org/screenshots/s ... nfig-4.png

is what you mean by "It's easy, just edit smb.conf", then yes, no shit.

But oh, but I guess it's really too alien a concept ...

Sharing a folder on Windows XP

windows-share-folder1.png (54.04 KiB) Viewed 6335 times

Windows home server is designed to be installed and then fit seamlessly into your windows home network without having to understand too much about it. Sure you can achieve that with centos. But you are probably going to need a better understanding of how and why things are happening no matter how easy it might be to click through the install process.

In terms of file sharing, could you provide a specific example of this? That would make the conversation more meaningful.

[allix]

Windows home server is designed to be installed and then fit seamlessly into your windows home network without having to understand too much about it. Sure you can achieve that with centos. But you are probably going to need a better understanding of how and why things are happening no matter how easy it might be to click through the install process.

What makes you suggest that just because linux is seamlessly integrating with a windows home network that somebody has to question how linux does it?
I would of thought the person that has this setup would be glad it was not painful.

[hellonorman]

Windows home server is designed to be installed and then fit seamlessly into your windows home network without having to understand too much about it. Sure you can achieve that with centos. But you are probably going to need a better understanding of how and why things are happening no matter how easy it might be to click through the install process.

In terms of file sharing, could you provide a specific example of this? That would make the conversation more meaningful.

Check out the screeshots under those categories
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/produc ... tures.mspx

Compare and contrast that to the screenshots you post links to.

The most obvious thing that comes to mind is that in one you interact with an intuitive control panel, get tons of features and probably don't have to understand the underlying technology to get it running. The other is a basic desktop where you have to know what samba is and how it works just to get one feature, file sharing.

If you can't see the difference I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

[Tsuroerusu]

Windows home server is designed to be installed and then fit seamlessly into your windows home network without having to understand too much about it. Sure you can achieve that with centos. But you are probably going to need a better understanding of how and why things are happening no matter how easy it might be to click through the install process.

In terms of file sharing, could you provide a specific example of this? That would make the conversation more meaningful.

Check out the screeshots under those categories
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/produc ... tures.mspx

Compare and contrast that to the screenshots you post links to.

The most obvious thing that comes to mind is that in one you interact with an intuitive control panel, get tons of features and probably don't have to understand the underlying technology to get it running. The other is a basic desktop where you have to know what samba is and how it works just to get one feature, file sharing.

I just have to disagree, to be honest with you. I think Windows presents waay too many options in one place for file sharing, I think Red Hat's little Samba configuration tool is a lot simpler.

If you can't see the difference I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

OK, then please don't waste your time doing so.


hellonorman, I think what this whole thread really boils down to in the end, is that you don't feel a small increase in security and stability (In terms of practical features) is worth promoting to people in a non-geek world, however some of us do. Forgive me for asking, but what's the point of even continuing to discuss this? I don't mean to "surrender" the debate if that's what you think, but I think both of us could find something better to invest our time in, than discussing why we disagree, when it's clear to both parties why we do.

[hellonorman]

I just have to disagree, to be honest with you. I think Windows presents waay too many options in one place for file sharing, I think Red Hat's little Samba configuration tool is a lot simpler.

It's interesting that the fact that you have to know what samba is doesn't even phase you. Because it's certainly not simpler for anyone that doesn't know what samba is and how it works. Look again and this time try to imagine you don't know what samba is, you don't already understand the linux filesystem. Try to imagine that you aren't already very familiar with smb.conf and you aren't seeing the gui samba options through that prism.

hellonorman, I think what this whole thread really boils down to in the end, is that you don't feel a small increase in security and stability (In terms of practical features) is worth promoting to people in a non-geek world, however some of us do. Forgive me for asking, but what's the point of even continuing to discuss this? I don't mean to "surrender" the debate if that's what you think, but I think both of us could find something better to invest our time in, than discussing why we disagree, when it's clear to both parties why we do.

Promoting a small increase in security and stability is fine. Claiming that that samba utility is easier and calling people out of touch for not promoting it is quite a different issue. That's what this last page of this thread boils down to.

[Tsuroerusu]

I just have to disagree, to be honest with you. I think Windows presents waay too many options in one place for file sharing, I think Red Hat's little Samba configuration tool is a lot simpler.

It's interesting that the fact that you have to know what samba is doesn't even phase you. Because it's certainly not simpler for anyone that doesn't know what samba is and how it works. Look again and this time try to imagine you don't know what samba is, you don't already understand the linux filesystem. Try to imagine that you aren't already very familiar with smb.conf and you aren't seeing the gui samba options through that prism.

OK, fair enough, I guess you're right, except for one thing, I never actually mentioned the smb.conf file.

hellonorman, I think what this whole thread really boils down to in the end, is that you don't feel a small increase in security and stability (In terms of practical features) is worth promoting to people in a non-geek world, however some of us do. Forgive me for asking, but what's the point of even continuing to discuss this? I don't mean to "surrender" the debate if that's what you think, but I think both of us could find something better to invest our time in, than discussing why we disagree, when it's clear to both parties why we do.

Promoting a small increase in security and stability is fine. Claiming that that samba utility is easier and calling people out of touch for not promoting it is quite a different issue. That's what this last page of this thread boils down to.

I maintain my calling Leo out of touch, because I think in soooo many cases, he exaggerates to a silly degree, the level of difficulty in the use of Linux.

[Colin]

If this:

http://www.irisnebula.org/screenshots/s ... nfig-1.png
http://www.irisnebula.org/screenshots/s ... nfig-2.png
http://www.irisnebula.org/screenshots/s ... nfig-3.png
http://www.irisnebula.org/screenshots/s ... nfig-4.png

is what you mean by "It's easy, just edit smb.conf", then yes, no shit.

But oh, but I guess it's really too alien a concept ...

OK. I forgot the GUI part. My bad.
I still think the Samba part requires more know how than the Windows counterpart.
In Windows you can just right-click on a folder.

Tsuroerusu is right.
This thread is going too far and out of the original context.
I'll just leave it.

[RandalSchwartz]

Sorry no - I'll check
[EDIT]

TWiT 146: Service Unavailable
Original Link: http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3 ... T0146H.mp3
Position: 1:02:06 - 1:02:20

Leo Laporte: Lets starts with the Hans Reiser story since since obviously since Mr. Schwartz, is taking great ride....Did you ever know Hans Reiser ?
Randal Schwartz: I didn't. I've actually not met him, not exchanged e-mail with him, I don't even . . . [Leo cuts in]
Leo Laporte: He's a Linux programmer who wrote the Reiser FS which is a .... [Randal cuts in]
Randal Schwartz: I don't even run Linux on anything that matters, so it doesn't matter to me.
Leo Laporte: But the Reiser FS was the first . . .
The Clip Exert: http://www.eurocow.com/TWiT0146H-Randal ... atters.mp3
[/EDIT]

Thanks for allowing me to post this reply, so that you all see it at once. Here's a comment I wrote about FLOSS Weekly being "anti-Linux", and most of it applies here as well, so let me start by quoting that:

Linux is already a dominant force in the open source world. Any show I do on Linux or Linux-desktop-related things would be “preaching to the choir”, and has already been covered to death, in my opinion. After all, look at the number of Linux-specific podcasts!

My goal with FLOSS “Weekly” bookings is to bring to the forefront those things that are worthy, but don’t have quite as much overdone press on them. This is why I brought out Git and PostgreSQL, rather than Yet Another Show on SVN or MySQL. It’s an “underdog” show.

See, I had Beta when everyone else had VHS. I owned a Mac while everyone else had X86 machines. I still run OSX on my desktop. I run OpenBSD on my server, because I don’t want to have to worry about a security break while I’m out on a cruise. (You’ve got to admit, OpenBSD is more secure.) This is what I meant by that casual comment that is now getting quoted out of context: I can’t afford to run Linux on my server, because I can’t be a full-time sysadmin, and OpenBSD runs everything that I need for that particular server. OpenBSD would be a horrible desktop machine. For my desktop friends on their generic X86, I recommend Ubuntu Linux. Yes, Linux.

I didn’t always “follow the leader”, and I was rewarded for being willing to look at the details instead of following the crowd. FLOSS reflects my choices, because Leo says I can. (And yes, Leo and I discuss show philosophy off-camera a lot more than you might imagine.) And having done that, the feedback I’ve gotten from many people out there is “wow, didn’t realize what git/postgres/squeak was… thanks for these shows!” So I think I’m on the right track, for the most part.

This is not to say that Mark Shuttleworth and Linus Torvalds are not on my list of desired guests. I’ll take them if they come. But in the meanwhile, I’ll keep looking for the *rest* of FLOSS besides the parts that are already overcovered.

]I’m not entirely surprised by the uprise because I didn’t bow down at the Linux altar on a given show. But I am a practical guy. I use what works. Not just whatever my friends are also using. That’s surprising for some people, but not to the people who matter to me.

Now, regarding my comment on the TWiT show, I was addressing my apparent unfamiliarity with ReiserFS, because in fact, I don't run Linux for anything "important", so the various FS under Linux are not familiar to me. As stated above, I run OSX on my laptop, and OpenBSD on my server. I do have a copy of Ubuntu running inside VMWare, so that I can run something linux-y if needed, and I boot it about once a week to perform the required security updates.

I had run Linux on my server, but because I wasn't able to keep up with the latest security patches, I got hacked. That left a bad taste in my mouth, which is why I sought OpenBSD on the next server. This is a personal decision, which I still stand by. My Linux competence is insufficient to maintain a secure unattended system. I admit that freely. OpenBSD just does the right thing.

And by the way, info@stonehenge.com (mentioned earlier in the thread) was never my address. I can't believe that someone wouldn't find any of the 50000 postings I've made on the net with my actual address, merlyn@stonehenge.com. And I welcome feedback at that address.

Thanks for letting me post.

[dann]

I had run Linux on my server, but because I wasn't able to keep up with the latest security patches, I got hacked. That left a bad taste in my mouth, which is why I sought OpenBSD on the next server. This is a personal decision, which I still stand by. My Linux competence is insufficient to maintain a secure unattended system. I admit that freely. OpenBSD just does the right thing.

And by the way, info@stonehenge.com (mentioned earlier in the thread) was never my address. I can't believe that someone wouldn't find any of the 50000 postings I've made on the net with my actual address, merlyn@stonehenge.com. And I welcome feedback at that address.

Thanks for letting me post.

Randall, thank you for posting; you are always welcome here. Furthermore, I would like to add my apologies for misconstruing your words. i should have show more respect and do thank you for the hard work you do. I will definitely clarify this on the show this week. Keep up the great work and I hope we see more of your opinion here from time to time.

[jturning]

RandalSchwartz wrote:
Now, regarding my comment on the TWiT show, I was addressing my apparent unfamiliarity with ReiserFS, because in fact, I don't run Linux for anything "important", so the various FS under Linux are not familiar to me. As stated above, I run OSX on my laptop, and OpenBSD on my server. I do have a copy of Ubuntu running inside VMWare, so that I can run something linux-y if needed, and I boot it about once a week to perform the required security updates.
...
I had run Linux on my server, but because I wasn't able to keep up with the latest security patches, I got hacked. That left a bad taste in my mouth, which is why I sought OpenBSD on the next server. This is a personal decision, which I still stand by. My Linux competence is insufficient to maintain a secure unattended system. I admit that freely. OpenBSD just does the right thing.

I still take offence to the way the comment was delivered on the show. Especially in light of your comments above. There was contempt for Linux in how you made the comment. There is nothing wrong with having opinions and preferences in free and open software, but we shouldn't trash other free and open software projects whatever they may be, nor in whatever state they may currently be in. Especially on a show that was going out to a larger audience who may not be familiar with free and open software. Anyone without familiarity with free and open software would have come away from that show with a negative impression of Linux based on your statement, and probably a negative impression of free and open software.

Perhaps the advancement of free and open software is not your primary goal. Maybe they are just tools to be utilized in the pursuit of money. To tell you the truth, I don't know where you stand exactly in the free and open software revolution. I have noticed your high praise for the proprietary platform you run as your desktop. However, you are free to be you and do what you think is best for you. However, we're free to pay attention and draw conclusions about you from what you say and your actions, and your credibility in the community can be damaged.

Bugz

[Patrick]

Randal's clarification of his comments aside, the original intent of this thread was pointing out that so-called main stream tech press bashing Linux. I went back and listened to a few podcasts in the TWIT family and found a decent amount of Linux bashing. I put together clips of examples of exactly what I'm talking about. It's just the tip of the iceberg. You'll hear them on the next show. To be honest the only TWIT show I listen to regularly is FLOSS Weekly. That's about it. Sorry. Give me one reason why I should listen to any shows where they regularly attack Linux and undermine the impact of F/OSS in general? I'm not a masochist.

[RandalSchwartz]

I still take offence to the way the comment was delivered on the show. Especially in light of your comments above. There was contempt for Linux in how you made the comment. There is nothing wrong with having opinions and preferences in free and open software, but we shouldn't trash other free and open software projects whatever they may be, nor in whatever state they may currently be in. Especially on a show that was going out to a larger audience who may not be familiar with free and open software. Anyone without familiarity with free and open software would have come away from that show with a negative impression of Linux based on your statement, and probably a negative impression of free and open software.

Perhaps the advancement of free and open software is not your primary goal. Maybe they are just tools to be utilized in the pursuit of money. To tell you the truth, I don't know where you stand exactly in the free and open software revolution. I have noticed your high praise for the proprietary platform you run as your desktop. However, you are free to be you and do what you think is best for you. However, we're free to pay attention and draw conclusions about you from what you say and your actions, and your credibility in the community can be damaged.

Bugz

While I obviously will not take responsibility for your internal reaction to something you observe, I will take a moment to point out your false presumptions. You say: "Anyone without familiarity with free and open software would have come away from that show with a negative impression of Linux based on your statement". I think you're confusing my personal choice to not run Linux on anything that matters to me with a possible position that Linux is unsuitable overall. If you can't see that there's a middle ground there, then you can stop reading, but let me suggest the idea (if you can handle it) that "Linux is for some things, but not for every thing". This is my view.

As I said in the material I posted earlier, I would happily recommend Linux to a person who already owns an X86, and is willing to be a bit of a hobbyist to find people to network with for support, either in person or online, or a person or company that would pay someone like Red Hat for support. However, I will not recommend Linux for my mom who just wants a machine to read email. She's getting a Mac. Why? One phrase: "Apple Genius Bar". I don't have to support her. They will. And they'll do a great job of it. As soon as there are as many "Linux Genius Bars" as there are Apple Stores, I'll reconsider. And I don't mean hobbyist groups. I mean actual stores where she can make an appointment, or maybe just call up for phone support, on demand, on her nickle.

You also say "I have noticed your high praise for the proprietary platform you run as your desktop." Really? Where? All I ever say is "OSX just works". This has not been my experience of Linux. My choice to run OSX on my desktop is motivated by having to perform tasks, day in, day out, without being diverted by having to fix my tools. I use my laptop as a tool, not as an end goal. I'm a very practical person. I use what works, and for me, OSX works better. Is it universal? Hardly! For many people, Linux works better. Great. This is about choice, not about religion.

Finally, speaking of offense, you offend me with your comment of "Perhaps the advancement of free and open software is not your primary goal". Are you unfamiliar with my long-running history of working with the Perl community, and now with the Squeak community, to ensure that open source software is available as a choice for everyone? I have been an advocate for open source software since before Eric Raymond made the term popular. I'm one of the greybeards (quite literally, if I let it grow out). I've presented on various topics at OSCON even before it was called OSCON. I've been a keynote speaker at FISL, one of the largest open source conferences in the world (7500 attendees) for four years now. I am all about free software.

But I suspect you actually have a deeper agenda. I'm an "open source" advocate. I'm not a card-carrying member of the FSF. I'm more aligned with what Eric Raymond brought to the table (recognizing the proper balance between open source for platforms and proprietary code for applications) than I am with RMS's odd views (that locked up software shouldn't exist). I don't believe (and you won't ever get me to believe) that everything in the world must be GPL'ed. So, if that's what you're calling me to the carpet with, I will clearly acknowledge that position. I actually believe the BSD-style licenses give more freedoms to the users, not fewer. That's why I'm happy that Perl has been under the Artistic license (essentially a BSD-style license), and why I'm now working to make sure Squeak is under the MIT license.

As an open source advocate, I'm much happier using GNU Emacs than any of the highly recommended proprietary text editors for my OSX platform. However, I use Photoshop, not The Gimp, because Photoshop works better. I use Keynote, not Open Office's Presentor, because again, Keynote works better for me.

Again, I'm practical. I use what works. And I've never hidden that. And I will continue to help others find things that work. And I won't pull punches. I'll call it like I see it. You can count on that.

[snarkout]

Huh. Maybe I should listen to your show. Most things in that post made me nod my head in agreement.

[Patrick]

People are free to run whatever they like. I've played around with BSD and it's a solid unix for the server. Very nice. Randal explained his quote. Granted when I first heard the quote on TWIT I thought it came off as very condescending. That's how it sounded to me at the time. Randal has clearly explained his stance. Fine. My beef is with some of the people on the other TWIT shows (non FLOSS). Again, with minimal effort I pulled about 14 clips of comments that were very disparaging to Linux and F/OSS in general. It took me about an hour to do this. I'm sure anybody spending enough time could pull a lot more. If you don't care move along and don't continue reading this thread. Have a nice day!

[ken_fallon]

I was online during the last recording of FLOSS weekly and I rather foolishly posted several times into the chat the same comment "@Leo: Why doesn't Randal run Linux on anything important". The after show discussion that followed assumed that I was annoyed that he wasn't running Linux. And Leo, rightly, chastised me for my behaviour.

For my part what I could not explain in a chat window was detailed in an email to Leo and Randal, a blog post on Randals VOX blogg and on a thread on the private Twit.tv forum.

Now Randal has made it clear the reasons that he runs the OS's that he runs and I believe the F in FLOSS gives him the freedom to do so. The fact he's running BSD just goes to prove he is a FLOSS advocate. However the fact remains that had Randal said "I run BSD on all my important stuff" none of us would have been annoyed. I'm glad Randal has addressed the issue to us but I still believe that there are many TWiT listeners that have taken the comment to mean "Linux is not reliable enough to run on important stuff".