[LAU] LightWorks for Linux Demo

[Hartmut Noack]

Am 13.03.2013 21:51, schrieb Louigi Verona:
> Hartmut, you've caught me at the moment of my writing inspiration, so there
> you go:
> 
> To be fair here, Microsoft also rarely speak about their kernel. They
> promote Windows. It so happens, that their kernel doesn't even have a name!

I agree on this and on most of the other things you write. But methinks,
I have not pointed out clear enough, what I was to say ;-)

If Linux arrives on the markets, is recognized as important enough to be
supported by hardware-makers, is accepted by the general public as a
thing that stands besides Mac and Windows as a real alternative, does
not depend on Linux as such. It depends on marketing efforts.

If somebody takes a well-designed Distro with properly maintained repos
such as Mageia, Ubuntu, Fedora or Arch and adds PR plus advertisement
worth 4-500 Million dollares and announces, that everybody can buy
devices with this distro on every corner everywhere on the planet, then
there is a product, that competes with Mac and Windows.

Google kind of did so with Android. Maybe Canonical plans to do so some
day sooner or later. But even the most perfectly designed Linux-Distro
cannot compete with anything, based only on its technical features.

Microsoft tells the people: "Buy Windows and you are on the secure side,
as mainstream as you can possibly get." Apple tells the people: "Buy a
Mac and be mainstream but some kinda special too." Google tells the
people: "Buy us and try something kinda new, look we are a bit cooler
than the others, so be with us and soon you do not need that PC-thing
anymore..."

What will someone say, that tries to push Linux to the markets? Someone,
who commits half a billion dollars capital in the campaign, that is.

Markets are controlled by money, not by quality of products or let alone
sane decisions of costumers. Costumers choose from that, what they see
on shelfs and owner of market-shares decide, what is on the shelfs.

> It is clear, of course, why Linux does have a name, as it is set aside from
> all other kernels in several significant ways, however, I do not see a
> reason why it should be promoted to non-technical consumers.

I know and you know and everybody on this list knows, that Linux is but
a Kernel. But to the general public "Linux" is a complete OS plus
applications. This is more or less good enough for me. nteresting
though, that some 7 years ago a friend told me, he purchased a boxed
"Linux 9.2" it was Suse 9.2 -- he named it Linux, because he did not
know, that there are other Distros out there also: there was just one
boxed Linux on the shelf he picked it from....
Today I meet people, that installed Ubuntu and do not know, that it is a
Linux.... ;-)

> Saying "Ubuntu, based on Linux kernel" says nothing to the non-tech user
> but raise unnecessary questions, such as "does Ubuntu release with some
> other kernel as well?" and "what is a kernel and why should I care about
> it"?

Hopefully Ubuntu-users will have enough education about their OS, to
know that a scanner or printer, that works with Ubuntu will work with
Fedora or Mageia as well.... And that they know, that if they should
dislike Unity, KDE or XFCE is just a few clicks in the packagemanager away.

> 
> I understand that the latter question might seem important to some of us,
> but seriously, of what immediate practical value is this education? Kernels
> of popular systems are not interchangeable in today's digital world, so
> Ubuntu, competing not with other Linux distros, but primarily with Windows,
> might not win much by speaking about kernels. You cannot stick Linux into
> Windows, "replacing" its original kernel. Why mention a kernel then?

Not mention a Kernel, mention the technical basis of the ecosystem.
"GNU/Linux" would be appropriate but "Linux" is good enough with the
advantage, that one cryptic syllable less needs to be explained ;-)

> 
> 
> The second point, about not respecting the user, I must say, with all due
> respect to the free software ideal, has a taste of unwelcome paternalistic
> attitude, in that free software supporters tend to think they are bringing
> light to the world, when, I would argue, they are bringing light to
> themselves.
> Linux is being developed by those who are interested in it for themselves,
> any calls to conquer the world fail if not at capturing imaginations of
> certain impressionable individuals, then certainly at bringing on any
> conquest-type action. We have to be honest with ourselves - most of us
> enjoy playing around with Linux and although certain practical reasons,
> like hardware compatibility, make us desire a more broad adoption of the
> system, really, do we care that much?
> 
> And people who use Windows - and this might still be news for some - do not
> feel the need to switch, don't feel they are not respected, don't care
> about the freedoms that we care about - and we are not in a position to
> tell them that they should. It is their choice. And it may be the right
> choice for them.
> Maybe - ... drumroll! ... - they don't need the freedoms we do. And don't
> need not in a sense of not being aware, but genuinely don't care for them.
> Someone might very genuinely not care, say, for Freedom 1. And they might
> consciously give it up.
> 
> So, quality sells, it's just that people understand "quality" differently.
> 
> Stability is a separate issue. Stability sells - and sells well. But the
> thing with stability is that on the desktop it gets lost in-between other
> features, such as hardware support, developer support, mainstream
> availability, etc. Windows machines might be less stable on average, but
> all those other things make it rational to give up some stability for the
> confidence that any hardware you buy will work.
> 
> Also, Linux stability is almost a myth, at least in the absolute form it is
> promoted. When it comes to multimedia systems, to the desktop, as opposed
> to running Apache on a server, Linux looses a lot of its stability. My
> worst computer experience ever (!) was with Ubuntu Karmic. It is the least
> stable system I have ever used, freezing about once in 2 hours, not
> recognizing ADSL, not having sound, etc. And I hear that modern Windows is
> less moody and is actually stable enough to be compared to a typical Ubuntu.
> 
> So there you go. I hope this was not boring and too off-topic.
> 
> Louigi.
>