Ian Hilliard wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> > GNU/Linux? But you don't LOOK like a geek...
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | When I replied "Ubuntu", his eyebrows shot up and he looked at me like I
> > | had just grown a third head (and I don't even have two). Then he said
> > | something along the lines of "What? I... You... I would never have
> > | thought you were a Linux user."
> > `----
> >
> > http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1719
>
> When electricity was first offered to households there was also a great deal
> of resistance. There was resistance from the gas companies, who saw their
> market being erroded. There was also a great deal of resistance to ordinary
> people, who were used to gas. There was the general feeling that gas had
> done all right up until now, why change.
>
> The gas companies produced FUD about electricity, indicating that if you
> have electricity it will kill you. Electricity is lethal to touch and it
> might cause a gas explosion. The whole time, people ignored the number of
> people who died every year of gas poisoning and all the gas explosions that
> were already occuring.
It didn't help that Thomas Edison, who held the patent on a governer
that synchonized DC generators was spreading FUD about the dangers and
horrors of AC (which didn't need his governer) including the
electrocution of an elephant. The net result was that people closest
to the generator were getting too much voltage and almost electrocuting
themselves, and those further away were barely getting enough voltage
to make the light bulbs as bright as candles. Eventually Tesla's AC
was adopted for it's ability to be sent through transformers which
could deliver uniform voltage to every house regardless of location,
but the industry was kicking and screaming the whole way. Had it not
been for Westinghouse, Tesla's AC power technology might have had to
wait decades longer, or at least until Edison's patent (and Tesla's)
had expired.
> When automobiles came out, there was massive resistance to the automobile by
> the whole industry that had been set up around horses and horse drawn
> vehicles. Many people were very skilled at riding horses and saw no need to
> change. The resistance got to the point that it was necessary to have
> someone walk in front of automobiles with a red flag to warn the public.
> What the people refused to see is the number of people who died every year
> in riding accidents or because of horses running amuck.
One of the problems with the early automobiles, was that you had to
manually adjust the choke, throttle, spark advance, clutch, and
transmission, manually, and if you got any part of it wrong, the car
would Back-Fire, which sounded like a shotgun blast. This would
startle horses and carriages and riders WERE put into jeopardy.
Eventually, competitors to the Model T found ways to automatically
adjust all of those elements and cars became easier to drive and almost
never back-fired.
Ironically Henry Ford fought this new technology tooth and nail,
insisting that the Model T was "Good enough" for the farmers and rural
population who usually weren't that close to lots of horses when
driving from farm to town. Ford even tried to claim that all of this
automation was unsafe, that it was too easy for the automatic features
to malfunction (even though it never happened).
> Like electricity and cars, Linux is a disruptive technology. As such, there
> will be winners and losers. What has to be expected is that there will
> continue to be resistance by the losers for some time to come. But, like
> every other disruptive technology, the as yet unseen technologies that
> result from Linux will bring massive improvements to our lives.
PCs were a disruptive technology. Ironically, PCs and UNIX hit the
market about the same time, and both made it possible to experience
real-time interactions with a computer based on their specific needs at
that particular moment. Those who mastered MS-DOS could create
spreadsheets and word processor documents and simple databases and even
draw simple picturers. Those who mastered UNIX could create
spreadsheets, publication quality documents, and simple or complex
databases, and even draw simple pictures. Over the years, MS-DOS and
later Windows evolved and offered more features and became easier to
use. During that same time, UNIX and X11 Windows also evolved and
offered all of the same features as Windows, but on a much bigger scale
and far more reliably and securely, AND they evolved additional
features and became easier to use.
By 1992, a user could walk up to a Sun workstation and use it as easily
and comfortably as a Mac or Windows PC. And after an hour or two on
the Sun, they would hate the thought of having to go back to Windows.
Had Sun seriously pressed this advantage at that time, we might not
have had a Linux, because Sun and BSD would have been the dominant
operating system instead of Windows.
Unfortunately, Bill Gates was so threatened by Unix, in all it's forms
that he announced that Windows NT would be a "Better UNIX than UNIX".
Instantly the financial backing for UNIX Desktops dried up. Sun had
even second-sourced their technology to Solborn(sic) in Boulder, but
the sudden exodus of funding from the UNIX Desktop market just Killed
them (Sun eventually purchased the company and hired the people, for
server support). Windows NT never did achieve the goal of being a
Better Unix than Unix, and even Windows XP really falls short of the
mark in performance, security, stability, and flexability, and doesn't
even try to address conformance to industry standards (Microsoft's view
is that standards get in the way of revenue generating opportunities).
> There is an important point to be taken from the above article. At the
> moment, many look at Linux as being an alternative to Windows. Just like
> electricity is not an alternative to gas and the car is not an alternative
> to the horse, Linux is not an alternative to Windows. It is a replacement
> for Windows. It is the next generation. It is the future.
This is absolutely true. As much as Microsoft would like customers to
think that Linux and even UNIX is just 25 year old technology packaged
with a pretty window frame for shell commands, this is about as true as
claiming that Windows XP is just a pretty panel for MS-DOS bat
commands. Both operating systems have not only been evolving and
expanding and providing services and productivity advantages that are
orders of magnitude beyond their 1983 counterparts, they have also been
driven by each other's innovation.
Today Linux is not only a "Better UNIX than UNIX", it's also a "Better
Windows than Windows". When it comes to real-world productivity, Linux
actually provides more benefits and productivity, at lower cost, more
reliably, and more securely than Windows XP and even what Vista will be
when it's finally released next year.
We've seen enough from the Vista Betas to know what it should look like
and work like when it's done, and Linux distributors like SUSE and
UBUNTU have already leapfrogged that technology and have added new
features of their own, and at the same time, they have adhered to, and
established, industry standards that can be adopted across the industry
(including on Windows) without restrictions. The Antritrust courts
should stop asking Microsoft to publish their documents on their
protocols and just order Microsoft to adopt the standards established
by Linux/Unix --- Without "enhancements or extensions".
This might be a good incentive for Microsoft to publish their protocols
to standards bodies such as the IETF and to publish drivers and
libraries in OSS, or at least use the ones which are available in OSS.
I have to admit that is very amusing these days to read yet another
article from some "guru" who had a hard time installing Linux on a
machine that was "Linux Hostile" (especially now that there are so many
machines that are "Linux Ready"), and after a whole WEEK, NONE of which
was spent actually USING Linux, they pronounce, as if they were the
emporor of Japan, that Linux is "Unfit for human consumption".
The irony is that when users use a good commercially supported
distribution, install it on a "Linux Ready" machine, and get the
appropriate phone support for connecting to their ISP or WiFi
connection, most new Linux users are delighted with what they get.
> Ian
|
|
