Verily I say unto thee, that Dylnuge spake thusly:
> I agree with these contradictions. Linux is a great desktop, but there
> need to be better reasons. Try these (reasons are sorted from basic to
> more technical. Each applies to the average user, but latter ones may
> only be understood by a technically adept user):
>
> 1. Linux is a safe, secure, and stable platform.
>
> A simple reason, nothing much. Know how to explain further if someone
> asks-IE, Linux is secure because... (passwords are required,
> experienced users can customize security more, etc.)
Just say "no Viruses or Malware". That ought to get their attention.
> 2. The Linux desktop is customizable by default.
>
> Windows has a single, unchangable interface.
With GNU/Linux, you can have everything from "no Desktop at all" to a
full Compiz enhanced Gnome Desktop, and everything in between (such as
very alternative Desktops like Enlightenment). That ought to pique their
interest.
> 3. Linux is free. (Free Beer | GPL)
>
> Know your audience on this one. If you think they will care about/
> understand GPL, touch on it. Otherwise, leave it alone, but keep the
> price as a factor.
IME you don't need to explain the importance of Freedom to Windows
victims, just remind them of issues like WGA, covert "updates", DRM,
HDMI-lockout, etc. They'll get the point.
And yes, GNU/Linux is cheaper (and paradoxically better). Breaking that
stigma will be difficult.
> 4. Linux has a strong, helpful community and many free resources
> available.
Got a problem with Windows? Try searching for solutions, and see how
futile that endeavour is. You'll find lots of other victims, and few
answers. Now try the same thing with GNU/Linux. Are there problems? Yes.
Are there nearly always known solutions? Yes.
This harks back to the "Freedom" argument too. No Freedom = dependency
on the vendor ... and vendors tend to prefer spending resources on
things that generate an income, rather than "wasting" them on
after-sales service (which generates little if any). The proprietary
development model has a "take the money and run" approach to service.
> 5. Linux is easy to learn. (It is close to MacOS | It is different
> then Windows but still simple).
>
> True for some distros. (Do not recommend Gentoo with this argument)
> Best for Mac users, since the similarity might get them.
Have you used Mac OS X? It is *not* very similar to GNU/Linux at all I'm
afraid. It is a proprietary GUI (Aqua) slapped onto a heavily hacked
BSD-ish back-end (Darwin).
As for the learning curve; learning something from scratch is never
easy, but GNU/Linux is no more difficult to grasp than any other OS. The
"difficulty" is in the perception. People already have *familiarity*
with Windows, therefore everything else seems like a potentially hostile
environment. There's no point in trying to convince them that it will be
"easy", but rather one should try to motivate them in other ways, to
convince them that the effort will be worth it.
Having said that, IMO modern distros are trivially easy to install and
use, and there are many reports on the .Net of GNU/Linux noobs having no
difficulty grasping it at all. I suppose it just depends on the individual.
> 6. Linux is easy to update, and all software can be updated along side
> it.
>
> True with a package manager. Otherwise, update/upgrade can be a pain.
I wouldn't say this is *that* technical. IME most Windows users dedicate
a disproportionately high amount of their time maintaining and fixing
Windows issues, and constantly updating and installing software. If they
can do that, and run around like headless chickens, collecting all the
required software components from many disparate locations (as one must
do under Windows), then something like "yum update" should be a
revelation to such people.
> 7. Tasks can be automated through shell scripting, and terminals allow
> complicated lists to be copy/pasted into the computer.
This is a deeply essential element of GNU/Linux, but I wouldn't hit a
noob with this on day one, it'll just intimidate him.
> 8. Linux is a powerful platform for software development.
>
> Will not apply to anyone who does not want to develop software.
True, but then GNU/Linux software development is an order of magnitude
more accessible than proprietary platforms too, since the toolchains,
IDEs, APIs, toolkits, etc., are free (and Free), and there are vast
communities for development support. Anyone with an inkling to
participate can do so with little effort. Proprietary software
development, OTOH, is expensive and secretive; immediately precluding
all but the most determined (and affluent) participants.
I think you'd be surprised how many people "would if they could" engage
in software development. I was writing programs when I was 12 years old,
purely because the information was available and it fascinated me.
> 9. Linux can access files faster and does not need defragmenters
> because it uses a journaled file system.
>
> So does Mac, only applies to Windows users.
That's a true, but weak argument. A better one might be to talk about
overall efficiency - e.g. look at the machine spec required to run Aero,
versus the spec required to run Compiz. GNU/Linux is just a leaner,
meaner system. Cheaper *and* faster. That's the convincing argument.
> 10. Add on to fit your audience.
Yes, everyone has their own unique interest, and there's something for
everyone in GNU/Linux, but I've found it much easier to point out the
very obvious crippling flaws in Windows, than try to second-guess what
might interest someone in GNU/Linux. Potential switchers are already
painfully aware of what it's like to run Windows, and walk the upgrade
treadmill - continually reminding them of the futility of what they
endure, versus the far less painful alternatives, is probably the most
effective advocacy; unless one is talking to a brainwashed fanboy, in
which case they're a lost cause anyway.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Proprietary licenses, the crack cocaine of software finance."
| - Matt Asay, CNET
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
04:39:50 up 1 day, 3:34, 1 user, load average: 0.37, 0.40, 0.24
|
|
