482 lines
20 KiB
HTML
482 lines
20 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
|
|
<!--startcut ==========================================================-->
|
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
|
|
<!--Converted with LaTeX2HTML 98.1 release (February 19th, 1998)
|
|
originally by Nikos Drakos (nikos@cbl.leeds.ac.uk), CBLU, University of Leeds
|
|
* revised and updated by: Marcus Hennecke, Ross Moore, Herb Swan
|
|
* with significant contributions from:
|
|
Jens Lippmann, Marek Rouchal, Martin Wilck and others -->
|
|
<HTML>
|
|
<HEAD>
|
|
<TITLE>Evangelism: A Unix Bigot and Linux Advocate's Spewings</TITLE>
|
|
<META NAME="description" CONTENT="Evangelism: A Unix Bigot and Linux Advocate's Spewings">
|
|
<META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="lj_advocacy">
|
|
<META NAME="resource-type" CONTENT="document">
|
|
<META NAME="distribution" CONTENT="global">
|
|
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
|
|
</HEAD>
|
|
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000FF" VLINK="#A000A0"
|
|
ALINK="#FF0000">
|
|
<!--endcut ============================================================-->
|
|
|
|
<H4>
|
|
"Linux Gazette...<I>making Linux just a little more fun!</I>"
|
|
</H4>
|
|
|
|
<P> <HR> <P>
|
|
<!--===================================================================-->
|
|
|
|
<H1 ALIGN="CENTER">Evangelism: A Unix Bigot and Linux Advocate's Spewings</H1>
|
|
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><STRONG>By <A HREF="mailto:davew@cloudnet.com">David A.
|
|
Wagle</A></STRONG></P>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<P ALIGN="LEFT"></P><HR> <P>
|
|
<BR>
|
|
|
|
<H2><A NAME="SECTION00010000000000000000">
|
|
Table of Contents</A>
|
|
</H2>
|
|
<!--Table of Contents-->
|
|
<UL>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html2"
|
|
HREF="./wagle.html#SECTION00020000000000000000">Introduction: What's the Point?</A>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html3"
|
|
HREF="./wagle.html#SECTION00030000000000000000">A Conversion Story?</A>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html4"
|
|
HREF="./wagle.html#SECTION00040000000000000000">Why Linux Didn't Work</A>
|
|
<UL>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html5"
|
|
HREF="./wagle.html#SECTION00041000000000000000">What Learning Curve?</A>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html6"
|
|
HREF="./wagle.html#SECTION00050000000000000000">The Problem and Three Solutions:</A>
|
|
<UL>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html7"
|
|
HREF="./wagle.html#SECTION00051000000000000000">Big Blue, Round Two</A>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html8"
|
|
HREF="./wagle.html#SECTION00052000000000000000">OK, Take A Deep Breath!</A>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html9"
|
|
HREF="./wagle.html#SECTION00053000000000000000">Putting one foot in front of the other</A>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html10"
|
|
HREF="wagle.html#SECTION00060000000000000000">Why it isn't happening?</A>
|
|
<LI><A NAME="tex2html11"
|
|
HREF="wagle.html#SECTION00070000000000000000">Conclusion</A>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
<!--End of Table of Contents-->
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H1><A NAME="SECTION00020000000000000000">
|
|
Introduction: What's the Point?</A>
|
|
</H1>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
Linux users are a notorious bunch. We tend to be vociferous OS
|
|
bigots of the first order. This is a trait that has served
|
|
the software community well. After all, if we were not that
|
|
way we would never have put the time and effort into
|
|
developing, deploying, and supporting the thing. But it also
|
|
a trait that has drawbacks. Some of these drawbacks are
|
|
serious, and effect our ability to present Linux as a serious
|
|
alternative to other, more prominent OS's (using the term, in
|
|
many cases, very loosely).
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
I'm not going to try to present the Linux alternative in
|
|
anything but a fair and honest way. That means I'm not going
|
|
to be talking about the possibility of loosing your job for
|
|
choosing Linux -- after all, that is not a problem that is
|
|
unique or limited to any one OS. The fact is that when you
|
|
choose the wrong tool for mission critical applications, you
|
|
should be called to task for that choice. This is regardless
|
|
of the OS's involved. Likewise I will not clamor on that
|
|
Linux is the one, true solution to all problems. Such a
|
|
statement, however much I'd like it to be so, is just as
|
|
foolish.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
But, I wish to be clear that I will not have many good things
|
|
to say about those other OS's. For the most part they are
|
|
deserving of their poor reputations and of the scorn of any
|
|
true Linux afficionado. Still, there are better and worse
|
|
ways of promoting the <EM>Nearly</EM> One True OS that is Linux.
|
|
In this paper I would like to discuss some of those options.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H1><A NAME="SECTION00030000000000000000">
|
|
A Conversion Story?</A>
|
|
</H1>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
A few weeks ago I helped a friend (we'll call him Mike, being
|
|
that that is his name and I could care less about his
|
|
anonymity) install Red Hat 5.0 on his system. I made certain
|
|
that all the configuration files were properly tweaked for his
|
|
particular computer. I installed KDE, and made KDM the
|
|
default login method. I set up his networking, making sure
|
|
that it handled everything seamlessly in the background. Then
|
|
I showed him where the docs, howto's, mini-howto's and the
|
|
like were located. I spent time with him making sure he knew
|
|
how to use info, find, grep, ps, which, apropos and the man
|
|
pages. After a few hours of work and teaching, I went my
|
|
happy way convinced that another conversion to the Linux way
|
|
(tm) had taken place. After all, Mike hated Windows and had
|
|
had nothing but problems with both 95 and NT.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
But the next week when I stopped over, I found my friend was
|
|
back to running Windows 95, unhappy as ever about his daily
|
|
crashes and computer problems. It is important to understand
|
|
that Mike isn't some <EM>luser</EM>; rather, he is a
|
|
sophisticated computer professional with substantial computer
|
|
knowledge. He has been a consulting parter with me for major
|
|
corporations, and has worked on developing a number of expert
|
|
systems. He knows his stuff very well. So why, then, did
|
|
Mike fail to embrace the Linux alternative?
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H1><A NAME="SECTION00040000000000000000">
|
|
Why Linux Didn't Work</A>
|
|
</H1>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The answer, unfortunately, is one we advocates hear all the
|
|
time. The new user of the Linux system finds that the
|
|
learning curve is too steep to be manageable. Like many other
|
|
people, Mike has a real life - he has a job, a girlfriend,
|
|
various projects and hobbies, and he can not spend all his free
|
|
time learning a new way of being productive. Moreover, he
|
|
can't afford to devote the days or even weeks it might take
|
|
him to learn how to administer a system so that he can
|
|
accomplish even simple tasks. He needs to be productive
|
|
today, and tomorrow, at the same rate he was yesterday.
|
|
Because Mike is already familiar with the system and
|
|
applications on the windows box, and not with those on Linux,
|
|
he could not afford to switch. When the initial learning curve
|
|
is so steep getting to be equally productive when moving from
|
|
another OS to Linux can be daunting. This is even more true
|
|
if one is an expert user on the non-Linux machine.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H2><A NAME="SECTION00041000000000000000">
|
|
What Learning Curve?</A>
|
|
</H2>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
Many <EM>OS Bigots</EM> (myself included on my more polemical days)
|
|
will counter that it is simply untrue that it takes that long
|
|
to learn a new system. Or we'll simply deny that Linux is
|
|
really all that complicated. Instead of recognizing any
|
|
validity in the statements made by the complainants, we
|
|
attempt to invalidate the complaint by suggesting that the
|
|
person in question must be a <EM>luser</EM> instead of a <EM>user</EM>.
|
|
``I learned Unix in a couple of hours,'' or ``Heck, just pick
|
|
up <U>Unix Unleashed</U> and read it,'' are statements that carry
|
|
the implication that the person being addressed is somehow not
|
|
as competent as the speaker.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
This approach does more damage to the Linux (and Unix)
|
|
community than many people realize. We have good solutions to
|
|
many problems, but if we aren't willing to take the people who
|
|
need those solutions seriously, we will not be heard.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H1><A NAME="SECTION00050000000000000000">
|
|
The Problem and Three Solutions:</A>
|
|
</H1>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
So, the question arises, ``How do we Linux users, developers,
|
|
and advocates help those with limited time for learning new
|
|
systems make the switch?'' There are several answers to this
|
|
question, but they almost all fall into three categories. I
|
|
call these categories the <EM>OS/2 revisited approach</EM>, the
|
|
<EM>suck it up approach</EM>, and the <EM>delayed skill
|
|
transfer approach</EM>. What are these methods? Glad you asked!
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H2><A NAME="SECTION00051000000000000000">
|
|
Big Blue, Round Two</A>
|
|
</H2>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The first, the <EM>OS/2 revisited approach</EM>, consists of
|
|
making windows available on or under the new OS. IBM had
|
|
moderate success in getting dissatisfied users to switch to
|
|
their products by providing a technically superior system that
|
|
managed to provide the user with their favorite windows
|
|
applications. Linux has a number of programs and libraries
|
|
available that help with this approach. DOSEMU, the TWIN
|
|
library, WINE, WABI, and others are all efforts to provide the
|
|
user with access to his favorite MS products.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
This approach has some big dividends. The user is able to
|
|
transfer many of his or her skills immediately. There is
|
|
little trepidation in wondering how to do word processing on
|
|
the very same word-processor you've been using for the last 2
|
|
years. There is far less worry about being able to get your
|
|
work done when you don't have to worry about finding and
|
|
learning new applications in order to accomplish your normal
|
|
tasks.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
However, this approach does have some problems. Today, the
|
|
most obvious is that windows95 apps are not nearly as portable
|
|
to Linux emulation as are the older 3.x apps. This means that
|
|
many users are not able to bring over their favorite
|
|
applications any more. Rather, the user needs to find and
|
|
obtain an outdated version of his or her favorite product. The
|
|
user then will need to worry about reformatting old data and
|
|
projects to use the older program, as well as concerning
|
|
themselves with being able to share their data seamlessly with
|
|
coworkers.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
Another major drawback with this approach, as IBM found out,
|
|
is that the users are not encouraged to explore the power of
|
|
the underlying OS. ``A better memory manager for windows'' is
|
|
not what Linux is about. It is not what it does best. And,
|
|
like OS/2, eventually users who use it for that purpose will
|
|
realize that the increased complexity doesn't pay out any real
|
|
dividends. The reason OS/2 failed (regardless of what the
|
|
various OS/2 pundits say, it is dead) is the same reason these
|
|
various projects will never really be the answer to Linux
|
|
advocacy. They don't really solve the problem of getting
|
|
users up on the new OS. All they do is offer a false sense of
|
|
security at a cost of complexity and a lack of compatibility
|
|
with state-of-the-art Windows environments (if there is such a
|
|
thing.)
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The trend to develop Windows95-like applications such as
|
|
StarOffice on Unix platforms seems to be an extension of this
|
|
methodology. Instead of embracing the tenants of ``small is
|
|
beautiful'' and ``make each program do one thing well,'' these
|
|
development efforts are aimed at reproducing the Suite on Unix.
|
|
The advantage of this, is, of course, that it is what managers
|
|
expect to find on their computers. The disadvantage is that
|
|
the ``Office Suite,'' in all it's ugly, bloated, glory is now
|
|
nestled into the Unix culture. Most true devotee's of Unix
|
|
will likely dismiss these suites as being against the Unix
|
|
grain. Still, they present a way to move reluctant Windows95
|
|
people into the Unix world.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H2><A NAME="SECTION00052000000000000000">
|
|
OK, Take A Deep Breath!</A>
|
|
</H2>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The <EM>suck it up approach</EM>, also known as the <EM>sink
|
|
or swim</EM> method can and does work. I, for example, simply
|
|
reformatted my hard-drive one day, and never looked back.
|
|
However, for most people in real-life business environments,
|
|
this isn't possible. Unlike most people, I really did have
|
|
lots of time to explore my system, and being in graduate
|
|
school, I had few applications I really needed to run.
|
|
``Mission Critical'' doesn't apply to most people in master's
|
|
programs. Like the example of Mike, above, the real user
|
|
just doesn't have the time to waste on learning how to be
|
|
productive all over again. Still, for some users, it can
|
|
work. The key is having good teachers who are also good
|
|
system administrators on hand to help the user along. Had I
|
|
been willing to visit Mike on a daily basis to hand hold
|
|
while he got up to speed, he would probably be running on Red
|
|
Hat instead of Redmond.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The advantage to this method is that it doesn't rely on a
|
|
sense of security. Unlike <EM>OS/2 revisited</EM>, the
|
|
<EM>suck it up'ers</EM> have to dive into the system, they have
|
|
to tackle the learning curve, and with good teachers it can
|
|
happen fairly quickly. Most people can learn the basics of
|
|
Emacs, LaTeX, Unix shells and command lines, and the various
|
|
other Unix tools and tricks in a week or less. While there
|
|
may still be some touch and go moments when problems with
|
|
system administration raise their ugly head, for the most
|
|
part, after some intensive training and a few moments of
|
|
butterflies in the stomach, the person can manage to get
|
|
along.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The problem with this approach is, of course, that it takes a
|
|
leap of faith, that most people are very leery of making.
|
|
And, I might add, they are right to be leery of doing it this
|
|
way. Some people simply won't get the new way no matter how
|
|
patient you are, because they will be stressing out over some
|
|
project that they are working on. Others, because of various
|
|
concerns about being able to get the job done, simply won't
|
|
leave the tried and true - no matter how obvious it is that
|
|
it is really tried and found wanting. Let's face it, most
|
|
people are nervous about the unknown, and moving to Linux is
|
|
the unknown for someone whose only computer experience is MS
|
|
or Mac based. Here again, the aforementioned Office-ish
|
|
suites can come in very handy. While rarely the best tool for
|
|
any one job, they can be used to make the <EM>suck it up'er</EM>
|
|
more comfortable in his or her new environment.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
It is important to realize that there is always the
|
|
occasional person whose task still can not be adequately
|
|
completed under Linux. There are specialty apps which require
|
|
MS or Mac products to run. For these people, leaping before
|
|
looking, long and hard, can be disastrous. And, we gurus
|
|
need to be aware that one story from such a person on
|
|
newsgroups and mailing lists goes as far as ten stories of
|
|
positive experiences. Trying to coerce most people into the
|
|
<EM>suck it up</EM> method is just asking for trouble. You risk
|
|
your credibility about OS matters on your ability to teach and
|
|
support someone in learning a new environment. This is a
|
|
gamble that most likely won't pay off often enough to be worth
|
|
the risk. Our most powerful weapon in the Linux community has
|
|
always been our honesty and integrity when it comes to the
|
|
products we advocate. To push someone to use a system they
|
|
are not ready for can have deleterious effects on that
|
|
reputation.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H2><A NAME="SECTION00053000000000000000">
|
|
Putting one foot in front of the other</A>
|
|
</H2>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
This brings us to the last method - the <EM>delayed skill
|
|
transfer approach</EM>. What is this? It's simple -- give
|
|
Windows, NT and Mac users Unix tools to use on their current
|
|
projects! Simple, huh? The problem is, in our zest to push
|
|
the Linux point of view on people, we often forget that we can
|
|
give some demonstration of the power of the Unix way which is
|
|
utterly non-threatening to new users. By replacing the
|
|
command windows prompt with bash, by changing dir to ls,
|
|
by adding ghostview, ghostscript, emacs, perl, LaTeX and other
|
|
tools to the Windows environment, we allow for users to
|
|
develop their skills and confidence in Unix methods without
|
|
compromising their ability to currently work.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
While this method may take longer to get any particular user
|
|
up and running in a completely Linux-only environment, it also
|
|
offers the most benefits with the fewest drawbacks. The
|
|
benefits of the <EM>OS/2 revisited</EM> method, namely that of
|
|
having tools that you are comfortable with, is realized
|
|
without the deficit of having to rely on out-dated versions
|
|
or be worried about underlying complexities. The drawbacks of
|
|
the <EM>suck it up</EM> approach are avoided as the users are
|
|
given plenty of time to become familiar with the new tools in
|
|
an environment that doesn't endanger any current projects.
|
|
Thus the users are less stressed and more open to trying new
|
|
things, for the new things don't entail the need to be
|
|
concerned about not being able to accomplish critical tasks.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
Further, after a few weeks or months, those ``mission critical''
|
|
tasks are now being accomplished on Unix tools that have been
|
|
ported to the user's (soon to be formerly) favorite
|
|
platform. Thus, when the switch over to Linux comes, the user
|
|
no longer has to learn two new things - how to be productive
|
|
and how to system manage. Instead, they are instantly
|
|
productive and can learn the underlying system at their
|
|
leisure. More often than not they will come to want the extra
|
|
functionality of things like named pipes, IPC, and other Unix
|
|
niceties that are unavailable in their scaled down ports.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H1><A NAME="SECTION00060000000000000000">
|
|
Why it isn't happening?</A>
|
|
</H1>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
While this seems to be a fairly obvious method of helping
|
|
users move to Unix environments it seems to be one of the
|
|
least attempted. There are a few reasons for this.
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
<UL>
|
|
<LI>Advocates tend to be very strong in their opinion that
|
|
windows=bad, Unix=good. They are not particularly willing to
|
|
compromise their ideals for what seems like limited gains.
|
|
<LI>Advocates tend towards seeing the computing market as a
|
|
battleground of sorts where Unix is pitted against the ``evil
|
|
empire.'' Anything that doesn't seem like a direct attack upon
|
|
Microsoft can be seen as an act of near treason.
|
|
<LI>Linux users tend to spend lots of time under Linux,
|
|
they are a bit out of touch with the windows world. As a
|
|
result, they may not be aware of that neat new port of Bash as
|
|
the command shell under 95, or that perl can run (and do some
|
|
neat registry tricks too!)
|
|
</UL>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H1><A NAME="SECTION00070000000000000000">
|
|
Conclusion</A>
|
|
</H1>
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
The point of all this is that there is more than one way to
|
|
skin a cat (or in the case of Gates-ware, a weasel). Linux
|
|
advocacy can, and should, take forms that are appropriate to
|
|
the particular situation of a particular user. A student in
|
|
a computer science program with lots of free-time probably
|
|
should opt for the <EM>suck it up</EM> approach. A person with
|
|
plenty of support from a local administrator and plenty of
|
|
legacy apps might benefit greatly from the <EM>OS/2
|
|
revisited method</EM>. And, most importantly, we can't forget that
|
|
promoting Unix tools under other OS's is a form of advocacy.
|
|
More importantly, in an environment where mission critical
|
|
apps and projects abound, it may be the most effective form of
|
|
advocacy. Keep up with available ports of your favorite Unix
|
|
tools under other systems, and you can increase your
|
|
conversion success rate!
|
|
|
|
<P>
|
|
|
|
<H1><A NAME="SECTION00080000000000000000">
|
|
About this document ... </A>
|
|
</H1>
|
|
<STRONG>Evangelism: A Unix Bigot and Linux Advocate's Spewings</STRONG><P>
|
|
This document was generated using the
|
|
<A HREF="http://www-dsed.llnl.gov/files/programs/unix/latex2html/manual/"><STRONG>LaTeX</STRONG>2<tt>HTML</tt></A> translator Version 98.1 release (February 19th, 1998)
|
|
<P>
|
|
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
|
|
<A HREF="http://cbl.leeds.ac.uk/nikos/personal.html">Nikos Drakos</A>,
|
|
Computer Based Learning Unit, University of Leeds.
|
|
<P>
|
|
The command line arguments were: <BR>
|
|
<STRONG>latex2html</STRONG> <tt>-split 0 lj_advocacy.tex</tt>.
|
|
<P>
|
|
The translation was initiated by David Wagle on 1998-03-23
|
|
|
|
<!--===================================================================-->
|
|
<P> <hr> <P>
|
|
<center><H5>Copyright © 1998, David Wagle <BR>
|
|
Published in Issue 27 of <i>Linux Gazette</i>, April 1998</H5></center>
|
|
|
|
<!--===================================================================-->
|
|
<P> <hr> <P>
|
|
<A HREF="./index.html"><IMG ALIGN=BOTTOM SRC="../gx/indexnew.gif"
|
|
ALT="[ TABLE OF CONTENTS ]"></A>
|
|
<A HREF="../index.html"><IMG ALIGN=BOTTOM SRC="../gx/homenew.gif"
|
|
ALT="[ FRONT PAGE ]"></A>
|
|
<A HREF="./marsden.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/back2.gif"
|
|
ALT=" Back "></A>
|
|
<A HREF="./jeffery.html"><IMG SRC="../gx/fwd.gif" ALT=" Next "></A>
|
|
<P> <hr> <P>
|
|
<!--startcut ==========================================================-->
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
</HTML>
|
|
<!--endcut ============================================================-->
|