Slashdot Log In
Feature:A Brave New World
from the from-grand-master-hackers dept.
A Brave New World
So the suits have invaded your favourite OS, do you care, should you care ?
The answer is probably yes. A large number of people are about to collide with a community they don't understand which has a long history of its own independence, and its own shared cultural references. Think AOL meets the internet.
The very first line proves this. I can talk about "a suit" and most of the readership know exactly what I mean. The "suit" is a shared stereotype of many of the outsiders of the community. If you are what we class as a suit and are reading this by the way welcome, do come in , you don't need to hang around the door. We don't even have suits in general as the first people against the wall, although we do have places reserved for a couple of them.
Similarly things like "See figure 1"[0] , "What was your user name again ?" and suggestions for using dead chickens are something that has a common meaning. Userfriendly isn't terribly funny to some people because they lack the frame of reference to understand ISP's really really do work like that. I feel sorry for them because now that I've finally discovered it, I've found it is a great cartoon.
It is important that when the suits do things that don't fit the community that people gently remind them. It takes time and it has to be done right but it does work. The average AOL user has become materially more internet-friendly over time. The continual polite chiding for using HTML email on mailing lists has had its desired effect. Also sometimes you need to step back and try and see how they are thinking and why as well as their background. Don't just criticise but try and explain in their terms why things matter. "See figure 1" is not the productive answer especially if they've learned what figure 1 is.
In the Linux frame of reference most suits are going to be coming to Linux partly because everyone else is and partly because of its excellent price/performance, and to give them their own buzzwords back - Total cost of ownership. I imagine most of the people cheering happily at all the proprietary software and value added (or as Richard Stallman likes to term it 'freedom deducted') software are in this category.
If you want to teach them the reasons why Linux is better, faster and more stable do it gently. In time they will come to wonder why they are pricing a commercial email system for Linux when the one on the CD-ROM works perfectly well anyway. They will wonder why they are buying high price network management tools when they seem to get free ones. Eventually they will get the message. The barrier has partly gone, no longer is it "but thats free software", its "thats free software, excellent - will that package work for our needs".
We need to gently teach them that technical shows they should be paying for speakers, they need to show us that for marketing shows the talks are really advertising so they don't expect to pay for them. We need to teach IDG that registering Linuxexpo.com and causing confusing with the real Linux Expo in May is not the way we do things here.
There is going to be real turbulence ahead if history repeats (as always [1]). Certainly my own memories of the UK mainstream arrival of the show sold home computer, and even more the events way prior to that in the USA that Stephen Levy documents in 'Hackers' mirror the current happenings remarkably well.
Some vendors will probably vanish over the next two years while others disappear into big name companies and numerous new vendors spring up to take on new niches and angles of the Linux business. The whole business model is still in flux - do Linux companies sell Linux, do they use Linux as a tool to bundle software to the retail channel, do they sell custom systems built on Linux, do they associate with some vendors or do they stay application vendor neutral and thus avoid competing with application people ? All of these are unknowns.
Money too is beginning to influence Linux kernel development far more than before. Not at the moment in a bad way I'm glad to say. Free software reflects the needs of the userbase and their talents. This has always therefore focused on the hardware people really possess. You'll notice Linux 1.2 for example doesn't reflect 2Gig machines with multiple RAID controllers. The typical home hacker doesn't generally possess these. Instead we have the coffee-machine interfacing mini-HOWTO. The people who need these high end facilities aren't writing them however, they are using their own currency for contributing to the kernel. They are paying people or using their own staff to write the high end support and place it under the GPL.
There is always a risk that money will start to talk too much. "I know this feature is stupid but if we pay you $$$$ will you do it". Thankfully Linus is rather good at saying "no" to anything that isn't a good idea. That is bound to be an area where there is some friction. These people will also bring non Unix ideas with them too. Linux will probably gain from this because Unix doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas, it just owns most of them.
Do look after our visiting suits, they come from a strange land and have strange rituals like "Trade Shows". Be assured they find our rituals of talking about technical material in detail just as strange. They have been living under an oppressive binary-only single OS regime, and as refugees need sympathy and education. It's very hard to teach someone the value of freedom but please do try. And I'm told we do share some common rituals. Our "flame war" is apparently held in person in their land and called "project meeting".
Please be friendly and give useful directions any lost suits.
[0] http://spiffy.cso.uiuc.edu/~kline/Stuff/see-figure -1.html
[1] I am a great fan of the "History repeats itself, it has to nobody ever
listens" quote.
License: OpenContent
Need to meet "the suits" halfway (Score:1)
IDIOT! This is JUST SOFTWARE (Score:1)
Dont imagine for one second that IBM or any of the others give a rats ass about Linux. They are only here to make money. M O N E Y.
Actual possibility to make "MONEY" often doesn't matter much compared to politics. Making money is always a possibility, and a strategy that always maximizes a profit in the short term at the current moment is always suicidal, so companies want to have strategy that provides them stability and protection from various possible, or imaginable dangers. One such strategy is lock-in of customers, bullying competitors, building a monopoly. Another is co-operation with things that are stable by their nature.
Because... (Score:1)
Yes, there are shady people out there in corporate America but they are the exception rather than the rule. Big business does not generally tolerate them (too much risk, for one thing). Furthermore, I still don't understand why some of the people who post here hear the word "business" and automatically think "Microsoft." That is a rather simplistic view of the world, n'est ce pas?
Because in software business "shady people" from Microsoft, and ones of their type, have taken the control of almost everything. One either works at the company that dictates things, or for company that complies, and quality is of no importance compared to marketing, so they will do more for 1x2 inches place for a company logo on full-page Microsoft ad in a magazine than for any improvement to the product's quality.
This can be changed, and in some areas it's not so, but in general "software business strategy" *does* mean "being an obedient servant to Microsoft".
A Perfect Solution... (Score:1)
Amen Alan (Score:1)
I couldn't agree more.
Enough with the stereotypes! (From "A Suit") (Score:1)
Well I appreciate what the "suits" can do. You cant have world domination by isolating and shoo'ing the business world. (There are a lot more machines in business than in schools).
How about a new term....
Geeksuit to describe the "professional" geek
What the hell is a "faget"? (Score:1)
Can we finally ban the AC's now Rob?
-W.W.
Unfortunately, that attitude is suicide. (Score:1)
MS won't die, but they'll be cut down to size, both by the DOJ and by the next recession (...see the air escape the gaping hole in the balloon...).
Ford's doing great, but it's not as big'n'bad as it once was; where once they hired thugs to beat up on unionizers, they now depend more and more on cheap labor (and, of course, techie smarts) - but when technology improvements and bad labor practices no longer produce sufficient gains, then what?
What about Rockefeller's monopoly? How are your oil stocks doing, now that that market has crashed yet again?
MS is not forever. It will be a victory merely if the computer-industry playing field becomes sane; I don't care if MS dies or not. A lot of nice folks are there in Redmond, believe it or not; I'd like them to keep working there - but for a Good Corporate Citizen rather than for an 800-pound octopus.
--
Hehe- uh huh (WAS: $$$$$ - but that can be good.) (Score:1)
"Easier" is a very relative term. After all, do you mean "easy to use", or "easy to manage", "easy to install", etc... There are multiple facets of "easy".
Easy to use, Linux already has that if the machine is already setup. My mother could use WindowMaker and the GIMP just fine, but I'm not about to expect her to compile either of them, or even use a packing format with binaries.
What we need are easier methods of maintainment - the equivalent of an "installshield" or "active setup" in the winblows world. Packaging methods don't solve this problem, hell, in a lot of ways they're just a glorified ZIP file, which, hell, my mother can't even figure those out.
Definately something to think about.
-Erik-
stuck between a ROCK and a ... CORPORATE WORLD! (Score:1)
because of the free software concept of the community?
Do you mean, will you not be able to sell a proprietary thing because the Linux community is so adamantly pro-free software? The answer is no. Applixware hasn't been burned to the ground, Opera's plan to port to Linux received positive feedback, etc. The Linux community is not monolithic; while there's a strong desire that the OS be free and open, many of us are willing to pay for useful closed-source applications.
If you're worried that open sourcers will just duplicate your idea, the answer is they will, and so will other closed-sourcers. The only way to survive selling proprietary software is to keep improving it, whether you're on Linux or not.
>How do you people who code for free survive?
Some are students, some work for companies like Netscape and Red Hat, some do open source stuff in their free time, and some help the open source effort by improving tools they need for their jobs (like Corel helping out with Wine.)
It's human nature... (Score:1)
Everyone is ignorant about something, but it's usually the people who are ignorant about nearly everything that do most of the flaming.
TedC
If the axioms are false ... (Score:1)
I basically agree with you, except that there is a non-business-related reason to spread free software beyond the hacker realm and into the real world: to afford our fellow citizens freedom, real freedom for its very own sake.
Information is power. If information and the tools to process it are equally accessible to all (effectively, free), well -- that could shake things up.
One thing to remember (Score:1)
Excellent post. (Score:1)
Of course, that doesn't help the problem of the "suits" who don't know there's even a cadre of "techs" out there trying to do this.
Actually, no. (Score:1)
A business requires a profit to stay alive. This is as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. This need is unfortunately often clouded by the greed of the few - not the many.
And even more unfortunately, those who don't understand simple economics think that profits == greed, when this isn't often the case at all (though it very well COULD be).
Agreed.. (Score:1)
There's nothing wrong with being a "suit", if you can keep perspective on the details while you "keep your eye on the prize" - what do you want? And do you know what the consequences of getting it are?
first the intertnet now Linux (Score:1)
No they don't. Hackers rule. And hackers created Junkbuster [junkbuster.com] which lets you filter out the mind pollution created by the suits. It's a beautiful tool and hits the suits where it hurts.
--
Hehe- uh huh (WAS: $$$$$ - but that can be good.) (Score:1)
Like the guy above says, there are plenty of auto-mount things out there. Anyway, if they were using, say, KDE then it's mounted when they double click on the 'Floppy disk' icon. Having to unmount before removing the disk is a Good Thing. The amount of times I've seen people taking the disk out while they still had the file open in Word, and then wondering why their files get screwed up....if they had clear directions on "Always unmount before removing the disk" it would make them be a bit more careful, I think...
IMHO, of course.
dylan_-
--
This DOES Actually Suck (Score:1)
Daniel
Stand by comment. (Score:1)
a lazy hippie? (Score:1)
KLyX (off-topic) (Score:1)
I would rather keep my mind on the proof Im trying to communicate than the program I am using to do it.
Re: Not free (Score:1)
put the jokes into a seperate configuration file.
Then distribute the source with a non-offending
sample configuration.
IMHO, making offending jokes about former
co-workers isn't exaclty what i call good style,
anyways...
-- Jochen
*Sigh* I wonder how HURD is doing... (Score:1)
I guess guys like me feel the need to always be on the edge. Linux just moved one more step away from the edge.
Linux is dead! Long like Linux!
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Actually, no. (Score:1)
1. Money
2. Avoiding work
3. Getting into each others' pants.
What Color is your Parachute is a very common book to see on people's desk where I work.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
GNU (Score:1)
Minix isn't exactly sweeping the nation.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Economic realities of life (Score:1)
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
Condescending (Score:1)
Bravo!!! (Score:1)
Um, actually, it's not (Score:1)
ESR describes himself as a "gonzo libertarian." What does this mean? That the FSF group as a whole thinks that leaving software in the hands of big, proprietary business is as bad as leaving it in the hands of goverment. It's pretty clear MS has enough power to screw over anyone who uses or resells their software.
Being a Libertarian does _not_ mean being against capitalism. Libertarians are usually the most free-market minded people around. Not that commercial software should be illegal -- rather that you are sacraficing your freedom when you put the control of your computers into the hands of someone else, be it a corporation or the government. It's in your own interest to use Free (freedom, not beer
You're right tho. It's software, not religion. It means _nothing_ if we spend our time having religious flamewars and never _write_ the free software. RMS will use free software on the principle, but businesses who rely on their software won't use the Free stuff till its better -- capitalism again.
Oh, and once a business is comitted to Free software (which it can never make unFree if it's GPL) that business has a simple vested interest in improving the software -- it's good for the bottom line to employ people like Don Becker, Alan and Linus.
I don't see at all how it's controlled by those "making money from it". Anyone who wants can modify the Linux kernel or GNU OS. Even if you don't get your changes accepted by Linus, you're welcome to them as long as you abide by GPL. If a company needs functionality, it can add it, but control remains Free. No one can screw the user over. And that's the point.
Suits do not generally think long-term (Score:1)
Free software makes software *better*. Better software makes better businesses. Better businesses make more money. But this is long-term thinking, and usually suits are worried about beating the Street this quarter, not a bunch of nebulous, can't-prove-it, head-in-the-clouds bullshit.
It is that kind of short-term thinking that will hurt Linux and free software the most. Free software is about ten or twenty years from now, not next quarter.
Teaching next-quarter guys to think in terms that long will be very difficult -- and in many cases, impossible.
wider social implications (Score:1)
Secondly, call me a mad hippy, but this free software meets the suits phenomenon could have wider, positive social implications, rather than negative ones on Linux etc.
Just think of the possibilities as the blinkered, prejudiced igroant masses that make up capitalist society have their eyes opened!
There will be a positive step-change in the state of western society, a dramatic advance over night.
Well, that's what the Great Unwashed will experience.
Our economies will mushroom, productivity will boom, technology will leap forward.
We'll all be richer in many ways.
Time for my pills.
Oy Govna (Score:1)
Stike a light!
Knees up muvver brown. knees up muvver brown...
hey retard (Score:1)
so, take a hint. no one is forcing you to use better software.
Here Here !!! (I really hope you're not serious) (Score:1)
Like a great number of extremely clueful right-wing North Americans, you have identified the twin sources of all that is evil. These are of course, Liberals and The Government.
I'm not going to try to argue with you; you've displayed all the acumen of a 14-year old Rush Limbaugh fan. I will point out that, last time I checked, Republicans seemed to like the government just fine. As long as it was handing out tax breaks and public land to wealthy corporations, instead of money to individuals in need, of course.
I won't debate the merits of social programs. But your virtuous Republicans are as much in favour of them as is Barney Frank. The only disagreement is who should get the money.
Oh, and there's an alternative to governments. We can go there any time we want to. Check out Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda, first -- you may miss government when it's gone.
It's $$$$$ - but that can be good. (Score:1)
stuck between a ROCK and a ... CORPORATE WORLD! (Score:1)
Examine the GPL... there is nothing that says you can't charge for your software... just that you must make the source available to people who have the binaries.
There is no reason to GPL if you're not using anyone else's GPL'ed code, except to be nice and contribute to the free software world.
If you think your code will be ripped off and resold because it's something that the average Joe Blow would want, then don't GPL... But if it's, for example, software for blind real estate agents... who cares if you have to give them source if they ask? They most likely won't ask or even care.
Remember, you CAN charge as much as you can get away with, and you don't have to give your source code to anyone who doesn't cough up the dough for the binaries.
Best of luck!
.
Hehe- uh huh (WAS: $$$$$ - but that can be good.) (Score:1)
And telneting into your Mom's computer is generally easier than trying to explain things over the phone.
.
stuck between a ROCK and a ... CORPORATE WORLD! (Score:1)
.
Grammar? (Score:1)
suit term: "Business model" (Score:1)
[enough with the quotes already]
Why should you care? Money and information.
Cell phone users have money, and they regularly give it away to pay off their outrageous cell phone bills. Computer users have money, and they usually pay the outrageous MS tax.
What suits want in addition to your money is your information. They'll offer you free email service so that they can have your information; hell, they'll sell you a computer if they can have your information and shove their information down your throat.
We MUST make certain Linux stays free, and is a success. This might show the suits that the industry is not trending toward the cell phone model. We must show that that we will pay for the tangible hardware, but we'll make our own software and share it. And you can have my information when you pry it from my cold, dead, encrypted filesystem.
Excellent Assesment! We need to keep on hacking. (Score:1)
Suits can HELP.
They can pay us to write "FREE" code.
They can give us access to fun hardware.
They can provide the SERVICES that the rest of the world needs.
Many business don't need great software they need great services, implimentation plans, defaults, promisses of emotional security and support.
Hackers do a horrible job of providing this.
Let the suits provide services for hackers software, let them add back to the community. But let them come to the hacker community on our terms. Educate and assimilate. There is nothing wrong with them trying to make some money as long as they do it appropriatly. Sometimes you have the money and not the skill, hire someone with the skill, lots of software is service, and if people want to pay to have other people configure their systems, tell them how to do it, or just talk on the phone GREAT!
Suits will bring propriatary software. Just don't let them do anything core to the Network or System. Propriatary applications are fine, they can be excellent inspiration for another "FREE" project.
The world moves because we will it. Keep hacking, keep having fun and the world will be a better place. We like to get money for toys, housing, and food (except RMS who seems to consider poverty saintly). Those people who want our skills should pay, and in our free time we can hack. Just make sure that you get the FREE time!
Here Here !!! (Score:1)
Suits / Hackers distinction misleading (Score:1)
Its an operating system dammit. If you can't handle users who actually work for a living, go use OpenBSD.
Um, actually, it's not (Score:1)
Secondly, I would tend to draw a distinction between the free market and capitalism. That probably sounds strange, and will get people wondering loudly in public if I have a clue.
How does this relate to 'free software'? Well, it's a demonstration of how the tendency for capital to centralise can have the rug pulled from under it completely.
Now we just have to figure out how to do the same with bread, and we'll all be happy.
--
[1] was: Um, actually, it's not (Score:1)
"Those fish are bad! People can't possibly eat them," he said.
"What do you mean, eat them?" replied the MD. "Those fish weren't for eating. They were for selling."
Hence "sardine software".
(And this, children, is why it's important to proofread your posts.
--
IDG & linuxexpo.com???? (Score:1)
linuxexpo.com != Linux Expo?
What's he talking about?
Well put (Score:1)
One of the best things Slashdot ever posted (Score:1)
Alan is right, idiots shall die out sooner or later. The problem is how long it will take and will *BSD and Linux survive over this... We have an example of an idiotic (suit) system being a market leader so this is indeed a reasonable suspicion...
Idotic picking out of band... Can you read? (Score:1)
Read it again. Alan is not talking about money payed for doing kernel. He is talking about people with money who wish to run Linux and have been able to afford the iron which is worth a lot of money.
In other words get yourself an Origin if you can (I can't