Affiliates
Re: Selling vs. Shaming
I read a post today on Zonker's blog called Selling vs. shaming. In it, the author argues that it's better to have non-free software loaded on a mostly free software system if it pleases the user, rather than have a pure free software system that doesn't meet the user's wants or needs. I couldn't agree more.
Zonker's post was brought on by a conversation he'd had on identi.ca regarding the newly released Hulu Desktop for Linux. Apparently some folks are upset that the Linux world is abuzz with the news that Hulu Desktop for Linux is out, but it doesn't meet the Free Software Foundation's definition of free.
The Free Software Foundation's goals are noble. However, their extremist stance on Software Freedom can be alienating to the uninitiated. The fact that the folks at Hulu made their new software compatible with GNU/Linux based operating systems is great for the future of the Linux desktop.
The benefits to desktop Linux are twofold:
- This one's obvious. Linux users have software that they (presumably) want available for their system. (Sort of - downloads are available for 32-bit and 64-bit Fedora and Ubuntu only)
- Perhaps more importantly, the Linux version of Hulu Desktop is not buried in some hidden corner of their website. It's right there on the main page alongside Mac and Windows downloads. This puts a mention of Linux in front of potentially millions of computer users who may not have even heard of Linux before. And for those that have heard of it, it helps to break down the myth that desirable software is not available for Linux.
The day that Adobe released Flash Player for Linux was a great day for the Linux desktop. Flash does not meet FSF's free software definition. Flash on Windows is a power hungry application and it's doubly so on Linux. I certainly wish I didn't need it installed on my computer, but so much of the internet uses Flash that it's practically a necessity. If it weren't available at all for Linux it would be one more nail in the coffin for desktop Linux.
Few people are going to care about a GNU/Linux operating system if they can't do the things they want to do on their computer. We'll have an easier time converting people to using Linux if they can have a system that meets their wants and needs. If it takes a few pieces of proprietary software to get there, then so be it. As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.
A lot of dedicated programmers are making great strides in developing free alternatives to the most popular software, but the job isn't done yet. The job will likely never be done as the proprietary world continues to progress as well. Let's not wait for the perfect free system. We should applaud every effort to provide software for Linux whether free or proprietary.
So let's hear it for one more program available for Linux. You're free to install it, not install it, uninstall it, love it, hate it, or ignore it.
Three More Reasons Not To Use Linux
Last week I read a half-witted blog post citing "3 Reasons why we shouldn't use Linux". I've got one tip for TechBirdy, the blog author.
TechBirdy's reasons are either borne out of complete ignorance, or from a desire to spread pure FUD.
Being a Linux user, I thought: what are some good reasons to not use Linux? The following are the best reasons I could come up with.
1. Software updates are too frequent.
Most Linux distro's post updates several times per month. How can you be assured that these updates have been thoroughly tested if they don't follow a strict schedule for release? You would be much better off using an OS that provides updates on the second Tuesday of each month. That way you know that the updates are of the highest possible quality. Better yet, use an OS that charges it's customers for relatively minor updates. Nothing comforts me more than paying at least $29 for some minor updates. The fact that they charge for the updates assures that the software has been thoroughly tested. I think $29 is a small price to pay for a little peace of mind.
2. Not all hardware is supported.
When you purchase a new piece of computer equipment, you can count on getting a CD with the official Windows system drivers to help you get your new hardware working (or at least get the web address to download the drivers). When was the last time you bought something that had a CD of Linux drivers with it? Sure, there's a pretty good chance that your hardware will just work right out of the box with Linux, but there's a chance it won't. Can you really afford to take that chance? Linux programmers are much too busy adding system support for new technology that no one uses yet, like USB 3.0 or IPv6.
3. It doesn't run exe's.
Linux can't natively run Windows .exe files. Sure, there's the Wine compatability layer, or Crossover Office (based on Wine), but when you receive a free application in your email from a wealthy Nigerian gentleman who wants to give you millions of dollars for just a few minutes of your time, who has time for compatability layers. It's best to just get down to installing that program. Time is money, and your time is valuable. After all, you're about to become a millionaire!
I'm sure there are lots of other good reasons not to use Linux. Let me know in the comments.