On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:33:18 +0100
Guilherme Lino <guih.lino_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> yeah but the true is that a linux desktop is alleast useless for a
> normal person
>
> i remember first time i used ubuntu. i started a openoffice
> presentation on the 4th slide the system was already ununusable. And
> wet back to windows, even google docs was better for the job.
>
> of course latex is cool, vim, dwm, but no one out of the professional
> field of thin client sience have the time or patience to learn this unix
> philosophy..
> --
>
>
> Guilherme Lino
I love view on proprietary presented by Paul Ramsey [1]. He described
software as ecosystem, where code is fighting for agents time.
Case for open source software is pretty simplistic:
- software sellings (userbase) = less money for hiring agents
- software stops to sells = agents are going away and software dies
For obvious reasons this isn't valid, when we're speaking about open
source. Still people tend to look at proprietary, same way as at
open source software: popularity contest. This way all the talk about
"normal and casual users" kicks in.
Many miss the point, that proprietary software doesn't need to be
mainstream to be successful. Even small projects like dwm can get
enough agents time to sustain it needs. It is successful in own
environment, let say desert or tundra. It is totally understandable,
that normal users can't operate in this environment.
LaTeX, Vim, dwm - those project will never hit mainstream, but they
won't die anytime soon either. How relevant normal user is in the
context of this software and why we should even care?
P.S. If you're poisoned by "world domination" syndrome or you're other
occult believer, please don't anwser to last question.
[1]
http://blip.tv/fosslc/osgeo-foss4g-keynote-part-3-2778270
--
Paul Onyschuk <blink_AT_bojary.koba.pl>
Received on Fri Oct 28 2011 - 12:47:01 CEST