Ubuntu Boot Up Logo

[Paul M. Bucalo]

On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 14:03 +0300, Iosif Chatzimichail wrote:

> I don't think you understand. If tomorrow ALL windows users started 
> using Linux in 6 months Linux would be FULL of viruses, spyware and 
> security problems. 

No, I don't think that *you* understand the purpose of Linux. By stating
that the uninformed and ignorant masses would provoke chaos in Linux,
you have demeaned and devalued Linux as a whole. I cannot imagine how
adding user-friendly GUI's, removing root access from the O/S, being
prone to almost immunity from viruses, having excellent built-in apps
for spam control, and many other very positive attributes that I won't
go into right now, can possibly allow ignorant, uninformed,
non-technical end-users a chance to destroy Linux. Instead, I can image
the whole world miraculously converting over to Linux in one moment's
breath, like someone pulling a master switch for all humanity....and all
those nasties now in Limbo, unable to affect anyone. If you believe in
what makes Linux different than Windows, you have no reason to fear the
masses ruining Ubuntu.

> Getting users in Linux is not the true purpose.

Oh, really? I joined an elite social and technical club that wants
limited membership? I must have been misinformed. I thought this was a
forum to share knowledge between users of what is hoped to be the
easiest to use, most friendly, most productive, most widely used
operating system on PC's around the world. Did I miss something? Is
there a reason why I would want to deprive the world of this excellent
flavor of Linux?

>  The 
> target should be to educate them so when they read "Synchronising clock 
> with ntp.ubuntulinux.org.......[FAIL]" they understand it's not 
> important. Remember a big percentage of Windows problems are being 
> caused because users don't know how to keep their OS safe, so they get 
> their machines filled of useless software.

I assume that you drive an automobile? Are you currently able to
dismantle the vehicle and reassemble it? No? By your statement then, you
shouldn't be entitled to drive it at the very most, at the very least be
eligible for any help from a professional when something goes wrong with
it. Put the problem into perspective. We are talking about the O/S of a
*tool*, not a way of life. Humanity is about love, relationships,
associations and personal growth. In no definition I know of does it
state that the Personal Computer is necessary or mandated for a
productive and happy life. We use PC's do work or to play. We should not
elevate their status to that of what is truly important and necessary to
humanity. As far as I am concerned, the motto of Ubuntu offers itself no
choice but too propagate itself to all corners of the world to allow
humanity access to an easier to use, simpler and more productive tool.

> Now if you ask, "do you want everyone to use Linux and give MS the boot" 
> my answer is "NO!".

Ubuntu, and all the other flavors of Linux, have *never* been about
Windows vs. Linux. Linux is a clone of an operating system that was
mature when Windows wasn't even a gleam in anyone's eyes. Windows just
happens to be involved because it fails so miserably at doing for the
masses what they want and need. Linux has always been about choice. And
that choice extends to allowing Ubuntu to be what the people *feel* they
need, not what elite users *believe* it should be for their own good.

>  Linux should be kept trouble free and this can 
> happen only by having its users have a deeper knowledge of this thing 
> called "computer". 

Do you know the inner workings of your telephone? Do you believe that my
mother at 78 years of age can't use the phone if she doesn't know how to
use speed-dialing or some other obscure feature she has no need for? In
a perfect world everyone would be knowledgeable about everything. In
that same perfect world, every specialist and technical guru would be
out of business, too. 

Our cars are monitored by computers, yet most of us have no idea how to
reprogram them. If that was a prerequisite for their use, we wouldn't
have a pollution problem anymore, would we? 

> Trust me if the above scenerio ever comes true me, 
> and probably you as well, will start looking for another OS.

My point is that we need to stop making the use of Linux a hobby or
sport. For general use it should be a seamless tool that is so subdued
that one only looks to the accomplishment instead of the means. That's
where Linux computing is heading for. I hope so, or I will be looking
for another O/S that lets me spend my time creating a newer and better
world instead of being a slave to its needs.

> I don't think that Ubuntu by not having a splash screen prevents newbie 
> users from using it. There are distros with nice booting screens that 
> are much more complicated and less user-friendly than Ubuntu.
> Everyone can run Linux free of charge and easily. It just needs some 
> research. Most people don't even know how to handle a Windows install, 
> if they decide to go open-source the boot screen is the last thing that 
> will scare them!

Whether a splash screen will bring in or deter new users is not the
point of anyone's argument for it being available. I use to disable it
in FC 3, but that didn't mean it was evil in my mind. I just didn't want
it running. You have that same choice. Exercise your choice instead of
telling others why theirs is not the right one. You are worrying over
matters that have no bearing over your own usage of this O/S. If you
can't disable or uninstall such a feature, you are arguing for the wrong
side.

I believe that as long as people who are using Linux for its
geek-factor, elitism, or their own slanted opinions, continue to coerce
end-users into being devotees of computing tecyhnology, Linux's progress
will be stifled. Linux's massive growth recently in ability has only
come to be because developers listened to what end-users wanted:
Plug-n-Play, USB, Multimedia, and more.  Linux has met the challenge on
almost every front and either tied or won. *That* is what has Bill Gates
worried about Linux, not that all the smart and learned PC users have
flocked to it. 

One could argue that we should revert back to the old ways, that
Gentoo's concept of compiling your own from scratch, or Slackware's
totally hands-on administration of the O/S, is the only true way to be a
man and one with the universe. Gentoo and Slackware are very important
choices for those who wish to work that way. Why make the other distro's
follow suit? To preserve some machocistic idealism about who qualifies
to use this O/S? That smacks of prejudice. When we think this way, Bill
Gates wins. When we make others lose their choice to decide what flavor
of Linux they want to use, Bill Gates wins. People stay with bill
because he doesn't insult their intelligence or ask them to be a member
of an elite organization devoted to a difficult to use tool. Stop
worrying about what you will lose if Ubuntu becomes what everyone seems
to want it to be. You know how to remove what you don't like. Do so or
move on to a distro that better suits your mentality. 

I have spent too much time on this diatribe and need to get to work,
which happens to be part of my *real* life.

Paul