Re: Talk to your frTalk your friend into switching to Linux(Re:)

[Jeremy Crabtree <crc3419@delphi.com>]

BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 25 May 1998 16:32:54 -0400, Jeremy Crabtree
> <crc3419@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Please, elaborate. You need to say specifically what you think is
> >missing, tell the developers, don't just sit there and assert  that "it
> >lacks tools and flexibili," you won't get anything done and more than
> >liklely you will irritate many people.
> >
> >> I have StarOffice 4.0. I'm not impressed, Very primitive.
> >
> >Is it really primitive (I didn't think so) or is it just more conducive
> >(sp?) to your argument to *call* it primitive?
> >
> >> So where is the Illustrator-like program?
> >>
> >> Where is the PageMaker/QuarkXpress-like program.
> >>
> >> They are really needed for Linux to be useful to me.
> >
> >I see you are finally getting to the real issue. The software that *YOU*
> >need isn't available. To state just that, would have been acceptable,
> >but instead you decided to be a horses a** about it and assert, point
> >blank, that there is *NO* software available, when really there is no
> >software that *you personally need* available. A distinmction you
> >trollishly ignored.
> >
> >--
> >Vive Macintosh, all hail OS/2, Long live the Amiga, UNIX forever, umm,
> >and all the other systems I didn't mention. We all compute differently,
> >get over it.                                          Jeremy Crabtree
> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> I have now read probably thousands of posts by proponents of Linux and
> the one theme I have come away with is that they are very narrow
> minded and overly defensive about it. I think the single biggest
> obstacle to the eventual success of Linux, is that pervasive overall
> tone of "know it all" arrogance.

Let me apologize now if I came off sounding "arrogant," that was truly
not my intent.

> 
> This fellow is actually saying he will give Linux a chance when it
> meets more of his own needs. He is not saying Linux is a toad. Why do
> you think that flaming him is going to help your cause?

I wasn't trying to flame him, though I may have unintentionally. His
original post, however, could pass very easily for a troll.

> I think his
> questions are fair and should be asked when selecting any OS. Will it
> do the work that you need to get done. The truth is that Linux is not
> yet ready for prime time. It has great promise, but there are still
> some holes to fill and growing to do. There is nothing wrong with that
> and it is to be expected.

The primary problem I had was that he asserted that there are "no apps
available" when he meant to say "I could not find the apps I needed,"
two distinctly different situations. I also have problems with him, and
others like him who just sit and complain about the lack of apps or the,
unfortunately, lower quality of some of the available apps. The more
appriate action here is to either A) Pick up a compiler and start
writing, not a viable option for a great many people, or B) talk to the
developers, tell them what they can do to make their software better, or
more usable; granted I can't guarantee they will all listen, but,
speaking from the developers perspective, it is impossible to know what
to fix/improve/add/create without any user feedback.

> 
> Meanwhile, the only way it is going to grow fast enough to avoid an
> early demise is for those who have already adopted it, to be less
> hostile towards those who are still not satisfied that it will do what
> they need.  This fellow's personal needs are legitimate and not at all
> unreasonable from any operating system that is expecting to find a
> wide audience.

Not at all unreasonable, though the tone he took when presenting his
needs was, and is, wholly unacceptable. 

> 
> I have news for you

My ears (well, eyes) are open

> - a version of Quark Xpress

I could see that...

> and Photoshop for

Sadly, I heard that they officially dropped all UNIX developement of
Pohotoshop :(

<breakawayfrommaintopic>
You really should look at the GIMP for image editing needs though. It is
quite nice, though it is not there yet. Previous to the GIMP I used (and
still do at times) Fractal Designs' Painter, so I do know what high
quality image creation/editing software can do. (well, I used it in
conjunction with Picture Publisher, Halo Desktop Imager, Paint Shop Pro,
and a couple others)
</breakawayfrommaintopic>

> Linux that are totally conversant with Mac and PC versions would

As far as Photoshop is concerned, it is simply a matter of using
standard image formats (Photoshop seems to like to spew out "broken"
jpeg files that won't load in many of my image editing apps)

> probably create a sensation in the publishing world and accelerate the
> spread of Linux more than anything else. I would sure consider it
> seriously at that point.

> A program that is "as good as" won't cut it. We would  need the specific name
> brand programs ported over to Linux for very good reasons.

I choose to take issue with you here. The name on the "software box," if
you will, is not as important as whether or not the software can
actually deliver. I will conceed, however, that to win over the "pointy
haired bosses" it will take some "big name players" porting their
software.

> My company not only has to create things with
> those programs, but it must also accept and process print advertising
> from other sources that all use these two programs. We don't have time
> to screw around translating and converting things.

As far as images go, there are many common formats, so conversions
shouldn't be a problem. As far as Quark Xpress is concerned, however, I
will conceed the point that you shouldn't have to deal with conversion
any more than is absolutely necessary.

> 
> I also know that when I need to hire people, these are the programs
> that they know how to use.

Understandably so.

> If I advertise for graphics professionals
> who know how to use some obscure program, linux or otherwise, I really
> don't think I'll be very successful in finding anybody. If I did, I
> would have to hire them based on the fact that they know the
> particular program, and not on their actual skills at doing the job.
> Not a very enticing proposition, eh?

You should watch yourself here. (focusing again on the 'Photoshop'
issue) I have used several Image manipulation/creation programs and can
say that, unless Photoshop is the oddball, many functions and processes
are almost identical in their execution and function from one program to
the next. Even with DTP (I've only used Xerox Ventura DTP as far as DTP
software is concerned, so it may be just a little out of date) and
wordprocessing the functions should be very much the same from one
program to the next. The ideal worker will learn to compute on a systems
level; that is, they won't just learn one or two specific apps, they
will learn computing systems in general, they will learn the basic
concepts and ideas that remain the same from one app to the next,
regardless of which menu a specific function is hidden on, if they do
indeed learn to compute on the systems level, rather than the
application specific level, they will be a much more valuable employee.
I will conceed the point that you may lose some time initially if they
have never worked with your particular software before. (in such a case
I would doubt you would hire them though)

> 
> So, my suggestion is that you back it down a few notches

<hangdown target="head">

I apologize if I offended anyone :(

</hangdown>

> and start
> talking to us as potential allies

Welcome aboard.

> instead of as idiots who have no
> idea what is what.

I have no doubt that you, and Mr. Graves do indeed know "what is what,"
Mr. Graves, however, was blatantly rude in his original posting, and
should, if nothing else, apologize.

> My early career was centered around equipment with
> vacumn tubes.

Sounds like loads of fun :)

> I've adopted and fostered more pioneering technologies
> than you've ever even heard of.

I wouldn't doubt that for a minute, sometimes I feel like I missed the
real "glory days" of computing.

> Linux has potential.

*LOTS* of potential :)

> Don't kill it by chasing everybody away before they really have a chance to see 
> what it can do or might be able to do in the near future.

By that same token one should not come in shouting about how it "can't
do this that or the other" and that it "stinks" or that it is "geeky and
unusable," this merely irritates people. More sensibly, if you find
something that could be improved or changed talk to the software
developers.

-- 
Vive Macintosh, all hail OS/2, Long live the Amiga, UNIX forever, umm,
and all the other systems I didn't mention. We all compute differently,
get over it.                                          Jeremy Crabtree