Sample Letter to Laymen Users Encouraging Linux

[bedouin]

I sent this letter to a couple non-technical mailing lists I'm a member of, in hopes of letting 'normal' people know about Linux.  This is pretty much the same technique I used for Firefox in its earlier days, and I found it to be pretty successful in generating interest, if not complete adoption.  This is the kind of simple grass-roots advocacy we need to start employing if we truly want to show people alternatives to Microsoft.  I probably should have given brief instructions on how to burn an ISO though, and also included a link to Ubuntu's free CD program.

----

A new Linux distribution has started to make some inroads, and will likely gain even more popularity since it has been granted $10 million in funding.

If you are new to Linux, Linux is completely free, however it has traditionally been a bit too difficult for average computer users to adopt, despite its technical superiority over Windows.  The Ubuntu project has been developed to allow 'normal' people to try Linux, and subsequently find a free replacement for Windows.  Included with the distribution is everything you'd need to have a functional machine: Firefox, IM clients, and full MS Office compatible productivity suite, etc.

You can try Ubuntu without even installing it, albeit at a slower speed by downloading the "Live CD" from the following URL:

http://ubuntu.hands.com/releases/5.04/ubuntu-5.04-live-i386.iso (for Intel/AMD hardware)
http://ubuntu.hands.com/releases/5.04/ubuntu-5.04-live-powerpc.iso (for Macs)

If like what you see, full install CDs can be downloaded here:

http://ubuntu.hands.com/releases/5.04/ubuntu-5.04-install-i386.iso (AMD/Intel)
http://ubuntu.hands.com/releases/5.04/ubuntu-5.04-install-powerpc.iso (Mac)

Below are some screenshots of what Ubuntu looks like:

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/screenshots/document_view

And more about the project:

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

If you are tired of viruses, spyware, and general incompetency, yet can't afford a Mac, here is an alternative.

[ksym]

There are about ONE really good reason why normal "PC hobbyists"
won't install Linux.

And that is the way software is installed.

They just can't get used to the idea, that one has to
install software from centralised repositories.
If they want to have a piece of software, they want to
browse the web for it, get the file, click-click-click and
install it all they way so easily.

And the same goes for hardware drivers: driver installation
should be either a) Fully Automatic or b) 100% retard-proof
plug&pray way, eg. put in some hardware, and OS asks
for the driver CD or package with files.
With Linux the hardware management is, currently, either
a) Automatic, works like magic or b) some hardware won't
work without user digging deep into system spesific
configuration

Yeah it just sucks people are dumb, hyperactive and have
no imagination whatsoever. That is why dull pieces of shit
like Windows will always be successful. And that is also
why viruses/trojans are so popular, stupid people want to
click around the net and install them into their systems ...

From a developers perspective, the current lack of
GOOD and well-designed standards is the main headache.
If they cannot be sure that Linux-system includes some
base-components with compatible ABI's, then they
will NEVER even think about making their closed source
crap to this system. Simple aye?

Anyway, like i'd care ... most GNU/autotools packaged
OpenSource programs have stasfied my needs this far ...
Only thing i miss are GOOD GAMES and maybe some GOOD
AUDIO software.

Anyway, if none of those spank-hacker Linux-distro
cookers wont FORCE any good standards and guidelines,
we're all screwed beyond belief. I JUST hope that
this debate over software patents would scare the shit
outta Linux-distro ppl, and would force em to CO-OPERATE.
Sigh ;D

I wish i was god. I would standardize Linux, and throw
all those who resist into burning hells. Period

[WMD]

They just can't get used to the idea, that one has to
install software from centralised repositories.
If they want to have a piece of software, they want to
browse the web for it, get the file, click-click-click and
install it all they way so easily.

It's funny, because the Ubuntu way of Synaptic + Debian universe is much better than the Windows way of search Google + run EXE + click next next next next and hope it isn't a spyware program.  You just find by category, click "set for install" or whatever, and then hit apply when you're done.  All programs, at once, with no prompts.

[ksym]

It's funny, because the Ubuntu way of Synaptic + Debian universe is much better than the Windows way of search Google + run EXE + click next next next next and hope it isn't a spyware program. You just find by category, click "set for install" or whatever, and then hit apply when you're done. All programs, at once, with no prompts.

Well sure, but those programs were FREE SOFTWARE. They all were
tailored to smoothly integrate into the OS. Yes, you heard
right! INTEGRATE! Gaah, how i hate this world when speaking
of most Linux distro's ...

Let's just admit it, out favourite penguin OS has no
marketproof standards. You ever tried to make a software
to Linux so that it could be a) easily installed across
many distro's and b) at the same time trying to keep
up with the ass-whopping speed those programming API's
and ABI's change?

This is not even possible, since the guys who make distro's
ALL have their "grand visions" of Linux as an OS.
And so, every fcking GNU/Linux is mostly incompatible.

We got this LSB-standard, whom about 7 of the biggest
distro's embrace, BUT it has tooooo little API's to
make any good commercial software. No standard for a
working desktop environment, even the C++ standard
libraries break fcking binary compatibility about
every month (ok, maybe a bit overexxagerated ... but),
no single specification on howto install/remove services,
and no standardised IPC mechanism.

The only way we can get software really working is
to release the software as gnu/autotools source
package, and let the other linux-hobbyists bang their
head into the wall while trying to make a decent build
out of it ;D ... and this automatically means the
software MUST be integrated tightly into the OS.

I have some good idea's on how to avoid this problem,
especially i got some plans on implementing somekinda
reverse-soname-dependency system ...
but heck, it seems you people don't even give a shit

[WMD]

Well sure, but those programs were FREE SOFTWARE. They all were
tailored to smoothly integrate into the OS.

Ok, so...?

You ever tried to make a software
to Linux so that it could be a) easily installed across
many distro's and b) at the same time trying to keep
up with the ass-whopping speed those programming API's
and ABI's change?

Opera, VMware, and ut2k4 don't seem to have much trouble with this.  And that's just what I have installed myself.  Heck, even the "RHEL Certified" Oracle supposedly runs on many other distros.

The only way we can get software really working is
to release the software as gnu/autotools source
package, and let the other linux-hobbyists bang their
head into the wall while trying to make a decent build
out of it ;D ... and this automatically means the
software MUST be integrated tightly into the OS.

This doesn't really integrate it into the OS - it just builds it for the installed libraries you have.  It would be the same if there were standard libraries like you talk about - just more people would have the exact same thing installed.

[ksym]

This doesn't really integrate it into the OS ...

Okay ...

Then what the hell is it, if not Integration, because the
softwares' binaries/libraries/configuration-files are spread all
around system spesific locations?

Eg. both the host-distro's system spesific binaries go to
/usr/bin, AS WELL as all the other binaries from packages
that aren't even part of the base-system. This is sooo
utterly retarded practice, that it makes me puke!

And don't tell me that "/usr is the place for most
userspace binaries" ... yeah, sure it is, but
user space SHOUlD be split into system-locations and
add-on-software locations. For security reasons
(making chroots is A LOT easier if programs can
be found in isolated locations),
and because package management is easier if every
non-system software is in a SPESIFIC location.

Why can't people just put their binaries/libs to somewhere
totally isolated place, like /opt//* ?
It is NOT an excuse that libraries could not be linked
from there ... ldconfig has quite extensive command line
options ...

All non-system software SHOULD be handled more elegantly,
put them to /opt/, and then run some "smart"
maintenance scripts that detect whether the package
had libraries, and then run something like:
echo /opt/> /opt/ext/ld.so.conf
ldconfig -f /opt/ext/ld.so.conf -C /opt/ext/ld.so.cache
And when the software is to be run, a wrapper script does
"ldconfig -C /opt/ext/ld.so.cache && /opt/".

Or at least this is what I am developing currently ...
something like this, but with a glibc -overriding sandbox
component, which makes it possible to dynamically change
where software look for their shared data and config files.

But anyway, I am really disappointed how stupid
decisions OpenSource people have made this far ...
the example above (about --prefixing everything to /usr)
proves my idea, that if these kind of stupidities continue,
we can NEVER have a platform modular enough to make ISV's
to give a shit about Linux.

Sad but true.

[WMD]

Then what the hell is it, if not Integration, because the softwares' binaries/libraries/configuration-files are spread all around system specific locations?

Internet Explorer is integrated into Windows, but exists in Program Files.  Apparently this isn't the issue.

Eg. both the host-distro's system specific binaries go to /usr/bin, AS WELL as all the other binaries from packages that aren't even part of the base-system. This is such an utterly retarded practice, that it makes me puke!

The base system goes into /bin and /sbin, not /usr/bin.

but user space SHOUlD be split into system-locations and add-on-software locations.

Perhaps, but why do we have package management?  To manage files.  As long as the system properly keeps track, why should I?

For security reasons (making chroots is A LOT easier if programs can
be found in isolated locations), and because package management is easier if every
non-system software is in a SPECIFIC location.

Then move it if you're doing chroot.  Oh, and package management doesn't care where your programs are.  It just gives you a list of packages, and you do whatever with them.

Why can't people just put their binaries/libs into some totally isolated place, like /opt//* ?

It's not a bad idea, it'd be similar to the Mac OS X Applications folder.  But it wouldn't be that much more organized than what we have now, really...binaries in /usr/bin, libs in /usr/lib/pkg-name, other stuff in /usr/share/pkg-name...it's really not that bad, save for the /usr/bin part.

Or at least this is what I am developing currently ... something like this, but with a glibc -overriding sandbox component, which makes it possible to dynamically change where software look for their shared data and config files.

Ok.  Perhaps you can stir up some attention and, if this makes it easier to do, it could be implemented.

proves my idea, that if these kind of stupidities continue, we can NEVER have a platform modular enough to make ISV's to give a shit about Linux.

Personally I don't know why they'd care if a word processor got installed to /usr/bin.

BTW I fixed the spelling and grammar errors in your quotes, in case you notice.

[worker201]

IAnyway, if none of those spank-hacker Linux-distro
cookers wont FORCE any good standards and guidelines,
we're all screwed beyond belief. I JUST hope that
this debate over software patents would scare the shit
outta Linux-distro ppl, and would force em to CO-OPERATE.
Sigh ;D

I wish i was god. I would standardize Linux, and throw
all those who resist into burning hells. Period

I think you might be missing the boat here.  If you want everyone to be forced into using the same vanilla-ass operating system, you want Windows.  I believe the ultimate purpose of the MES has been to open people's eyes to other options, not herd them like cattle toward some other OS.

Forcing standardization of the *nix environment would destroy everything it stands for.  The community is all about keeping options open.  If you don't have a package you need, you go get one.  If a package doesn't exist, you build it yourself.  Systems that don't get on the apt/yum bandwagon are going to get left behind in the consumer market, it's that simple.  And do they care?  Maybe, maybe not.  Their choice is their freedom.  Taking away choice means taking away freedom.

[ksym]

BTW I fixed the spelling and grammar errors in your quotes, in case you notice.

Thanks <3
Being a non-native english speaker sometimes makes it hard
to express myself. So it is nice i get to know my mistakes
n stuff

[MrX]

bdouin you're so smart. do you have a website, with all these convincing letters? they would be good to make FWD: with.

Mr X

[Lead Head]

like you sig Mr.X

[WMD]

bdouin you're so smart. do you have a website, with all these convincing letters? they would be good to make FWD: with.

Mr X

http://habhab.homeunix.net/~haroon/