my care2
make a difference

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

 
 
This thread is displayed with the most recent posts first.
  March 16, 2007 4:10 PM

I have been in a personal quandry Linux, and my feelings about the free software development movement are changing.

Linux is not supporting the average user in world; in fact only a tiny percentage of users are aware of what Linux is.

I feel that the free software movement has recruited average people to help them popularize Linux and other free software to be used in corporations.  They, I believe, do not care about the average person.

The free software movement seems similar to the Soviet Union and Communist China: they have created this revoltion, only to sign the same capitalist song.

Like the Who song: "won't get fooled again"

I am planning to collect recent writings and apply them on my blog:
http://linux-society.blogspot.com

I have been getting a lot of hits there recently for another paper that is critical of the Information Society, and the cultures that inhabit the capital structure.

Also, I am seeking to create a path between empathy, the basic human psychology, and technology.  From my writing, people may be getting the idea that I do not think that geeks are empathic.  I am beginning to think that geeks nearly universally have aspergers.  This makes them, through no fault of their own, unable to make decisions for others as they cannot feel for others, as they have no mirror or spindle cells.




 [ send green star]
 
Read Topic Why Linux? February 13, 2007 8:03 PM

Apart from that Monday I was at a Oracle meeting and One of the three Largest Cellular Companies in Israel that uses Oracle Applications ERP are also going over to Linux. There has been a Big Move from Unix to Linux World Wide. Because of Performance. Linux was never First Choice on PC's.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 11, 2007 9:11 PM

In any event, I'm a go for whatever you want to do. It's fine with me. (Sandra)

Thanks, that makes me feel better !!

Also I typo-ed at least once, I said switch "from something stable."  Microsoft and stable don't go in the same sentence. I meant switching from something they are used to and is acceptable into something new.


  [ send green star]
 
 February 11, 2007 6:21 PM

have a change heart.  That is called ownership in teaching. "These are people who don't fit the profile of life-long learners!"  No kidding, that is where education is tryig to change the world round.

Ok, now to the core of the issue where Sandra says:

    * "Geeks are a different breed altogether."
    * "geeks I know are people who want to learn everything they can wrap their minds around"
    * "prefer spending time "learning" rather than wasting time socializing."
    * "Hey, the guy is brilliant, but you want him to be Don Juan too?"
    * "I'm not sure if you can write it off to Asperger's or what."


I can, you just very accurately described aspergers.  I am not expecting charisma, but some empathy, some concern for the world around them.  This geeks, and computer executives, can never have because they lack the facility for social communication.

I was a geek not because I wanted to learn everything, but because I wanted a system the for the people.  Well that has not happened.  Now that I am becoming a therapist, I see exactly what the problem is.  The geeks cannot conceive of what is needed for the world, because they don't have that facility.  If the geeks don't get guidance, and accept it, Microsoft wins.  But think about this possibility, the geeks don't care if Microsoft wins because they just don't care about anything.

The question now is, how to influence the geeks. Or how to replace them with emapthic engineers, and how to get these new engineers a decent salary creating the necessary new free systems.

Also important, on a technical level, is encapsulating existing code into new paradigms to get projects to the people quickly.

And of most importance is the need to start looking at new paradigms developed from mostly already existing technologies, and to implement them carefully so that the unempathic corporations along with their capital sickness is on the outside.

We tried to work with capital in the New Economy, and they robbed technology blind, and then moved on to destroying the world economy for a half decade.  Capital economists still insist that it was a natural process and a good thing.  Their lying and arrogance are symptoms of both the psychopath and the savant: the unempathic.

 [ send green star]
 
 February 11, 2007 6:20 PM

get them have empathy for the users they supposedly expect social and programming support.

Jack also bring up some valid points about installing commercial software when he says "u cant play mp3 files directly after installation of ubuntu, for instance, whitout downloading and installing a packet is something they are afraid of"

I think he means that Ubuntu is afraid to encase the commercial code into their distro.  We can go to congress and make them change that to allow, or create a path for, encapsulation.

Or.. linux can make itself easier for the corps to make drivers. In other words, create a translation software to make it easy to convert existing drivers to linux.

Jack goes on:
"let us work on make linux more usable (anway which derivat) because the idea of a free wide spread and open OS is very interesting. linux have the potential to become a real alternative to the leading blue-screen producer"

"and it is way better fitting to my idea of sharing. after all, apple is showing us since years tht it can work. but until this day, as far as i know, there is no linux-GUI which is in usability comparable to MAC-OS"

I personally think that the way to do this is through the Mozilla browser, or more acurately, the Gecko engine.  The engine would have to be developed to do all the things that Mac OSX does, such as drag and drop.

Also, the user needs to have some knowledge (I have documentation that I call the CMDN system) and also local support, as from the local techie.

A logical top down dig-in system should put the user in control of the system.

Sandra asks (quite logically), "So, what is the new name going to be?"

I have a very successful group growing right now called Empathy: http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/empathy

Since what is missing from technology is empathy, I would like to bend the action here in that direction.  Synergy exists, that being an updated term for mutualism   -- Linux is certainly mutualism.  But what is missing is responsibility to the people, and emotional communication with the users; that is the area of empathy.

Using the One laptop per child program as an example, there is a recognized need for computer communication in isolated areas.  I think Negroponte is either getting senior symptoms, or up to to no good.  We need real discussion about both the political and technical ramifications.  I also think that we need to meditate on Einstein's warning that "you cannot solve a problem by the means that created the problem."  I think this means that the present cast of characters needs to head out to pasture, and needs to be replaced with both empathic engineers and social communicators.

Sandra also comments on my comment:
I said, "no company is going to play the linux game; they just want to supply libraries as drivers that can be run on any kernel."

She said, "I'm not sure if tha't the core of the problem or not. I have a feeling that the larger issue is that Linux is totally foreign in every aspect to the companies you refer to.  People, including CIOs, don't like change, especially change that will involve hiring new techies that have the knowledge they need."

My experience on Wall Street was that CIOs were all to happy to make changes that bring them closer to their God-like aristorcrat hero in Redmond: Bill Gates.  And they were very reluctant to make changes towards systems not associated with Redmond.  They seemed more eager to adapt Sun Solaris over HP/UX, because Sun Microsystems resemebled Microsoft to them in a vague way, despite the fact that Sun Solaris was so incredibally unstable, at least during my watch.

Apple has such "hippie / artsy" feel to it that the corporate CIOs would go nowhere near OSX.  However, OSX is built from NetBSD which is the most stable and secure Unix there is (not to mention free), and it has been adapted to use microkernel technology.

Sandra makes a valid point here: "Getting people (most people) our of their habit-rut is difficult, so I don't think it 's just the difference in whether or not you have to compile a kernel. Personnally, I think people should just take the time to learn the new system and all it requires. Okay, I must be odd this way."

I think you are describing Care2 users, not just corporate managers.  There would have to be compelling reasons to get users to switch from something that is stable.  Apparently my talk about how Microsoft's corruption and its position of being in "control of control itself" is not having the slightest effect.  No "suffering puppies" I say is a big problem with technology activism.

"Considering the major down-time that Windows has, then compiling a kernel, done by the techies, of course, is not an issue."  Yes there is a lot of rebooting even with XP, and Vista will probably carry on the blue-screen tradition.  But still, compiling a kernel is scary, esp for a non-geek.

"I'm not put-off by having to learn all this new stuff, but many people find it hard to learn even a little. This fact is very upsetting to me. But, I think this reluctance to learn is the core issue."  (Sandra)

This why I want to use the mozilla browser as the control environment.  As a document browser, it could easily access any level of information.  The control scheme I envision would be high level enough to make a uniform control paradigm for all OSs, especially new OSs.

"Many of them feel that they've been shoved into a job requiring the use of high-tech hardware, and resent it." I am thinking maybe if the system were designed for their benefit and for their enjoyment in learning, they may for the most part, ha  [ send green star]
 
 February 11, 2007 6:17 PM


First, I think we need to look at what Linux is good for.

The orginal purpose was to have a system that would work well on older systems. Linux was first written on an Intel 386SX. If you remember, the SX was a 32 Bit 386 that sold for the cost of an 286.

The math co-processor was software !!

I think the 386SX was a 16 MHz machine. In 1995, I wrote a Shell script system to manage lots and lots of SQL update scripts for a derivative stocks and bonds gambling system (what it is).

I ran the script on my linux box, 30 MHz I think, and it crashed-- it could not handle all the extra threads. So linux was a personal user box, probably until 1998. That was when IBM got excited about it.

My career was first on Sun Microsystems boxes. When Solaris came out, I jumped ship to Hewlett Packard HP/OS because I didn't feel like suffering w/ Sun as the grew out of BSD Linux into their ATT Unix variant: Solaris.

If you know about these boxes, Linux was just like them. Since most public domain software was written on SunOS (the older Sun BSD O, Linux really only needed to look like SunOS -- ie, compiling kernels and installing them.

Back then we still had 16 bit Windows on our desktops, and then the horrific 95 and 98. I also had access to NT, and in fact NT was what I was saddled with I left technology involuntarily in 2002. All these systems, including NT, were unreliable. OS2 Warp was the last descent Windows implementation, and of course that was IBM.

Minix3 is the type thing I want to talk about, and maybe other OSs. Linux is named for Linus and Minix, though Minix was something completely different. Minix is now Minix3, and becoming a desktop and embedded system which will have loadable libraries-- loadable and reloadable even while systems are running.

As Jack Skysail says "the key is the usability. if u ever tryed to install a nic and a wan access (internet) on a new linux setup u will realize it is way more complicated then it is on a XP machine"

That is true. However, if you know how, it is actually pretty easy. If you have to do anything requiring intelligence, like dealing with specific problems, it is far easier. The systems that control XP are the worst hacks. From my experience developing Perl and Shell control scripts for vast information systems, it would be actually very easy to build a front end for Linux that is both intuitive to use, and very highly controlled. My software was generally designed to be both easy to learn and also a learning tool, so that the users could get "under the hood" knowledge for the day things go badn and the the tech happens to be out sick. Let me say that the user community (called the domain) loved me intensely. Until 1998, all meetings were held in my cubicle. (Sometime after that managment got control back, meetings were in the boss's office, and then the world economy crashed.)

The question is then, why is Linux so damn difficult to use, in this day and age? I think that part of the reason is that Linux does not have the vast resources that Microsoft has. But that does not answer the question really.. why didn't somebody develop linux with the same principles that I used for my operation systems.

I think there is an aspergers issue. I believe that Red Hat, SuSE, and even Ubuntu, are as typical of corporations as is IBM. To get promoted into a decision making position, except during exceptional times such as the mid 1990s, you have to devoid of empathy. Being devoid of empathy is equivalent to having aspergers syndrome. Because the decision makers are for the most part devoid of emapthy, they cannot conceive that users may have needs, and therefore they only react to needs that they themselves feel, which for a manager means making money to keep his unfeeling wife, equally devoid of empathy, from taking his unempathic kids into some other unempathic man's house, along with much of his money. In other words, they won't help the users unless they are faced, say, with paycheck loss, a costly divorce, time in prison, death, or some combination of these.

I think it is important to understand that the Linux corporations are in fact in control of the development process, as they supply the developers and also because independent programmers are all hoping to work for the big Linux companies.

IBM is the biggest Linux company. IBM's big investment is Java on Linux, but get this: the editor and development environment that is used for Java by IBM is the public domain Eclipse. Eclipse does not run worth a damn on Linux. In other words, the only corporate value for Linux is as a Java server system.

And so it follows; the other area of success for Linux is embedded systems. An independent engineer that I communicated with stated simply that the advantage of Linux is productivity. And this he attributes to the use of the VI editor, and the command line system. I am sure there are other advantages such as stability, low cost, and community synergy, but he didn't mention those. He himself is completely unconcerned about Linux on the desktop; he cares nothing about the "masses" needing the public domain.

So basically, the problem seems to be that nobody cares about the average user except us.

This is why I want to expose the problems, and what better place than an activist community like Care2?

I know for a fact that we have had major successes everywhere; but since the Internet is comparatively new as an area of action, then we need to have to be resourceful to find both a set of demands and a winning strategy.

I personally think that sticking it to the Linux community is long in coming, tough I only just thought of it. It is the only way to  [ send green star]
 
 February 11, 2007 4:00 PM

Kris really leave?

Yes, she left, with cyber-huff !!

Y'all made some really valid points. Let me cut and paste your comments to an editor to respond to them.




 [ send green star]
 
name change and other February 11, 2007 2:44 PM

So, what is the new name going to be?
John wrote: "no company is going to play the linux game; they just want to supply libraries as drivers that can be run on any kernel."
I'm not sure if tha't the core of the problem or not. I have a feeling that the larger issue is that Linux is totally foreign in every aspect to the companies you refer to. People, including CIOs, don't like change, especially change that will involve hiring new techies that have the knowledge they need. They just want to keep on keeping with what they now have. Getting people (most people) our of their habit-rut is difficult, so I don't think it 's just the difference in whether or not you have to compile a kernel. Personnally, I think people should just take the time to learn the new system and all it requires. Okay, I must be odd this way.
Considering the major down-time that Windows has, then compiling a kernel, done by the techies, of course, is not an issue.
I'm not put-off by having to learn all this new stuff, but many people find it hard to learn even a little. This fact is very upsetting to me. But, I think this reluctance to learn is the core issue.
I know people who work in offices with computers, and they hate the things. They don't care to learn anything other that what is required for their jobs. They have no curiousty about the inner workings the system, neither hardware nor software, and many of them don't even know the difference between those two. So, I think that what companies are really dealing with is a bunch of employees who simply have no interest in learning anything other than coming and spending 8 hours running a word-processsing app and then going home. They don't want to learn anything. Talk to them about compiling as kernel, and their minds would go numb, and they'd consider just quitting if that became a requirement of thier job. They don't want to learn. Many of them feel that they've been shoved into a job requiring the use of high-tech hardware, and resent it. (These are people who don't fit the profile of life-long learners!) They learn only what they have to. I hope this perspective helps.
Geeks are a different breed altogether. I'm not sure if you can write it off to Asperger's or what. Most of the geeks I know are people who want to learn everything they can wrap their minds around -- learning is fun for them -- and prefer spending time "learning" rather than wasting time socializing. That's why many of them never became socially adept. But, they are highly intelligent-- because they worked at it. I've never expected highly skilled, highly educated, talented people I've known personally to be also skilled in social nuances. You can't expect to have both skill sets in the same person. Hey, the guy is brilliant, but you want him to be Don Juan too? JMHO.
In any event, I'm a go for whatever you want to do. It's fine with me.
Hey, did Kris really leave?

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Yes there is something Wrong in Technology 2007 February 11, 2007 11:51 AM

It is about time that Computers grew up and became Stable.

When I bought an IBM Thinkpad with Legal Software,( Designed for XP), IE crashed all the time and I was updating every day.

I do not know anybody with a Computer without Problems.

Linux is becoming to be like UNIX, Growing too Fat.

In about Ten Years or Less this Game has to End.

Personal Computers For Ordinary People. 

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 11, 2007 11:44 AM

Fine, I'll be leaving the group now.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 10, 2007 10:20 AM

I guess you could try to prove me wrong; but that seems daunting.

If the folks at Ubuntu cant get it right -- nobody can.

Linux is useless, and losing bigtime, on the desktop and the laptop.

Linux is powerful in servers that run apache, and in embedded applications that will never expand.

Linux has not worked to make things easier for the people who create the drivers for the hardware companies.  In fact they demand compliance.

I have to ask why from a social perspective: there is no answer !!

At this point, the house of cards falls down.  Linux is free software which has only commercial uses.  Linux is a contradiction.

You give examples where you did stuff that is empathic with respect to computing, but I doubt you made more than a slight dent.

Linux is for geeks and corporations, and geeks who work for corporations.

It is also for impoverished situations, but again we see the contradictions:

Ubuntu does not work on older equipment.  I tried it on a 300Mhz machine, and it hung there.  It advertises itself as Africa friendly, with its African sounding name, but it is only friendly with the African wealthy.  If you know ANYTHING about Africa, the African wealthy are the former puppets of the colonialists, and among the most destructive pond-scum on the planet.

This is where the Linux laptop "One Laptop Per Child (OLPC)" goes way wrong.






First off, this program is repleat with lies.  The lying MIT assholes

 
negroponte

said the system would cost a hundred dollars: it costs several hundred dollars -- what a laptop costs. 

They say it will give access to poverty stricken children in remote locations.  It has WIFI, unless the African bush is wired for wifi, then it connects nobody but the ruthless wealthy.

===end of ocpl rant===

There has to be something better; there has to be a more expansive program.  Other options need to be explored, and MOST IMPORTANT:

The reasons that Linux has deliberately failed to make life easier for the hardware suppliers has to be investigated.

I think the problem will be found to be this:  Geeks have aspergers syndrome.  Geeks don't have the ability to function in any way that they have not been trained to function.  They lack emapthy.

For this reason I believe the logical path is to pull support away from Linux, expose the problem, and hope that the new information inserted into the un-feeling minds of the control-bots that are writing the code will convince them to find leadership that actually has mirror and spindle neurons.

This is why I want to change the direction of the group to get inline with all the other new directions that the world is going, and I definately want to put some space between this group and the genocidalists that Linux is helping support through MIT.







  [ send green star]
 
 February 08, 2007 6:04 AM

Yes--try not to be so unkind to people who have never faced Linux or anything else but Windows before!  Most people who use computers in the USA today only know Windows because that's what we've been fed.

I'm 57 years old, so I wasn't raised in front of a monitor with a mouse in my hand, you know?  At work it's only Windows, Windows, and more Windows.  On most every computer in the USA it's the same.

At home I now have a box running ONLY Ubuntu Linux, but I didn't get there by myself.  (I have a Linux wizard for a boyfriend, !)  Though I find it fairly easy to use, I don't believe I could have completed the installation by myself.

I still don't understand everything I need to know about it, but I've been able to learn a lot.  I can add programs by myself now, and completed the update from Ubuntu 6.06 to 6.10 on my own (not hard, but time-consuming!)

So try not to be so scornful, it doesn't do the image of Linux users any good...if you care about that image.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 
 February 08, 2007 2:29 AM

no, i do not think it is the kernel, each time i explain somebody the idea of a special compiled kernel the person is understanding and agreeing to the arguments.

the key is the usability. if u ever tryed to install a nic and a wan access (internet) on a new linux setup u will realize it is way more complicated then it is on a XP machine

all the things users are used (tht why they called user they just do things thyr used to do since ever) on XP they want in linux, ubuntu or any other OS.
the small fact tht u cant play mp3 files directly after installation of ubuntu, for instance, whitout downloading and installing a packet is something they are afraid of, and often overpowered with. so, the center of our focus is the user, what does he/she want. they daily usability of a NORMAL user, not computerfuzzys like we. such a thing, like installing some additional gadget , is easy to solve for us but impossible for a business user. the common, free living and frolocing user does not even hear the name tannenbaum or torwaldson  usually yet.

let us work on make linux more usable (anway which derivat) because the idea of a free wide spread and open OS is very interesting. linux have the potential to become a real alternative to the leading blue-screen producer....and it is way better fitting to my idea of sharing. after all, apple is showing us since years tht it can work. but until this day, as far as i know, there is no linux-GUI which is in usability comparable to MAC-OS
 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 08, 2007 1:40 AM

software for "Masses".... 'E' + 'T' ......quite intriguing.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 03, 2007 8:08 AM

Don't be SO sad, Eddie !!

I want to give this group a more human flavor.  I am beginning to integrate concepts of Empathy into Technology.  I want to open up to other OSs, promote my ideas of total openness, and also help the people stuck on winblow$.

Here are some links for you:
http://thinman.com
http://linux-society.blogspot.com

I am not emlinating Linux, we just need to put it in its place.

Linux is for embedded devices, servers, and experts (hobbyists).

There is no system yet for the "people."

There is a psychological problem: geeks lack empathy.  In other words, geeks cannot see the long term results of their actions, that requires imagination.

I am generalizing, of course, but the non-empathic types are going to keep Linux from reaching the people.

The real issue is this: the Stallman, GNU, and the GPL.

If you use for-sale software, you cannot be Stallman's friend and a true GPLer.

Stealing it, of course, does not make any difference to that.

I have argued with Stallman for some "slackness" to help users migrate from Winblo$ to Linux.  But no, he wants people to do things the hard way, download binaries, compile them, etc, etc.  GNU, Stallman, and that whole school have long argued against binary code distributions.

They simply have no sympathy for the average user; my personal guess is that these people all have Asperger's syndrome -- no mirror or spindle cells.

This all has to change, and as an activist, I want to force the necessary changes.  That is why I want to expand the group to other OSs, and help people who are using Blo$ while hurling cow-patties at Micro$oft.

Oh, about pigs.  If I were a pig I would personally be insulted with being compared to any windows crap.

Btw, there is a good paper written by Cutler out there somewhere that explains why XP sucks so bad; its all about internal authoritarian politics.


 [ send green star]
 
 February 03, 2007 2:25 AM

I have playing with nix for a while and though still a complete newbie, I have gleaned a little knowledge. It is just now that I feel able to give back what was so freely given to me. I have not used vista but have read a bit about it and it seems to be a bloated pig, and microsoft will once again rely on the public (the talent of the open-source community mainly) to fix the mess. Recently, I played with osx and it isn't my cup of tea. Anyway, good luck in all your dreams and aspirations. I have been terribly ill as of late, as I am under-going a rather aggressive treatment for a medical condition that entails interferon and ribaviran, a nasty cocktail that has dropped 30 pounds of weight from me in 12 weeks. it leaves me depressed and irritable and I cannot deal with winblos people who will click yes when the dialogue box says "The file you are about to download contains the signature of the xyz virus.. Do you wish to continue?" And they click yes. I cannot do it without blowing a gasket. I have 8 more months of this horror, if the "cure" does not kill me first. I had  to stop servicing boxes. before the medication I was tolerant but now I cannot stomache joe home user who screwed up his box by downloading kiddie porn..   [ send green star]
 
microlithicmodular February 03, 2007 2:04 AM

Sorry to hear it. I enjoy the linux kernel and I like freebsd mach style, freebsd probably makes more sense, but in both kernels , modules/drivers can be loaded unloaded dynamically. I service machines for the public and quite frankly I am fed up with windows/AOL level users. Many do not need a computer as having one only seems to complicate their narrow minds yet further, and many would do well to forget the computer and purchase a cell-phone, pen/pencil, writing tablet, and postage stamps.
I read some exchange between Tannenbaum and Linus, and found it humorous. Anyway, I like open-source and will continue to use it. I am just too used to nix. "Once You go Slack, You never go back". personally, I don't have any trouble with hardware support, most "vanilla" kernels offer what I need without rebaking, but that's me. I'm poor and still using x86 32 bit hardware. Linux can be a royal pain in the butt. http://ibmercurial.tripod.com/k3bhowto.htm
  [ send green star]
 
Empathy in Computing (was group name change probable) February 02, 2007 7:23 AM

Hi folks,

I have been doing some hard thinking about Linux.

Linux is great but it is not all that popular with the average person; I know why:

It is a monolithic kernel, not a micro kernel.

Every other system out there is a micro kernel: Mac OSX, XP, Vista, and..

Minix3

If you remember, Linux was created as a debate between Linux and Andrew Tannenbaum; Tannenbaum created Minix as a teaching tool and he advocated a microkernel.

Linus had the talent to succeed, Tannenbaum didn't.  So we are stuck with a monolithic kernel.

Why is a monolith bad ??  Because the kernel has to be compiled to add features; no company is going to play the linux game; they just want to supply libraries as drivers that can be run on any kernel.

Because of this, I am going through some changes in position, and I want to support new technology.  I want to advocate for a Linux change, or a change of OS as the desktop for the Public Domain.

This means that I will change my position on software sharing.  I opposed anything resembling copyright infringment for a long time.  But if people are forced to use XP or OSX, then copyright infringment is going to happen, and like people in the ghetto (this is a computer ghetto), they have to be forgiven.

Please give me feed back, so that there are no misunderstandings.

Hugs, John


 [ send green star]
 
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct

 

This group:
Empathic Internet
123 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences


Copyright © 2009 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved