Anyway here’s the desktop from this announcement, and guess what?  It’s exactly the same and still has all the problems it’s always had.  What progress!

Apparently the latest innovation is to remove any method of viewing running programs.  Check the screenshots – where did the taskbar go to?  I also like the consistancy of moving the close buttons to the left, but keeping the orientation the same as Windows, so no matter if you are a convert from OSX or Windows you will still be confused.  Nothing quite like change for changes sake.

Just the usual ‘cargo cult usability’ we’ve come to expect and love from the FOSS brigade – tries to look like a Mac, works like Windows – nothing to see here, lets wait for the announcement 6 months from now about how they are ‘rethinking the UI paradigm’.  I am sure they’ll get it right that time.

*dodges thrown rotten fruit*

Actually I want to punch anyone that uses the term ’switcher’ in the face – why do you have to choose a platform anyhow?  I didn’t ’switch’ to pizza, I just eat it sometimes.  Anyway my reasons…

• It’s half the weight of a normal laptop.
• It looks sweet.
• SSD – Most wait time on computers is for disk IO these days.
• I’m not paying for it myself.
• I want to look like a pretentious cock cool.

Hopefully Apple will be more prompt getting my shill check out to me, or I’ll put Windows 7 on it.  I may just put W7 on it anyway just to annoy the Mac faithful.  But only once my cheque has cleared.

I don’t really get the rising anti-science movement these days.  I think it is generally a result of a failing education system (caused through a lack of respect by the parents and pupils rather than the school themselves failings) but you more and more hear science being referred to as something optional.  Even people who you would otherwise think of as smart seem to think mysticism and ‘healing crystals’ and other such nonsense can co-exist with science, missing the fundamental point – If there was any tangible proof you could cure people with crystals it would be science.  Since no proof exists it isn’t science.  And since no proof exists how on earth does anyone know that they work?  Even if you prove me wrong and manage to prove in the healing power of crystals then you have just brought them under the umbrella of ’science’ and your whole point is moot.

There is a popular saying (coined by Marcello Truzzi) which is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”  Basically if you claim you can cure cancer with crystals, can read minds, have a perpetual motion machine or any other large, game-changing, claim then you better be able to back it up with some pretty hefty evidence.  Every now and then someone will trot out some perpetual motion machine which they claim ‘works’, but mysteriously never works on the night, or only works under limited, unverifiable conditions.  I always call bullshit and the reason for this (and the original quote) is the burden of proof is on the person making such claims.  I claim I can fly, why is it up to you to disprove this?

So apparently commercial software is obsolete.  FOSS is the way of the future.  The old barter model – I give you x in exchange for y – is dead, to be replaced by a model of free distribution and sharing.  An industry that accounts for trillions of pounds and millions of jobs globally is on the verge of being wiped out and replaced by a community sharing model.

The old system of selling software for money is obsolete.  Instead the new system is to not only give that software away but to give away the source, plus complete distribution rights.  You can in fact make more money by giving away software and selling support than you can ever make selling said software.

The capitalist system of competition to drive down costs and to create the best product through competition is dead, instead teams of people working in their spare time (for free) will create software that caters for the end-users needs much more completely and capably than groups of people who’s livelihoods depend on keeping such users happy.

There are some pretty extraordinary claims above, yet the presented evidence of Linux (which nobody uses), Sun Microsystems (which just failed), Microsoft and Apple (kings of closed and doing well) with the only real evidence of success being Ubuntu (funded by a multi-millionaire) and Red Hat (who’s yearly turnover is probably less than Microsoft’s annual stationary budget) do not point to the claims being true.

Where’s the ‘extraordinary evidence’ required to back up such claims?  Where’s the normal evidence?  How can anyone make such claims and expect to be taken seriously by sensible people?

Believe this rubbish, sure, but don’t pretend it’s any more real or believable than healing crystals, homeopathy or ‘faith healing’, because it isn’t.  I just looked in my crystal ball and saw that in ten years time FOSS will be just as unpopular then as it is now.

Also, over on Slashdot right now there is some amusing idiocy about Microsoft apparently corrupting the legislative process, buying governments etc. because it is trying to get a law changed in its favour.  Normally I wouldn’t be in favour of this behaviour but here is the law:

Under current law, all of Microsoft’s worldwide licensing revenues of approximately $20.7 billion annually are taxable at .484 percent.

Yep, that’s right, Washington State want nearly 0.5% of Microsoft’s total revenue.  Not profit, revenue.  That’s 0.5% of global revenue.

What if each American State decided it wanted a piece of this action – it’s only fair after all.  That would mean near 25% of Microsoft’s revenue would suddenly dissappear overnight.  Since there are what (~250 ish) countries in the world – lets be fair they deserve the right to the tax just as much as WS – that is 145% of revenue Microsoft would have to pay in ‘taxes’.

What Microsoft want is to pay taxes on what they sell in the state, not in the whole world, which to me seems perfectly reasonable.  But who am I to get in the way of a groundless bash-fest by the idiots on Slashdot?

Edit: I am an idiot, Redmond is in Washington.  They still should not be able to tax items sold in a different country simply because MS has a presence there.

The point of this is to try to keep your customers happy, and to listen to their concerns.  If a customer is not happy with something about your service or product no decent business would just tell them to ‘piss off’, instead they would try their best to address the customers concern and to try to prevent such occurances in the future.  For example if you sold a spade which the handle kept coming off you’d either replace the item or refund the customers money and, but more importantly, you’d try to identify the cause of the problem.

While often customer complaints are a one-off and usually end there, what is important is to keep a lookout for repeated complaints as they indicate a systemic problem.  For example in a restaurant if a certain dish gets sent back regularly you wouldn’t say that the customers have no taste, instead you’d look into what is in it and how it is made in an attempt to solve the issue entirely.

Customers vs FOSS

Take this blog from Preston Gralla for example.  He says that installing software that is not in the repo’s is too difficult and is holding back Linux adoption.  Not a new statement in the slightest, and one that I both agree with and am sure I have even said before.

It’s not even like he’s being an angry shouter like a lot of us embittered haters have become, he’s clearly following the ‘make every second paragraph praise’ approach which is required (as an offering to the Holy GNU) when writing any article that dares be critical of Linux.  Not that it helped him at all anyway.

He is a ‘customer’ of Ubuntu, just as I am and just as thousands of other people who no doubt share the same view are.  And while many people are about to say something pithy like “Linx doesn’t want you”, may I remind you of Ubuntu Bug #1 – Microsoft has majority marketshare – implying that Ubuntu actually wants customers.

Yet this guy says something that, to him, is an impediment to him using Ubuntu and immediately gets his head bitten off by a horde of angry Linux users who then post massive amounts of comments saying how he is wrong, calling him a shill, claiming he’s getting paid by MS, claiming that the site is fundamentally biased (despite it being home to the infamous SJVN) and generally denying that the problem he outlines could possibly exist, and it’s only because he’s either stupid, or being paid that he can come to such a conclusion.

The following two questions then get raised: Will this torrent of abuse somehow make him change his mind about his claim and realise that the problem he has suddenly isn’t a problem anymore?  And more importantly will he be more disposed to trying and promoting Linux after recieving those responses than before?

Or consider if you went into a bar and ordered a drink, and the drink tasted like cleaning fluid (or otherwise nasty) and you pointed this out to the bartender.  If he (and the other patrons) proceeded to call you an idiot moron you would simply not ever go back and tell all your friends about the bad experience (welcome to my blog!) rather than go ‘you’re right I am a moron’.

The customers complaints are always valid.  Calling them a moron and denying they have a complaint does solve the problem – you no longer have them as a customer.

Installing Software In Linux Sucks

Besides, he’s right.  It’s amusing that the community that touts ‘choice’ as it’s primary selling point presents the argument that he should just wait until the distro updates the repository, rather than be able to easily use new software straight off the bat.

When I was trying Linux I had endless issues with the software in the repo’s being massively out of date, and what do you expect?  You have tens of thousands of apps to track and keep up to date and it’s not even like the iPhone or Android app stores in that developers don’t necessarily submit new versions requiring the repo maintainers to find out when there has been an update (good luck with that).

In an ideal world the repo’s would be all you need (and communism would actually work) but in reality the system of repositorys needs to be supplemented by a system of manual installation in the cases where the software is out of date or simply unavailable.  And the brutal truth is Linux falls flat on it’s face here.

Manual Installation

Welcome to the quagmire that is manual software installation in Linux.  As soon as you’re outside the walled garden of vendor approved obsolete versions of software to be found in the repositories then you’re largely out of luck.

How often have you seen Microsoft being berated for making it’s own ’standards’ for things like word documents and protocols?  How many Linux evangelists have you seem complain that .docx and .doc are not compatible?  Yet these very same evangelists will argue ’till they are blue in the face that somehow multiple incompatible package formats and standard breaking distros is somehow a ‘good thing’ – usually under the guise of ‘choice’.

Hell, I’ve even written a post bashing the Windows software installation method and since this is technically an anti-Linux (and thus visited largely by Windows users) blog I should be getting angry posts saying how I am wrong, and an idiot, yet all I got was agreements and clarifications!  Yet if you say something as BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS as Linux needs a standardized package format you’ll get flamed to a crisp.

The Dead Parrot Horse

I am flogging a dead horse with my point but I think it deserves to be made (and flogged).  Being critical of Linux always reminds me of the Dead Parrot Sketch.  The community is largely unable to accept any** criticism as valid, no matter how obvious or problematic, with the first approach to user complaints to be to deny they exist, then to call the complainer an idiot troll.

This is what is holding Linux back from going mainstream – it’s the fact that the community simply doesn’t care about the needs or issues of the people they are trying to foist Linux upon.

The claims of ‘community development’ are a massive lie in that aside from posting the occasional bug reports (which you can do with closed source) anyone with a problem is abused and faces North Korean levels of censorship***.  You either take what the Linux cult gives you and be quiet, or you simply don’t use it.  Trying to contribute improvements and suggestions just gets you into trouble.

If you’re happy with Linux, sure use it.  If you’re not don’t even bother – it’s simply not worth it.

* Not if I am working there they aren’t

** I think one of the sources of my Ubuntuforums ban was due to an argument where I was trying to propose double clickable .deb files.

*** Preston, try to have the discussion on your blog post on a Linux forum (Ubuntuforums is a good choice) and see how fast the admins delete your post then ban you.

Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with distributing something under the GPL.  If you are committed to freedom then you’ll accept that people should have the freedom to use whatever license they please.  What is problematic is the popular view that somehow releasing your software under the GPL is somehow ‘ethical’, with some people even suggesting it should be a legal requirement for all software.

If you believe the revisionists they would tell you that ‘free’ is the natural state of software until companies (mainly Microsoft) came in and ruined everything by ‘closing’ the software and charging money, snatching software utopia out of the worlds hands in the process.

But the problem is this: Why is software the only thing covered by these fundamental freedoms?

Books, Software, Movies and Music are all technically the same thing, they are an infinitely reproducible product based upon human endeavour, differing from standard creations (such as making a chair) in that making 1,000,000 is almost as easy as making 10.  Only the first one took the time to make.

The ‘rights’ outlined in the GPL are not just the right to the source code – that is tangential to the issue.  The main ‘rights’ are for free modification and redistribution – If I receive any GPL’d software I am free to edit it and give it away for no cost.  The claims that ‘you can sell GPL’d software’ as a counter to a claim that it creates an unworkable business model are intellectually dishonest since you can only sell it once – after that you’ll be competing with free.

If I were to buy a new book by Iain Banks, should I have the right to edit, make copies and then give those copies away?  Should I demand the original document rather than the printed version as by not being able to do the above easily with a physical book my ‘freedoms’ are being compromised?  If I was to make this argument to most people who support the GPL as a vehicle for software progress I would be laughed at, but it is fundamentally the same thing.

The argument could be made that books are for entertainment, but education largely comes in book form.  Also there are no clear cut lines between media anymore.  If I draw a sapceship on paper, do you have the ‘freedom’ to take it and give it away?  What about if I make a 3D rendering of it?  What if I make the 3D rendering display as a runtime exe?  What if I make it interactive and flyable?  At what point do your ‘fundamental rights’ kick in and allow you to do whatever you want with it?

The belief is that if the GPL was enforced today then the world would be better off, and while true this fails to consider the future.  If these ‘freedoms’ applied to the world of literature then there would be a wealth of works suddenly made available for low or zero cost.  What would then happen though is the individuals who before were creating a livelihood on the sales of their creation would suddenly have no income and be forced to find other avenues for money and while some may be able to monetize their fame most others would not.  As a result you would get people like Stephen King working as shelf stackers in supermarkets rather than doing what they do well and sure, he can write in the evenings and weekends but he would only write a fraction of what he could under the previous system.

The ‘freedom’ model essentially pulls the rug out from under the system of rewarding artists that has worked for hundreds of years.  People claim that you can ’sell support’ and that it is just as profitable, but that is blatantly not true in many cases – only certain software can be made profitable.

I want a system where individuals with talent are able to do nothing but exercise that talent, rather than a system where they have to work mundane jobs to simply make a living and are only allowed to create greatness in the evenings and weekends.

I love the self delusion of the Gimp developers.  Look at their site under ‘contribute’:

“GIMP is Free Software and a part of the GNU Project. In the free software world, there is generally no distinction between users and developers. As in a friendly neighbourhood, everybody pitches in to help their neighbors. Please consider the time you give in assistance to others as payment.”

I’ve always thought there was a massive distinction between artists and developers.  I think what they meant to say is ‘unless you are a programmer we won’t listen to you or cater to your needs’.

Here’s a conversation I have over and over again:

Linux Zealot: You should use Linux, Windows sucks and is for morons.
Me: I need stuff which you don’t get on Linux like Photoshop
Linux Zealot: Use Gimp, it’s better than Photoshop plus it’s free!
Me: Gimp sucks, (insert pages of things that it can’t do here)
Linux Zealot: If you don’t like it don’t use it, stop complaining it’s free!

So to the people pushing Linux (and Gimp) onto users, you have two choices:

1. Shut up and stop promoting it (and calling people idiots for not using it) or…
2. Cater for the needs and desires of your userbase and own up to and address the flaws.

You can’t claim it’s better as well as telling people to not complain as it’s free.  As soon as you say it’s better and evangelise on this basis and it’s not actually better it just makes you a liar.  And if you evangelise on the basis that it’s better and people say it isn’t then their opinions are valid and should be listened to.  Also, telling people to ‘fix it yourself’ does not count.

As soon as you tell them they are, in fact, wrong and it is better* – as the Gimp** supporters love to do – then you have crossed the boundary between lies and self delusion.  Enjor your stay, the Ubuntuforums are first on the left.

* The usual excuse is ‘you are thinking in the ‘Microsoft’ way.  If you’d tried Emacs/VI/Latex before Word you’d find it just as easy’.  Or just plain old WorksForMe(tm).

** Oh, and the name is still embarassing, offensive and exclusionary.

I think the answer would have to be a resounding Yes, because imagine if they didn’t and Microsoft then got Bing as default search* on Firefox?  I really hope it happens just because the fallout in the FOSS community would be hilarious** – can you even get Chrome on Linux yet?  Anyway I don’t think Google would allow this to happen so I am saying that the deal will probably be renewed.

* Firefox gets 85% of it’s cash from Google.  They’d really have no choice but to take Microsoft’s money unless someone really unlikely like Yahoo bought in.

** I would be laughing for weeks if this happened.  I wouldn’t even change the default. 

So Monty is complaining that Oracle may end up owning MySQL.  Here’s a reality check: If you sell something for ONE BILLION DOLLARS you have no right to dictate the terms of that product anymore.  You sold it, game over.

Sun’s aquisition of MySQL probably helped sink that ship, unlike the flotilla of private yachts that Monty now owns thanks to Sun’s money.  That ONE BILLION DOLLARS he took in exchange for MySQL must be converted into business value somehow to justify it’s price and Oracle are probably going to do just that.

If he really cared about ‘freedom’ he wouldn’t have taken the big businesses money and sold out.  If he really, really cared he’d take that ONE BILLION DOLLARS and simply buy MySQL back as I am pretty sure it’s not worth now what he got for it.

But no, he sets up a site to try to strongarm Oracle into essentially losing all benifits to an investment valued at ONE BILLION DOLLARS because he doesn’t think they can be trusted to keep it ‘free’.

What an idiot.

Have a good one.

New post(s) soon!