tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post7335218653051423612..comments2024-02-14T02:30:36.732-05:00Comments on The Blog of Helios: Semantics is Restricting Linux Desktop AdaptationAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13978117986484281976noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-89570432615723736732010-06-29T07:59:16.590-05:002010-06-29T07:59:16.590-05:00I've been a Linux Geek for many years, and I a...I've been a Linux Geek for many years, and I am willing to say Microsoft will always be more widely accepted on the desktop than Linux because of one simple fact. Microsoft has much better marketing than Linux. All that matters in this war is what the end-users think of the OS, and if the marketing is not good enough, then the users will go to whoever has the better story. Linux people can holler and scream all they want about FOSS and how much better everything is on Linux, but at the end of the day, the better marketing plan wins and the end-users follow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-23021994047613064722010-06-08T07:54:54.645-05:002010-06-08T07:54:54.645-05:00Agreed...the "free" thing as defined by ...Agreed...the "free" thing as defined by our software context is indeed confusing to the new user. Your point of shareware is the perfect example. Linux is a strange and unsure landscape for new users who are used to .exe files and software that disables itself after 30 days of use. <br /><br />I've re-designed the popup and am working on getting the jockey backend repackaged so the new one will appear in our distro. At least our users will not have to struggle with these semantics again as it applies to "restricted".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978117986484281976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-78954631773999551832010-06-08T00:33:41.156-05:002010-06-08T00:33:41.156-05:00"Non-free is relatively unambiguous: it means..."Non-free is relatively unambiguous: it means you can't modify it and you can't fix it when it breaks."<br /><br />What an odd statement...perhaps as a specific label, you may be correct; when you are surrounded by people involved with FOSS, you are correct, by the grace of context and predisposition towards a specific meaning. Even Stallman, however, recognized that there is considerable ambiguity in the term "free" vs. "Non-free". Where do you think "Think free as in free speech, not free beer" came from? In fact, much of his influence comes specifically from his quest to differentiate between the two meanings of "free". <br /><br />I read this and wonder how "non-free" with no context may be interpreted; I have paid for shareware to whose source I was granted access. That was "non-free", because I paid. I have not paid to use drivers distributed and developed by ATI whose source was a constant mystery. The ATI drivers are "freeware" that is not "Free Software (or open source)", while the other program was "Shareware" that was "Free (or open source)". <br /><br />Of course, your definition of "Free" may also change depending on what organization you are following. After all, each of GPL, BSD, MPL, and FOSS, just to name a few, have slightly different viewpoints. Some give you source, but don't allow you to fork the source, or distribute the code you tweak. Some allow you to everything. <br /><br />Narrowing your definition of a word that is ambiguous by definition to a single meaning is tantamount to starting a religious war. You may want to be careful with those kinds of statements. Context will define many aspects of "Free".Sheaidennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-89779020970743904382010-06-06T21:38:35.427-05:002010-06-06T21:38:35.427-05:00I just checked, and in Ubuntu 10.04 the nvidia dri...I just checked, and in Ubuntu 10.04 the nvidia driver is listed as 'Proprietary' instead of 'restricted'. I took a screenshot for you here. http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h312/Drakonisch/proprietary.png<br /><br />Also Ubuntu now has the software center fully up and running and it's pretty great for newer users. And in the main menus now in Ubuntu a description directly follows a program's name. For example, Gimp says gimp image editor, and rythmbox says rythmbox music player.<br /><br />All in all Ubuntu has made some great strides in making it easier for new users. The extras and codecs are still listed as restricted in the software center. However, with the legal grey areas surrounding the extra codecs I can understand that. Maybe they should put the codecs in a seperate package from the rest of it. Well, that's my two cents.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08059682854445840037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-26884310099790658142010-06-06T05:51:26.864-05:002010-06-06T05:51:26.864-05:00Switch away from Ubuntu and Linux Mint to Debian. ...Switch away from Ubuntu and Linux Mint to Debian. Non-free is relatively unambiguous: it means you can't modify it and you can't fix it when it breaks. [You also have vrms to nag you about non-free stuff you've installed :) ]<br /><br />Restricted and the partners repository from Canonical muddy the water somewhat.<br /><br />If it's free, we the Linux using community can fix it. If it isn't, we can't necessarily help.<br /><br />The Intel atom based machine I'm typing this from has no non-free on it. The Thinkpad I've loaned out has non-free Intel firmware to enable the wireless. The NSLU2's I have required non-free firmware to enable the ethernet card. The 2 x Sheevaplugs have no non-free on them. The AMD machines under my desk have no non-free on them ... [The Ubuntu netbook next door does have non-free Flash player - until Google go VP8 and the BBC may eventually follow them]. ...<br /><br />It's not hard to be free as in DFSG-free :)Andrew Caterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17644077996431326998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-42242735797820702262010-06-05T11:08:41.190-05:002010-06-05T11:08:41.190-05:00Free as in Freedom is a great concept but it is no...Free as in Freedom is a great concept but it is not all-inclusive as far as functionality goes. I've used the open source Nvidia driver and frankly it is crap. It only supports some of the older cards and then it doesn't do a very good job. I have artifacts all over my screen when trying to use it for gaming and it is for all of my purposes unusable.<br /><br />I will continue to use proprietary drivers when I need them and no amount of religious preaching is going to alter that. ATI is doing great stuff with open source video and Intel seems to have gotten on the cooperation bandwagon to a degree. Sure the Nvidia stuff is closed. I agree with the above poster. To brow-beat someone with philosophical arguments and using those arguments to hinder a computer's functionality is medieval, not to mention just plain fanatical. You may rejoice in the word "restricted" being used but to use it as a weapon to scare users away so as to further your philosophy is sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-51207649649170142732010-06-05T10:42:36.883-05:002010-06-05T10:42:36.883-05:00Far better one word alerting to this than the mora...<b> Far better one word alerting to this than the morass of hundreds of different proprietary licenses in the Windows world.</b><br /><br />That logic is so full of crap it makes the room stink. To address an earlier post, the Nvidia drivers spoken of here are NOT illegal, they are proprietary. You want to stoop to scare tactics to get people not to expand the functionality of their computer then you are no better than those that include it in Windows without warning.<br /><br />As to the quoted point, "I think "Restricted Drivers" is a fine word because it points out that they restrict your actions henceforth." What about the apps and games that demand 3D functionality? Including them does nothing to "restrict" one's actions...exclusion of this particular driver "Restricts" the user's ability to use the system to it's fullest ability.<br /><br />It is my opinion that you are willing to cripple your machine in the name of "freedom" and you agree to do so by draconian language and symbols. That makes you not whit better than those who hide behind legalese language in proprietary EULAsDave Deatonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-64827394774864414992010-06-05T08:38:34.308-05:002010-06-05T08:38:34.308-05:00You bring up a good point, restricted and other st...You bring up a good point, restricted and other strong words like that give people a certain meaning and nothing else. But, most people are curious to see what happens and the others can only think what has been taught to them their whole lives. I like your writing and this post. :) I know I'm curious.mariahttp://poisonous101ipop.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-85966904790330917412010-06-04T01:28:23.739-05:002010-06-04T01:28:23.739-05:00Restrictive Naming
The term "restricted"...<b>Restrictive Naming</b><br /><br />The term "restricted" is used in a legal sense, as far as I can determine. The problem with that? Only a few people in a thousand can actually read and understand a license agreement.<br /><br />It was flippantly proposed that the word "restricted" should be replaced by an expanded sentece that tells the user <b>exactly</b> what that legal term means. I say why not? It is a legal matter as far as a software license agreement is concerned, so why not expand the legalese? Why is that so out of the question? Sure it makes for a bigger dialog box, but are we really cramped for space here? Screen real estate? Will the extra text push us over the capacity of a single CD? Experienced users do not read the darn box anyway, they just look for the buttons.<br /><br />Tell it like it is, as was once said. The term is used in a legal sense. Expand it.<br /><br /><br /><b>App names</b><br /><br />Why is everyone pulling a comparison to application names on the Windows side of things? Just because the names of common applications for Windows are also obscure does not mean that the issue can be ignored on other platforms and operating systems. This is the same hole-digging as always when it comes to computers & technology: "<i>Well no one else does it better so why should we?</i>" Why should we indeed...<br /><br />At least be honest about what you think. You think that application names should be independent of applicaton design and functionality. Just be honest instead of hiding behind Richmond's marketing dolts.<br /><br /><br /><b>Linux Basics</b><br /><br />Most modern GNU/Linux users are soft. I know plenty of "Linux geeks" that have compiled their own software once or twice and think that even those few times were too many. Back in the early days of UNIX and GNU, the GPL was well understood by computer operators and programmers because all of them knew their stuff. Now we have programmers who have never seen the inside of a computer, and network architects who cannot do a thing if you change their desktop theme. And of course we have GNU/Linux users who wet themselves if their package manager cannot resolve dependencies. So really, if you are one of those GNU/Linux users who relies on package managers and thinks that compiling from source is a scary prospect, what the heck is the point for you personally if a device driver is FOSS or restricted?<br /><br />Not to say that the devs and project managers cannot be trusted, but you personally do not (and perhaps cannot) take advantage of all the implications of a FOSS device driver. You are not a programmer, you do not compile from source, you do not create your own packages, and you do not even resolve your own dependencies. You are, essentially, reduced to a supporting role - and often not even with your wallet. Not to say the whole debate is moot, because it most definitely is not and we should all care if we can - but wait! That is the point, is it not? That we should all care if we <b>can</b> care, and if we <b>can</b> understand?<br /><br />But what about those who <b>cannot</b> understand? How are they different (in philosophical practice) from those of you who stop at a package manager? I mean, you do not even look at the code! You blindly trust other people (with a proven track record, mind you) to write the code. And compile it into packages. And be integrated into a package manager. And even then, you do not build your own distro from scratch. You are benefiting from a complete product. In the chain of software development, you are a lot closer to the people who do not understand than you are to the programmers who make it all happen. So cut the newbies some slack, because you could use some slack yourself. What is it that you do that is so amazing compared to a newbie?<br /><br />(Personally, I cannot think of anything that I do that is amazing compared to a newbie. Other than perhaps helping newbies.)Gavinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-43720980802693785952010-06-03T14:25:19.293-05:002010-06-03T14:25:19.293-05:00Also--without odd names, how would you distinguish...Also--without odd names, how would you distinguish between applications of the same type? For example, neither "emacs" nor "vi" suggest text editing, and "gedit" isn't much better, but just calling a program "text editor" would be confusing to someone talking about different text editors, or talking to someone who didn't know that program. ("I opened it in Text Editor." "Which text editor were you using?" "Text Editor!" "Who's on first?")aristos_achaionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12274156321071965165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-31372577953142436472010-06-03T14:20:28.318-05:002010-06-03T14:20:28.318-05:00To be fair, does "Firefox" immediately s...To be fair, does "Firefox" immediately suggest web browsing, "Excel" suggest spreadsheets, or "Powerpoint" give any indication what it is to someone who's not already familiar with it? There's admittedly a learning curve with application names, but GIMP isn't really that far behind Photoshop (as a kid, I didn't know you could use Photoshop to manipulate images that weren't originally photographs).<br /><br />I'm not sure that there's much to do beyond Ubuntu's current solution--maybe some extra documentation could help, but most users won't read it anyhow.<br /><br />"Restricted" has always struck me as a funny word to use there, but I can't think of a better one. "Non-free" or "unfree" both suggest a price (and a poorly timed discussion of the ethics of software licensing). Maybe just call a spade a spade and say "proprietary drivers"? Sure, it's a big word for some, but then they'd ask somebody what it meant, rather than having an inappropriate knee-jerk reaction.<br /><br />@trombonechamp -- the problem with "restricted" is that it suggests the wrong kind of restrictions--that the user is restricted *from* using the driver, rather than restricted *in* using the driver. It's a poor choice of words, since the negative reaction isn't the kind of negative reaction you want--fear rather than indignation.aristos_achaionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12274156321071965165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-29199983667677385222010-06-02T22:17:12.421-05:002010-06-02T22:17:12.421-05:00>>> As a 10 year Linux user, I agree with...>>> As a 10 year Linux user, I agree with the issue of Linux application names. Most of them are non-descriptive and many are downright moronic. Most 10 year olds could do a better job of naming apps. These labels do a great deal to perpetuate the perception of Linux as a fringe, hobbyist system to be avoided by 'serious' computer users. <<<<br /><br />This is true. Most 10 year olds can easily come up with simple, descriptive names that would get the apps' authors sued for trademark infringement. <br /><br />What could be more moronic than choosing a name that isn't already someone else's trademark?Jabrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06289535889292806519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-73807790577589571102010-06-02T17:02:19.202-05:002010-06-02T17:02:19.202-05:00Why restricted drivers? In reality they are RESTRI...Why restricted drivers? In reality they are RESTRICTIVE drivers (the user is restricted by the restrictive driver). I think so.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13691796337593962378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-75786039715925731872010-06-02T16:56:42.280-05:002010-06-02T16:56:42.280-05:00I agree that the choice of the word "Restrict...I agree that the choice of the word "Restricted" to describe the drivers, though accurate in the intended context, is confusing to the uninitiated. "Proprietary" would work fine. They wouldn't know what it meant, but they don't know what "Restricted" means either, and at least "Proprietary" isn't scary.<br /><br />As to the names of apps. I look at the computer I am on and see several apps that don't have descriptive names: Excel, Outlook, Powerpoint, Access, and Citrix Metaframe. Clearly I am on my work machine (although I am typing this through a VNC session into the Debian server in my office).<br /><br />I think that it's difficult for people to continue to make up names that are generally descriptive of the software that they are writing, and the names are not very distinctive. Notice that even Microsoft is not able to trademark the term "Word." Names that are too descriptive end up being some of the worst application names out there.<br /><br />It's only familiarity that makes a lot of application names work. There may be other reasons why some names are questionable, such as being difficult to pronounce or having an undesirable alternate meaning, but being non-descriptive is not a strike against an app name as far as I can tell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-38423845164392429802010-06-02T00:57:13.352-05:002010-06-02T00:57:13.352-05:00In a command-line environment, the kernel calls su...In a command-line environment, the kernel calls such drivers "tainted." I always thought that "restricted" was an improvement but imperfect.<br /><br />How about calling them "proprietary vendor drivers" instead? Still true and somehow less scary.<br /><br />By the way, Microsoft handles the problem of non-os provided drivers badly too. If the vendor driver is not "signed" and "trusted" you get scary warnings there too.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10242361695299234076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-30038245709263206232010-06-01T18:58:20.944-05:002010-06-01T18:58:20.944-05:00I am also in the "Non-GPL drivers" camp ...I am also in the "Non-GPL drivers" camp of the last comment. It creates a great teachable moment without scaring <i>anyone</i> off.<br />In addition, with regard to naming, I don't think it is necessary to name applications in ways descriptive of their function. "Firefox" in no way evokes images of a web browser except by virtue of its current outstanding popularity. Neither do "Excel", "PowerPoint", or "Outlook" lend themselves to describe their functions except by virtue of their popularities. For all that, "GIMP" (when expanded) perfectly describes its own functions (though its name turns people off when abbreviated).<br />What is necessary is a menu or search function that emphasizes the function of the program over its name. The Mint menu does this perfectly in the "Favorites" tab: the Firefox icon has the title "Web Browser" and the subtitle "Firefox Web Browser". In fact, some applications (like the GNOME calculator) make no mention of the actual application name, which is great. GNOME Do (go to the bathroom to puke if you must, Mono-haters :P) operates similarly.<br />Taken together, these suggestions leave users with the most knowledge and the least confusion/fear.<br /><br />--<br />a Linux Mint user since 2009 May 1PVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03204919785416600206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-19109412090301829092010-06-01T18:28:03.082-05:002010-06-01T18:28:03.082-05:00As a 10 year Linux user, I agree with the issue of...As a 10 year Linux user, I agree with the issue of Linux application names. Most of them are non-descriptive and many are downright moronic. Most 10 year olds could do a better job of naming apps. These labels do a great deal to perpetuate the perception of Linux as a fringe, hobbyist system to be avoided by 'serious' computer users.<br /><br />Oh, and BTW, let's lose the damn penguin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-60772785650265974732010-06-01T16:31:00.906-05:002010-06-01T16:31:00.906-05:00>> I have a great suggestion for the "r...>> I have a great suggestion for the "restricted," "non-free," "proprietary," debate... How about just calling them "Non-GPL???" That is accurate, and will beg the next question, which is "What is [the] GPL?". That creates a teaching moment, one of the very things that Helios is trying to do here...<br /><br />Also, does this mean that GPL is inferior quality? Well, there are various reasons in why hardware companies don't share as much of their hardware specs as they could. Certainly, end users should put pressure on these companies to open up their specs and support open source; however, to address the point of does the GPL mean inferior quality:<br /><br />http://www.linuxtoday.com/high_performance/2010060101735NWHESV<br />http://www.linuxtoday.com/high_performance/2010060101135NWHE<br />http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam<br /><br />Note, that the proprietary houses have always had the opportunity to study GPL to improve their software, whereas they hide their achievements from us (a one-way street, from those that give away for $0 towards those that keep all secrets in order to charge higher prices). And still we trounce them!<br /><br />And yes, Linux and open source will be much more user friendly (and trounce the competition here as well) once a great many users use it and contribute. That's how Linux went to the top in the tech world -- people used it and contributed back.Jose_Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-81245576830656765362010-06-01T16:19:39.803-05:002010-06-01T16:19:39.803-05:00With regard to the last comment, I realized right ...With regard to the last comment, I realized right after posting that you keep yourself quite busy; however, if you find some time to address this -- a Austin child's distro -- I'm sure many would help you research and figure out how to improve upon existing solutions.<br /><br />A permanent link to that project from this blog might even pull in more techies to read about the things going on in Austin.<br /><br />Finally, improving on a distro is something the kids would all like, I think, and would help spread Linux through word of mouth faster. See, Linux has restricted drivers, but it also enables the driver in ways Windows never could.Jose_Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-43128482011154631562010-06-01T16:13:50.662-05:002010-06-01T16:13:50.662-05:00Ken, Linux is open source.
If you decide to push ...Ken, Linux is open source.<br /><br />If you decide to push forth with a rebranded distro that addresses all of these issues and more, I'm sure you will get help.Jose_Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-26527801505745258782010-06-01T15:55:53.850-05:002010-06-01T15:55:53.850-05:00Get ready for ChromeOS folks. They don't do ev...Get ready for ChromeOS folks. They don't do everything right, maybe not even most things, but Goog is definitely going to shake things up when ChromeOS comes around (Q4?). Android seems to have retained a high level of Linux association with it (I bet most people don't know webOS is Linux but most do know Android is). Maybe we'll finally get to pout when big G puts some sweet into the Linux desktop!AntonOfTheWoodshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895728856463047420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-60784368678100504142010-06-01T15:13:42.802-05:002010-06-01T15:13:42.802-05:00Unfortunately, restricted is the correct word. Y...Unfortunately, restricted is the correct word. You just need to understand what the restriction is. If you explained that the restriction on these drivers is the same as the restriction on the operating system and almost every application on Windows, would that help. <br /><br />Explain that this warning is that these have similar rules to ALL of Windows. Pretty scary, huh?Grant Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06772023212277928936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-37006104606781636162010-06-01T14:49:33.595-05:002010-06-01T14:49:33.595-05:00Of course there are endless ways left to make Linu...Of course there are endless ways left to make Linux distros a lot more user friendly. However I don't think names should be changed in order to make it easier for new users to navigate, I mean, in everyday life there aren't definitions on every object either. You might think this comparison is rather odd, but I think it's something that should never happen. I've heard that Canonical is going to change MiB to MB just for the few new users that ask questions about the slight amount of storage they have less, than what they hoped for. I don't think this is good at all, they're changing rules, just to make it easier for the "unexperienced users".<br /><br />I have to admit though, I don't really mind if the Linux share doesn't grow, I think the community is active and great already, as it is now. I do find it a shame that I have to take Windows for granted when writing applications. I know that there are cross platform languages like java, but still I remain a fan of compiled languages like C/C++.<br /><br />There are however good stuff about Windows, I'm not sure if I'm the only one who has experienced this, but I've got a hell lot of jobs because of Windows, mainly removing spyware, and usually the type that makes it impossible for the user to do anything. For Linux geeks however it's just plain logic booting a live cd, and remove the infected mess which I have done several times. (Yes, i know there is a safe mode, but c'mon, when I get to chance to fix something with Linux, I use it)<br /><br />I'm pretty much neutral, more users on Linux would mean, less attention to the Windows compatability issue, higher priority from for instance web browser developers, to Linux versions. <br />But on the other hand there might be less work, once everyone gets to find out how Linux work, people might eventually fall in love with the terminal as well, and bash geeks won't be needed anymore, that would be a shame :). The last part was a joke, but seriously, you never knowAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13610918831050217634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-70902265792406265352010-06-01T14:05:37.353-05:002010-06-01T14:05:37.353-05:00I didn't read through the entire comments beca...I didn't read through the entire comments because I kept getting stuck on this same point. It seems like many Linux users and those involved in the Linux community are trying to define what Linux SHOULD BE. Some might argue with me, but shouldn't Linux be an open source operating system. Just that. An operating system.<br /><br />Distributions are built on top of that operating system to be something more. This is where the definitions that ya'll are arguing about come in. And no one can argue to someone making a distribution that their reasons for doing so are wrong. It's their distribution. If someone wants to make a distribution whose primary purpose is to make you vomit when it boots up, then that's it. No arguing. Either they hit the mark or they don't and it has nothing to do you with your open source philosophy.<br /><br />Now back to the article. If you create a distribution of Linux and your goal is to bring on new users and make a distribution that 'just works' for any user, new or experienced, then this article is dead on. The user experience will be should be one of the top priorities and the semantics therein should be painfully obvious to nearly every user. You either hit that mark you don't. Obviously using words like "restricted" without giving any context to the user is stupid. There is no requirements on the user of an operating system whose purpose is to be as easy to use as possible so that it can adopt more users.JohnRyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14819704152963984243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33801994.post-83059526985113094112010-06-01T13:42:07.076-05:002010-06-01T13:42:07.076-05:00The simple fact that there is a driver available f...The simple fact that there is a driver available from the hardware manufacturer, presented in a nice, standard dialog box, with the option to enable it or not, should be enough for most anyone to recognize that it isn't an invitation to commit a felony.<br /><br />I'd simply show the (in this case) nvidia EULA to the questioner, and take a (long) lunch break.<br /><br />Lesson to learn: GNU/Linux, with all its non-OSS bells and whistles, isn't for just anyone, and is especially not for the paranoid (something around 11% of us?).<br /><br />Sure, some words are scary, if you don't know exactly what they mean in a given context. And a traffic triangle with a big exclamation point in the middle doesn't help, either.<br /><br />Maybe if it were explained as analogous to the "Phenylketonurics" warning on aspartame products - so important for those who need to know that the rest of us have to deal with it for their sake.<br /><br />Maybe her grandkids could whip up an open-source driver for their GPU...Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07444021999664993467noreply@blogger.com