Linux is not for everyone.
Linux is an operating system that is idea for people who need their computers for important tasks, require reliability, and who do not need the hand holding and eye candy that some of the other operating systems seem to focus on. In short, Linux is for people who are smarter and more serious than average.....
Offended? You must be a Mac or Windows user!
Whether or not what I say above is true is not important. I did want to show you something, though. The following are two lists provided in a recent post called "How to Mke People Love Linux." This is just a summary. Go read the original post for more.
How We Make People Hate Linux
- By telling people how much their Windows computer sucks.
- Instead of helping a Windows user fix their computer, brag about how Linux doesn't have those problems.
- By being smug. Admit it. You've been smug.
- By bragging about how awesome Linux is, and then when someone tries it, and has problems, accuse them of being dumb.
- By pretending Linux has no shortcomings, and claiming other OSs are worthless.
How to Make People Want Linux
- Fix their spyware problem. Share with them that spyware is one of the reasons you don't use Windows.
- Admit that using Linux has a learning curve, but it's one that you think is worthwhile.
- Show them Compiz. Microsoft marketed an entire operating system on worthless visual thrills. Compiz is free, and cooler.
- Give them a LiveCD. Offer to help them. Follow through on the offer.
- Remember Wubi, it's an easy way to try Linux.
How to Make People Love Linux at Linux Journal.
- Log in to post comments
I love the ways to make people hate Linux. It's a list that easily applies to Windows and Mac advocates as well. Heck, I even remember using a couple of those in my jihadist Team OS/2 days. Oh, and sending death threats to Dvorak. Do Linux or Mac advocates send death threats tech columnists?
OS/2 was way better.
I moved out entire Domino infrastructure to RedHat last year and am in the process of moving most everything else I can. Won't be able to pry everyone off of windows yet but it's a goal...
What is the deal with Linux users that make them constantly feel the need need to let everyone else know how great they think it is, and how everyone lese is "unenlightened" for using any other OS?
It's a similar thing with people who like the band Rush. They think Rush is awesome, and if you don't like them well, you are clearly are too ignorant to appreciate Neil Pert's complex time signatures!
It's because Linux users listen to Rush.
I'm actually rather intrigued by Linux due in part to the fact that under the hood of the Mac OS X is a Unix kernel. My primary reservation is the graphics and animation apps I use - none of which, to my knowledge, are available on Linux. If there were genuinely equivalent apps to things like Adobe After Effects, Luxology Modo, Apple Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Photoshop and so on, then I would be very interested.
Also, I am indeed one of those that is very visually oriented and very much need the clean, user friendly GUI that OS X offers. I do not do command lines, I do not do scripting, I do not write code; my brain just does not work that way. I am a visual artist and need a visually oriented work environment which is something the Mac OS X gives me a better version of than anything else I have seen.
Linux strikes me as still pretty raw in as far as GUIs go. Unless I am wrong, you still need to know your way around at least basic Unix commands to make effective use of it. Also, even though there are freeware equivalents of a number of major apps including a PhotoShop equivalent, when it comes to the more specialized video, audio and animation apps, I am not aware of anything with anywhere near the refinement and "artist friendly" environment as the various commercial apps I use. Am I wrong? Is so, please point it out to me and to where I could find such apps.
Otherwise, until the Linux environment reaches the maturity and level of software support as what I get with the Mac, it just does not look like a viable alternative to me.
--JK--
JK: You are way off the mark, in my opinion, on some of this, but probably because your knowledge is a bit out of date. Many people today install and use Linux without use of the command line at all. No, it is not necessary.
The Linux GUI is very very far from raw! Linux can be configured a lot of different ways, but nothing exceeds Linux in its GUI capacities, including the Mac. They are different styles, but Gnome Copmiz on Linux is as far from "raw" as you can get, full stop.
Offhand, I know of no "freeware" that runs on Linux. Can't think of a single example. Freeware is the junk that comes on yoiur HP or Dell Windows machine that you need to spend weeks getting rid of, unless you pay Dell extra at the time you buy the machine so they don't put that crap on to begin with! You need to explore the way software works on a Linux system more.
Serious animation studios may use software like Maya, which runs on Linux. 2D graphics and photography has a great deal of excellent options on Linux, roughly comparable to a Mac. You are probably doing more amateur stuff, so the Mac is probably appropriate.
For professional motion picture work, I think most of the serious studios use Linux or equivalent OS servers running a variety of software, most of which is probably pretty expensive. You are probably better off with the stuff that comes almost-free (well, a few hundred dollars including the system) with a Mac. It's good software and the Mac is a good system (running on *nix as it does, it is very stable and resource-efficient).
People with IQs at or above 160 are too busy figuring out how the world works, managing hedge funds, and propelling civilization forward to care what a cadre of autistic geeks thinks about which operating system is the best.
You, obviously not included in this group.
Well, Pixar runs on Xserve, but I wouldn't expect much else.
JK, you can check out the Gimp if you're willing to run X11 on your Mac (comes on your OS X install disk). Depending on what you're doing with graphics, it may make a decent replacement for Photoshop. Then you'll know whether it's worth trying to find a GUI you like.
Hey, Greg, know if anyone has done something like an open source Lightroom? Or where to look to find out?
Adobe may move Lightroom to open source eventually. Otherwise probably not.
Open Source Lightoom = Blender, maybe?
Sourceforge.net is a good place to find out about open source projects.
Greg, thanks for the comments. I have looked at some of the the recent Linux stuff. It seems my opinion is indeed out of date as far as the GUI goes. On first blush, Gnome Copmiz looks very pretty and may have some real potential. I plan to give this a serious look.
Visual effects and animation houses tend to run either Windows or Linux for 3D, Mac, Windows, or Linux for compositing, Mac and Windows for post production. They also tend to run shrik-wrapped software along with custom, proprietary, in-house developed tools that are part of their competitive edge. Pixar, for example, uses tools like Modo, Maya (highly customized), SoftImage (also highly customized), RenderMan (their own rendering engine), etc. They are also largely on the Mac now. ILM uses a whole mix of tools. Different departments use different tools but, Maya, SoftImage, Shake, Nuke, Electric Image Animation System, After Effects, along with a plethora of in-house developed tools are all in use. ILM has John Knoll, one of their top visual effects supervisors. He was co-creator, along with his brother, of Photoshop. He is strictly a Mac guy along with his whole department.
I am on the "pro" level of graphics and animation. The apps I use are things like Photoshop (and yes, I am aware of Gimp and a couple of others that are quite good alternatives to PS), After Effects, Shake, Modo, Lightwave 3D, Final Cut Studio, Logic Pro. I am not aware of good alternatives in the Linux world for most of these. I know that Maya for 3D runs in Linux, Nuke for compositing but, when it comes to motion graphics, editing, DVD authoring, music and audio post production, I am unaware of any good alternatives in the Linux world for these.
I am also quite dependent on the QuickTime architecture which underlies much of what makes the Mac so transparent and fluid for me. Having files all based on a common framework such as QuickTime makes moving files around between apps very transparent. Moving rendered files from my 3D apps into my compositing apps then editing then authoring is very transparent because of QuickTime. Micro$oft truly sucks in the realm. I am unaware of a similar architecture in the Linux world.
Basically, Linux has to reach the point where it has the same level of commercial software development, and consumer software development support before it truly becomes viable as a "mainstream." As for us pro graphics guys, it may very well be closer than I realize - at least for animation if not video and audio.