regarding "just plain works" as a goal

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook at gmail.com> wrote:

> It runs O.K., but it's not going to turn water 
> into wine.  You just try running the Gimp or 
> OpenOffice on that Pentium 2, and tell me how 
> it works out.

I'm not going to say it runs fast, but a PII-300Mhz (192MB) laptop I have runs the GIMP decently well, and even OpenOffice.org 2.0.  I know this because I recently had to do some website development while out of town, and the laptop managed to do everything I needed.  The PII-600Mhz machine has 512MB RAM, so I'd expect it to perform even better than the adequate performance of the laptop.

Personally I think you just *assume* that Linux won't run well on older hardware, rather than have any personal experience with running current applications on older hardware.  You assume Linux isn't that good on older hardware, so you *arbitrarily* limit what you do with older hardware.

> Try some Firefox plugins.  Try compiz.  Actually, try kde
> 4.1 or gnome 2.24.

The laptop is running Gnome 2.20.1.  Nothing anyone says will make me like the KDE GUI.  Compiz requires a high-end graphics card, but its mostly eye-candy, like Aero.

As for firefox plugins, the laptop is running a Flash blocker and has and runs Chatzilla as well.

> Yes, Linux is better/faster than windows.  No, 
> old crap isn't the right place to show it.

Insulting someone else's opinion is a great way to try and get them not to express it to others, I.e., keeping others from being informed.  If you wanted others to be informed, you wouldn't have bothered with the insult.

> and I find it rather repugnant to hear people say
> "Oh yeah, Linux, that's the thing you put on old 
> computers, right?"  No.  Stop it.  Buy a brand new 
> machine with Linux on it.  When people see Linux
> on a slow computer, they see Linux is slow.  Yeah, 
> it's not as slow as the alternatives, but its sill 
> slow.

We're just going to have to differ on this one.  People will see the brand new computer and think "so Linux benefits from dual-core processors just like Vista, so why bother switching?"  Running Linux on older hardware makes them sit up and notice that the bloat in Vista is missing from Linux.

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 15:04, Leo Mauler
> <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There are still FUD trolls out there talking 
> > about Linux trashing hard drives.
> 
> IT people know that software doesn't irrevocably 
> damage hard drives.  At least they should.  God 
> I hope they do.

Funny, you were the one insisting up and down and left and right that the audience coming to the KCLUG booth was computer illiterate middle management, not IT professionals.

However, even if the only folks who come by the booth are IT professionals, middle management are still the folks who need convincing, because they control the purse strings.  Middle management hears and believes the FUD trolls, so IT has to put together an older PC and point out how it hasn't trashed the hard drive on the demo system.

> > and run Linux, people may be tempted to think 
> > that the PC, not the OS, is what is causing 
> > it to fly.
> 
> Boot it off of a thumbdrive, and leave the case 
> open and hard drive blatantly disconnected.  
> When people ask how that works you'll have
> your chance to rant about how fantastic Linux is.

The best you can say is a thumbdrive?  Yes, lots of room to show off software on a thumbdrive system.  

> I never said everyone hates Windows, 

No, you just decided that people didn't want the system in their closet because it was old, forgetting completely that the reason they thought they can't use their closet system was entirely due to Windows not running on it very well.  You tried to claim that people don't like old hardware when what they really don't like is Windows.

> Immediately cease ranting about hatred of Windows.  
> I never mentioned any hatred of Windows, Leo
> Mauler, and I'd appreciate if you'd get over it.

It would have been very easy not to mention Windows, and hatred thereof, if you hadn't been the one to bring it up in the first place.

On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> > Right.  And so can Windows 98.  Old hardware 
> > is garbage.  Garbage is faster today than it 
> > was a year ago.  Thanks for comparing Linux 
> > to Windows 98.  It can run fast on old hardware 
> > too, and you're just cementing the idea in the 
> > heads of the public that Linux is what you
> > put on garbage computers before the trash 
> > collector comes to haul them off.  That's 
> > progress.  Thanks.  I don't even think there's 
> > a need for this public PR campaign any more.  
> > Microsoft has done a better job than any of us 
> > could at making Linux look good.

Your very first paragraph made a case for "hatred of Windows", and also tried to put the blame for this case-making on me.  I never said that Linux is comparable to Windows 98.  You claimed I was making the comparison, when I never said anything of the sort.

> Most people don't know what 'OS' means.  
> People don't like old computers because 
> old computers are old, and slower than 
> new computers.  You're not going to 
> argue that fact out of existence.

And why are they slow?  Because the Windows OS that runs on them is slow.  You're taking their ignorance of what is causing the problem and claiming it is the real reason for their troubles.

People don't like old computers because they think they can't do anything with them, because the only way they know to do anything with them is with the Windows OS that came with their machine.  If they had Linux to bring those old computers back to life, they wouldn't dislike old hardware.

An analogy would be a guy who owns an older, working diesel car, and can't afford diesel fuel.  He doesn't know about how he can convert used vegetable oil from a local fast food place into (nearly) free biodiesel.  Now, does he hate his diesel car because (a) he hates diesel cars, or (b) because he can't fuel the car with fuel the oil companies are pricing out of his ability to pay for it?  The correct answer is (b).  If he finds out how to make (nearly) free biodiesel fuel from used vegetable oil, he will like his diesel car because he can now make use of his diesel car.

> Leo Mauler, you accused me of "insisting that 
> people should not be informed".  That is false, 
> and libellous.  It has never been my goal
> to prevent people from being informed.  

And earlier in this same E-mail message, this message where you claim it was never your goal to prevent people from learning about Linux on older hardware, you said:

> I find it rather repugnant to hear people say
> "Oh yeah, Linux, that's the thing you put on 
> old computers, right?"  No.  Stop it.  Buy a 
> brand new machine with Linux on it.

Stop it?  As in "do not inform others" about Linux on older hardware?  As in the message you claim you aren't saying?

You spent a sizable chunk of the original message, and now a few more sentences in this same message, insulting me about my desire to tell people about Linux running on older hardware, in fact telling me to "stop it."  You took a demo PC on older hardware as a personal insult.  If you didn't want to be thought of as "insisting that people should not be informed", you shouldn't have expressed so much annoyance at the thought of people being informed.

On Wed, 10/8/08, Billy Crook <billycrook at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> > "[Y]ou're just cementing the idea in the 
> > heads of the public that Linux is what you
> > put on garbage computers before the trash 
> > collector comes to haul them off.  That's 
> > progress.  Thanks.

Rather disingenuous to claim that you never intended for people not to be informed when you wrote a huge E-mail to me saying it would be a terrible idea for me to inform people about Linux running on older hardware, and reiterated your "stop it" command within the same message where you tried to claim you didn't want to prevent my message about Linux running on older hardware.

Was trying to convince me my idea was stupid somehow a reverse-psychology ploy to get me to do it?

> If you're trying to market Linux, it's ability 
> to run on old hardware is not nearly as attractive 
> as getting better performance than alternative 
> software on modern hardware.

Apparently you've missed the news of the past few months entirely, so I'll summarize in a single sentence:

If you're trying to market Linux in an economy where banks aren't lending any money whatsoever to companies so that they can buy modern hardware, the ability of Linux to run on brand new (i.e., newly-purchased) modern hardware is not nearly as attractive as getting better performance than alternative software on *existing* hardware.