From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 22 16:09:13 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: advocacy@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E3D16A41C for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:09:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from warren@wandrsmith.net) Received: from ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com [24.94.166.115]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7322A43D48 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:09:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from warren@wandrsmith.net) Received: from CPE-65-28-60-94.kc.res.rr.com (CPE-65-28-60-94.kc.res.rr.com [65.28.60.94]) by ms-smtp-01.rdc-kc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id j5MG97Z7015637; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:09:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from www.wandrsmith.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by CPE-65-28-60-94.kc.res.rr.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B74A5E80; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:09:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 204.167.177.68 (SquirrelMail authenticated user warren) by www.wandrsmith.net with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:09:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <30071.204.167.177.68.1119456547.squirrel@www.wandrsmith.net> In-Reply-To: References: <30210.204.167.177.68.1119374209.squirrel@www.wandrsmith.net> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:09:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "Warren Smith" To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Explaining FreeBSD features X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: warren@wandrsmith.net List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:09:13 -0000 Ted Mittelstaedt said: >>I agree that these 3 groups exist and that FreeBSD is probably not >>appropriate for those in group #3. However, I think there is another >>group that is not represented here. That would be those that are not in >>group #3 because they DO care about understanding how things >>work, but are >>also not in groups #1 or #2 because, although they may be relatively >>knowledgeable about computers when compared to group #3, they have never >>used a non-Microsoft OS. Lets call these people group #4. >> > > That group isn't targeted by FreeBSD or Linux which is why I didn't > include it. In fact there are several other groupings of non-Windows > operating system consumers that you could make. > I agree that FreeBSD and Linux do not specifically target group #4. FreeBSD does not for the same reasons it doesn't target group #3. I'm not sure why Linux does not. Perhaps it is the whole competition-with-Microsoft mindset that drives them to target the group that is Microsoft's bread-and-butter. > For the sake of discussion, your group #4 is too broad. Rather, group 4 > is divided into the knowledgeable non-UNIX users (4a) and the wannabe > non-UNIX > users (4b). > I agree that my group #4 was too broad. I was hoping that someone would want to discuss this further. > The Windows users that Linux 'converts' are pretty much 4b users. These > are people who consider themselves power users, and know just enough > to be dissatisfied with Windows. But, they will not make the effort > needed > to really understand how something works. Linux allows them to use a > non-Windows OS without really understanding it, which is what they want. > I agree. > The 4a users, by contrast, may be attracted to Linux initially due to the > ease-of-entry issue your bringing up. But they try it and find out that > it's > dumbed-down interface gets in the way just as much as the Windows > dumbed-down > interface. That's where I think the majority of new FreeBSD converts > come from > - people that started with Windows, outgrew it, tried Linux for a while > and > got disgusted with the hand-holding, then went to FreeBSD and never > looked back. > I think you're probably right. This pretty much describes how I came to FreeBSD. I just wonder if there is some way to shorten the trip and take Linux completely out of the loop. Looking back, I wish I had known about FreeBSD sooner. It would have saved me quite a bit of frustration. I think FreeBSD would have been a much better platform for me to learn UNIX on because I wouldn't have had to endure a paradigm shift in order to continue the learning process. However, I suppose that having used Linux made me appreciate the fundamental quality of FreeBSD more than I may have otherwise. >>I think that projects like PCBSD are also targeting group #4 by lowering >>the bar for entry into the "enlightened" world of BSD. Having installed >>PCBSD a while back, I was impressed with the easy installation. >> Although >>I, being a somewhat experienced FreeBSD user, would prefer more control >>over the installation process, I feel confident in recommending PCBSD to >>friends in group #4. This is something I had stopped doing with FreeBSD >>because of the hand-holding necessary just to get it installed and >>configured enough to be even remotely usable by someone with their >>experience. >> > > The question you have to ask is: are your Group 4b friends who end up > liking PCBSD eventually graduating to the full FreeBSD system? If they > aren't, then PCBSD isn't meeting a goal of acting as a transition from > Windows to FreeBSD. > I guess it remains to be seen as to which group those friends will fall into. I have only recently started recommending PCBSD. If they turn out to be in group 4a, then they will already be somewhat familiar with FreeBSD and I will be happy to help them move into group #1. If they turn out to be in group 4b, then I have made a mistake and created another headache for myself. > Now maybe PCBSD is going to have an independent future in it's own right, > if so more power to it. But how will that help FreeBSD? > Since PCBSD really IS FreeBSD once you get it installed, if PCBSD attracts a bunch of 4a users, it could help FreeBSD by strengthening the community with valuable new members. If, however, it attracts a bunch of 4b users, it could hurt FreeBSD by weakening the community with a bunch of dead weight. Wether risking the latter is worth the former is something that I'm not sure about. > The problem isn't 'having what it takes' Most computer users who have > any > sophistication 'have what it takes' The problem is WANTING to use what > you > have. > I agree. I was including the desire to use what you have as part of what you have. > It takes a certain kind of person to be able to look at a big mountain in > front of him or her that is in between him or her and something he or she > wants, > and not be daunted by it, and to just do it. The majority of people are > inherently lazy, and partway up that mountain will start making > compromises > and end up never climbing it. They have the ability to climb it, but > their > own laziness hamstrings their ability. > You make a good point here. I suppose this is what separates the 4a and 4b groups. > Remember Aesop's fable about the Fox and the Grapes. Most people on the > mountain when their own laziness gets in the way of what they want, will > start spurning the goal. That is why there's so much hostility in some > of > the Linux community against BSD. They of course claim it's because BSD > ignores GPL as much as possible, but secretly it's because they know they > are too lazy to put the effort into becoming well versed in BSD, and > FreeBSD's > existence is a constant reminder of this. > Interesting analysis. I have noticed some irrationality to many of the arguments made against BSD by the Linux community. I suppose you could have something here. -- Warren Smith warren@wandrsmith.net