And why do I actually use Linux?
I could not resist writing, having read the opinion of habravchaninin redlaber on this topic.
I’ll sayright away that I ’m writing this post is not an invite for the sake of (although I’m glad to that), but in order to share my opinion, which is very different from redlaber. And even not only for this reason, but also because for some reason I almost never meet such an opinion, but it should be, if not the only correct one, then in my opinion very close to the reference one.
All discussions about “why Linux” are discussed to discussing the merits of Linux as compared with the de facto microsoft monopoly and with much PR and (and maybe not even because, but not excluding it, Linux has no PR ) makosyu. They discuss how safe it is, how fast it is, optimal, how well it is planned and how everything is there for people. But for some reason they don’t understand the most important point: for me there can be no question “why Linux?”, Only the question “and why is something different?” Is relevant.
What should be so special about the microsoft or apple operating system that I give up the greatest value in this world - my own freedom - to use them? And to a lesser extent, but also - for what purpose should I spend a decent bunch of money on the purchase of (not needed) rights to use the (unnecessary) program? And only if the words in brackets can be removed - the purchase and use of these licenses are justified. This is, from a clothing point of view, as the purchase of an expensive and complex tool - “why buy a milling machine if you can just get by with a knife?”. And perhaps even more precisely - “why buy and equip a whole room for milling, turning and drilling machines, if all you need is to whip out a wooden soldier?”.
')
By the way, I myself use these Windows, but because my work is related to testing toys and it just so happens that under Vain they do not start right away, and I don’t have to test them for compatibility with it (and they pay little for it) . Well, I also want to play with toys. I don’t have a poppy, although I tried to use it (it was a macbook, I borrowed it from a friend during a couple of months in need, but it turned out half a year).
I believe that there is no point in abandoning one’s own freedom, even especially in the case of using a computer (or any other technique or thing in general) and if one can use something without restricting one’s freedom - one should not restrain one’s freedom.
And, it seems to me, it is worth reminding Habra readers why Linux are so good, fast, safe, optimal, well-organized, for people with soul and for the soul:
It is precisely because Linux (as, ideally, everything that concerns GNU) is done for the Soul — that is, unlike commercial software (whether paid or free, which does not cease to be commercial from its gratuitousness), which is the subject of discussion, Linux ( yes yes, I do not mean operating systems based on gnu / linux software inventions, but in principle free software, calling it such a semi-slang “Linux”) are not created for profit, but for themselves (this is just the idea ).
And unlike companies developing something for money (or for some other benefit), Linux developers themselves benefit not from money and not from the amount of sales or advertising, but from the fact that their development is getting better. Because they did it for themselves for some reason. She needed them. And if the development they need becomes better, they benefit from it. And if they just use it a lot, there is no use. If there are competent and competent people who will at least send bug reports, then yes, there is a benefit. And if just housewives - no good.
And because Linux is so good, fast, safe, optimal, well-organized, for people, with soul and for the soul - because it is beneficial for developers to be such. Unlike commercial developers, which of course is beneficial, so that it seemed so, thereby increasing ratings, sales and other indicators that they are striving to achieve. For they make the product not for themselves . Yes, it is possible that in some cases they will really make a good product for a good look, but this will not give a soul to it (although this is probably not enough for anyone to be the determining factor) and this does not exclude the possibility of imaginary quality. And even if in some cases Linux turns out to be worse than commercial software (sometimes it happens, although quite rarely ... the truth is in terms of toys is a misfortune) - they do not turn out that way intentionally and in any case do not lose the idea and soul may be a good reason to use commercial products).
The company, which is very tired of 1s with its monopoly, took and spent a lot of money on the development of an accounting management system. And made this project free. It may seem to some that this company is either overwhelmed by kindness and hippies and wants to make a gift to the whole world, or that these are formalities for meeting any conditions of one of the modules included in the structure or that it is going to compete with 1c. But the point is that this company does not need anything other than a really good accounting management system, and at the same time its director is quite a competent and intelligent person. And he understands that how to do this system for yourself using your own resources - you can attract external forces of free developers and make it even better and more efficient and do not care if other companies get a good system at their expense - it won’t lose. But if at least one person in the world writes at least one bug reporter - from this will come. And only for the sake of this alone is it worthwhile to make any project free. And everyone will love and respect this office, and a monument to her will be erected and not a goal, but a rather pleasant surprise.
And the essence of my opinion is that the reasons named redlaber are in fact a natural consequence of the basic ideas so actively promoted by Richard. Unfortunately, too much attention is paid to his fanaticism and too few people see the essence of his ideas. But maybe it is for the better.
And because he does not need it. It so happens that the useful people in the world are 5%, and 95% are the rest. 5% produce, 95% - consume. Commercial offices benefit from consuming, Linux from manufacturing. Therefore, Linux is simply not profitable to be popular - too many resources will go to filter badly designed bug reports.
And if Linux does become so popular in wide circles, then it will not be Linux.
I apologize in advance if this paragraph seems to someone too sharp. Yes, he is harsh, but I wish you all good and ask you to treat him with understanding.
About comparing target audiences:
In addition to the last thought before bedtime, by “Linux” I understand free software ideological and free software non-software projects. It is ideological. And really free, and not just open source.
Windows and microsoftware means non-free products, including free products, including open products.
Under "poppies" and "apples" - not free image and usually paid products, but still image.
I’ll say
Deployed part
All discussions about “why Linux” are discussed to discussing the merits of Linux as compared with the de facto microsoft monopoly and with much PR and (and maybe not even because, but not excluding it, Linux has no PR ) makosyu. They discuss how safe it is, how fast it is, optimal, how well it is planned and how everything is there for people. But for some reason they don’t understand the most important point: for me there can be no question “why Linux?”, Only the question “and why is something different?” Is relevant.
What should be so special about the microsoft or apple operating system that I give up the greatest value in this world - my own freedom - to use them? And to a lesser extent, but also - for what purpose should I spend a decent bunch of money on the purchase of (not needed) rights to use the (unnecessary) program? And only if the words in brackets can be removed - the purchase and use of these licenses are justified. This is, from a clothing point of view, as the purchase of an expensive and complex tool - “why buy a milling machine if you can just get by with a knife?”. And perhaps even more precisely - “why buy and equip a whole room for milling, turning and drilling machines, if all you need is to whip out a wooden soldier?”.
')
By the way, I myself use these Windows, but because my work is related to testing toys and it just so happens that under Vain they do not start right away, and I don’t have to test them for compatibility with it (and they pay little for it) . Well, I also want to play with toys. I don’t have a poppy, although I tried to use it (it was a macbook, I borrowed it from a friend during a couple of months in need, but it turned out half a year).
Begin to conclude
I believe that there is no point in abandoning one’s own freedom, even especially in the case of using a computer (or any other technique or thing in general) and if one can use something without restricting one’s freedom - one should not restrain one’s freedom.
I continue to conclude, it turns out already something on another topic
And, it seems to me, it is worth reminding Habra readers why Linux are so good, fast, safe, optimal, well-organized, for people with soul and for the soul:
It is precisely because Linux (as, ideally, everything that concerns GNU) is done for the Soul — that is, unlike commercial software (whether paid or free, which does not cease to be commercial from its gratuitousness), which is the subject of discussion, Linux ( yes yes, I do not mean operating systems based on gnu / linux software inventions, but in principle free software, calling it such a semi-slang “Linux”) are not created for profit, but for themselves (this is just the idea ).
And unlike companies developing something for money (or for some other benefit), Linux developers themselves benefit not from money and not from the amount of sales or advertising, but from the fact that their development is getting better. Because they did it for themselves for some reason. She needed them. And if the development they need becomes better, they benefit from it. And if they just use it a lot, there is no use. If there are competent and competent people who will at least send bug reports, then yes, there is a benefit. And if just housewives - no good.
And because Linux is so good, fast, safe, optimal, well-organized, for people, with soul and for the soul - because it is beneficial for developers to be such. Unlike commercial developers, which of course is beneficial, so that it seemed so, thereby increasing ratings, sales and other indicators that they are striving to achieve. For they make the product not for themselves . Yes, it is possible that in some cases they will really make a good product for a good look, but this will not give a soul to it (although this is probably not enough for anyone to be the determining factor) and this does not exclude the possibility of imaginary quality. And even if in some cases Linux turns out to be worse than commercial software (sometimes it happens, although quite rarely ... the truth is in terms of toys is a misfortune) - they do not turn out that way intentionally and in any case do not lose the idea and soul may be a good reason to use commercial products).
Hypothetical example
The company, which is very tired of 1s with its monopoly, took and spent a lot of money on the development of an accounting management system. And made this project free. It may seem to some that this company is either overwhelmed by kindness and hippies and wants to make a gift to the whole world, or that these are formalities for meeting any conditions of one of the modules included in the structure or that it is going to compete with 1c. But the point is that this company does not need anything other than a really good accounting management system, and at the same time its director is quite a competent and intelligent person. And he understands that how to do this system for yourself using your own resources - you can attract external forces of free developers and make it even better and more efficient and do not care if other companies get a good system at their expense - it won’t lose. But if at least one person in the world writes at least one bug reporter - from this will come. And only for the sake of this alone is it worthwhile to make any project free. And everyone will love and respect this office, and a monument to her will be erected and not a goal, but a rather pleasant surprise.
Quite conclusion
And the essence of my opinion is that the reasons named redlaber are in fact a natural consequence of the basic ideas so actively promoted by Richard. Unfortunately, too much attention is paid to his fanaticism and too few people see the essence of his ideas. But maybe it is for the better.
After the conclusion: why Linux will never become popular
And because he does not need it. It so happens that the useful people in the world are 5%, and 95% are the rest. 5% produce, 95% - consume. Commercial offices benefit from consuming, Linux from manufacturing. Therefore, Linux is simply not profitable to be popular - too many resources will go to filter badly designed bug reports.
And if Linux does become so popular in wide circles, then it will not be Linux.
one more thought and everything, go to sleep
I apologize in advance if this paragraph seems to someone too sharp. Yes, he is harsh, but I wish you all good and ask you to treat him with understanding.
About comparing target audiences:
- The target audience of Windows is people with money, who spend this money on Windows and related products, because so are the Windows benefits. The target share of the Windows audience, in my opinion, is somewhere from 5% to 50%, for there are a lot of freeloaders who are not the target audience. And I don’t carry myself to it, because of the products of the microsoft I have bought only a few windows (at a minimum) and some toys.
- The target audience of apples is people with a lot of money who willingly spend this money on all sorts of farting buttons for iPhones and other useful things. The target audience of apples, in my humble opinion, is from 30 to 80%, because there are a significant number of people who bought an iPhone under the contract and used a jailbreak, or hackintoshire or just people who received this poppy rich friends and who have money for additional there is no comfort. But there are still people who use apples because they need it for some reason (even if it’s for the image or just like the color) - much more than vinduzyatniki.
- The target audience of Linux is the developers and testers of all directions, from programmers and usability designers to painters and coders, from professional testers to geeks who simply correctly execute bug reports. In my humble opinion, the Linux audience is the most targeted, although some commercial organizations tend to add non-target consumers to it.
Instead of PS
In addition to the last thought before bedtime, by “Linux” I understand free software ideological and free software non-software projects. It is ideological. And really free, and not just open source.
Windows and microsoftware means non-free products, including free products, including open products.
Under "poppies" and "apples" - not free image and usually paid products, but still image.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/118340/
All Articles