I've been having problems with Firefox on Ubuntu turning black and white now and again. From what I've read this seems to be related to Flash sites, some graphics cards can't run them properly in Ubuntu so they reduce the number of colours. However, it's not a huge problem, and it isn't what I wanted to talk about in this thread.

Here's the main topic: what fascinated me was what people were saying about this problem on Ubuntu-related forums I searched.

An awful lot of messages about this bug were along the lines of "Flash is proprietary software, we don't deal with that" or "It's Adobe's problem" or even "Flash is the cancer of the web"!

Is this kind of attitude really going to help Ubuntu and Linux spread into the mass market and replace Windows?

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the ideal that open standards are much better for everyone in the long run, but there has to be a measure of pragmatism alongside such idealism. The bottom line is that if Ubuntu can't run Flash sites as well as Windows, even when they're using the same Firefox browser, then people will be encouraged to stick with Windows.

And another home truth: In theory Adobe should fix this, but considering how small Ubuntu's market share is, are they really likely to give this priority? As a commercial company they're probably not going to do anything about it, so the most realistic way to fix things is for Ubuntu to deal with whatever quirks Flash contains.

I really really want to see people switching from Windows to Linux, but one of the things holding this back seems to be an irrational hatred of anything proprietary.

For Linux to succeed it has to be used by people who neither know nor care about open source software, and those kinds of people will be put off using Linux if they see Windows doing things better (such as handling Flash websites properly).

The point you miss, and the main reason why many companies do not wholesale convert to linux/oss instead of Windows systems, is that Linux and OSS do not, as a rule, come with a comprehensive technical support system. Companies pay big money to MS and various software manufacturers in order to have support (or even 24-hour emergency support) to which their underqualified IT staff can refer actual problems for resolution.

When companies are willing/able to spend decent money to hire qualified individuals for their entire IT staff, who can research and repair all sorts of system issues on their own without a backbone of help desk support from the OS software vendor, then you can see them work towards Linux/OSS for the vast majority of workstations on their networks.

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer: I'm talking about ordinary consumers, not corporate users. People at companies seldom get to choose the OS they use, it's normally a decision made at management level.

You're right that companies need more support, but ordinary people usually manage with forums like this one and with the support lines of hardware vendors.

Exactly. The ones (usually) least likely to have the knowledge/capability to make the decision, let the software vendors (and their salespeople) make the decision for them.

...and, companies don't really need more support, per se... they just need more of the same exact support that individual users would need, as there are more individual users (ordinary people, if you will) within the company structure. The whole idea of having a team of qualified, knowledgeable folks in the IT/MIS department is so that each and every person within the company doesn't have to be a "computer wizard" or otherwise have to rely on their own resources and ingenuity to solve problems on their assigned workstation(s). Those (IT/MIS) people can easily, as their jobs would require, become the proxy for scanning forums and calling hardware vendors on behalf of the population of users within their company. (Incidentally, this is predominantly how IT/MIS departments functioned, prior to the introduction of Windows and the proliferation of computers throughout the workplace. Unfortunately, instead of expanding that model and increasing IT/MIS staff as the ratio of workstations to employees neared 1:1 within the company, a new support model was created ...and that support was dutifully supplied [for a price!] by the software vendor that enabled the situation in the first place.)

I don't think it is a problem of OSS in general. Some distros are very hardcore FOSS while others, like Linux Mint, take a more pragmatic approach in terms of including proprietary software. I think it is a good thing to make people think about how proprietary software can have real disadvantages for them, and that is not just some abstract philosophical issue.

You could argue that people should put their principles aside for a while to get a bigger marketshare. But the risk of becoming dependent on some proprietary technology is always there. Be it dotnet/mono, or some protocol or file format.

1) I'm looking at the next version of the EEE PC (for the simple reason that my N800 doesn't make comfortable reading with such a small screen. But I still love it, of course).

And I think I'll end up with the Windows version for the simple reason that I can't watch my live streaming video from my Major League Baseball subscription on any of the Linux players.

It's a simple as that, but as elemental as that; not being able to have what some web sites require you to have to do what you want (and, in my case, I'm paying for).

Equally as simple and elemental is my loathing of Windows - which explains why I'm even debating whether to get the Windows-installed version of the EEE PC instead of rushing joyfully to the Linux version and saying 'to Hell with my want of live streaming video!' and debating that if I have to spend that much $$ on the new EEE PC with Windows, I might as well spend a couple hundred more and get a decent used Macbook that can handle the same tasks (at a slighly heavier weight and slightly more awkward size).

'Course. Um... if someone figures out how to put a fairly new Mac OS on the EEC PC, I'd be very very happy... .

2) Also, from a non-Linuxian point of view, I find this whole 'post something in a repository and announce to world without adequate instructions 'cause I'm *so* finished with this project' kind of frustrating.

I'm not an idiot, I can figure things out (mostly) and I'm grateful to get things for free but I do think there's definitely a computer-cultural barrier between 'normal folks' like me and some Linux developers who offer up applications with little or no useful or helpful instructions.

Going to an online public forum for help should *not* be the first course of action when you're trying to figure out a question. The 'Help' file or the homepage of the website should be and the answer should be there - if only in a FAQ page.

I guess this is the 'corporate clients need technical support' brought down to the individual :-)

You have to *want* to understand and work with Linux and most people don't want to put in the time or effort to do that. They want to turn on their computer and make things happen with a few clicks in an intuitive way and not blow time and brain cells trying to figure out how to go to root or learning some basic coding language and fiddle with things.

So. Yeah. Seems there's a fundamental disconnect between technically-disinclined potential users and being able to properly use the free stuff.

3) The development of programs, themes and overall useability is so scattershot because there isn't a Grand Plan since development seems entirely based on the personal interest of developers (not necessarily users).

To wit: the wonderous Statusbar Clock by fiferboy. Um. The clock *should* have been a no-brainer basic inclusion for the tablet. Why did someone have to develop it so far down the line? Personal Menu? Same thing.

ThemeMaker should also have been an obvious application to develop at the inception of the tablets and not dependent on someone getting the time and skill together to do it at a later date. Both of the developers should have been paid for their efforts, too, to get those applications out in a far more timely fashion instead of waiting for the Tablet Gods to poke fiferboy and Kontorri et al. on the shoulder and whispered into their ear, "hey... think you can...?"

It just seems that most consumers/clients/normal folk want an integrated, holistic approach to the tablet experience and what Linux seems to provide is a smattering of very smart basic stuff that doesn't always get released in a linear or on a logical schedule and a whole lotta geeky stuff (blessed be the Geeks, I say!)that answer very specific needs of the developer's interest.

I guess Linux answers the needs of a few techie users while Windows and OS X answers the wants of a whole lot of users who are actually willing to pay (mostly).

Oh, dear. The caffeine rush just ended... think I'll fall asleep under my desk now.

:::end of ramble:::

The other problem in the corporate world is that Microsoft has taken over most University computer science departments (just look at all of the "thanks to Microsoft for their generous support in the construction of this wing" and the fact that they either entirely or virtually give away software in the University environment, so that they have tech students "locked in" to the "Microsoft Way" by graduation. That is, of course, "buy Microsoft and pay someone else to do the heavy lifting so I don't really have to understand what is really going on". I work for a State government, and if it wasn't for .Net and Windows server, the entirety of State government would grind to a halt. It's really sad what this state is throwing away on Microsoft and other proprietary support. And decisionmakers (and I am one) live on such a short tenure that it does not "pay" (at least in the political short-term) to make the investment necessary to retrain the IT staff so they really can do some things themselves. OK, now my rant is over. . .(!)

Erm, I think we're missing the point here by discussing corporate/university policy, that wasn't what the original post was about.

The question in the original post was to do with Linux enthusiasts' attitudes to supporting proprietary standards.

The problem in a nutshell: Potential home users of Linux going to be put off switching to Linux if it can't run Flash sites as well as Windows, but Flash is a proprietary standard which open source enthusiasts often hate.


I do agree that people should think about these issues, especially when you consider how much money people could save with OSS, but I don't think leaving out support does make people think.

Ordinary users would just assume that the lack of support for a common proprietary standard is a defect. They would say something like "It doesn't run YouTube? I'm not using it then!" and go and buy a commercial product instead.

Most people don't know what "open source" means, because it only has significance if you're familiar with the basics of software development. A lot of people think it just means "freeware".


You're right, this is a question of balance. Proprietary support brings market share but erodes the advantages of OSS. You need both in order to succeed.

Look, if Flash is broken (and it is; the Linux version sets the standard for buggy, proprietary software), it doesn't matter what attitude we have; it's still broken.

If, otoh, Flash weren't broken, it wouldn't matter what attitude we have; no one would be bringing it up, so they wouldn't know we hate it.

There are attitudes about open-source software, too; I hate KDE's guts out of habit. (It used to be abominably slow, though in my experience it has been sped and GNOME slowed, so now I hate them both.) But when people have KDE problems, I ignore it, and K people can help them. It's when people can't help, and are still pestered with pleas for help, that they let fly with (apparently) newb-scaring vitriol.

@krisse: You do get some (a lot of) zealotry on forums, but I think the dislike for closed source software from actual Ubuntu developers probably stems from them being stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they have users with pitchforks screaming "Why is flash broken on teh Ubuntuz?!" and on the other hand they have Adobe saying "Well, it's not really worth our time to look into that. Good luck!" Even if an Ubuntu dev had the technical knowledge to fix flash their hands are likely tied without access to the Adobe Flash source code. The flash plugin is basically a separate application that is embedded in the browser. It is the thing that draws pixels on your screen (or hangs uselessly, or doesn't play sound). In many cases there is just no way to work around its brokenness.

To sum it up: New Linux users often tend to be open source zealots just because they think it's cool. Long time Linux users are often heavily pro-open source because they got screwed over one too many times by proprietary software and were left to pick up the pieces themselves when the software vendor decided they didn't want to cater to the Linux using market.

Anyways, I'm curious what you would do in a situation like this. If you were a volunteer developer, stuck shipping broken commercial software, because "everyone needs it" with known problems that you had no way to fix, what would you say to users?

-John

PS: As for the actual point about flash, something is being done. People are working on an open source flash player.