[Lancaster] Re: Help -- Video importing/processing software

[David Jenkinson]

Ken Hough wrote:
> Martyn Welch wrote:

[excuse random snippage]

>>> For now maybe potential converts will be turned off. I don't think 
>>> this is that bigger deal.
>>>
> That's the attitude which irks me. ie 'I won't pay attention to what 
> people actually want, because I know I am right and I'm going to do it 
> my way nomatter what'.

As Richard Robinson said.

> It reminds me of the recent attitude of some well known polititians. 
> They tend not to last very long.

However here there is no concern to win votes. It is not about market 
share, thats a Microsoft goalpost.

>> I'm not sure that easy-of-use is that much of a blocking factor to the 
>> adoption of Linux. I think it is a preconceived notion (usually 
>> derived from windows) of how a computer must work that is the blocking 
>> factor.  
>>
> Call it preconceived, but to the average (non techy) computer user it 
> can only be very significant blocking factor.

Perhaps the amount of Linux users is high enough already, and I just 
don't see the concern people have in getting everyone to use Linux. If 
some don't want to and they have no problem not doing then why try to 
change their attitude?

>> Copying the procedures used by windows (in terms of software 
>> selection/installation hardware support, etc) would probably 
>> accelerate the growth of Linux at the expense of it becoming a 
>> "windows clone".

> If  "Copying the proceedures used by windows...." means making these 
> proceedures easy, then what is wrong with that. AFAIK, nobody in the 
> Linux world has come up with any earth shattering (ie simpler) 
> alternative ways of doing these things.

By trying to convert more Windows users to Linux that means making Linux 
more like Windows. Some of the modern Distros are already uncomfortably 
Microsoftish, and has allowed a lot of people to get into Linux from the 
Windows world :-|

> MS Windows has the front end that it has, because it works, most people 
> like it and it has been developed with that in mind.

The front end was done and dusted before Windows even existed. It was 
old concepts rehashed with Microsofts marketing muscle behind it, 
nothing special. I don't think people like it especially, more so they 
are given it, and have to like it as theres no alternative (for most 
people).

> We are in danger here of trying to invent a new square wheel just to be 
> different, instead of refining an already tried, working and popular 
> round one.

A favourite tactic of many major companies to ensure vendor lock-in. I 
see no problems in Open Source square wheels :-)

>> I agree, though I also remember why I started using Linux - because I 
>> find using windows so frustrating and am prepared to make some 
>> sacrifices in order not to have to live with the frustration.

> You are knowledgable enough to be able to make those sacrifices. Most 
> people are not and do not wish to be. That is not likely to change in 
> the foreseeable future.

Yeah so forget about them. Theres is enough Linux users now to not have 
to worry about gaining more. There is enough  hardware support if you 
are careful about which product you buy, and its better now than its 
ever been. I don't think the sacrifice of making an operating system 
that appeals to the masses to ensure hardware support is worth it. 
Theres no problem in making it difficult enough to use so that the base 
level user is at least able to read a faq before whingeing to the 
developers mailing list. Where's the elitist streak in you?

>>> The hard fact is that most hardware suppliers are NOT going to provide
>>> native Linux drivers any time soon. It's been demonstrated that some 
>>> MS drivers and even MS some applications can be made to run under Linux.
>>> Surely, it must be possible to arrange for most drivers to
>>> cooperate/work with Linux.

>> Possibly. Though many will blame window's stability issues on badly 
>> written drivers. Those drivers would also be useless for anyone using 
>> a non-x86 platform.
>>  

> I'm sure that we could identify a few Linux drivers with problems.

I think a MacOS X compatible driver might be the way to go. If somehow a 
  general unix device driver format could be agreed upon. /dreaming

>> So it works, until you buy a nice new shiny computer with a 64-bit 
>> processor, then you either loose the support for the device which uses 
>> 32-bit drivers or run a 32-bit OS, loosing the advantages of having a 
>> 64-bit processor.
>>
>> Or you decide you want to run Linux on your PowerPC mac. You plug the 
>> camera in and it won't work because the driver has been compiled for 
>> intel hardware.

A shame so much hardware is designed for windows. Its usually the 
cheaper end of the market though ;-)

>> It limits the kernel hackers' ability to debug the kernel - thus 
>> leading to a weaker OS. It limits the platforms on which hardware can 
>> be used - thus limiting the growth of linux. That is why they don't 
>> like them.
>>  
> Yeh! The kernel hackers want a quiet life. Who can blame them, but it's 
> users like me who loose out, and maybe even the spread of Linux in the 
> longer term..

Again, its not about market share.

>>> Let's get Linux noticed and accepted ASAP. Only, then will the major
>>> hardware vendors start to take serious notice.

>> I agree, but I don't think that loads of binary drivers are going to 
>> particularly help in the mid-long term.
>>  
>>
> I've lived long enough to understand that idealisic approaches just do 
> not work, short, mid or long term. Take a look back at history. If 
> nothing else, human attitudes/actions WILL mess things up.

This is an idealistic approach that HAS worked. The current binary 
drivers are something new and are due to the amount of Linux users there 
are today. Be grateful for what we have not what we don't.

Regards.