Sample Letter to Laymen Users Explaining Ubuntu

[bedouin]

Although I'm primarily a user of OS X and Debian, I'm extremely happy about the progress Ubuntu has been making, and I see it soon becoming (if not already) a viable alternative to Windows for common users.

Additionally, I think the philosophy of the project is excellent, which seems to be reflected in the forums and other support avenues. The nature of the project itself moves people away from the "RTFM" attitude.

I'm a member of a number of non-technical mailing lists, and decided I'd draft a letter trying to spread the word about Ubuntu. I did the same in Firefox's early days and found it to be incredibly useful in migrating people away from IE; at the least it peaked people's curiosity. The letter that follows can be used when communicating with non-technical folks about Linux. I forgot to include a link to the free CD program in my first draft, and I also should have provided instructions on how to burn an ISO. Next time.

I hope this can be useful for someone; Linux really needs grassroots advocacy to spread.

---

A new Linux distribution has started to make some inroads, and will likely gain even more popularity since it has been granted $10 million in funding.

If you are new to Linux, Linux is completely free, however it has traditionally been a bit too difficult for average computer users to adopt, despite its technical merits. The Ubuntu project has been developed to allow 'normal' people to try Linux, and subsequently find a free replacement for Windows. Included with the distribution is everything you'd need to have a functional machine: Firefox, IM clients, and full MS Office compatible productivity suite.

You can try Ubuntu without even installing it, albeit at a slower speed by downloading the "Live CD" from the following URL:

http://ubuntu.hands.com/releases/5....4-live-i386.iso (for Intel/AMD hardware)
http://ubuntu.hands.com/releases/5....ive-powerpc.iso (for Macs)

If like what you see, full install CDs can be downloaded here:

http://ubuntu.hands.com/releases/5....nstall-i386.iso (AMD/Intel)
http://ubuntu.hands.com/releases/5....all-powerpc.iso (Mac)

Below are some screenshots of what Ubuntu looks like:

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/screenshots/document_view

And more about the project:

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

If you are tired of viruses, spyware, and general incompetency, yet can't afford a Mac, here is an alternative.

[BWF89]

Sounds cool.

Oh and you got the whole Apple Mac thing confused.

Apple = The computers made by Apple

Mac = The operating system made by Apple

You can't install Ubuntu on a "Mac" because you can't install an operating system on an operating system. But you can install Ubuntu on an Apple because Apple is a computer. Kinda like how you can install Ubuntu on a PC but you can't install Ubuntu on Windows XP.

I have a question about Ubuntu. Does it come with synaptic preinstalled? Or do you have to put "Apt-get install Synaptic" into terminal before?

[ecadre]

* cough Kubuntu cough *

What about that last line, though!!!


If you are tired of viruses, spyware, and general incompetency, yet can't afford a Mac, here is an alternative.

Ubuntu is not some sort of "poor man's" OSX. It is fundamentally different in philosophy and function. I eschew OSX for the same reason that I reject Microsoft, I want my freedom.

You are asking for a real flaming if you ever start sending that letter out.

[TravisNewman]

iMac, eMac, PowerMac, etc etc etc. They are Mac computers as well. The Macintosh is the computer, the MacOS is what's installed on it, they're both made by Apple.

And yes, synaptic is automatically installed. Even on the livecd (though there's not a lot to be done with it there).

[ecadre]

Sounds cool.

Oh and you got the whole Apple Mac thing confused.

Apple = The computers made by Apple

Mac = The operating system made by Apple

You can't install Ubuntu on a "Mac" because you can't install an operating system on an operating system. But you can install Ubuntu on an Apple because Apple is a computer. Kinda like how you can install Ubuntu on a PC but you can't install Ubuntu on Windows XP.

I have a question about Ubuntu. Does it come with synaptic preinstalled? Or do you have to put "Apt-get install Synaptic" into terminal before?

Sorry, you're the confused one. Once upon a time there was a computer called an Apple Macintosh. That name got contracted to Mac and used in different ways in the names of Apple's computer products. Most recently in the names eMac and iMac.

"Mac" also got connected to the operating system name. eg. OS7 for Mac, or Mac OS7.

The word "Mac" therefore gets used in a variety of ways, but the most common is to refer to a "Apple Mac computer", whatever Apple's official name of the computer. It's become a sort of (informal) generic term for Apple computers.

[N'Jal]

This sounds like the
It's not linux, it's GNU/Linux argument really

[ecadre]

This sounds like the argument really

What does :confused:

[N'Jal]

the it's not mac its apple, thing going on here.

[ecadre]

the it's not mac its apple, thing going on here.

Really?

It's rather a side issue in this thread, but all that was being done was to point out the language like wot it is used.

People use the word Mac in ways like: "Do you use a Mac", "I've just bought a Mac", "Can I open this on a Mac". That's it, no politics, just the use of language.

Now, here's the issue I brought up. Do you agree that Ubuntu is a "poor man's" OS X and that it should be promoted as such?

I don't, how about you?

[bedouin]

Ubuntu is not some sort of "poor man's" OSX. It is fundamentally different in philosophy and function. I eschew OSX for the same reason that I reject Microsoft, I want my freedom.

You are asking for a real flaming if you ever start sending that letter out.

I'm not a zealot of any platform, only a proponent of alternatives, because I believe alternatives and moving away from homogenization ultimately leads to opening of standards and heightened innovation. OS X dominating 90% of the desktop market does the world no better than Windows having 90% -- or even Linux. Domination and blind promotion is not what I'm after; I believe the OS market should be diversified just as it was in the 80s.

I don't believe in the absolute perfection of any manmade system or philosophy; Linux is not an absolute prescription anymore than Winodws or OS X is. Philosophies and ideas rarely are adopted in their complete forms; people generally take what is agreeable to their own societies and context and implement them accordingly. That said, the original philosophy must always exist if it's to be useful in any form; once it has been diluted it has no significance, and another will replace it.

So, you're enthusiasm for Linux is acceptable; and my enthusiasm for OS X is acceptable -- because the noise we generate keeps both systems on the radar of the common man. Ultimately, whatever works given an individual's personal context will be accepted; there is not 'one' solution for all. The better man doesn't win, he just has his ideas integrated with another set.

Personally, I use OS X on my PowerMac and iBook. I have an older iMac with Debian, which I use as a server and kitchen kiosk for guests and to listen to webcasts while cooking. When someone sits in front of the iMac to check their E-Mail it raises a number of questions. First, they think the machine looks cool, but expect to encounter a Mac interface -- but don't. Second, they see that checking their E-Mail in Konqueror is pretty easy, and KDE is kind of interesting. That opens a dialogue about Linux, and then I can inform them that they can have the same exact system for free at home.

If you tell me you love Linux, I'm happy for you. If you tell me you love OS X, I'm happy for you. If you tell me you think Windows is great, we'll have to sit down for a while, because a technological hegemony threatens the freedom of how everyone uses their machines. I'm all about alternatives, and I don't care where they come from.

Now, if you wrote the letter you'd come from a different standpoint. Which is why it's a 'sample.' My target audience would generally like a Mac, but isn't ready to make a financial commitment; yours may be different.

And I have sent it out to a couple lists, with no flames in return.

[Lord Illidan]

What about Kubuntu? I find it easier than Ubuntu..

Also, don't forget that there is the question of piracy...You better say that that Ubuntu is perfectly legal to download or people will start asking awkard questions..
Also, I think that the financial problem of installing Windows on a desktop doesn't apply in most countries where bootlegging is the rule of the day..they are the hardest to convince..

[BWF89]

Thanks for explaining about the Mac and Apple thing. I guess I was all wrong on that account.

[bedouin]

What about Kubuntu? I find it easier than Ubuntu..

Also, don't forget that there is the question of piracy...You better say that that Ubuntu is perfectly legal to download or people will start asking awkard questions..
Also, I think that the financial problem of installing Windows on a desktop doesn't apply in most countries where bootlegging is the rule of the day..they are the hardest to convince..

Those are good points. I think I kind of clarified the legality of it by insisting its 'free,' but that means different things to different people.

I'm fond of KDE myself. However, one of the things I appreciate about Ubuntu is that it standardizes on one window manager. If Linux hits the mainstream this dichotomy between KDE and Gnome has to be thrown out the door. It's too confusing for the average person and it just makes things an ascetic nightmare. I just wanted to keep it simple. You have to realize that most people don't even understand the concept of an OS; the idea that a machine they bought for $300 at Target can run something other than Windows is confusing enough. Adding in "And you can choose between KDE, Gnome, Afterstep, etc etc" doesn't help things.

[ecadre]

Thanks for explaining about the Mac and Apple thing. I guess I was all wrong on that account.

no worries, eh ;-)

[tread]

If you are tired of viruses, spyware, and general incompetency, yet can't afford a Mac, here is an alternative.

Ecadre was right, this will cause problems. I personally don't like it, I don't have a Mac but its not because I cannot afford one. Sure, I would prefer to use MacOSX over Windows, but I'd rather use Linux ..

I believe in the right tool for the task philosophy, so I would use a Mac if I was heavily into multimedia stuff. This point is just to show that I am not a zealot .. but even then I would not like to read that statement.

[Lord Illidan]

Those are good points. I think I kind of clarified the legality of it by insisting its 'free,' but that means different things to different people.

I'm fond of KDE myself. However, one of the things I appreciate about Ubuntu is that it standardizes on one window manager. If Linux hits the mainstream this dichotomy between KDE and Gnome has to be thrown out the door. It's too confusing for the average person and it just makes things an ascetic nightmare. I just wanted to keep it simple. You have to realize that most people don't even understand the concept of an OS; the idea that a machine they bought for $300 at Target can run something other than Windows is confusing enough. Adding in "And you can choose between KDE, Gnome, Afterstep, etc etc" doesn't help things.

You could have a couple of screenshots..then ask politely, if they would like Kubuntu or Ubuntu.
Though I really think that they could be integrated in one CD or DVD, not two separate ones..so that people can switch when they are in the mood, not have to install the whole thing by apt-get.

[BWF89]

Ecadre was right, this will cause problems. I personally don't like it, I don't have a Mac but its not because I cannot afford one. Sure, I would prefer to use MacOSX over Windows, but I'd rather use Linux ..
Given the choice I guess I would choose Macintosh over Windows but I really don't like either. I don't like Win because it basically sucks. And I don't like Mac because it's GUI reminds me too much of KDE. And I prefer GNOME over KDE. But since OSX is UNIX based you could install and set GNOME as your Mac's default GUI right?

[ecadre]

bedouin:

Your reply begs a few questions. One is that there is an equivalence between Linux and Microsoft/Apple. the second is that a "90% domination" by Linux would be the same as that by Microsoft.

Microsoft and Apple are monolithic corporations whose only loyalty is to their shareholders, and only aim is to defeat the opposition so that they can lock people into their systems.

The Linux world is very different. It ranges through everything from the Debian Foundation to Novell. There are dozens of different distributions, loads of different desktops, window managers ways of doing things. Then there are the unix systems like FreeBSD, NetBSD etc. and even the GNU Foundation with it's Hurd kernel project.

Who knows what will come next, but if you want to build it, there's no-one to stop you.

It's a world of freedom and innovation that Microsoft and Apple cannot emulate (unless they freed their code). They need to control your freedom for their shareholders profits.

It's not a matter of "I love Linux", or "I love Mac's". That's far too reductive.

[Lord Illidan]

Given the choice I guess I would choose Macintosh over Windows but I really don't like either. I don't like Win because it basically sucks. And I don't like Mac because it's GUI reminds me too much of KDE. And I prefer GNOME over KDE. But since OSX is UNIX based you could install and set GNOME as your Mac's default GUI right?

Why not give reasons why you hate KDE? Just saying that you don't like KDE because you are biased against it is no good, just evangelism..I don't like Gnome because it is antiquated, but I respect it for its semplicity and cleanliness..but I prefer KDE for it's modern looking interface.

[ecadre]

Those are good points. I think I kind of clarified the legality of it by insisting its 'free,' but that means different things to different people.

I'm fond of KDE myself. However, one of the things I appreciate about Ubuntu is that it standardizes on one window manager. If Linux hits the mainstream this dichotomy between KDE and Gnome has to be thrown out the door. It's too confusing for the average person and it just makes things an ascetic nightmare. I just wanted to keep it simple. You have to realize that most people don't even understand the concept of an OS; the idea that a machine they bought for $300 at Target can run something other than Windows is confusing enough. Adding in "And you can choose between KDE, Gnome, Afterstep, etc etc" doesn't help things.

Unfortunately there is an inconsistancy in your argument. You say that you wish for a balanced relationship between Linux, Microsoft and Apple. Then you say


If Linux hits the mainstream this dichotomy between KDE and Gnome has to be thrown out the door.

Why you say that the difference between Apple and Linux is healthy, but that the differences between Gnome and KDE must be crushed "if Linux hits the mainstream" is beyond me.

I think it all stems from a basic misunderstanding of what Linux is. Linux isn't a monolithic corporation touting for the big time. KDE and Gnome aren't in a "till the death" fight, with only one of them being victorious.

Gnome and KDE cooperate over all sorts of things, they both cooperate with the X server people, Linux kernel people etc. etc. Also Gnome and KDE aren't the end of the story, what about all those other desktops?

You may have your ideas about what Linux should be. Fine, go for it. No-ones stopping you, in fact you'll get lots of help and encouragement. I might follow and help, but I might also decide on a different route. That's the freedom of the Linux world.

[BWF89]

Why not give reasons why you hate KDE? Just saying that you don't like KDE because you are biased against it is no good, just evangelism..I don't like Gnome because it is antiquated, but I respect it for its semplicity and cleanliness..but I prefer KDE for it's modern looking interface.
Does it really matter why I dont' like KDE?

But if you must know it's because:

1. It just seems too bloated and complicated. KDE gives you that "This computer is made out of blue plastic" feeling whenever I use it. And I'm not a big fan out of "Wheeeee look at al these shiny icons and menue bars!".

2.Since GNOME is less graphical than KDE it probably runs faster. But I could be wrong on this account.

[ecadre]

Does it really matter why I dont' like KDE?

But if you must know it's because:

1. It just seems too bloated and complicated. KDE gives you that "This computer is made out of blue plastic" feeling whenever I use it. And I'm not a big fan out of "Wheeeee look at al these shiny icons and menue bars!".

2.Since GNOME is less graphical than KDE it probably runs faster. But I could be wrong on this account.

Now, about your criticisms of KDE :mad: ........ er......... ooooh, shiny icon........I wonder what it does?

[bedouin]

Your reply begs a few questions. One is that there is an equivalence between Linux and Microsoft/Apple. the second is that a "90% domination" by Linux would be the same as that by Microsoft.

Microsoft and Apple are monolithic corporations whose only loyalty is to their shareholders, and only aim is to defeat the opposition so that they can lock people into their systems.

If the OS landscape were truly diversified, the idea of lock-in would be fairly non-threatening. When I purchase a Mac I realize that in order to run OS X, I'm locked into Apple hardware; that's okay with me.

The lock-in I'm concerned with can only be propagated by a monopoly, and power corrupts. What I fear, regardless of origin, is the implementation of protocols and formats that allows one entity to dictate how, when, and by what means human communication and exchange of thought occurs. This is the true danger of Microsoft in my eyes.

I'm opposed to any OS being dominant. One OS dominating the desktop makes the work of virus writers, spyware manufactures, and those with ill intentions extremely easy; that's (part) of Microsoft's dilemma right now. Secondly, dominance by its nature eliminates choice. Worse, it eliminates the perception that there even is choice. Sure, there's tons of different distributions -- but what if you abhor the way each and every single one of them functions? What if no window manager seems to fit you in the Linux world? When you're control 90% of the market you have no reason to push boundaries; you become stagnant.

In the general scheme of things though, it is certainly better for Linux, or any other open source OS to be the dominant one.


It's a world of freedom and innovation that Microsoft and Apple cannot emulate (unless they freed their code). They need to control your freedom for their shareholders profits.

I guess the best quote I have here is this:

"An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory."

- Friedrich Engels

When it comes to theory, the open source movement is innovative. The ideology is clear; the ideology is admirable. But when we look at the Linux desktop, there's nothing innovative about it. What has Mac OS or Windows ever borrowed from KDE or Gnome? How about the other way around? Gnome and KDE have an identity crisis; they live in the shadow of becoming 'as good' as OS X or Windows, and that's by itself an obstacle to pushing boundaries.

To make it simple, I want a world where proprietary and open options are readily available, and adapting either doesn't mean locking yourself out of one community or another. If Apple has 25% of the market, Microsoft 25%, Linux 25%, and another OS 25% nobody can really afford to lock out the other -- not in areas that truly count (i.e. cross-platform integration). More importantly, nobody can wholly monopolize standards or lines of communication.

[bedouin]

Why you say that the difference between Apple and Linux is healthy, but that the differences between Gnome and KDE must be crushed "if Linux hits the mainstream" is beyond me.

Choice is good, in situations where choice works to improve function.

In the case of KDE vs. Gnome, it's like walking into a fancy restaurant, ordering steak and lobster, and having the waiter bring your order out on a plastic tray, pouring your wine into paper cups with "Pepsi" written on them.

There's times when I want McDonalds; there's times when I want steak and lobster. I don't want Chicken McNuggets with my Lobster. If I'm a KDE user, any GUI app I use in Linux should be consistent with KDE; the same with Gnome. There's instances where lack of consistency is good, but GUI design is not one of them. That has nothing to do with choice, but understanding human cognition.

[ecadre]

If the OS landscape were truly diversified, the idea of lock-in would be fairly non-threatening. When I purchase a Mac I realize that in order to run OS X, I'm locked into Apple hardware; that's okay with me.

The lock-in I'm concerned with can only be propagated by a monopoly, and power corrupts. What I fear, regardless of origin, is the implementation of protocols and formats that allows one entity to dictate how, when, and by what means human communication and exchange of thought occurs. This is the true danger of Microsoft in my eyes.

I'm opposed to any OS being dominant. One OS dominating the desktop makes the work of virus writers, spyware manufactures, and those with ill intentions extremely easy; that's (part) of Microsoft's dilemma right now. Secondly, dominance by its nature eliminates choice. Worse, it eliminates the perception that there even is choice. Sure, there's tons of different distributions -- but what if you abhor the way each and every single one of them functions? What if no window manager seems to fit you in the Linux world? When you're control 90% of the market you have no reason to push boundaries; you become stagnant.

In the general scheme of things though, it is certainly better for Linux, or any other open source OS to be the dominant one.



I guess the best quote I have here is this:

"An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory."

- Friedrich Engels

When it comes to theory, the open source movement is innovative. The ideology is clear; the ideology is admirable. But when we look at the Linux desktop, there's nothing innovative about it. What has Mac OS or Windows ever borrowed from KDE or Gnome? How about the other way around? Gnome and KDE have an identity crisis; they live in the shadow of becoming 'as good' as OS X or Windows, and that's by itself an obstacle to pushing boundaries.

To make it simple, I want a world where proprietary and open options are readily available, and adapting either doesn't mean locking yourself out of one community or another. If Apple has 25% of the market, Microsoft 25%, Linux 25%, and another OS 25% nobody can really afford to lock out the other -- not in areas that truly count (i.e. cross-platform integration). More importantly, nobody can wholly monopolize standards or lines of communication.

I'm sorry, but this is pure whimsy. OOooh, what if Linux, Apple, and Microsoft had 25% of the market each, and, and, and, what if everybody was nice.

You're quoting Engels. Excellent, his and Marx's analysis of capitalist markets can help here. The endpoint of capitalist competition in commodity production is not diversity, it's monopoly.

Monopoly commodity production of software is used to lock people into certain ways of working, purely for the benefit of the manufacturer. The greatest innovation of free (as in freedom) software is that it de-commoditises the software. We're not going to get "perfection", and certainly not under capitalism, but this goes some way in keeping total control out of the hands of the big corporations.

[bedouin]

You're quoting Engels. Excellent, his and Marx's analysis of capitalist markets can help here. The endpoint of capitalist competition in commodity production is not diversity, it's monopoly.

I agree. But in situations where the capitalist entity is forced to work with others for its own survival isn't its ability to completely corrupt somewhat limited? It almost has to change its role to some extent. Look at Apple. It's still concerned with profit, but forced to abide by certain standards.

You will never eliminate the bad guy, or the greedy guy. All you can do is devise schemes that limit the harm they can do.

[ecadre]

I agree. But in situations where the capitalist entity is forced to work with others for its own survival isn't its ability to completely corrupt somewhat limited? It almost has to change its role to some extent. Look at Apple. It's still concerned with profit, but forced to abide by certain standards.

You will never eliminate the bad guy, or the greedy guy. All you can do is devise schemes that limit the harm they can do.

Sadly, there are no solutions there, just "holding" positions where for a particular reason a corporation is forced to act in a certain way.

Who does this compulsion in the end. Certainly not the state which is in the hands of monopoly capitalism.

Workers organisations (unions etc) have won certain concessions in terms of working rights, better wages and a welfare state, such as it is.

However, these concessions are always under attack. Just look at the world with it's poverty, unemployment, and appalling exploitation.

For me, the corporate control of how I use my computer has lessened with my move on to Linux. It's not the solution to the worlds ills, I still live in a capitalist economy and have to engage with it every day. This is also not a wish to "drop out" of society. We all have obligations, and one of my obligations is social solidarity with other working people (whilst trying to feed, clothe and house myself).

Theory and action go hand in hand. Things will change, it is the only thing that we can guarantee. I don't accept that capitalism can be tinkered about with to make it work more "humanely". Poverty and exploitation are not unfortunate side products of a faulty capitalist system. This is how it's supposed to run!

I'm a socialist and a revolutionary, that, in the end, is what colours my world view.

[polo_step]

If you are tired of...general incompetency...
That part definitely needs to go.

Start talking like that and people may expect the distro to actually work 100% as installed. :-P

I've had at least fifty or a hundred times more headaches getting Linux applications working to adequate functionality than I ever did with XP, and I attribute most of that to incompetent, no-budget, hobbyist programming.

I'm all for Linux, but most Linux apps work about like very early betas. The average XP user will have scant patience with that.

[poptones]

I agree. But in situations where the capitalist entity is forced to work with others for its own survival isn't its ability to completely corrupt somewhat limited? It almost has to change its role to some extent. Look at Apple. It's still concerned with profit, but forced to abide by certain standards.

No, they are not. There are bits and pieces of bsd all through windows and yet microsoft is not in any way "forced" to abide by any standards. Apple could take the entire source tree for its OS off the net tomorrow and no one could do a thing about it, it would essentially "freeze" the open darwin where it is until someone else picked it up. Apple has itunes and commands a huge percentage of the music download market, how "open" are they being with all that?

Apple is an alternative so far as it is not Microsoft. But it is still just another corporation seeking to monopolize its customers. Nothing is "forcing" them to work with the open source community, that is just one more avenue they are seeking to exploit in the race for corporate profits.

[bedouin]

No, they are not. There are bits and pieces of bsd all through windows and yet microsoft is not in any way "forced" to abide by any standards. Apple could take the entire source tree for its OS off the net tomorrow and no one could do a thing about it, it would essentially "freeze" the open darwin where it is until someone else picked it up. Apple has itunes and commands a huge percentage of the music download market, how "open" are they being with all that?

Apple is an alternative so far as it is not Microsoft. But it is still just another corporation seeking to monopolize its customers. Nothing is "forcing" them to work with the open source community, that is just one more avenue they are seeking to exploit in the race for corporate profits.
I suppose the fundamental difference between you and I and is that I believe in a balanced approach to assessing an individual or entity.

There's (rarely) anyone or anything that's wholly good, or wholly bad. You seem to feel that, at least philosophically speaking, Linux is without flaw. Blind following of anything, without questioning it, is not my style.

If I find anyone who follows a straight line of agreement with another man or group's idea(s) I doubt him, no matter which side he's on.

[poptones]

There's (rarely) anyone or anything that's wholly good, or wholly bad. You seem to feel that, at least philosophically speaking, Linux is without flaw.

Then you are doing some very selective reading.

So now who can you trust?