Hi Andrew.
This is one question, that needs a bit of work to answer correctly. For
starters, and i start by me, a developer, and internet surfer, I have been
using Linux 100% as my desktop OS for the last 4 Years. The main
functionality is browsing, searching, e-mail, (donload ... not mp3, but
rather documentation, and source code and things like that.) some irc, a bit
of multimedia and on line radio stuff + the development part, that would
consist of ide/prog.editor (there are a few) compiler/s interpreter/s and a
good set of utils and debuggers. I say 4 years i never felt the need to boot
windows, ever, to accomplish any task that i found myself needing to do. The
last 2 years have brought forth some of the heavier desktop applications like
OpenOffice.org , koffice and abiword, not like i would be using them all that
often, but are sure very good to have.
Now, this being my subjective opinion, i dont see, why a certain percentage of
people would not agree with my statements, lets assume 20%, this is just an
assumption. To truly answer this question, we need to do 3 things:
-1- Get a reasonable sample of users from all walks of life, not just
programmers and system administrators and geeks, but indeed people
from all walks of life. A reasonable sample would be 6-8 from each walk of
life. Give them a computer loaded with Linux as a desktop, and tell them to
try using it, and if they have problems, just call us. We do this for say 6
month, and after the period of time we would do the following:
-2- Ask them, how long did it take them to
(A) Not use Windows do do what they needed do do.
(B) When was the point, when they felt proficient enough to not call us for
help. and
(C) Or did they just gave up upon the first hurdle, and never tried again.
-3- We need to analyze the windows-use incidents (in a factual sense), the
questions asked on the phone, and note (C) reasons that proved too much for
the respective users.
Now i am sure, a study conducted in this manner, and i am sure, a
market-researcher would agree, would give good indications as to the
suitability of a product (Linux) for a purpose (Desktop).
I think, bringing up the question prior, or without a study like this could
only result in a futile , long discussion without conclusive results.
I am all for doing a study like that, a i think there might be some takers
regarding the resources needed to conduct it.
I hope this was useful.
Cheers
Szemir
On August 12, 2004 21:21, Andrew Graupe wrote:
> Since I am told linux is ready for the desktop, I've been thinking about
> converting Windows-using family and friends to linux. This has, in
> turn, made me think about what I do on a regular basis to keep my linux
> system working perfectly, which can't exactly be described as
> user-friendly. This brings me to an interesting point: what does "ready
> for the desktop" actually mean?
>
> It is a good-sounding phrase for one thing, but it is ambigous as to
> meaning. Does it mean that linux can be used in a desktop (personal
> daily computing) environment? If so, then linux is definitely ready for
> the desktop. Or does it mean that it is ready for use by the average
> computer user that justs wants to surf the web, check e-mail, and play
> games (collectively, the "Desktop" market, note the capital D)? I would
> argue that linux, although it is good, is not quite there yet.
>
> What are some thoughts on this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clug-talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
_______________________________________________
clug-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
