"..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hardly. More along the lines of sheeple liking a pretty GUI, and right now there
> are no alternatives in their eyes. Show most users a *NIX box and they're gonna
> ask you why you're still using DOS... (True, I know a few that actually said that...)
I can vouch for this. When a certain healthcare institution installed
a computer program which basically handles email (poorly), physician's
orders (poorly), charting (poorly), resource requests (poorly),
emergency functions (so badly that they've forbidden themselves from
using it during emergencies), etc. there was, understandably, much
complaining from the staff. This system runs on AIX on an RS/6000.
Soon people started trying to show off their vast expertise and
knowledge of all things related to computers. Actually, they showed
off their lack thereof.
One person claimed that the program was running on DOS, and that was
the problem. Of course, it isn't the problem and *we* know it, but
these people apparently didn't. When it was explained to this person
that it was running on AIX and not DOS, he claimed that AIX came from
DOS. When it was explained that AIX came from UNIX and is a variety of
UNIX, he said that UNIX came from DOS. When it was explained that a
long, long time ago DOS actually came from CP/M... Ugh, I can't go on.
Another person tried to convince us that it was possible to easily
install foolproof security on a Windows 95 box. Several weeks later, a
program was installed on the machines which disallow the changing of
desktop settings which means that several of the machines were caught
in very annoying states, and which removed the "Run" setting from
the Start Menu. A password system was set up where people are supposed
to "log in" to the network using their own ID before using it, so that
they can track usage. The machines were proclaimed secure. Yet:
1) You can still boot from a floppy.
2) Nobody ever logs *out*. They're too inept to do it,
and even if they knew how they wouldn't do it because
the machines now take about 7 minutes to boot instead
of the still-unacceptable 3 minutes. As a result,
any tracking functions are worthless and data had from
them is invalid.
3) One can right-click on the desktop and set up a shortcut
to COMMAND.COM.
4) The control panel's "add and remove software" option is
wide open as are others.
5) Windows doesn't have filesystem security, so it isn't
surprising that it's very easy to disable the "security"
program: just break something it depends on.
Another person claimed that DOS has always had networking abilities,
and that Windows' networking capabilities are actually done through
"DLL bridges with DOS." This person doesn't even know what a DLL is.
If these people are educated people who are pushing pills, I'm
not doubting that the tech support horror stories of people doing
stupid things like using their CD-ROM tray for a cup holder are all
true.
> Truth is, *NIX is too powerful - they fear the command prompt. The reason Apple's
>MacOS has
> failed is that they price their hardware out of the range of most buyers (and its a
>closed
> platform - where have all the 3rd party mobos gone?).. Rhapsody has failed for the
>same
> reason. BeOS has hope, but it is too obscure with too little application support
>right now.
> Its not that there isn't a free market right now, its that nobody has stepped up to
>make a better OS (in the eyes
> of the sheeple). Consider your facts straightened. ;p
>From what I've heard of BeOS, it also has little security to speak
of, and is somewhat closed as well.
I'd like to see a secure, powerful, non-dumbed-down, reasonably priced
operating system which comes with basic applications. Unfortunately,
whenever commercial entities tend to get involved source and design
specs seem to be closed, which blows security and extensibility right
out of the water.
Between the two of us, we've just highlighted the main reasons that
these operating systems are at odds and will always be: they cater to
different audiences. Windows caters to people who are stupid[1], MacOS
does something similar[1], and UNIX caters to people who know what
they're doing, need stability, need power, need extensibility, and
aren't scared of a command line.
[1] That isn't to say that every user who uses Windows (or to a lesser
extent MacOS) is stupid. It's pretty undeniable that Windows caters to
that kind of audience, though. If even 10% of the users are raging
morons, this bleeds over, simply because of economics. Intelligent
people will use the software if it's on an OS designed for the stupid,
but stupid people *can't* use the software if it isn't. So the company
can get both markets.
An interesting aside to this: If the average person isn't a little
mentally deficient in this regard, how are the sales of books like
"Word for Dummies" (or "Linux for Dummies" for that matter) and
"Windows 98 for Dummies" explained? They've made a killing on these
books.
Abusive OS holy war flames to /dev/null.
