Hi ! > My opinion is that if you don't care about > technical basics you shouldn't use a computer.
IMHO, computers are mostly used as tools by a vast majority of people all around the world. But using a tool doesn't mean you have to understand or care about all the underlying technical issues. When I use a screwdriver or a hammer, I don't think about physical material resistance issues. Of course, I could break my screwdriver trying something too hard for it. But if I stick to a normal, basic use of my tool, it shouldn't break. And I souldn't have to care about all the technical basis behind it. In fact, my screwdriver is a very nice tool, indeed. Most of the time, if I do something foolish with it, let's say, use its stick as a hammer, it may not work very well (it's not what it has been designed for) but will not break either. You can't ask a secretary to understand all the complexity of a linux system. You can't even ask her to use a shell, nor anything like vi or latex or anything else. This is not HER job. She just needs a tool, a tool providing her what she needs for her daily work, a tool that does not break up in her hands while just using basis functions, nor doing something reasonably foolish. I, as a computer engineer, can understand most of the subtle technical issues of a linux system. I can deal with lots of problems. Hell, I can even use VI to modify a configuration file, or personalize my enlightenment desktop down to any pixel... But I agree with the author of the debated article : linux is not yet a tool that can be put in the hands of end-users. Not that the end-users are too stupid to use it, but linux is just not mature enough for that. Best regards, Frederic Aguiard
