> I sit on both edges of the OS fence (I use M$ aat work and Linux at home.) > Unfortunately, I can not see giving most of the users I work with any linux > packages at all. They would never get past the installations. Does this > mean they are ignorant. Yep! But, you would not want me doing brain > surgery either. Ignorant doesn't mean stupid but it often means they don't want to know :-) I agree with everything you say about needing to dumb-down Linux if it's going to replace Windows on home machines where the only support is the user. But let me ask you a question. How many of the people you work with could install Win 98 and get stuff like network connections, CDWriter operation and printer support functional without help? I think we sometime overstate the need for an auto-everything install for Linux as in most work environments there are support people who come running if Joe's MS Word won't load properly. We've bred a generation of people who are completely dependent upon tech support to keep the tool that is their livelyhood going. In that context, Linux is often easier for those tech people to maintain so whether the person sits looking at a Linux desktop behind their StarWriter window or W'98 with Word is largely a non-issue. > I think LM should be working towards an "ignorant user" install option as > well (I like the ideas in the previous message!). If you really want to I think you're right but it's a tough call what to include/exclude. The silly thing is that the first things the "ignorant" ones want to do is play music, games and connect to napster. I do believe that dumping the wide variety of interfaces would be a huge step forward. A simple "KDE vs Gnome/Enlightnement" option would make things much easier. Cheers --- Larry
Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.
