> The argument that Linux MUST have windows like win-95 to be
> popular is to say that win-95 is good.
>
No, it means that several win95 (just GUI and standard widget set)
features are necessary for the layman to adopt Linux as a desktop OS.
One can argue that Linux doesn't need these features (and he will be
right), but because a nice, standard look-and-feel seems to be the thing
these days (after all, who goes to the Ma and Pop sub shop when Subway is
right across the street?) Linux distributions ought to adopt a standard
desktop environment. The desktop environment ought to encompass all of the
niceties of Windows, Mac, NeXT, and any other GUI's that have a nice
look-and-feel.
KDE currently fills most of the criteria for making Linux a viable
desktop OS -- even for the stupidest end user. Like any good software, KDE
interweaves the best features of other software (win95 included). It is not
a concession that win95 is better (or even that win95 is good), but rather
an admission that aspects of Windows are useful (which they are).
Anyways, it's a silly argument (apples (LInux) and stale oranges
(Windows)).
Andrew
