gers.edu
>
> Now hold it there,
>
> I can understand a few people whining about computer illiterates and MS,
> but
> calling them idiot -by describing their behavior idiocy, is completely
> outta
> line.
>
Agreed
>
> I built my computer myself, used to have 4 OSs on my custom box and
> consider
> myself an advanced user if not accomplished one, but unlike you all, I
> don't
> think every computer user has to be computer literate.
>
Also agreed
>
> Computer are nothing more than devices that supposed to make the life
> easier
No. Compuers are ment to process information, not to make your life
easier.
Cars are not ment to make your life easier. They are ment to
get you from point A to point B. If you must get from point A to
point B, then a car will simplify this task.
> just like your car does. You get in your car start the engine and drive,
> you
> don't give damn about inner workings of a diesel engine. Infact most
> drivers
> can't tell the engine from the battery. Cool thing is they don't need
> to. Who
> gives a damn!!! They just drive the thing and when the thing get screwed
> up they
> take the damn thing to garage and have it fixed. And that's how/why
> technicians
> get paid. Most of you are computer professionals I believe, you should
> respect
> this fact, it is those idiots who are paying your salary.
>
> I personally, looking at the current state of linux, don't see any use
> of it for
> an average computer user. The reason MS sells is that they make their OS
> so even
> an idiot can make use of it and use it.
>
> Why are you people are so much concerned about an OS which you'll never
> use? If
> you think Windows sucks, don't use it. That is understandable. But why
> complain
> about it?
That is not what we are complaining about, or at least it isn't what
I'm complaining about. (this message is a response to a response to my
post, so I can include myself now :) ).
What I was complaining about was a suggestion that for linux to reach
a wider user-base, it must adopt the Win '95 interface. As you said
above: "If you don't like Windows, don't use windows."
I agree. No one is shoving windows down my throat.
However, it has been suggested that Linux become more Windows95-like.
This I object to. The message that I originally responded to did just
that.
> I don't like Windows95/98 myself(check my sig.) because I find
> them
> incomplete, as in my opinion a complete OS should have features like
> multiusership, a web and ftp server and all other networking
> capabilities,
> -which admittedly Win95/98 are missing. But NT on the other hand, has
> that great
> GUI interface that linux people were not able to get even close to yet
> and not
> all that terrible, at least have a http/ftp server built-in and buncha
> other
> networking stuff.
>
Listen up, as this is the last time I say this:
The GUI interface, in unix (and therefore: Linux) is
INDEPENDENT OF LINUX.
It is an application, all be it an importaint one.
If you don't like the GUI, you can get another one.
If you don't like the selection of current Window Managers,
write one yourself.
If you insist on a Win95 interfave, try fvwm95.
However, if by interface you mean consistency across applications
you have a point: not all applications have a consistent interface.
But remember: different people have different opinions about what
makes a good GUI interface. And many of these different people
write different applications. Therefore: you get different application
interfaces. There is an ongoing effort to get some consistency
accross applications and the various Window Managers
You should check out KDE, GNOME, et al.
So I agree: a good/solid/consistent GUI is desireable.
I only object to people posting to this list saying that
little is being done in this area: Check out KDE and GNOME.
I also object to people assuming that the Win95 interface is the
answer to getting a wider-user base. Many people have created
windowmanagers with the intent of being good/solid GUIs. If
it is believed that Win95 is a good interface, then you will
see aspects of the Win95 GUI appear in more windowmanagers.
> I think the needs should be the number 1 concern here. Why is it you
> want a
> computer? What are you planning to do with it? What are your and your
> companies
> needs? The answers to these questions should lead a computer user to
> correct OS,
> and for the rest of us it is Win95/98/NT.
>
> If you're going to do some word processing, surf the web, need
> multimedia
> capabilities, home entertainment etc., it is Win95/98 you're looking
> for. If you
> have some programming/networking needs and want a more stable OS go for
> NT. As
> these 3 OS are now industry standards, supported by all (major)hardware
> companies out there, and there are sh*t load of software available for
> these.
> Win95/98/NT answers the needs of most computer users that's why they
> have an
> awesome market share, esp. in home computing.
>
Linux has already proven that It can do all of the stuff you've just
mentiond. Just about anyone who is familiar with win95/98/NT and Linux
will tell you it is a FAR more stable platform. Networking has been
one area where Linux shines over any of the Windows varieties.
There is also a Sh*t load of software for Unix/Linux.
Networking tools, Networking Applications, Games, word processors,
Office Suites, Multimedia Applications, and more developement tools
than you can count. Is it any wonder why so many companies
are porting their software to Linux?
> Only if your needs are so special, if you need something more
> configurable
> (therefor not pre configured), if you think you have guts and knowledge
> to get
> it done, get it work; then go for linux.
>
got to disagree with you there. My main use for Linux is using the Web,
email, programming, etc. nothing "special". But I chose Linux over NT
beacuse I prefer the stability and reliability of Linux. Besides, if
something goes wrong, I think you'll find Linux tech support more
knowlegable nad helpful. I have.
>
> I also think that we all should face the fact that it is only computer
> hobbiests(commonly called geeks) and computer professionals who have
> enough time
> to deal with linux. The rest of us want to get the things done without
> spending
> great deal of time. Because -well it may be hard to understand for some
> of you
> but, the time is most expensive for some.
>
> Thank you
