On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 10:43, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> You're thinking far too conventionally, there are ways other than writing to >/dev/blarg > to access a device. You still have to go through the kernel. > Hmmm, aiming higher than the standard for desktop OS, so it needs to do all the >crummy> things windows does now and more? Did i say that ? Personally, i find the windoze desktop extremely clunky. I have no idea why anyone would want to emulate it. > One of the many things windows does that linux doesn't is have decent hardware >support, > sure thats arguably a vendor issue, but it's something that is a BIG > issue... I gave up on linux on the desktop because it took many things > away from what I had in windows, inc. support for my sound card, > capture card, software I use, gaming... I have a TV card, SB live, GeForce2 with twin view, HP cd writer, DVD rom drive (hacked for RPC0), 60 GB of disk, network card, HP A3 printer. I have no problems running linux on it and supporting all the hardware. Yep, games kinda suck, though quake rocks along nicely. > Plus I think the biggest thing that windows does that linux doesn't > is being like windows, the majority of desktop users are totally ! > afraid of change, theres nowhere that people can do night classes in X > or similar, windows prevalance is a big thing. People just need exposure. If you make a system so simple that even an idiot can use it, guess what, only idiots will. Rex
