On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Adam Koch wrote:
| Original message from: John Aldrich
| >My take on this whole "newbie who doesn't want to learn
| >Linux" is as follows:
| >If you don't want to learn Linux, then hire someone who
| >knows or will learn Linux to administer your system for
| >you. If you're too cheap or just can't afford (like a kid
| >who downloads and installs Linux) to hire someone, then you
| >MUST learn Linux, whether you like it or not!
| >
| >It's that simple:
| >1) Learn to administer your system
| >or
| >2) Hire someone to administer it
| >
| >Can't afford #2? You got two choices:
| >
| >1) Learn Linux yourself
| >2) Format the hard drive and go back to Windows!
| > John
| >
|
| I think that's a valid opinion, except that if people want Linux to become
a mainstream, well-accepted OS, then it's going to have to take some cues
from MS. I
| mean, really do you expect a person that uses a computer for work and a
little at home to write reports, surf, check email, etc to have to learn
everything that
| goes into getting Linux up and running. Not only that, but with hardware
compatability issues it's kind of difficult to convince someone that their
new machine that
| they paid good money for is all but useless if they want to use something
other than Windows. I know that a lot of this is not the fault of Linux,
but we also can't
| be a cadre of snobbish techno-elitists and say that you must know your
machine inside and out in order to use this OS. That only accomplishes one
thing; turning
| a lot of people off to a viable alternative.
|
| Adam Koch
| "Nothin in here 'cept a trunkful of dead bodies"
I have to agree with John on this one. I am well aware that Linux needs to
become more user friendly in the area of instalation if it wants to become a
major contender in the OS wars (did I say wars?). I also question whether
Linux should be such a contender. If, to be a major player in the OS arena,
Linux must make itself into a Windows clone, then what is the purpose of having
another OS in the first place?
Linux and Windows are two diferent animals. Windows is a propriatary OS with
all the copyright laws in the world protecting the rights of the owners. Linux
on the other hand, is an open source OS, with all the copyright laws in the
world protecting the rights of the users and the authors. Yes I said the rights
of the users. When you take a look at the License which accompanies most of the
GNU software, it protects your right to have the source code, and it protects
you from some other individual, or group taking your right to have or use the
source code as permitted by the author.
The realities of the maner in which Linux is developed can not be ignored. The
OS is produced by literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of individuals and
groups of individuals developing small components for Linux, which are put
together by those wonderfull folks like RedHat, Mandrakesoft, Suse, Debian and
countless other companies who hope to generate a reasonable income from the
efforts they put in gathering up all the components needed and putting them all
together on a nice neat CD for us to install.
Add in the fact that only a portion of the hardware manufacturering companies
are willing to provide the GNU with the specifications for their hardware
devices, and we have a situation where the Linux community is unable to support
all hardware devices. This is unavoidable, and inevitably must lead to
installation difficulties. The solutions to such dificulties are to learn
how to work around the problems, or use hardware which is supported by Linux.
If a user does not wish to persue either alternative, Tech support can be
purchaced, or the user can go back to Windows.
If you want a ready-made fully automated OS with all the bells and whistles the
manufacturer has decided you need already set up for you, then run the Windows
OS. It has been produced with you in mind; or perhaps get a Mac. Both systems
do-it-all for you, you do not need to learn a lot to use them, and they are
easy to use.
There is nothing wrong with this, but there are a growing number of people who
want a true alternative, not just another clone of what it was that made them
go looking in the first place. This I think is one reason for the rise in the
popularity of Linux. It is not a Windows clone. It approaches the job of being
an OS from a diferent perspective than Windows. While Windows wants to make
each process a part of the OS by loading application functionality in the form
of .dll files, and keeping that functionality loaded, perhaps for the rest of
the session (I think), Linux does the exact oposite, it sort of hosts the
application, and provides the resources the app requests and facilitates the
applications ability to do its job, but not at the expence of the OS itself. No
application is a part of the OS in Linux, not even X-Windows. When an
application is unloaded in Linux, its functionality is removed as well.
I guess the issue is that Linux is NOT Windows, and this is the most dificult
thing for a new Linux user to understand, particularly one who has been using
Windows. I speak English, and I am a resident of Toledo, Ohio USA. If I was
abruptly deposited in the middle of China, and had to learn not only the
language, but the culture as well, I would have a truly dificult time of it.
Moving from Windows to Linux is much like changing your language and your
culture, because it requires you to change the way you think. If you are
unwilling to change, then the best thing for you is to stay where you were,
using Windows.
I hope that it is understood that I am not telling anyone how to use their
computer, I am only pointing out a few hard cold facts. Any time you make a
fundamental change in how you get things done, you must put forth the effort to
make the change, or revert to the way you did things before. In this case the
fundamental change is from Windows to Linux. We the new Linux users must make
the decision either to learn the new OS, or to revert to the Windows OS. It is
just that simple.
My 2 cents,
Ernie
