>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:12:28 -0500 (EST)
>From: Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [newbie] gates gets Linux
>
>I am of the feeling that if Linux, no
>matter what flavor, were to become "more" new user friendly, or to put it
>a better way, extreme novice user friendly, then it would no longer
>"be" linux. It would be Microsoft...or very much like it and not much at
>all like Linux.
>
This is very disturbing, but I think this sentiment is widely held
w/in the linux/unix community. Am I interpreting this correctly?
You are saying that an easy to use interface expemlifies or is evidence
of a crappy OS? That any respectable system cannot also have an
intuitive and ergonomically superior interface?
>I don't say that to portray an attitude of an elitest. Quite the contrary
>as a matter of fact. I've watched over the years as windows has evolved
>and changed and become more novice friendly, and when I use that term I'm
>refering to folks that barely know what a mouse is let alone what it can
>do. Anyway, I've watched as the Windows platform has changed over the
>years and has grown more and more accomodating to anyone and everyone in
>general and to some degree that "is" necessary, but in so doing I really
>believe that they've sacrficed much of Windows strengths and stability for
>ease of use for both user and third party vendor.
>
Again, am I understanding you? You are saying that in order
to increase usability one must sacrifice stability. That doesn't
make sense at all.
I just don't buy this. Windows 2000 is more stable than any
of it's other descendants. I use Linux, Solaris, and 2000
in parallel all day long. I really believe MS has done a pretty
good job at maintaining stability and increasing usability.
It's is almost a year now and 2000 has never crashed one me once.
Personally, I would never go back to NT4.0 after using 2000.
The sad thing is I sound like a MS supporter...
