My impression is that the Linux community in general cannot decide whether
linux should be seen as a viable desktop alternative to Windows and MAC, or
a viable backend alternative to Solaris, or simply as a hobbyist OS. (To me
the former is very debatable, the laters are more realistic.)
I think that linux will never be a viable desktop for the masses until
productivity software is as common as it is for Windows (but then, i guess,
linux programmers would have to contend with the "dumb windows user"
mentality). I know that a couple of months ago the Linux Journal had a
multi-media issue that showed how linux could be used for generating music
and movies, and while interesting, it's not even comparable to the
multimedia power of the MAC and BeOS. (I can't open any application without
XMMS "coughing" on me....)
To me it seems that despite all linux advances it is still _just_ an
inexpensive internet sever (web, mail, news, etc..), and a hobbyist OS for
developers. I think a lot of the reason why is the elitism that Linux folks
have and distain for the "dumb windows user." What's needed is a real
paradigm shift within the community. Yeah, we have token companies like
Gnome and Eazel that genuinely care and are compassionate about the computer
food-chain, but this isn't enough. (What's up with this in-fighting between
KDE and Gnome?)
Then again, maybe the fate of linux is never to become a computer for the
common user, but rather a development environment for programmers and web
developers. We seem very divided on this issue.
One last thing, I'm not complaining really, it just that I think there are
different priorities that drive linux compared to the other OSs.
Consequently, there are opportunity costs and trade-offs. The thing that
really bothers me is the elitism.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [newbie] Mandrakesoft CEO defends Linux
using the expert mode on the install, my package install was 347.2mb.
That includes KDE2 with Koffice the network stuuf. Blackbox. Abiword and
all the other stuff that is needed.
After adding a bunch of updated and stuff from the unsupported dir it
whent up to 422.7 mb.
Now mandrake make it so easy to add/remove packages that when I need to
compile a program from source, I install those packages then and remove
them when I am finshed.
Mark Hillary
Registered Linux User 200755
eryl wrote:
> john rigby wrote:
>
>
>> The 99.99% of people out in the Cyberbog that Linux NEEDS to
>> reach/convert to save us all from Bill, do not need now, in the
>> future, ever, ANY Development Tools.
>>
>
> I agree. That's been one of the problems I have with linux. When I
> hand a linux disk to one of my Windows using friends to try, I tell them
> that the minimum workstation GUI install will take about 1.5 gigabytes.
> Everyone gives me the "Huh". Why? Because Windoze 98, with office and
> a bunch of other programs takes about 600 meg. The distros need
> something like a "Minimal GUI Install" that includes KDE office, One
> text editor, one file manager, etc. Everything should be available, but
> face it--for these newbies it's not necessary. Once they find out that
> they really like using linux, then they have room to experiment. My Mom
> does not need 5 different terminals or 6 window managers, and she will
> never have any use for developmental tools.
