>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adrian Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:36 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [newbie] Mandrakesoft CEO defends Linux
>
>a honda accord has a purpose. a freightliner tractor/trailer rig has a
purpose.
>they are not the same purpose.
>
>a hunting rifle has a purpose. a 50mm vulcan cannon has a purpose.
>they are not the same purpose.
>
>windows has a purpose. linux has a purpose.
>they are not the same purpose.
>
>
I get what you are saying, but there is a subtle difference between the
magnitude of purpose between the hunting rifle/cannon and linux/windows.
Presumably, both linux and windows are multiple purpose generic OSs and are
able to solve the same problems in the same domains. Both OSs can be
deployed for server purposes or desktop purposes. In that respect that are
more reasonably interchangeable than the rifle and cannon scenario.
There is no reason why Linux cannot or should not be as accessible as MAC
and Windows are. (There is no reason that Solaris should not be as
accessible as MAC and Windows are -- and in terms of cost as accessible as
MAC, Windows, and Linux are)
The reason why, is that Linux is not as accessible as MAC and Windows is
because Linux doesn't have paying customers that have UI requirements like
the other OSs. Consequently, the UI priorities are not the same for linux
as Windows, but that's just because of the nature of the Open Source methods
and linux's roots.
>use the right tool for the right job.
>
>if i wanted linux to be like windows, why wouldn't i have just kept using
windows?
>
In short, because you and I and the most of the linux community typically
have philisophical problems with the way MS behaves, beyond any technical
merit of the OS and application it runs.
>i may not be the sharpest crayon in the box, but i just don't understand
this.
>no product can be everything to everybody. no product.
>name any one *specific* product that fills every need held by every person
on the planet.
>
You're exaggerating. Yes, it is reasonable to say that linux can address
everything that comprises an OS and server/desktop platforms just as well as
any other general-purpose OS can address.
>i think the "must be like windows" concept is a bad thing.
>
I don't know if the argument is really "linux must be like windows", but
rather, "Why can't linux be as accessible as windows and mac and beos?"
ps: I think these tangent discussions are very good, as more people of
different backgrounds look to solve new problems with linux it will make
linux just that much better.
pps: It's too bad I can't convince the VPs here to use linux as our
production machines instead of solaris, because quite frankly linux has a
better (more accesible) devlopment enivronment! (But if you read the unix
newsgroups they complain about linux like we complain about windows --
imagine that!)
