Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 9th Nov 2005 17:04 UTC, submitted by LinuxFanBoy
Permalink for comment 58448
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
just work hard at being a great OS
This means exactly what?
unconventional application installation
Who's convention is accepted as correct?
The author was attempting to show how people are locked into their own limited cognitive schema which is typically limited by experience. A good example is where he refers to the graphics system as X and cmd.exe as the XTerm. The "Linux aren't ready for the desktop" articles do this all the time.
These kind of half true comparisons crop everwhere. People always try to find simularities between something they already "understand" when trying to understand something new. Unsurprisingly, people also become fustrated and irritated when the new thing isn't exactly like the old thing and blame the new thing as being defective. This isn't limited to Windows or Linux. It applies to other operating systems, user interfaces and applications. Hell, it applies to everything.
You should now understand why there is so much effort to make other systems look and behave like Windows.
You should also realize that the article isn't to be taken seriously. It's also not supposed to be laughing out loud hilarious either. Get a sense of humor.