OSNews

"I said that there isn't a single program in a Woody installation that a typical desktop user would know how to use, or want to use."

Yes, and that's a troll. It simply isn't true.

"Vi is one example from among many."

And I say again that anyone who uses Vi as an example in an argument about desktop suitability is a troll. There are many more intuitive editors to choose from.

"Especially when the replacement is a clone of Windows and adds no new functionality. Why go to the pain of switching only to end up where you started?"

To no longer be tied into software upgrade cycles, to no longer be locked into a single vendor, for better security, and lower costs of ownership due to ease of maintenance, among other things. If it really is a clone of Windows in functionality as you say, whilst providing all the advantages I just mentioned, it would be insane *not* to migrate, hmmm?

"Yeah, I've seen lots of organization mandate use of particular programs, but the mandating wasn't done by the IT department."

Don't play silly word games. The IT department is responsible for the IT side of things. The fact that the department will have a manager in charge is obvious and irrelevant.

"I've also seen organizations in which IT unilaterally replaced a major component without explanation and with inadequate notice."

Good for you. That's irrelevant however, as it's got nothing to do with what we were talking about.

"Aren't the Woody mail apps you mentioned hopelessly outdated?"

No. Again, Woody was released in April 2002. And as I said earlier, Outlook Express is even more outdated, yet the majority of the desktop users in the world still make use of it.

"Ease of use and display clarity have nothing at all to do with gimmickry like windows transparency, splash screens, and the like"

Great, no disagreement here.

"And the display on a stock Woody install, using the ancient XFree86 code that comes with it, is fuzzy."

Erm. No, it isn't. I've never experienced this problem, so it must be due to your hardware or configuration. Also, the version in Woody is XFree86 4.1, which was the latest upstream release until January 2002. In other words, it's really not that old.

"Applications from the Woody era set the example for how not to do it."

Lol! Era? Once again, Woody was released in April 2002, not in 1997 or 1995 as you've claimed in this thread. Besides, without specifics, you're just casting empty aspersions.

"You keep telling me that stability is the primary thing because it lowers ease and cost of maintenance. In other words, makes life easier for admins."

Yes.

"(While, I argue, making life miserable for users.)"

Lol. Okay. I argue that it doesn't. The software's perfectly fine, and the aesthetics are perfectly acceptable as well. A quick Google will bring up lots of screenshots to back me up. Besides, an IT department with less time being eaten up with day-to-day administration will have more resources available for responding to queries and support requests, in other words, the *human* side, so everybody wins.

"If the only way to crank out a stable Linux distribution is to do it like Debian, that must mean that all the other modern distributions are unstable. But, they aren't."

Yes, they are. Debian *Unstable* is for the most part as stable as any of the other distributions, let alone the Stable tree. In addition, Debian is the only distro with a feature freeze policy re: its releases (this is what makes administration so painless - no software upgrades to deal with) and it has the largest software archive, the most thorough packaging and QA process, and a large and friendly support community around it thrown in to boot.