OSNews

The article attempts to be comprehensive, and is written in a "I am your friend" tone. Well it's not a good article.

1. "you have no right to demand ANYTHING"

Well actually, as a user, I do have all the right to demand. If you want to claim that your product (be it Windows, Linux, the DVD player, whatever...) is good for me, then I will tell you why it is NOT. The customer is always right, and if you really care about making Linux good for everyone (i.e., put it on the desktops) then you better listen buddy.

The comment about demands came under the "Linux isn't as easy to use" heading. Let's us start with basics of referencing: The author states "and many show that Linux is very easy for completely new computer users". Care to share these please? As an advocate, I really would like to get my hands on those studies.

Following on: "It's fine if linux isn't perfect for everyone yet". What? The section kicked off by saying that the author has found Linux to be easy, and has taught it to several people with no problems. That is what they call a contradiction, I believe.

2. Re polish: "In my opinion, it means that the inner-workings of the OS are hidden from the user, and a user is presented with an environment they feel is consistent."

I disagree with this definition somewhat, but I'll use it anyway: I've had endless problems using GUI network config programs when setting up my network. It turns out that they edit 'random' files, and the only way to get my network up and running was to figure out which config files to edit manually (hard enough) and then figure out the format (varies from file to file, but certainly easy). What's the point of having a GUI if it doesn't work.

Further, people ALWAYS moan about editing the registry. I've edited the registry many times in my life, and frankly, it's as heart-stopping as editing config files manually. But guess what? I haven't come across a situation that requires registry editing in over 2 years. Yes Windows XP is very good in this respect.

3. "Linux is fragmented"

Yes it is. Go to distrowatch.com, and look at how every distro has it's own customised interface (be it KDE, GNOME, XFCE...). Further, each distro has its own set of tools, its own set of nice things, and its own set of quirks.

Then here is a gem of a quote: " Installation is something few people will have to do, so it's not that important for compatability,"

What on Earth are you on about? Have you ever used a computer? Few people will have to install software? Oh just get a clue.

"Package Management isn't that important either,". Again, what are you talking about? Why is MS investing hours of research into library control (COM, COM+, ActiveX, etc)? Why did MS invent the MS Installer? Why are there tens of installer systems (Nullsoft's, installshield, etc)? The answer is simple: People NEED to install software, easily, and installations must NOT mess up the system.

4. "Some people say there should only be one or two distributions".

I actually agree. But I still would like to see some sort of consolidation, or some sort of standardisation.

5. "Linux moves too fast"

It does, but the speed (which is GOOD, IMHO), is not an issue. What is the issue is backward compatiblity. Windows versions tend to be backward compatible, and there is no reason why OSS developments should not be. It's just good programming practice IMHO.

6. "his is an ideological stance, and no one has a right to say that the "open source idealogy" is wrong."

And you can't say that the closed-source idealogy is wrong either. Freedom goes both ways. To use your sentence: " People with different beliefs will just have to get along."

7. "How would a business make money?"

Why don't your write up a business plan and submit it to some VCs. You seem to be clued up on business models too.

8. Buying MS software supports them politically.

Let me get this right: You are saying that using OSS means you cannot avoid the idealogy, and that's OK. But if I use MS software, the politics that come with it are not OK. Sweet. Just leave politics out of technology and give me something that works.

9. "Linux is slow"

I like this section. It raises some good points, and I never say that Linux is slower that Windows: Sometimes it is, sometimes it is faster. Overall, my life is not better or worse if I choose one or the other (based on speed).

10. "There Are No Drivers"

It is the manufacturers responsibility to release drivers. To comment on a couple of things:

"But if you expect a driver CD for linux, you aren't seeing
the big picture"

"Ideally, the drivers would be allowed in the standard kernel (and be open source)"

Why is it so bad to expect to have a CD come with hardware? And why should the drivers be open source? Remember that it is in the best interest of hardware manufacturers to create drivers. Don't tell them they have to be open source.

11. "No Applications"

OpenOffice is good for general use, and so I won't quibble here. Evolution trumps EVERYTHING else available, be it under Windows or Linux or anything else. Mozilla (and the associated browsers) is excellent. However, the situation is very far from perfect, but is constantly improving. This argument is the most valid at the moment, but it is losing validity with time.

Finally, let me go back to one point. We really need a good installer. Not an OS installer, but a software installer. I don't want to go ./lalalala to get something to work. I just want something as simple as the MS Installer. IMHO, debian packages are an excellent starting point, but it can be a lot better.