Linked by John Munsch on Mon 30th Dec 2002 19:05 UTC
Why do it? I am asked this question more often than I expected, even by existing Linux users who I expected to know as well as I the reasons for building a next-generation desktop Linux for the home user. So here are some of my reasons for thinking that we must spend the effort to create a better desktop on Linux than any existing version now has. Editor's Note: Due to a technical glitch, the first segment of this article was ommitted for some readers. If you missed the "why" section, before, you can read it now.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
People have been comparing computers with cars and microwave ovens - cars can (clearly) kill people very easily; microwaves can destroy themselves easily enough (just put something metal into it) - computers are, compared to these, far more benign.
CARS:Most people need to spend a few months learning to drive, from a certified instructor, before being allowed onto the road.<BR>
If "Nobody told me that "# rm -rf /" would kill the machine" is a reasonable complaint, does that mean that "Nobody told me that driving at 150mph would be likely to kill 5 people" is proof of the car's poor design?
Microwave Ovens:These come with a book, as do PCs, which most people do not read. They are rather simpler to use than a car or a PC, and the main things you need to know, are: Do not put metal in it; Do not put dehydrated items in it.
That's pretty straightforward, and it's a single-purpose device. PCs are multi-purpose devices.
--------------
On another slant, the "My Parents" theme:
My parents, my wife, my sisters, all got me to configure their PCs for them, whether Windows or Linux. My brother seems to have done his own quite happily, but that's 5/6 people (83%) of my immediate family prefer to have a geek configure their machine, than do it themselves, regardless of the OS.
My wife uses Linux because I refuse to pay for a Windows license, and refuse to steal one. If she was prepared to pay for Windows, she can have it; while she's happy with what Linux offers, she keeps that.
In both cases, so long as the machine is configured properly, allows access to the web and email, word processing and spreadsheets, from a single click, they don't care what the OS is.
If they had to configure the OS themselves, however, they'd be staring at a blank screen still, whether they'd chosen Windows or Linux.
This subject keeps coming up, because people say "I'll try Linux ... ooh, hard to install." They seem to have forgotten installing Windows. Install Windows, easy enough. Job done? No. Get the printer's CD-ROM, find out what version of Windows you have, find that part of the CD, click on a .INF file? Maybe the setup.exe file? Or let Windows find the "Best" driver for you? Maybe you should go to the vendor's website, though, for the latest version? Download that, get WinZip, unzip it, see what's in it, find a setup.exe or .inf file, pick one, guess what to do, finally get the printer configured. Repeat for your sound card, video card, scanner, camera, etc etc etc. Oh, but do get your Mobo driver first, because it might have some stuff which changes how the others work.
People seem to have higher expectations on Linux usability as compared to Windows, when it is touted as a technically superior OS, not an easier OS.
If we were discussing BeOS, or Windows from a Linux user's perspective, I could understand this attitude, but the only way this could be achieved would be if you bought a sealed black-box machine with Linux preinstalled and configured on a ROM. (I still like my BBC Micro, which did this, but we need something more flexible these days)
Steve