OSNews

> > "If you are not willing to learn to navigate a new operating system,
> > then why would you want to switch to it?"
>
>
> In a word - CHOICE. I want to be able to have a choice of OS for my
> hardware (which means no, I do not want to buy and cannot afford to
> buy a Mac).

I have nothing against choice. What gave you that impression? All I'm saying is that if you are going to switch OS you should be willing to learn how to use that OS (no matter what that OS is).
We can probably both agree that choice is good, and I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary. But when you *do* choose a new OS I think it's resonable to expect that you then put a little effort into learning that new OS - and amazingly a lot of people don't do that or expect every OS to just magically behave the way /they/ expect/want it to, and I find that to be the major problem.

> > "I am personally getting sick and tired of new users who want
> > everything to work 'just like in windows' but don't want to invest
> > the time in learning how to achieve that or at least realize that
> > Linux *is not* windows, and works differently. Those people who
> > just want a Windows clone should just stay with the original."
>
>
> Good thing it isn't all about you, then, isn't it?

Ofcourse it's not all about me - did I say that?


> I also think many of us who switch or contemplate switching to
> Linux hope it is not like Windows. After all, if I wanted BSODs and
> restrictive licensing, I'd stay with Windows, wouldn't I?

I don't use Windows and in fact I've only ever used it very sparingly, so I can't really comment on the BSOD issue. But I do hear from my Windows using friends that Win2000 and WinXP are quite stable these days - that's good.


> I don't have a problem with Linux being different. I just wish some
> things didn't seem so arcane and confusing to me. (Translation != I
> want Linux to be the same as Windows.)

That's fine with me. You are free to wish for anything you like, just remember that what you call arcane and confusing seems perfectly logical and natural to some of us. It's a matter of what you are used to. The few times I've used windows I've been having that same feeling - stuff being buried several levels down in some menu located somewhere where I had no idear I should look for it. No ways to easily script administrative tasks, no easy way to remotely manage the system, no debug info available when something goes wrong etc...
Besides, Linux is not the only choice - if you find it arcane and confusing, then why don't you choose something else? there are plenty of alternatives to both windows and linux. And, there are plenty of different Linux distributions available, geared towards different users with different needs. Maybe try a different distribution..

> I also have a problem with those who suggest newcomers RTFM.

Suggesting to someone to refer to the documentation seems quite sensible to me. If I was using some foreign system that I was not used to I'd be quite happy to be pointed at the relevant documentation so I could research the matter.

> (Despite what others say, I still encounter this response all too
> often.) Sometimes, the FM is on the web, which doesn't help if we're
> having trouble configuring our modem or our ppp connection.
> Beyond that, some of the FMs are so sparse to be almost
> worthless.

This seems to be about the *quality* of the documentation and not about the issue of refering people to docs in the first place.
We can quickly agree that not all docs are good. Some documentation is good, some is bad, but if you are unhappy with the quality of a certain document then why don't you get in touch with the author and suggest improvements (point out stuff that is incorrect, stuff that could be explained better etc.) - this is how Open Source works, not only for code but for documentation as well.


> I have no problem with the idea of having to learn some things
> about my new OS. But I shouldn't have to learn the equivalent of
> another four-years of college, and whatever I do need to know
> should be presented in a clear, easy to understand manner.

Then maybe you've made the wrong OS choice. Some OS'es require more effort to learn to use well than others.
How is it that you somehow think you are entitled to having the system present itself to you in a way that /you/ find easily accessible? Linux was/is created by a community of people for use by that community - everyone is welcome to join in the game and influence it, but it's mainly a OS created by the users for the users.
Also, not everyone cares about the OS being accessible to new users, but somehow a lot of people seem to think that they can demand that it be easy to use for them and assume that the community cares about them - that may be true for some members of the community, but certainly not for all.
The only way to play the game if you want Linux to be different is to get involved in some projects that deal with the things you want to change.

Why is it that somehow a lot of people assume that we all want Linux to be the major Desktop/Server/Embeded OS?
A lot of us just want it to serve our own purposes, and as long as it does that people are welcome to also make it common on the desktop, put it inside every set-top box etc.. but don't expect everyone to care about that..


> Despite all of these things, I intend to continue using and, hopefully,
> learning Linux.

I hope you'll like it - a lot of people do :-)


> It does not yet do everything or have everything I want from my OS,

Help improve it. :-)

> but it does give me much of what I want and offer the one thing I
> value above all: freedom of choice of OS on my PC.

I agree with you, it offers a lot of freedom, and it's a great tool for a lot of people, but it's not the best tool for everyone, but since it's not the *only* choice available (neither is Windows or MacOS) that's not really important.