OSNews

I do apologize for my "bashing" comment last night. I admit that at the time, I was a bit angry at all of the zealots that seem to congregate here. I do apologize for being rood, but I do stand by the point I failed, because of my own anger, to make: zealotry isn't getting anyone anywhere.

The windows zealots claim that windows is easier to install than Linux. This doesn't make sense, as quite a few people I know couldn't install it from scratch anyway. The Linux zealots claim that Linux is ready for the desktop, and most people can sue it just fine like windows. This doesn't make sense either, as many of the Linux documentation (guides, how-to documents, etc) still assume that you have at least basic knowledge of the command line. This makes sense for complex tasks like recompiling a kernel, but not for simpler things like installing packages (I know there are graphical front-ends to many of the package managers, but what if that front-end becomes unavailable).

I do use windows, but am also mindful that windows, Linux, Mac, and any OS shine and fail in one area or another. If you want to use Linux, go ahead; if you want to use windows, go ahead; and if you don't have a problem with any particular OS (like many nontechnical people, I would imagine), than use whatever works for you and let other people use what works for them. The open-source philosophy is about choice, so, in the spirit of all freedom-loving people, let computer users have choice to sue proprietary software or not.

I've been reading osnews for a long time now, and have been most dismayed at the amount of "windows sucks", "Linux sucks", "all other OSes suck", etc. What I said was a little harsh, but the point still remains: zealotry has done more damage to the computer industry than helped the computer industry as a whole.

"(I know there are graphical front-ends to many of the package managers, but what if that front-end becomes unavailable)."

thats like asking what to do if add/remove programs in windows gets blown to bits. atleast most distros have a commandline "backup"

Wow. Those would be great points if they were based in fact instead of your imaginary world view..

"This doesn't make sense either, as many of the Linux documentation (guides, how-to documents, etc) still assume that you have at least basic knowledge of the command line. This makes sense for complex tasks like recompiling a kernel, but not for simpler things like installing packages (I know there are graphical front-ends to many of the package managers, but what if that front-end becomes unavailable)."

I'm not sure what you mean by unavailable, but I can assure you that the gpl'ed software will always be around and Free to use. If you're concerned about some sort of library conflict where it won't run: You won't see that happen very often. Seriously, people who run distro's make mistakes and break packages. But generally speaking the package manager packages are watched like a hawk because they're pretty stinkin important . Not to mention, you like everyone else, suggest that normal people can't use a CLI without providing any sort of evidence for the conclusion.
I don't know who decided GUI's are easy and CLI's are hard but frankly he didn't know what he was talking about. It's pretty difficult for people to just suddenly pick up CLI's one day, usually out of fear. But the same problem persists in GUI's: Many people don't realize what undo is for, and hence they fear doing actions they haven't previously done which prevents them from fully learning programs.
You say documentation is bad, but you don't mention what documentation is bad. You're just falling on the old standby that hackers can't document; but hackers aren't the only people documenting *nix these days.

Just because you think Linux is ready for the desktop does not make you a zealout. And if it does, well than I'm proud to be a zealout.