Mareeba wrote:
> Dean G. wrote:
> >
> >>> | 4. The alternatives are so much better
> >> Yet so few people use them. That should tell you something about the
> >> suitability of the laternatives for the masses.
> >
> > The argumentum ad populam isn't very convincing. Twenty years ago
> > Windows was on only a tiny minority of PCs.
> >
> > Dean G.
> >
>
>
> Linux/X/Gnome and KDE have all been around for plenty of time. Desktop
> market penetration is stil miserably low.
I see you ignore everything and repeat your flawed argumentum ad
populam. Some people never learn.
It seems to me that Gnome has been around about seven years. Windows
has been around twenty years. Thirteen years ago, Windows was still
small potatoes. Windows NT had just come out, and Windows for
Workgroups still wasn't out. Windows was just starting to get traction.
NT wasn't really even usable until NT 4.0, as having even a single DOS
box open brought the system to a standstill. Back then, DOS software
was still very common, so it was a very significant issue. Windows for
Workgroups, and even Windows 95 which was still a few year off didn't
have a native TCP/IP stack. Egads, how primative this Windows stuff is.
Bring me a Trumpet, man, as Windows doesn't even rise to the level of
blowing.
So there you have it. Linux/Gnome is far better now than Windows was at
the same age. And one needs only open their eyes to see the trend :
Linux is small now, but growing. Even Microsoft realised they can no
longer ignore Linux.
Dean G.
|
|
