> Ian Hilliard wrote:
>> The problem is that most people still don't really understand
> Why not? What makes you (and 8 other disgruntled cola bozos) think only
> Linux users understand computing concepts?
> It isn't that people/Windows users don't understand computers and OS's and
> software; it's that they don't want to understand them to the degree most
> Linux users do, and often expect others to. Heck, I myself could care
> less about the specific API calls MS Access makes when a datasheet is
> drawn - I care that my users can get to the information they need to make
> decisions. And that's what a computer does - it manages info.
The problem is that people are afraid of computers. This is because they are
afraid of breaking their computer and then having to pay a lot of money to
have it fixed.
Initially, the problems all stemmed from the registry. The introduction of
the registry into Windows created a new class of fault that could only be
fixed by totally reinstalling. As reinstalling is well beyond most computer
users, for these people doing the wrong thing with the computer was going
to cost a lot of money.
Microsoft's culpable neglect of security, with the statement that no one
buys a PC for security, has now made computer users even more frightened of
computers. You visit the wrong web site or open the wrong email and you're
> And I would venture more and more Linux users understand less and less
> day. Look at how braindead Linux installs are today - they're even easier
> than Windows installations.
> With Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, Suse has delivered a Linux experience
> that makes the office computer an appliance (just like cola bozos falsely
> Windows for doing). It's about as simple and "dumbed down" an interface
> as I've ever seen - though you can of course dig deep w/ the command line
> and various apps.
On the contrary, the fact that a normal computer user could be expected to
install SLED10 should make computer users less frightened. In fact, Novell
should be advertising "SLED 10 the computer system you don't have to be
>> What is worse is that they really don't know that there is
>> any choice in operating systems, because they seldom, if ever, get to
>> hear about alternatives in the main-stream press.
> Why don't they? Linux is talked about all over the place: Forbes, Wall
> Steet Journal, Business Week, IBM television ads all the time, Dell ads
> during PGA Tour television events, every bookstore carries Linux books and
> magazines, Dell and HP offer Linux on their websites, most if not all
> computer stores offer box-set distros and have for 5-10 years... even MS
> mentions Linux in various places on their website.
> The problem isn't lack of choices, it's quality of the choices. Linux
> doesn't do it for gamers and office users (for most business people), or
> for the creative types drawn to Macs.
> It's improving, and pretty quickly I admit. Each time I install a distro,
> it's smoother and better (except Slackware was a pain to do anything
You seldom hear in the press that all the viruses and computer woes are ONLY
associated with the Windows operating systems.
>> The computer industry until recently has been a bit like the DDR
>> before the fall of the wall. You get what you're given and you are to
>> be happy with that.
> Except it wasn't like that at all. It was like this: "You accept what MS
> offers because no one has stepped up to deliver a reasonable alternative."
>> On the other hand, Linux may not be perfect. It has however pushed
>> Microsoft to lift it's game and it is providing REAL choice.
> In some markets, yes, definitely. It has provided a choice of
> file/print/web server solutions and small-scale database systems. I'm
> sure some companies have leveraged low-cost Linux to extract price
> concessions during MS contract negotations.
> But what about the rest of the computer-users? There are a lot more of
> them/us than there are corporations needing a mail server. For them/us,
> Linux is a choice only if you're willing to accept the substandard
> universe of OSS software, and more limited x86 hardware and peripherals.
Linux installs on my Centrino notebook flawlessly. There is no hardware
support issue for most mainstream hardware.
With things like Crossover Office, you can use exactly the same software you
were using under Windows. In time, you can then discover that there is a
lot of first class software that is native to Linux.
>> For people like me who know computers and can't afford down time, it is
>> the obvious choice.
> It's not that obvious. What is obvious is you don't know about, or how to
> setup, reliable Windows systems, like NASDAQ (along with many others) did
There was a problem in the company a few months back, where it was
discovered that some people were using peer-to-peer agents and getting
copyrighted material over the company network. The response of the company
was to install software on every company PC that controls what can be
installed and what can be run on every company PC.
A number of packages were banned from use on the company PC's. Included in
the list was FireFox. Within two weeks I had an email indicating that
someone was trying to break into my frequent flyer account. A check of all
the processes running indicated that I had about a half dozen pieces of spy
ware running on my company notebook. This was despite being behind the
I was without the notebook for two days while the IT department reinstalled
everything. If it weren't for the fact that I can do everything I need on
my Linux notebook, except to access the company mail server, I would have
been totally screwed. This is one of the joys of Windows and one of the
reasons I prefer Linux.