On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:28:25 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
> <none@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:41:36 -0500
> <Ib2dnei70aK9r8HVnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:35:37 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:56:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick" <none@xxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
>>>> Z-2dnXtgfrHdhsbVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/19/08 7:51 PM:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Two bands are playing a concert in town tonight. One band is
>>>>>> charging $80/seat for tickets and the other band is playing for
>>>>>> free. The $80/ticket concert is sold out and only a small number of
>>>>>> people went to the free concert. Which was the better band?
>>>>>
>>>>> That depends on how you define better. If you are in rural Texas and
>>>>> the $80 per ticket band is Willie Nelson's and the $0 per ticket is
>>>>> a chamber music quartet... I'd be willing to bet Willie would sell
>>>>> out, and only a few would go to here the chamber music.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, as usual, your "analogies" fail to take into account
>>>>> Microsoft's illegally maintained monopoly. They fail to take into
>>>>> account the complexity people see in switching from one OS to
>>>>> another.... replacing apps, doubts about data transfer, learning the
>>>>> new apps/OS, etc. They fail to take into effect that people want
>>>>> what everyone else is using.
>>>>
>>>> And yet people are flocking to the Mac. And it is not free *and*
>>>> runs, in a supported way, only on Apple hardware.
>>>>
>>>> And look at Firefox. It is now an excellent product. For free.
>>>>
>>>> In both cases, OS X and Firefox, they get the importance of UI
>>>> issues, ease of transitioning to their products, etc. Desktop Linux
>>>> is simply too fractured to do that well... hence the heavily
>>>> fractured UIs of *every* desktop distro.
>>>
>>> Correct....
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that people would rather invest in new software, a
>>> different hardware platform and in the process spend a lot of money
>>> than switch to Linux which is free and allows them to use their
>>> current hardware.
>>
>> That is not the truth. You know it.
>
> Isn't it?
No.
> Personally, I'm not sure what to think of software nowadays;
> it's all bits and largely free to copy, if one knows what one is doing.
> But the bits aren't polished in many cases; one might have to do some
> finish work.
>
> It might depend on how bright Joe Average is, when it comes to
> computers.
The average Joe is completely dim when it comes to computers.
>
> It also might depend on how daft the software developers are, and how
> restrictive we allow them to be in the copying.
>
>
>>
>>> The Linux pundits will try and twist it in all kinds of directions but
>>> the bottom line is that Linux does not appeal to average Joe. It just
>>> doesn't.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. You have been repeatedly told the reasons why. You
>> stick your head in the ground.
>>
>>
> I don't see Linux appealing to the average Joe.
I don't see Mach or whatever kernel Windows uses appealing to the average
Joe, either.
> Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian,
> or Gentoo, yes, but not Linux, which is of course a means to an end, the
> ability to control one's computer resources and do something useful with
> them. Other utilities such as ifconfig can influence Linux's behavior,
> of course.
Ubuntu Fedora, Debian, PCLinuxOS is what people mean when they refer to
Linux in relation to appealing to the average Joe.
>
> Individuals such as myself might want to poke around the internals, much
> like a car aficionado might pop the hood and look over the engine -- or
> maybe even take the headers off and poke around the cylinders, if one's
> very serious about it.
>
> So be careful about stating whether Linux appeals to the "average joe".
> I'm not sure any of us are all that average around here, and to most
> people who don't know the specifics, Linux is an interesting but
> generally meaningless buzzword, linked to concepts such as increased
> stability, "Unix" (itself not that meaningful a buzzword unless one has
> gone deep into a variant of that OS), and the X Window System.
>
> Say "window" in a computer context, and one usually thinks Microsoft.
> It's a pity, admittedly; we've some unlearning to do.
They have some unlearning to do. But then, these are people that can't
tell the difference between a Band-Aid and any other self adhesive
bandage.
--
Rick
|
|
