Rex Ballard wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:34 pm, Snit <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz stated in post 2188929.sRUGFt5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on
>> 2/6/09 5:19 PM:
>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>> > | Like cake, Linux is a mixture of ingredients. You can mix and match
>> > | those ingredients to achieve your desired result. As in making a
>> > | cake, how well your Linux turns out depends on your experience or
>> > | ability to follow a
>> > recipe
>> > | or instructions.
>> In a cake you get a mix... each bite is the same, though one might have a
>> bit more crust than the other.
>> Linux is more like a salad: each bite is different... you can create some
>> basic similarity with a dressing (window dressing with Linux), but each
>> item is still quite different.
> Linux is more like a salad bar. Lots of different options available,
> but it's unlikely that you will want a bowl that contains every
> available ingredient because even small amounts of each would still
> fill the so full you couldn't possibly eat it in one sitting. On the
> other hand, each time you come back, you can get different choices.
>> With a salad this is fine... the tool you use to each the salad,
>> generally a
>> fork, stays consistent. But with Linux the very tool you use is like the
>> salad... calling the tool to your attention instead of the work. That is
>> to the detriment of the user.
> This argument has rapidly falling apart. People have had the chance
> to actually see Linux, pre-installed, by the manufacturer, on sub-
> notebooks, and have found that it's not that hard to use. They may
> not be able to put together a full plate of salad with all of the
> possible ingredients, but they can start with a really nice selection.
> Microsoft's greatest terror has been that people would actually find
> out how Linux has been to use.
That sounds like a battle between nerds and marketing plops.
A battle that marketing plops will loose once the word gets out
and money starts rolling in.
Sounds to me techies need to got out there and slaughter a few
marketing plops to defend better technology and bring home the money.
> Even the WinTrolls have focused on the
> difficulty of installation and configuration for the last decade,
> because the reality is that Linux has ALWAYS been easier to use once
> it's been installed. This has been true since the days when Soft
> Landings Systems (SLS) Linux offered the capabilities of a $30,000 Sun
> SparcStation on a 2 year old PC that cost less than $1000 new.
> Linux has always been more secure, more reliable, more stable, and
> industry standards compatible, than Windows. Linux/Unix has had
> thousands of applications for decades, most of which would blow away
> anything Microsoft has offered during the same time frames (of course
> most of them were very expensive too, and are only recently available
> at reasonable cost).
> Look at what has happened in the server market. IBM, Oracle, CA,
> Sybase, Rational, Sun, Apple, DreamWorks, all putting their software
> technology on Linux, because they see the value and the power of
> Linux. Linux is even taking huge chunks of the Windows Server market.
> When (not if) Linux DOES show up on the retail store shelves, fully
> operational and fully functional, on netbooks, notebooks, and desktop
> machines (which may look MUCH different than today's Microsoft PCs.
> They might look more like linksys routers. A few USB ports, a pair
> of SDHC slots, an Ethernet port, and an HDMI port.
> One would be an X11 Display controller with WiFi access, the other
> would be connected to the keyboard and mouse and connected to the
> display via WiFi. The external USB disks could be on either unit, and
> both could run with 1 gig of RAM (which is HUGE for Linux). Remember,
> both itty bittty boxes are fully functional Linux systems. They could
> even be IDENTICAL boxes, but one would be plugged into the video, and
> the other would be plugged into the keyboard and mouse.