> The one thing that really bothers me though is this, I didn't switch > to linux to see it become more "windows-like". I don't mind the GUI, > I have the option of the console. I guess my feeling is that if you > want a system that does everything for you without you having to learn > about it, why not just stay with windows? Why does linux have to be > made "easier", some of us like it the way it is.
A good case study here is MacOS X. Apple (supposedly) designed it to be the next step in Macintosh evolution, which means its supposed to be easy and facilitate the users goals without getting in the way. On the other hand, there are no *nix distros like it and hackers seem to like it. This is likely because of X's conquest factor, which is rather high right now. IMHO, I see that there are two dynamics in the Linux community. One says that Linux should be king of the hill and kick Gates in the booty. To get there, said group realizes that concessions will need to be made and Linux *must* become more Windows like. This concept was followed through rather well by Apple with X. The other group is the loyal, diehard hacker that says that if someone wants to use Linux they must endure the learning curve. Computing has never been easy and if one wants to partake of the feast, you must help kill the beast. IOW, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. In an odd sort of way, this whole division is something like the Ford and Chevy debate, but in the end everyone simply drives what they want to drive. We CAN have both an easy to use, intuitive, powerful desktop environment Linux AND the hacker friendly, console ridden, command line Linux at the same time. As proven (at least so far) with MacOS X, this can also come without any limitations levied on either camp. Peace. Tyler _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
