I understand what you're saying Adrian, but that's one of the very things
that makes Linux so atractive to "seasoned" linux, and computer users. the
total lack of frills and fluff that just "any" potential user would want
to pickup. Let's face it. If you REALLY want to use Linux there is a
learning curve that must be endured and gone thru. if you make it through
this curve then you're destined to become a real user and not just a
casual GUI using button pusher.
Linux is not an exclusive club, but it is also not for the faint-hearted
soul who doesn't want to put in a little time learning. it is not a GUI,
button pushers playground, like windows, where you can just jump into and
minutes later be anywhere in the world online without learning anything
first. Nor should it ever become as such. Just my opinion of course, but
one that I know is shared to one degree or another by the Linux community
at large. All the more reason for AOL to STAY AWAY from this last bastion
of REAL mode computing.
besides, it's been proven that things like AOL just don't stay down when
injested by a penguin who's been used to eating good-for-him food. :)
--
Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** =/\= No Penguins were harmed |
** <_||_> in the making of this |
** =\/= message... | Registered Linux user #182496
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Adrian Smith wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> A little more opinion: A few years ago, AoL got mostly clueless
> newbies as new signups. (hence the disdain by 'veteran' Net users).
> Within 6 months, most realized that AoL sux, and moved to other
> ISP's. Within the last year or so, AoL seems to have that turned
> around. Either their service is better, or the newbies are even
> more clueless ;->
> ~~ Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> i respond:
> i was using AOL back when they were... darn, what were they called... bloody heck,
>i can't remember now -- anyhowz, before they were AOL, and the service is not getting
>better in my opinion. of course, i will be first to tell you that i use AOL for one
>thing only, chatting with people. some people say the content is getting better, but
>i really can't speak to that. i can say however that i think their interface stinks.
> Compuserve was always my baby, and when AOL bought them i cried for days.
>
> to bring this back to Linux.... AOL use to have a DOS program, which i use to use
>intstead of the windoze version as i liked it better. if i were AOL i'd make a linux
>version of the software & get it out there. as someone said, if you are using linux,
>why would you use AOL. i think this is true about.... 60% of the time? i mean,
>lets think about how many people (like me) are experimenting with linux now days.
>i'm sure some of them use AOL, and being able to take that access with them just
>might make linux a more attractive choice.
>
> while the thought using AOL & linux makes me gag (hahaha), in the end, it might be
>a good thing for linux -- in so far as making the newbe feel a bit safer with it.
>
>
>
> Adrian Smith
> 'de telepone dude
> Telecom Dept.
> x 7042
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
