<snip>
>I am of the feeling that if Linux, no
>matter what flavor, were to become "more" new user friendly, or to put it
>a better way, extreme novice user friendly, then it would no longer
>"be" linux. It would be Microsoft...or very much like it and not much at
>all like Linux.
<snip>
I can understand what you are saying here, that the face of Linux will change and it
will no longer be recognised as the free OS it is now. I disagree as I don't
understand how simplifying the installation and use of Linux for basic home users will
dramatically alter the foundations of the Linux OS.
As mentioned previously by others on the list, Windows is a very easy to use OS -
partly the reason why it is so popular with the masses (that and most computer
retailers won't provide a system with anything but) - but instability issues are
rooted in poor development processes - not useability features.
MS's goal is to make sh*tloads more money than anyone, and rush out platforms with the
"ehhh, that's good enough, we'll come back later and do some patches" attitude.
I don't see Linux being as susceptible to such practices, nothing has to be rushed to
meet a deadline, and plenty of damn fine software has come out of it.
There's no justifiable reason why Linux can't be more novice-friendly. There's also no
reason it should be either, but it cannot be treated as a serious contender in the
home PC market if it isn't easily accessible by the general public.
Just another 2c worth (have I got enough to buy the car yet?)
PS - I know many people may disagree with my comments, and discussion is expected, but
hey, Linux isn't about conformity, it's about freedom...
