I've been reading this thread for about a week now and I finially have
to give in to my baser urges and add my two cents.
Linux is a great OS. I have learned more about my computer from using
linux then I ever did from using windows. However, windows was a great
gateway into the world of computers for me. I would not be here typing
away in netscape on my windowmaker desktop, customized kernel and X
server if not for windows.
I still use windows too. I dual boot with win2k because I like having
both Os's to choose from. I think that the Gimp and Photoshop are
incredible in concert. I love playing quake3 in linux and counter
strike in windows. They both are very good at some things and not so
good at others.
Personally I like that mandrake has made such excellent install tools
for their distribution. They have done a very good job of taking the
pain and confusion out of the install while still offering you the power
that is so fundamental to linux, if you want it.
I do not care if linux ever overtakes windows. I do not care about the
perceived competition between windows and linux except in that it spur
both groups of developers to make their respective OS stronger, more
robust, more intuitive and offer more useful features.
This is like people arguing over coke or pepsi, adidas or nike. Who
cares as long as I can get what I want from one or the other?
Oh and what I want from an interface is customizability. Make it so I
can make it look and feel the way I am comfortable with.
Abe
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:12:28 -0500 (EST)
> >From: Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: [newbie] gates gets Linux
> >
> >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.
> >
> This is very disturbing, but I think this sentiment is widely held
> w/in the linux/unix community. Am I interpreting this correctly?
> You are saying that an easy to use interface expemlifies or is evidence
> of a crappy OS? That any respectable system cannot also have an
> intuitive and ergonomically superior interface?
>
>
> >I don't say that to portray an attitude of an elitest. Quite the contrary
> >as a matter of fact. I've watched over the years as windows has evolved
> >and changed and become more novice friendly, and when I use that term I'm
> >refering to folks that barely know what a mouse is let alone what it can
> >do. Anyway, I've watched as the Windows platform has changed over the
> >years and has grown more and more accomodating to anyone and everyone in
> >general and to some degree that "is" necessary, but in so doing I really
> >believe that they've sacrficed much of Windows strengths and stability for
> >ease of use for both user and third party vendor.
> >
> Again, am I understanding you? You are saying that in order
> to increase usability one must sacrifice stability. That doesn't
> make sense at all.
>
> I just don't buy this. Windows 2000 is more stable than any
> of it's other descendants. I use Linux, Solaris, and 2000
> in parallel all day long. I really believe MS has done a pretty
> good job at maintaining stability and increasing usability.
> It's is almost a year now and 2000 has never crashed one me once.
> Personally, I would never go back to NT4.0 after using 2000.
>
> The sad thing is I sound like a MS supporter...
