Over here at my house Linux IS, right now, a better alternative to
windows or Mac. I'm a full time student and I work part time. I cannot
afford to buy programs for windows and I surely cannot afford a Mac that
would perform on par with my PC (G4). I do everything with linux. I
write papers for school, do my taxes, write letters, email, chat, rip &
encode MP3's * .ogg's, Create images with the GIMP, play Quake3, UT and
other games. Come on man what more do you want?
I am not a programmer or even a CIS student. I'm just a guy who like to
play games, write email, etc and cannot afford to spend thousands of
dollars on software.
Honestly I am very tired of hearing these arguments. Mandrakes
distribution has done nothing but get better for the past year. Here's
what I mean by "better"
1. Massive choices in terms of software available on the disks. I like
choices. I like choices a little too much probably. I also like not
having to download every single extra thing I want one at a time.
2. Installation process is smoother. More devices are recognized and
configured during the install process.
3. Stability stability stability need I say more?
4. Mandrake has become a very good distribution for gaming. That makes
me very happy. Now if only Valve would let Loki port Half-Life &
Counter-Strike!
5. GUI's. I use windowmaker so these "KDE!" "GNOME!" arguments look a
little silly to me ;-) Windowmaker is better then both of them put
together. Enough baiting though ;-) KDE2 is great. It's fast, smooth,
stylish and comfortable. Gnome is very nice too. I have put complete
linux newbies down in front of BOTH of theose GUI's and had them doing
what they need to do after just a few minutes of explanation.
6. support for new devices. I was lucky enough to be able to buy a
brand new computer a few months ago. Mandrake went on it without a
hitch. USB mouse, current generation processor, brand new chipset, etc.
OK, have you ever been involved in an art project? One that involved
more then about 5 people? Infighting is perfectly normal in those
circumstances. Linux development is NOT primarily a commercial
endevour. It is a bunch of individuals doing what they do for their own
reasons. Some of them are motivated by commercial concerns some are
not. It is good that there is so much conflict over these opposing
viewpoints. It makes the overall area of what linux can do/be broader.
This is so much better then a top down corporate approach. Has
microsoft ever asked you what you thoguht about their products and
encouraged you to write a nice long email and mail it to mr. example
man? I think not. Dennis and civilme have done that three or four
times in the past six months!
Mandrake, keep on keeping on. You listen to your users so much it blows
my mind. You host great forums. The overall tone of your community is
wonderful. The only mailing list I've ever been on that came close to
the friendliness and professionalism of your lists was a debian list.
Thank you.
ok, I'm done now.
Abe
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> My impression is that the Linux community in general cannot decide whether
> linux should be seen as a viable desktop alternative to Windows and MAC, or
> a viable backend alternative to Solaris, or simply as a hobbyist OS. (To me
> the former is very debatable, the laters are more realistic.)
>
> I think that linux will never be a viable desktop for the masses until
> productivity software is as common as it is for Windows (but then, i guess,
> linux programmers would have to contend with the "dumb windows user"
> mentality). I know that a couple of months ago the Linux Journal had a
> multi-media issue that showed how linux could be used for generating music
> and movies, and while interesting, it's not even comparable to the
> multimedia power of the MAC and BeOS. (I can't open any application without
> XMMS "coughing" on me....)
>
> To me it seems that despite all linux advances it is still _just_ an
> inexpensive internet sever (web, mail, news, etc..), and a hobbyist OS for
> developers. I think a lot of the reason why is the elitism that Linux folks
> have and distain for the "dumb windows user." What's needed is a real
> paradigm shift within the community. Yeah, we have token companies like
> Gnome and Eazel that genuinely care and are compassionate about the computer
> food-chain, but this isn't enough. (What's up with this in-fighting between
> KDE and Gnome?)
>
> Then again, maybe the fate of linux is never to become a computer for the
> common user, but rather a development environment for programmers and web
> developers. We seem very divided on this issue.
>
> One last thing, I'm not complaining really, it just that I think there are
> different priorities that drive linux compared to the other OSs.
> Consequently, there are opportunity costs and trade-offs. The thing that
> really bothers me is the elitism.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [newbie] Mandrakesoft CEO defends Linux
>
> using the expert mode on the install, my package install was 347.2mb.
> That includes KDE2 with Koffice the network stuuf. Blackbox. Abiword and
> all the other stuff that is needed.
> After adding a bunch of updated and stuff from the unsupported dir it
> whent up to 422.7 mb.
>
> Now mandrake make it so easy to add/remove packages that when I need to
> compile a program from source, I install those packages then and remove
> them when I am finshed.
>
> Mark Hillary
> Registered Linux User 200755
>
> eryl wrote:
>
> > john rigby wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The 99.99% of people out in the Cyberbog that Linux NEEDS to
> >> reach/convert to save us all from Bill, do not need now, in the
> >> future, ever, ANY Development Tools.
> >>
> >
> > I agree. That's been one of the problems I have with linux. When I
> > hand a linux disk to one of my Windows using friends to try, I tell them
> > that the minimum workstation GUI install will take about 1.5 gigabytes.
> > Everyone gives me the "Huh". Why? Because Windoze 98, with office and
> > a bunch of other programs takes about 600 meg. The distros need
> > something like a "Minimal GUI Install" that includes KDE office, One
> > text editor, one file manager, etc. Everything should be available, but
> > face it--for these newbies it's not necessary. Once they find out that
> > they really like using linux, then they have room to experiment. My Mom
> > does not need 5 different terminals or 6 window managers, and she will
> > never have any use for developmental tools.
