Ok, I suppose most Linux users don't know that they're using Linux? Maybe that's true for Android, not for anything else.
So I don't see the point of your point. Yes, gramma and her email-and-surf probably doesn't give a hoot _what_ she's using, as long as it's cheap (so she doesn't have to eat cat food), easy (so she doesn't have to bug the grandkids to help), and it works. I got that. Big deal. Me, I want gramma to grow a pair or eat cat food. But then I'm spoiled, the only relative I have to deal with would have the plug pulled on them before they'd refuse to learn something new. Anyone to whom Linux familiarity is an issue, probably knows what they're using. So I still don't see your point. Mine was that something easy to use could be based in part on BSD for all anyone cared. Heck, maybe we're both making the same point from opposite sides. On Oct 10, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Dan Swartzendruber wrote: > > I think I've gotten frustrated enough at trying to make the same point N > times that I'm done here. One last time: the point was that someone brought > up OSX as an example of a widely deployed platform using a non-linux (as I > recall the point) OS. My rebuttal was that 95% or whatever of the users of > OSX have no clue that BSD or linux or OS/360 is the underlying OS, so it was > a bad example. I honestly don't understand why this has been such a > difficult point for people to understand. _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
