Thank you all. :)
I am intrigued (sometimes confused) by the debate on this subject. I
trust that there will be more. But, in the meantime, fwiw let me define
a few perspectives as I see them.
Some of the technical language is obscure for me. But the basic fact,
from my angle, is that I am looking at this from the point of view of
the "end user". Who isn't, and shouldn't be, interested in the depth of
the technologies behind the manageability of what he or she wants to do.
Most people around the world believe that "everything" is microsoft.
They don't know what system they are using. What they have "is it". They
are not aware of any other system and they don't care. Much to their own
trouble and disadvantage.
(Some are with apple-mac and they are not interested in any alternatives
- if they are deeply into graphics, or other special applications, maybe
they are right).
Operating systems (especially some applications, such as word processors
and "office" suites) are *not* mutually compatible (or not as much as
they should).
Basic Unix systems have been around for forty years. Specifically Debian
- it's no coincidence that comparatively recent Linux releases, such as
Ubuntu, are Debian-based.
Good Linux releases have been relatively easy to *use* for several
years. But very difficult (for anyone not good at Unix, like most
technical services today) to upgrade, install, manage software etc.
There *has* been a major change in 2009. More needs to be done, but it's
a "big step" in the right direction.
If a specific machine doesn't support a good opensource release, the
blame is on the machine and its nearsighted manufacturer. It's less
expensive to replace it than to bear the cost of a "proprietary" os and
it's messy "upgrades".
With windows getting worse all the time, good linux releases are
*easier* (as well as better) than the crap that 90 % of users worldwide
are uncomfortably "living with".
Are there new operating systems that may be even better? Maybe, we
shall see. As long as they are opensource (and compatible) the more the
merrier - though we don't really need too many confusing options,
especially those that are still in a beta-testing stage.
(Google is getting into almost everything - e.g. the Chrome browser is
working nicely, though I am not ready to give up Firefox - but I am not
sure that we need a new bicycle or toothbrush generated by a
diversification orgy).
I am not particularly interested in the appearance of the desktop.
Unfortunately I am in the habit, like most people - and occasionally I
have a bit of fun messing around with icons etc. But sometimes I dream
of going back to the command line - and damn the mouse. That is
unrealistic (for some uses the mouse actually works better) but I am
really doing my best to re-learn how to use the keyboard more often.
As I see it, metaphoric guis are not the issue. Well working operating
systems with easily manageable interfaces are what matters.
Has the time come, at last, to bury "windows", the microsoft monopoly
and the whole idea of "proprietary" systems? As far as I can see, the
answer is yes. But very few people around the world are aware of this
opportunity.
Where am I wrong?
Cheers
Giancarlo
P.S. That the solution is often to reboot has been true, as far as I can
tell, for a long time and with all sorts of machines. Now that a variety
of appliances have become computers (including telephones, mobile or
otherwise, and television sets) it happens that the way of correcting a
misfunction is to turn off the electricity for a few minutes.
