On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:54:13AM +1100, Crossfire ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Jobst Schmalenbach was once rumoured to have said:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 10:49:48PM +0800, Mike Holland ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
> > > Worse, such instructions a a distraction from the real problem, which is
> > > to educate users on basic computer hygiene. The next version might not be
> > > so benign!
> > > And anti-microsoft rants dont help. It could just as easily be a perl
> >
> > It *IS* after all MICROSOFT who makes the user stupid, eh????
> >
> > > script targeting Linux. The weak link is the user, not the OS.
> >
> > As said above, Linus users are NOT stupid as Linux reqiures SOME knowledge
> > to be used.
>
> Yes, but this is the wrong direction - you obviously missed maddog's
> keynote at LCA.
>
> Maddog highlighted several points which I've been thinking for some
> time - people want to use something that is simple and easy to use -
> they don't want to have to think.
>
> Computing Eliteism will not win the platform war for anybody.
>
> Things need to make sense, they need to be consistant. It should be
> entirely possible to build a system where basic/introductary users
> can't burn their fingers easily, but advanced/experienced users can
> disable the safety net.
A problem is that Microsoft is trying to tell the user that you
can do everything yourself:
* changing the operating system,
* applying service packs
* changing hardware
* adding/taking out hardware
but fail to observe that the average Mr. John Bloggs cant do that and
still trying to make their operating systems to go that way.
That is the same as you have a Merc and you:
* change the carburettor
* change the clutch
* add a compressor
* change brakes
Most people bring the car to a garage and they are NOT told by the manufacturer
of the software "running" the car that they can "do it yourself".
Lets assume you have a nice and real expensive fast car.
You wouldnt bring it to a company where the guy in the workshop has the
alternative of some of Microsofts MC** stuff, would you and neither would
anybody else ......
Furthermore if a company can decide that what the current standard is (eg HTML and IE)
than something is terribly wrong.
Furthermore if a company decides to be innovative just to make it different (a
difference???)
to anybody else something is terribly wrong.
And one of the biggest problems we have has to do with the philosophy of *ANY* company.
If you work for a company you adhere to the philosophy/standards/products/marketing of
THAT
company. Now if a compnay grows really really large than everybody within that company
follows
that philosophy (speak tunnel view).
So a lot of smaller companies will innovate to a much higher extend that one large
company
because each of the companies has their way of doing things.
This is what really gets me.
We have been standing still or even have been going backwards for years now.
I cant even imagine where we might be without Micorsofts politics .........
jobst
--
Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
| __, Jobst Schmalenbach, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Technical Director|
| _ _.--'-n_/ Barrett Consulting Group P/L & The Meditation Room P/L |
|-(_)------(_)= +61 3 9532 7677, POBox 277, Caulfield South, 3162, Australia|
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
