On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Daniel Crookston wrote: > I think it's a fantastic business move. If he were to advertise Linux as an > alternative to Windows for home users right now, a lot of home users are > going to get frustrated trying to do on Linux what they can do easily on > Windows, and will give up on it. By telling them to wait a few years, he's > being honest with his customers (how can that be bad?) and will be winning > their trust. In a few years, when Linux reaches the point where it can > compete with Windows head on, there will be a lot of people trusting Linux > who will want to move over as soon as Linux says that they should.
Still, he could have worded it different, saying something like: "Linux isn't ready yet to compete head-on with Windows on the desktop in the home user environment. It will be ready in a few years. However, there have been many 'early adopters' who enjoy tweaking their systems who have tried out Linux as a desktop solution and been very happy with it." Of course, maybe that /is/ what he said and ZDNet only quoted part of it. But to blanketly say "Linux, desktop, bad" sends a very message to me, a Red Hat desktop user. To get this somewhat on-topic: all these changes at Red Hat ... do you think it will affect the availability of binary RPM packages? I really don't want to have to return to the nightmare of compiling everything I install on my system. RPMs are just so easy! ~ Ross ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
