hellish - don't bother

[Eric Dunbar]

On 6/13/05, Ed Sutherland <digital at twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> As an on-again, off-again Linux user (YDL, Gentoo, Suse, Lindows and
> Ubuntu), I have to agree. Linux was once the refuge for average desktop
> computer users looking for an alternative to Mac or Windows. As these
> two major OSes have increased their usability (particularly Windows
> security), the attractiveness of Linux for mainstream users has
> dwindled.

I must disagree, partially. Mac/Windows are slick OSes and they've got
polished interfaces BUT there isn't that much revolutionary thinking
going on any more (especially in the Windows world). Apple is doing a
far better job of bringing new ideas and work paradigms to OS X than
MS is to WIndows but there's still little change that's happening on
the basic GUI front -- Mac System from 1984 is not different from Mac
OS X in 2004. It shows just how far ahead of everyone else Apple was
in 1984, but it also shows how Apple has stagnated since.

And, I think that Linux's attractiveness to mainstream users has
INCREASED dramatically in the past year, and I also think that MS has
done little to NOTHING to combat the loss of confidence in their OS.
When 40% or more of all Windows computers are infected by spyware you
know they're failing.

> Today, Linux remains the sole haven for users which either
> cannot afford to upgrade to a modern major operating system or cannot
> philosphically stomach the motives of MS or Apple.

I think people use Linux for a wide variety of purposes -- to
experiment (like me), to run servers (like me), to do every day
fooling around with web, e-mail and word processing (like me,
sometimes) or for serious work (not like me). The reasons for their
choice of Linux vary but I don't think cost is *that big* of a factor.
The fact that you can see and change the code is a psychological
factor for some, freedom from spyware and viruses is a motivator for
others, and, for some cost will play a role.

You can get a functional system (which has QAQC issues in apps) that
can do MORE than and is as good as what you could get from
Microsoft/Intel in the early-1990s FOR FREE (there's r, a stats
language, OO.org, GIMP, NVU, etc.). Plus, you have exceptional
over-all system stability (even if the apps themselves are flakey).

> Myself, computers are
> not an end unto themselves, but a tool enabling me to make a living. It
> is rather significant the place society has put computers; second only
> to the love-hate affair we've developed with the automobile.

I hate automobiles. I'm waiting for the day when it becomes legal to
take a sledge to those utterly anti-social monster SUVs, or to some
!!!hole running a red or parking illegally.

As for computers, Linux is actually a better tool than Windows in many
respects since so much is built-in and there are NO restrictions as to
what you can do with the software. If you develop a solution, there is
absolutely NOTHING preventing you from packaging up your app(s) and
sending it(them) to your colleage, LEGALLY.

That said, Linux is not ideal for all situations. If you need your
word processor or spread sheet not to crash on you half-way through a
search or need guaranteed compatibility with others, then Windows/Mac
with MS Office is definitely the way to go. If you don't make your
living off those activities then OpenOffice.Org is certainly an
acceptable alternative! If you browse the web, write a few e-mails and
maybe play solitaire once in a while, then Linux IS for you. You don't
need the fancy snazzy Windows on your desktop, and you especially
don't need the risk of spyware that comes with Windows.

PS I must say that even corporately "locked down" Windows NT MSIE 5.5
is at risk of infection with spyware. I've now seen two computers
within a stone's throw of my desk come down with a case of spyware b/c
people ended up at the wrong site.

Eric.