Re: Linux has a long way to go before it becomes the major OS

From: Lord Jagged (lord.jagged_at_arcor.de)
Date: 02/08/04 

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:31:17 +0100

Ron Matthews schrieb:
> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when Vicious Vogon <vogon@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:51:48 +0000, Fish wrote:
>>>[...]
>>In contrast, the thing about Windows (and various other systems) is
>>that the shallower learning curve increases the likelihood that users
>>will never actually learn _anything_ beyond the shallowest of
>>understandings of system behaviour.
>
> That's because the model of system behaviour that windows uses is
> deliberately structured that way. The model of system behaviour

... if a deliberate structure implies application crashes with output
that the ordinary user won't ever be able to understand...

> that Linux follows is very old and primitive. You don't gain a

It's old, yes, but not primitive... it's easy and flexible at the same
time. Only files and processes... nothing else is needed. Not even a
user friendly GUI (i like to have a full featured command line interface
in case the GUI doesn't start up. Tell me, which Windoze can give me that?

> deeper understanding of your computer with linux, you only get a
> deeper understanding of linux. And since it takes a longer time to
> get a deeper understanding of linux then it takes to get a deeper
> understanding of windows, windows has the advantage.

You can't get a deeper understanding of Windoze with only what is
shipped with it. With Linux, (almost) everything is well documented, so
you can really learn the basics. And, of course, you can gain knowledge
of the underlying computer principles and hardware by reading and
studying the source code of, for example, device drivers and even some
applications like grub. That would be impossible under WIndoze, except
ypu're an assembly professional, which would claim you to be not an
ordinary user.

> But linux + X and various other tools show how linux works, not the
> computer. Linux and Windows both talk to the hardware but Windows
> speaks a more modern language and that's why there are so many more
> users and so much superior hardware.

But with Linux you can read after _how_ it talks to the hardware.

>>Unfortunately, there are two additional implications:
>
> But linux doesn't give you a deeper understanding of a system.

Not implicitly, but it offers possibilities to the user, and Windoze
doesn't.

> Linux is the system. Gaining a deep enough understanding of linux
> to make the hardware work takes more effort than gaining a deep
> enough understanding of windows to make the computer work.

That's why most shallow computer users rely on it (or don't even know
that there is an alternative) and so most vendors get into the steps of
microsoft building hardware and drivers for Windoze, cos they can make
money with it. It's more mercantile than philosophic behaviour.

>> With Windows, the shallow learning curve means you can't get a
>> deep understanding quickly. It's like a beach with a really
>> shallow grade; you may have to wade out 2 miles until the water
>> gets deep enough to swim in, and that is both irritating and
>> time-consuming.

> Your analogy is totally flawed. Windows has a "shallow learning
> curve" because it is a more modern language. It does things

And it's _this_ modern language that withholds the users from getting to
the basics :-) Besides i don't consider "more modern" as a synonym for
better or maturity. I think Linux is the more mature product, since it
has grown for 30+ years and, it doesn't lack performance due to that,
though Windoze does by providing compatibility to older releases of
their ... ummm... system crash providers ;-)

> [...]
> This is silly. I am not sure why I am responding to somebody as
> stupid as you. You've just bought into a lot of empty myths about

time to become polemic and offensive?

br, Jagged

Relevant Pages