Re: Considering switch to linux
- From: andyfraser31@xxxxxxxxxxx (Andy Fraser)
- Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:41:57 +0000
Walter Mitty <mitticus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Instead of spouting crap like the "not ready for the desktop" line why
> > not either work with the KDE/Gnome/other WM or DE devs to improve the
> > GUI or just admit that you've failed with Linux and stay with Windows?
>
>
> If he put "full community desktop" would you agree?
Define "full community desktop".
> If you are really
> saying thast Linux is as easy to install across the board of PCs as
> Windows than you must have a Penguin up your ass.
I can tell you just as many Windows installation horror stories as I can
Linux installation horror stories. Neither is harder than the other.
A good installation tool is a good thing but focusing on installation as
a measure of whether Linux is ready for the desktop is wrong because
it's something that should only be done once. Too many Linux noobs and
journalists only seem to focus on Linux installation routines though.
Many average Windows users will never install Windows. Most of my
Windows using friends have never installed Windows. If any of these
users want to try Linux they have to install it. This may be the first
time they've ever installed an OS.
Installing an OS is a big deal. It's not like just installing an app but
too many of these average users treat the installation as if they /were/
just installing an app. Judging by some of the questions I've read on
Usenet some people don't even seem to read the installation docs.
My Dad took the right approach. He'd had terrible problems getting
Windows 2000 installed because he didn't understand partitioning so he
asked me to install Linux for him. He's had no problems with it and he's
only ever had good experiences with it, maybe because he didn't get
stuck in an installation routine. My advice: find someone, either a
friend or from a LUG, to help with installation and initial
configuration.
> Ive said it before : my desktop is great. Stable, looks nice. Half the
> apps I use feel distinctly amateurish though
None of the apps I use feel amateurish but I guess it's subjective.
> and there is no common
> look & feel between a lot of them - this can be important for general
> non techie office workers.
Telll that to MS and Apple. There are apps for Windows and OS X that
don't conform to the standard look and feel. MS seem to change the look
& feel of Office with every new release. Windows media players all tend
to be skinable with the default skins not conforming to the standard
Windows look & feel. Those MS "home" apps like Encarta and Autoroute had
a completely different look & feel to other Windows apps. Apple seem to
add a new look with every new version of OS X. I counted five.
It probably seems worse on Linux because most apps tend to be either
Qt/KDE or GTK and it's a big split. At least Qt/KDE apps tend to follow
one set of guidelines that they've stuck to since at least KDE 2. The
same is pretty much true for GTK. You do get the odd rouge app like on
any OS though.
> You are in denial if you think Linux is "there" : it's not
Learn some basic comprehension. The statement I was responding to was
"Linux isn't ready for the desktop", a broad statement meaning Linux
can't be used as a desktop OS. Because Linux is ready for my desktop I
proposed "Linux isn't ready for the desktop of
$PERSON_OR_GROUP_OF_PEOPLE" which I think is a far more resonable. How
many times do I have to repeat this before you get a clue?
--
Andy.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Considering switch to linux
- Next by Date: Re: recommendations : image grabber, translator.
- Previous by thread: Re: Considering switch to linux
- Next by thread: Re: Considering switch to linux
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
