Re: Call for a new operating system
From: ArWeGod (ArWeGod?_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 01/20/04
- Next message: _at_(none): "Re: Call for a new operating system"
- Previous message: ArWeGod: "Re: Call for a new operating system"
- In reply to: Tobias Skytte: "Re: Call for a new operating system"
- Next in thread: _at_(none): "Re: Call for a new operating system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:45:30 GMT
"Tobias Skytte" <tobias@itservices.co.mz> wrote in message
news:a30b8dd6.0401190103.38764d86@posting.google.com...
> Sybren Stüvel <sybrenUSE@YOURthirdtower.imagination.com> wrote in message
news:
> >
> > > 4. Needs to be idiot-friendly (Windows users won't know to type
> > > "mount /dev/cdrom" to access the CD-ROM)
> >
> > Cars aren't idiot-friendly, you need lessons first. There are a lot
> > of things you need to learn how to use before you can use it
> > properly. Why should things as complex as computers be anything
> > different?
> >
>
> IMHO there is a big problem that is preventing linux from becomming
> mainstream and that is the difficulty in installing applications.
> Normal users will never be able to compile code and edit textfiles.
> And even worse, quite often when reading INSTALL txtfiles there will
> be instructions like 'make sure you are using version x of this and
> that', without giving instructions on how to check that.
> You can say alot about windows, but it is very easy to use. To install
> a program you usually just click on the installation file and follow
> instructions from the install wizard.. easy peasy, 10 secs later you
> are using it (and 20 secs later it bluescreens, but that's another
> story.. :-) )
> I don't see why computers shouldnt be made easy to use. I think that
> the above mentioned install nightmares are often because the
> programmer is too lazy to make a installation script that takes care
> of checking dependencies and so on. In the windows world people go
> through great lengths to make good installation programs for their
> software. Why not for linux?
>
> Regards,
> Tobias Skytte
The advantage of being a monopoly and having billions to spend are
inter-related.
1. Every device manufacturer wants their device to work with Microsoft. They
go out of their way to court MS engineers (and try not to be bought out - a
risk of being TOO good).
2. Do you realize HOW MUCH usability it takes to figure out what idiots are
capable of?! Remember that nothing can be made idiot-proof because idiots
are so ingenious! This means $$$ spent on idiots banging on the keys.
3. There is ONE contact point. If I make a new widget, who do I talk to in
"Unix" to make it work with their product? Who do I sell my soul and 27% of
my profit to? Where is the Unix CEO?
It is not only in Hell that it is better to rule than be one of the masses -
business demands it for products. They will use the Freebie stuff for a mail
server or firewall, but when someone has a question about how to print a
slideshow they want Powerpoint Tech support. And they will pay for that.
Monopolies and Unions are often disparaged and seen as anachronisms, but
they have their place in a new, changing world. Then they must be destroyed,
of course, and I hate them both. But don't expect things to get better from
their absence.
<steps of soap box>
- Next message: _at_(none): "Re: Call for a new operating system"
- Previous message: ArWeGod: "Re: Call for a new operating system"
- In reply to: Tobias Skytte: "Re: Call for a new operating system"
- Next in thread: _at_(none): "Re: Call for a new operating system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
