Re: Linux for Kids
From: chris (chrisehunter_at_NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: Yvan_at_office: "Re: Clone 200GB Linux Harddisk"
- Previous message: Mxsmanic: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- In reply to: Ohmster: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Reply: Mxsmanic: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:15:25 GMT
Ohmster wrote:
> Phew, I don't get it. So Microsoft has better programs for kids.
Possibly, but unlikely.
> Give them Microsoft then, no big deal. I really, really don't understand
> all of the "Bill hating" in this newsgroup.
We don't "hate" him, just despise his business methods and don't like his
"operating systems".
> So Windows is a commercial product, and it is a good one, so what?
No. Windows is not a "good commercial product". It is unreliable,
insecure, slow, and not "fit for purpose".
> No reason to hate the guy or his enterprise.
There are several good reasons for hating his "enterprise". Microsoft has
held back computing for over 15 years, and has bribed, stolen and forced
its' way to the top of the heap. Microsoft has NEVER innovated - they have
just seen a technology that they think will suit their purpose and then
stolen the code (like "Stacker" for example), or bought out the company
that developed it. There are even some significant parts of Windows that
are directly stolen from BSD.
> There might be some stuff for kids on linux but not a lot.
There's quite a lot, if you bother to look.
> They are going to be using MS computers at school and if you give them
> only linux, then they are going to feel "gypped" when all of the other
> kids start discovering new, cool stuff for kids on their Windows machines
> and that your kids "can't play".
No. Modern, forward thinking schools in this country are using other
operating systems, despite Bill Gates "buying" his way into the
"government" with huge bribes.
> Microsoft software does not suck, most of it is quite good, actually.
No it isn't. It's insecure, unstable, slow and bloated.
> There is no sin in using MS products, it is just that they are high
> priced sometimes and that linux stuff is usually free.
Unfortunately, the average domestic user sees Windows as "free" because it
came "free" on their new computer. The prices for Windows server versions
are just plain silly. Win 2003 has a mean time to crash of around 20
minutes, and lasted just under four minutes on the 'net before it was
compromised - it cost over $100 per minute of uptime!
> Linux is better,
> IMHO, for networking and servers, the MS servers will kill you with the
> prices that they charge for that stuff,
Linux is now also better for the desktop - the kde is better integrated than
much of Windows, and the "Office" options (OOo, Koffice) actually work
properly without crashing.
> (Ridiculous really, c'mon,
> thousands of dollars, all the time?) and there are more security issues,
> but don't feel bad about having an MS computer in the house, there is
> nothing wrong with that.
We have a Windows box here with several versions of Windows on it. It's
used for compatability testing, and doesn't get connected to the outside
world without a proper firewall in place. We also use it to demonstrate
the difference between Windows and Linux. Even the most diehard Windows
users are persuaded that they're using the wrong OS!
> Yes, I am posting this from Xnews, a Windows based news reader. I could
> go to my linux machine and post with Pan, but I am too lazy to scoot over
> to the redhat machine right now.
!
> I play a lot of games and so far as gaming goes, XP pretty much has linux
> whooped.
Real computer users call Windows "GameOS" - it's all it's any good for. It
certainly isn't fit for serious use.
> Not anybody's fault,
> really, just that money makes the world go 'round and the developers just
> are not developing software like new, good games, and small child
> applications for linux computers. That is kind of sad, the last really
> good 2D game that I played on linux was Descent 3 and boy was that a good
> one, but not much has developed for linux since. Just for laughs, I went
> to loki games to see what they have in the way of games for linux. They
> got a pretty lot, but all the games are pretty ancient. :(
>
> And there ya go, most of the "fun" stuff is being developed for Windows.
Fine.
> So get your kid an MS machine and load them up with kewl stuff
So get your kid to McDonalds and fill him with sugar, salt and additives.
> and have a
> linux machine for yourself to do cool networking stuff, use the linux
> machine as a gateway for the family internet and then you can install
> Dan's Guardian to filter out the net so that it is nice and clean for the
> kiddies, and it will give the linux lover of the family a neat project to
> work on. Then you have the best of both worlds, fun Windows stuff for the
> kiddies and fun linux stuff for pop. Nothing wrong with that, nothing at
> all.
That's an approach that might work, but no matter how particular you are
about filtering, your kid will see lots of salacious stuff on the 'net, and
will certainly inadvertently download something detrimental to the survival
of the Windows install. Frustration with the unreliability of Windows is
the best disincentive to use that "operating system". Bill Gates' bunch
are making lots of converts to Linux!
Chris
-- Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
- Next message: Yvan_at_office: "Re: Clone 200GB Linux Harddisk"
- Previous message: Mxsmanic: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- In reply to: Ohmster: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Next in thread: Mxsmanic: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Reply: Mxsmanic: "Re: Linux for Kids"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
