On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 12:05, Black wrote: > I think we have the same point, but have different expectations of the > "average" user. Computer shops here in the States charges $20 to install > memory, $50 to install a hard drive and the "average" computer user, in my > experience, chooses to actually pay that! If you can't do it yourself, pay > someone who can. Average users are "internet", "word processor", and > "checkbook" appliance users. Linux is more than ready for them. > > I truly think that when he said "Linux" needs to mature a few years, he > really meant waiting for their niche user, the user that is willing to try > something different, to mature. I doubt this a lot. I've had several friends I set up with RHL. All of them are now on WinXP. Why? Hardware never worked right (just installing nvidia drivers was a pain, and they broke whenever a kernel security update came along), GNOME menu editing was broken (which was the DE I set them up with, because I don't know KDE and couldn't help them with it), most apps required tons of technical detail to install (i.e., I had to install every additional app they wanted), and so on. In the end, they thought it more than worth it to pay $200 for WinXP Home and just be able to install anything they pleased whenever they pleased, and so on. In other words, Linux was $200 worth of inconvenience to these people. Who do a lot more than browse the web or word process, but who don't in any way know or want to know how to muck about with a command line, understand poor RPM packaging, understand why the kernel ABI isn't stable, understand what the hell an ABI even is, etc. Red Hat is right, Linux needs to mature for the people who just want to sit down and use the computer for something more than a 'net connected type-writer, and don't want to have to call over a friend every couple hours. Hopefully the CEO's "couple year" estimate is accurate. (I really doubt, but I'll try to be optimistic.) -- Sean Middleditch <elanthis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
