On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:14:07PM +0200, Kaspars Melkis wrote:
> >It isn't just marketting schmock. It is millions, if not billions of
> >dollars
> >spent trying to *ensure* that either you, or friend of yours, can navigate
> >Windows enough to get you going. Linux has not infiltrated the desktop
> >market enough to have this status.
> I don't think that installation and using of Windows XP or Fedora Linux
> is that much different. Windows XP might have a better Clear Type
> technology/fonts but for the basic programs, like office or e-mail
> client it is basically all the same.
'Basically' doesn't account for user preference. You are speaking from a
technical stand-point. End users are not technical. They don't care that
the features are all available. They expect to find them under a certain
set of menus, and if they are not, they become flustered. Flustered means
disappointment, and dislike.
You've also ignored the driver comment, one of the central comments
made by the CEO. As a fairly long-term Linux user, I have not bothered
to try and figure out how to get my scanner or digital camera working
on Linux (too much work). I put my CD burner in my Windows box, again,
because I don't want to fight with the thing, and the best CD burning
software (for my uses) is still Windows-based. My printer? Hah. I tried
to get CUPS working on my Linux box for my DeskJet 932C. Not worth the
effort, again. On Windows, the printer was recognized immediately. Under
Linux, I have to do all sorts of twiddling, and it is simply not worth
my time. What about my logitech keyboard with its multimedia keys across
the top? Is their Linux software that can be *simply* installed to provide
me with sensible use of these keys? No. What about my games? Do they come
out with Linux? No, they don't.
Your technical arguments about 'basically the same' are narrow and uninformed.
> >As for the worm/virii comments, this is uninformed anti-Microsoft
> >hype. The most dangerous exploit in any system, is the user. Microsoft
> >Windows is a platform designed to be convenient for these sorts of
> >people.
> Isn't it the self-contradictory statement? In other words: Windows XP is
> the best for a dumb user because it is easy to use, and at the same time
> it is not OS fault for worms and viruses because a user is too dumb to
> use it properly. It's like half-hen logic.
Security and usability are contradictory requirements. The most
convenience and practical systems to use would be entirely open
without any need for things like passwords. People intuitively
want their systems to be open.
It is the presence of malicious and misdirected people in this world
who create the need for security. Security, by definition, restricts
access, and therefore, restricts usability. Maintaining the fine balance
between providing the usability that people requirement, while making
it impossible for the features to be exploited is a balance that can never
be perfectly reached.
These issues *need* to be understood. People who think that you can have
both are confused. You can have some of one, and some of the other.
> But technically speaking the only weakness I see for Linux on the
> desktop for a home user is a lack of high quality applications. Not just
> Internet/E-mail/Office suite but hundreds of different small utilities
> offered for free or small cost by diffrent wendors, be it calory
> calculator used by my wife, IP telephony to chat with my friend for
> hours or a driver for a digital camera. And it is exactly because Linux
> is not very widespread on desktops, catch-22. But once I am in Linux I
> have no choice but to evangelise Linux right now to make it happen on
> the desktop tomorrow.
Technically speaking, I put the Linux kernel, and the Windows kernel
on equal grounds (although their design is not similar). You speak
above about applications being the problem. Sure. Applications are the
problem. Applications introduce the insecurities in the system, and
Applications influence users into purchasing or using the
system. 'Applications' are arguably the single most important factor
when it comes to desktop users. If we were talking about a company that
was designing an embedded product, and only required a kernel to base
their work from, the issue would be entirely different.
Linux has room for improvement. This can be construed as a bad thing,
or a good thing, insulting, or encouraging, depending on what point
you want to prove, or what your perspective is.
My perspective, one that I believe is compatible with the CEO of
RedHat, is that Linux has *not* reached its plateau, meaning that the
rest of the trip is *not* down hill. 5 years ago Linux was at the
bottom of the desktop mountain. Now, perhaps, we're 3/4 of the way to
the top. All the reason why our efforts should be renewed!
Cheers... :-)
mark
--
mark@xxxxxxxxx/markm@xxxxxx/markm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
