Arguments of this sort are a waste of time. I suggest we all go home and play with our toys.

To install a simple app in windows, regardless of whether it's 95, 98, ME, 200, or XP, you download somethingorother.exe, and the double-click it. An installer pops up, and leads the user through the install. That sure is simple. The whole purpose of having tools is to make jobs easier. I'm not going to overgeneralize here - I am on MDK 9.1, and like the learning curve, but when comparing the install tools of Windows to Linux, we're talking about a fine surgeon's scalpel compared to a somewhat sharp rock.

./configure
make
make install
---Oops! you need to install a dozen new packages for that file to install!


or just clicky-clicky.

I think one is obviously better than the other.

A lot more control because it is command line driven? Do you use a GUI? KDE, Gnome? The better control through the command line arguement falls apart pretty quick when you open xmms, evolution, kylix, or any of the other incredible applications that just couldn't function as well if they were only command line driven. Linux needs to evolve, and has been evolving towards something that is easier to use. I know that there are some apps that run better from the command line than in a gui, but that's simply because either the app output is too simple, or nobody has bothered to make a decent gui for it.

I dream of the day of just... clicky-clicky. Couldn't the whole process be automated? Couldn't an installer program check for dependancies, inform the user and get approval to install the appropriate packages, and then configure, compile, and install the app? I'm sure it's on the to-do list of all of the major distributions.


Disclaimer
I painted the basement floor last night, and inhaled a lot of fumes. The statements I have made may or may not be representative or how I really feel.

Unholy,
I subscribe to your words completely. I already said this, and i'll say once again: xp is indeed a serious competitor.
To be easy to use is not an irrelevant and cosmetic concern for a computer system. Being easy can be the difference between being chosen or not.
And plus: what's the cost difference between a xp home box and a redhat or suse box? Not everybody can rely on a broadband to download isos and on a cdrw to burn them.

That true too. The licence issue, although moraly 'debatable', doesn't really ever materialise for the home user, it's more of a corporate thing. So naturally most people don't get what all the hype is about. (The privacy issue isn't so trivial in my opinion).

What ultimately frutrates me about linux (by this I mean any given distro), is that in roughly two days, it is possible to get everything fully functional. I would happily do this for all my friends. But my friends alone won't shift the market.

If only the ./configure and dependeny issue was standardised in a reliable way, then linux would be as easy to use as windows. After all, it is easy to use. But it's the maintenance that gives the average user trouble.

Anyway, I've been drinking . But to reiterate, I think software installation (not the OS), is the only fallback on linux. Aside from that, the learning curve is no steeper than windows.
The major and most important factors are present, but there are just a few small links to iron out. You could argue that this would turn linux into windows, but I'm not suggesting to ditch the command line. Just provide a viable alternative.

<<< MS is a buisness with a good product. >>>

Not so. MS is a business with a product which is, after what, 15 yrs. now(?), finally approaching, if just barely, adequate for a limited number of uses. When I think of all of the money I have pored into MS and MS related products for an operating system which has NEVER proven dependable or secure by ANY stretch of the imagination I am greatly angered. If a college kid can, as an exercise in curiosity, develop with the help of friends and strangers an operating system and application set with the robustness, stability, and sheer integrity which is Linux, why couldn't MS, with all of the time resources and paid programmers and money which they have soaked us all for, have done the same?

<<< Arguments of this sort are a waste of time. I suggest we all go home and play with our toys. >>>

Yeah, and like most things which are a 'waste of time' it does have a certain entertainment value. I like seeing the different points of view. Compared to some sites, this one has been characterized by an uncommon civility. I would keep coming back just for that! I don't know who to thank for that, the webmaster(s) or the posters. Grateful in either case.

"""Not so. MS is a business with a product which is, after what, 15 yrs. now(?), finally approaching, if just barely, adequate for a limited number of uses."""""

I couldn't disagree more! Windows is, after all, and at the cost of stability, the jack-of-all-trades of OS'es. Even if you do not take into consideration that several people and enterprises have programmed for windows, and that this is not due to MS effort (these people and companies have chosen win because it's the most popular), yet there is a big fraction of ms-effort toward win being easy and a general purpose system.

""""If a college kid can, as an exercise in curiosity, develop with the help of friends and strangers an operating system and application set with the robustness, stability, and sheer integrity which is Linux, why couldn't MS, with all of the time resources and paid programmers and money which they have soaked us all for, have done the same?"""""""

Sorry friend.
1. Linus wasn't an average college kid.
2. And "with the help of friends and strangers " is not the most adequate way to describe the network of people and motivation that guided those days.
3. "which is Linux" nowadays is not like the first one released by Linus, and there are important differences developed in corporate environment, such as Redhat and Suse.

I did not mention yet a very interesting aspect of pc history, at least to me:

If we have today this immense use and spread of the PC architecture, we own this to the success of the first xt's from the partnership MS-IBM in the 80's and to the possibility given to an average person to own a home computer. Otherwise, computers would keep being lab-settled creatures, only accessible by technicians and other freaks.
The popularization and massification of the pc led to the low cost technology that we benefit today.

So, if we have a x86 to install unix on it, we, in a certain way, own it to "MS popularization of computing" strategy.

That's why I strongly believe that we have to make linux easier, if we are to have device driver support from vendors, governmente and public agencies using it, etc etc... we all benefit BIG!

<<< 1. Linus wasn't an average college kid.
2. And "with the help of friends and strangers " >>>

I did not say that Linus was an average college kid. And the first release of Linux was done with the assistance of programmers worldwide via internet that the first workable release of Linux was created.

<<< we own this to the success of the first xt's from the partnership MS-IBM in the 80's and to the possibility given to an average person to own a home computer >>>

I did not discount MS contribution re:marketing and popularization of the pc. My argument is that MS has not devoted the resources needed to provide a stable and secure product.
Had they done so, I would not be, since 1999, using Linux.I still don't use Linux for everything, but sometimes I do go for weeks at a time using Linux exclusively.

<<< That's why I strongly believe that we have to make linux easier, if we are to have device driver support from vendors, governmente and public agencies using it, etc etc... we all benefit BIG! >>>

I couldn't agree more, and have made the same argument. One bright spot is that SuSE has been certified for use by US govt agencies should they choose to do so.

Yes, and here in Brasil, since president Lula was empowered in january, there has been a strong move towards free software in the public environment.

It's perceivable: what best offer can win a public call than a completely free one? You don't buy software, you only pay for maintenance, if you need it.

The issue is so big, that Mr. Gates himself spoke to president Lula about it. MS is to loose million-dolar client, the brasilian government.

If I recall correctly, he was the second foreigner to speak to Lula, after election.

"evil corporations" ...or more to the point "evil IT corporations"

There is actually a truely excellent book on this subject by Merrill R. Chapman, "In Search Of Stupidety - Over 20 years of High-tech marketing disasters" 1-59059-104-6, before you run arguments as to the how and why MS and others (whom we like to ignore, because we aren't as reliant on them) are going to bring about the anti-christ, apocalypse and any other form of digital-meltdown, you might want to check out what happened for them to get there. Sure this is only one side of the story, but an important one.

The goal we should keep in mind is not to destroy MS. The goal is not for everyone to migrate to linux, the goal is for people to:
1) have a choice
2) know that they have a choice
3) be able to excercise the choice, regardless of their computer literacy

What i want out of the future of linux is, that when i set up a system and i give options of OS, be confronted with "well you can't do [some task] on linux" regardless of what that task is. an 99% of the time it's not true anyway. You can do anything on linux and a little bit more. There are times MS is the better choice, or more to the point the easier choice.

Ease of use is the name of the game, but that is not all. People need to know they have a choice. Quite right we don't need to sound like hyper geeks, cause it will scare people away. Heck how long does it take to set up a linux box? Mandrake is a 25min install, and about 10 min to get the net, and your email. Networking i've never succeeded too well at, and i never really tried, though internet sharing worked fine via a windows box (never got it cranking on linux, never tried that hard).

Still we are talking 35+ networking, which i'm sure there is a HOWTO out there somewhere (/usr/doc/....?) Windows takes significantly longer. about 40 min install process (heck booting of the CD takes 5 min alone) and then giving info, then activation, then calling MS cause the system config changed, it takes longer. Alot longer.
Am i a nerd because i know how to set up an internet connection? NO, most people don't know how to do it, but its a simple process never the less, so it ain't a drama.

People need to learn that this $1000 piece of computer is not dangerous, and rather friendly. Regardless of their OS. Then that they can choose their OS.
No one cares that the Corps are raping us till the cows come home. We already knew that, politics and IT don't mix, especially when the average person has issues with politics as it stands, and doesn't need their computer ("where do i turn it on?") to be daunting AND annoying.

<<< Windows takes significantly longer. about 40 min install process >>>

And then install video drivers, reboot, install sound drivers, install MS Office, reboot, install anti-virus, reboot, install firewall, install update, reboot, install update, reboot, install update, reboot, install balance of updates(hold your breath and hope they all take), reboot, Install 'tweaks', install spyware software, reboot, etc,. And this is a home user/SOHO box. Now if you want to talk about 30 or 40 networked boxes the fun is just beginning. Sure do miss all of that.

Ricdave, have you ever actually used an NT-based version of Windows? All drivers can be installed together. All updates can be installed together. The majority of software can be installed together... I still haven't rebooted yet, in this hypothetical situation, and yet I have nVidia Detonators, SB Audigy drivers, Office 2003, DreamWeaver MX, FireWorks MX, Photoshop 7, and 140mb of Updates installed. (This wasn't an SP1 slipstreamed CD).

You know, it's quite simple to just click "Cancel" when asked if you want to reboot.

Oh, and as far as 30 or 40 networked boxes go, in Windows Server 2003 I can set up an installation image in ADS (Advanced Deployment Services), remotely connect to each box simultaneously, and have 40 copies of WS2003 installed in 11 minutes. Show me a version of Linux that can do that, and then I'll stop laughing.

Well, don't we all have opinions. Well, I'm big dumb newbie and I have one too. I'm a builder kind of person. I built my PC tower AMD athlon 2700 (not a Pentium) an A7N8X motherboard,etc, etc. My wife and I are building our own house with our own hands. So I think my PC operating system should reflect my lifestyle.
Mickeysoft is easy, but there is a lot going on with Mickeysoft I'm not fond of like E-mail and browser are part of each other and stuff like that. Mickeysoft's attempt to strangle the PC software market did make me none to happy either.
I switched to linux , not being very bright I went with SuSE 8.2. It installed with very few problems. I'm presently using the KDE style (please no booing). So far it dose everything Mickeysoft ME did just not as flashy, with one thing more added if something goes wrong I now stand half a chance fixing it (I like that).
No, I'm no genius, just average person. Yes, the linux could use a little tinkering to ease the learning curve for the occasional user like myself, but at least it's got a learning curve for when things go wrong. Don't you wish all OS. did
(linux user for a month)

<<< Ricdave, have you ever actually used an NT-based version of Windows? All drivers can be installed together. All updates can be installed together. >>>

Win2X, Win3X, Win9X, NT3, NT4, Win2k, Novell 3.12, Novell 4.11. IE update, directx(Ithink), and media player have to be installed seperately. With the number of updates required, I have found that the prudent course is to incrementally update. No more than 3 or 4 at a time. Otherwise, very likely that system will choke. Also, everything else has to come to a stop while you are downloading and installing updates. And then there is the inevitable reboot. It is not unheard of for an MS update to actually break your system.

Not a good thing to happen with 50+ clients.

Novell and Linux, in our shop, just won't break. MS is out, and very likely will never be allowed back in.

As an educator (k-12) it's interesting to read what everyone thinks. I know that we educators for the most part have a two track mind (win or mac). K-12 school districts spend thousands of dollars on computers software, a lot of which is wasted, and is paid by our tax dollars (better yet yours). With budgets being tightened maybe it's time to really look at other resources.

I know of very few districts use linux. I image if they are, they're certainly saving money. Along with other open source software school districts could save huge amounts of money. Unfortunately it doesn't happen enough. Sorry I may have driven a little off course, but your discussions made me think about how this could effect education.

Cheers