wtf..

Do you actually think Joe Blow knows what file system hes using, or why hes using it?

ok...seriously...how many linux users buy computers from gateway? ROFL

I just installed redhat9 on my computer about 3 days ago. Im a complete newbie to unix and linux, but im not new to programming, so Im picking it up pretty fast...the ability to read and do boolean searches has served me well. on the same token, I am doing what someone else said...Im dual booting right now and just playing with it....lettting it grow on me...learning it gradually... I have done a LOT of reading of these forums and other sites to get a handle on it. The trouble is finding stuff that gives someone who has no clue about linux the material he needs to start making sense of it.

as to the original post...I think what he was asking is why not make linux as easy to use as windoze. good question...and I dont have an answer...

A point I would make is in regards to the earlier statement that most computer users are not geekz. While this is sad, because being a geek is a badge I wear with pride....it is also reality.

So until Linux somehow becomes USER friendly in addition to being GEEK friendly (not that there is anything wrong with that...) Linux will remain second best on the shelf when it comes to the average home user.

For example, my father-in-law is exceptionally pissed off about Microshaft. But he is by no means prepared to learn Linux. Its not that he wants to refrain from learning something new....its that Linux is simply NOT for someone who has no clue what programming and computer logic is all about. He doesnt use his computer for the sake of using it...he uses it to DO stuff...he is 56 years old and just doesnt have the time to be arseing about with it.

Another example...someone gave the analogy of an automobile...and my argument to this example strengthens my point, so bear with me....

He argued that no one can dismantle and engine without RTFM. Totally true. Interesting that we should see it this way.

My question is how many car owners will EVER dismantle their car? In fact, today most car owners dont even change their own oil, they pull up to some quicklube place and pull out their laptop while someone else does it. Car buyers want a car they can stick the key in, turn it, and have it go...they press the buttons to make it go faster or slower, and point it at where they want to go. For them the car is simply a means to an end.

But this is not how we linux people think...we automatically want to tear this thing apart bit by binary bit and examine it and config and tweak it...we are the mechanics of the computing world. For us the car itself is the passion...not using it to get somewhere...driving it is irrelevant.

So you see there is a primary and inherent difference between the average computer user and the average linux user. And the average computer user is what keeps guys like me with food on the table...as much as I hate it when my customers refer to their hdd as memory...in they end, the checks are made out to me...and of course I hand them over to my wife, but that is another rant entirely.

DOS is not a Linux clone. Never was and never be...

What about Microsoft is he exceptionally pissed at?
Their business practices, but not enough to stop contributing to them?
Their software, but not enough to try something else?
Bill's haircut and choice of clothing?
He's really not exceptionally pissed about anything if he is comforatable enough to not do anything about it.
He should keep using Windows if that is what he prefers. That is what you are really saying, that he would prefer Windows. Linux has no reason to become like Windows to continue to grow.
Personally I do not agree that anyone needs to know "programming" to use Linux. Not having a problem using command line tools helps.

I canṫ resist myself giving my 2c worth of crap.

I totally agree with Brutal. But i have a few additions.

Who care if DOS is a clone of Unix Shell or vice versa?
Who cares if inherently linux is better or windows is better?
Who cares if windows take the good features of Linux and try to incoroporate it into their product (or vice versa)?

From a user pespective, getting things done is what counts, productivity is what counts, who cares about the details, computer users uses computers for many purposes, not everyone wants to work with binaries. after all why do computer geeks invent/reuse the concept of abstraction? The answer, so even programmers donṫ have to handle the complex details of components written by someone else.

From a technological perspective, Isnṫ making things better all that counts? If linux or windows were the only system out there, then there would be no competition, if there is no competition then there is less tendency to improve upon our existing technology. technology is demmand driven and market driven, and competition is a necessity if technology is to be improved.

I certainly think windows has done a lot helping to get information technology where it is today. If it is not for windows would there be ecommerce today? If it is not for windows would we be able to run interconnected coporate networks consisting of thousands of desktops? How would you manage a network of that size if linux were used, it translates to countless painful hours.

and if linux geeks wants to crap on about how shit windows is then talk to yourselves in the mirror. Personally i love both windows and linux, windows for its productivity and linux for its geekiness.

anyway, i think my 2c worth is goin a little too long


cheers

J

ive tried to avoid this thread but here goes.

i think you'll find a lot of those corporate networks run some kind of unix servers. and i think the super big dns servers(heart of the biggest network in the world) that handle the .com .net etc domain names run linux(or some sort of bsd) not windows. i agree that windows has its place but after administering two networks myself i can assure you its not 'managing networks'

Honestly, Windows has no place in the IT world. The strength of windows is you can configure alot with very user friendly GUIs. Which is fantastic for a home network. However, windows weakness is that it isnt that powerful, stable, or secure. Networks should be dominated by OpenBSD. FreeBSD, and debian boxes, imho.

I always thought that was a given... Almost the "unquestionable truth" of linux. Desktops has always seemed to be the "questionable" place, not the server market where *nix thrives...

Maybe that's just me though. And you of course

Cool

agree with that. its when people realise how great it is to have desktops that never need to reboot....

1. he is pissed about them constantly trying to invade his privacy, and constantly putting out total crap.
2. he hasnt paid them a dime, thanks to me. I havent paid them either, and will continue to pirate as much of their software as possible in order to screw them out of as much money as possible. yes I am a pirate...and I am proudly honest about it. BG can EAT ME.
3. he avoids their software as much as possible. any software he does use is due to the rest of the world using it and the relevant proprietary formats. if his boss didnt use it, neither would he.
4. haircut..bleh...dont be such a pisspot smartass.
5. he WOULD do something about it if he had the time to fugger with it.
6. its not what Im saying, dont put words in my mouth damn you. he uses windows because he HAS to. if it werent for his workplace demanding he use it, he would more than likely switch. but its too much of a hassle otherwise. furthermore, I NEVER said that windows needed to be like windows to grow, you put that there, not me. not my point at all...did you actually read my post or did you just put your own assumptions in there and then slam me for it?

i was pointing out that there are people out there that dont switch either a) out of necessity or, b) lack of knowledge...knowledge that is common to a programmer or someone who has some experience with computing, but not common to just an average email checking, document writing, internet surfing, solitaire playing, calls-his-harddrive-memory, run of the mill user..

look my point was that even though he has no knowledge of command line or programming doesnt mean that he is comfortable with windoze or prefers it. some of you people need to get over yourselves....you assume everyone knows and is comfortable with CLI..or should be...and are unthinking idiots if they arent. well what is common knowledge to the geeks is not to the VAST majority of the world...and it doesnt mean they are stupid it means they have different, but just as valuable, priorities or careers.

Well, DOS 1.0 was CP/M/etc-based which is *not* Unix - not even a little bit. However, DOS 2.0 did incorporate some concepts - most of which are basic to any sort of computer system - but which were modeled largely on *nix - MS was interested in Xenix around this time.

So to say DOS is a Unix clone is *way* overstating things. As it would be to say DOS had nothing in common with Unix. And I don't understand how it can be a slam to say DOS is a 'ripoff' of Unix, as the attitude was well back in this thread, and some other threads. Linux is a *huge* ripoff of Unix. *g* It actually *is* a clone. I think it's to DOS' credit that they improved DOS with Unix concepts. And the slam comes in, indeed, because it was such a poor implementation of them. Not that DOS should have been a Linux clone before Linux - I've stressed before that DOS 2.0 and on have entirely different ends from Unix and *should* have a different implementation - Unix was designed for portability and time-sharing mainframes in large multi-user systems dealing with an array of issues. DOS was designed to power a single-user x86 so the user could write letters and balance his checkbook. Unix is ridiculous overkill and DOS did a reasonable job *at* its job. In trying to move into the corporate world, DOS was out of its element and with the advent of the net, DOS was made largely unusable. Hence NT and OS/2 and Linux. *And* all DOS-bashing is pointless and misplaced. DOS is dead. Anyone using ME desperately needs to switch and anyone using 98 needs to upgrade. To Linux. Because the only valid comparisons are between Linux and NT - NT3x,4, NT5.0 (Windows 2000) and NT 5.1 (Windows XP). And there, Linux is markedly superior but NT isn't quite the easy punching bag DOS is. If all Linux users focus on is how much better Linux is than DOS... well, that's just silly. You could have one lameass speedboat and congratulate yourself on how you kick a rowboat's ass but the rowboat dude fishing in a pond doesn't give a damn about your speedboat and the other speedboats don't care about pond-fishing. If you rest on your "better than a rowboat" laurels, the other speedboats may start kicking your ass.

It's been 9 years since a pure DOS system was released and 5 years since a remotely usable DOS7x/Windows4x system (Windows 98) was released. Time to switch the debate.

I am in disagreement with the philosophy of the end justifies the means and that it is OK to stoop to a lower level than Microsoft does in order to hurt them. Piracy is simply wrong.

Society depends upon the rule of law and you are chipping away at the foundation....

piracy doesnt harm microsoft, it harms the retailer, microsoft has already got there money when they sell to the distributor. as for whether piracy is right or wrong thats a whole other discussion.

im not chipping at anything...I cant even make a dent.

I dont belong to centropy or immersion ok. all Im doing is avoiding paying outrageous sums of money for worthless software that I only use because I have to.

nonetheless, I respect your opinion. and I dont intend to hijack the thread with a piracy debate. nuff said.