On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:06:19AM -0000, adrian.wells wrote:
<snip>
But a few of points. 1) Sorry that you don't support Charset iso-8859-1 (why not, your using LINUX aren't you? So tweak it!) (Charsets are never an issue on my crappy old 98m/c here) - I have never had Netscape on the LINUX box display anything big enough to read at less than a foot from the screen! - how DO you do that?
Go to preferences and change your default font, or even better IMHO dump Netscape and use Mozilla.
2) An observation, it's always the beleaguered that whine. Windows users don't harp on about other OS, but everyone has a pop at windows. You have to admit that most PC users on the planet use windows and whether they are sheep or flies has no bearing, the machines work for them, so there MUST be something to be leant here, sticking your head in the sand or pointing out the bad things doesn't help. - or maybe it could, see below.
Windows users don't whine because they're generally unaware that they have a choice & therefore unaware that there might be something better. You seem to have forgotten throughout this thread that PCs usually come pre-installed with a Windows OS and apps pre-loaded, this makes a big difference in the usabilty stakes.
3) I'm not a great fan of windows per sa 4) I think that the ratio of administrators to users is in the users favour. 5) Yes windows is a waste of time as a workstation, especially in a school.
You say above that for users '[Windows] ...machines work for them,..'. But you now contradict yourself by saying that its NBG as a workstation. What exactly is it good at?
6) Pressing return during an installation is hardly taxing on the grey matter, even if you have to run around fifty machines once in a blue moon, but in any case many set-up script files can be modified - if your very keen. Sometimes I give the user choices when installing my software, sometimes I force the issue. It installs either way, no need to find who complied the OS etc. it just works.
Your ability to modify the setup is hampered by by your wonderful `transparent'[sic] OS. Windows does not lend itself to scripting and configuration through the registry is an undocumented nightmare.
7) you may have realized that by now I'm not a fan of thin client either!
Why not?
So, lets have a list on a postcard of 5 things in LINUX that sucks and 5 things in other OS that are groovy, put them all together and improve LINUX even more and make it a real rival for those other OS out there.
I'll try to start it off (in no particular order.) LINUX Bad bits. 1) Hard to find installed apps. (what does "Find Apps" do anyway?)
Nonsense. What about `apropos'? And the equivalent command on a Windows machine is?
2) messy config. files.
Compare with Windows. All config files are generally in /etc, all user settings are in rc files in their home directories. Windows config files? Scattered to hell and west throughout the directory structure without any rhyme nor reason.
3) Installing Apps - what a palaver!
rpm -Uvh ... Palaver? I think not.
4) Almost too flexible - hence doz. of different flavours ( this can/will cause fracture ).
The pros of flexibility far outweighs the cons. How fractured are the different flavours of Windows? Can I run the same app across different Windows platforms? Often no. Yet I can compile and run apps on any linux box and often other unices too.
5) Too many unnecessary user settings - Most things don't work because you forgot to set xyz or point this at that - that's why I have a computer, to do the bits that I shouldn't have to worry about. - This really should be catered for by the person writing the software, not the installer!
It seems to me that you actually don't want a general purpose computer at all. You want the function and flexibility of a general purpose computer but you don't want any of the attendant hassles that anything more than an appliance with limited function and flexibility brings.
Other OS good bits. 1) circa Win95 help files. These are brill.
Gone the way of the dodo. Your `transparent' OS isn't actually transparent at all. The system is undocumented even for developers, and it's impossible to buy any good documentation for the system. I had to buy the MS press `Windows NT Resource Kit' (at considerable expense) as most of the utilities needed for the OS didn't ship with the OS itself; this book is 1300 pages of unadulterated bilge who's only useful function is that of a doorstop. IME, the combination of howtos, package documentation, manpages, websites, newsgroups and source code make even the most intractable linux problem fixable.
2) MAC, Win etc. app installation.
See 3 above.
3) Initial support for new technology by industry.
NT doesn't support plug & play nor power management yet they still sell this OS, the replacement Win2000 hardly supports any software or hardware.
4) Ease of installing out of the box.
Have you ever tried installing Linux on a completely clean hard drive? Have you ever tried installing Windows on anything other than bog standard hardware? I've done both and there is little in it when it comes to installation, but if you come up against a problem with Windows then it can be very difficult to fix indeed.
5) MAC, WIN, confidence from users, purchasers and business in general.
Mac maybe but Windows no. Business users are rapidly finding Microsoft out. You can only sell duff software to businesses so many times. If they were truly happy then they wouldn't be looking for alternatives as evidenced by this mailing list itself. Home users perceive that they have no choice, Macs are prohibitively expensive and don't run as much software, and Microsoft have illegally leveraged their monopoly in order to kill any competing products.
PS I thought MACs were the way to go when I had a classic II, but they have stagnated. Modern MACs are just fast, coloured classics in see-through boxes. At least Windows machines have evolved.
The only way that Windows has evolved is through `embrace & extend' and even then it's hardly changed. Apple's OSX on the other hand looks like a genuinely innovative attempt to harness the power of a unix with ease of use. 5 things in Linux that sucks as compared to Windows: 1. Abysmal support for viruses. 2. Abysmal support for lame scripting languages with holes you can drive a truck through (VB) 3. No defragging tools. 4. Abysmal support for MS proprietry stuff - ActiveX, ASP, .doc ad nauseum. 5. Complicated documentation that is tiresome to read - Windows just throws away the docs and when the OS goes belly up you don't have to bother reading it - hurrah! Adrian your arguments are both tired and lame. Nobody is saying that linux is the greatest thing since sliced bread but to compare it with Windows, spouting a lot of MS market-speak...`innovative', `easy to use' suggests you've been reading a bit too much of that company's propaganda. Windows is difficult to support, expensive and as acknowledged by yourself, useless within a multi-user environment. I don't know what dictionary you've been reading but that isn't my definition of `innovative'. -- Frank *-------*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-------* | Boroughbridge | Tel: 01423 323019 | PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 | *-------*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-----*-------* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/