Okay, so lets have a fresh viewpoint here. Having read Mark and Adrian's last comments, here's my two penneth. Mark's analogy of a car/washing machine doesn't work. The comments were based on the app developers not knowing how Windows worked. Transposing that to the dish washer or car, that would mean that you expect a field service engineer/mechanic to be able to fix faults without the appropriate manuals - not a good idea. Windows 98 is not more stable than Windows 95 in a large number of situations, and can be less so. Linux and Windows are different, but I think the real differences are not as important as the perceived ones. People's idea of Linux needs to be changed more than Linux itself. Yes, there are problems with Linux, and yes the administrator type setup has been targetted more than the end user - but this is changing all the time. Windows (and Mac's for that matter) have had the benefit of a commercial development - which means that the initial design, while not being a good one, was specified in great detail, thus all developers started on the same playing field. This was not the case with Linux, which still has litterally hundreds of different flavours. With developments such as the Standard Filesystem Specification, and the addoption now of many distributions to use the RPM packaging system, this situation will improve. Regarding installing the OS, as most people will agree, doing a Windows install you DO have to sit in front of the machine nearly all the time - although as with me, I do almost all installations on a workbench and thus can oversee a number of installs at once. Unfortunately, Linux is also moving in that direction, although to save grace here, some installations now let you save your settings and then use them to run future installs automatically. Regarding installing Apps, Linux is definitely in front here, as many (most?) app installations require no interaction at all, and can usually now be retrieved/viewed/installed etc. from a single place such as gnorpm or kpackage. One final note - I will agree that Linux has not yet got there when you look at a system to stick in front of a total non-techie (although it's getting there), but Windows has NEVER been in that position. In my opinion, no computer system out there has got to the washing machine standard yet. When you can get it out of the box, plug it in, and wash your clothes in it, then I'll be happy. On Thursday 18 January 2001 10:06, adrian.wells wrote:

Hi mark,

My reply was to the questions, not you, please don't be offended, but your probably right about me being a bigot. I'm sure that the NME would agree with you! And I think that I agree with most of what you have now said.

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? 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. 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. 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. 7) you may have realized that by now I'm not a fan of thin client either!

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?) 2) messy config. files. 3) Installing Apps - what a palaver! 4) Almost too flexible - hence doz. of different flavours ( this can/will cause fracture ). 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!

Other OS good bits. 1) circa Win95 help files. These are brill. 2) MAC, Win etc. app installation. 3) Initial support for new technology by industry. 4) Ease of installing out of the box. 5) MAC, WIN, confidence from users, purchasers and business in general.

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.

----------

...

From: Mark Evans To: Adrian Wells Cc: suse-linux-uk-schools@suse.com Subject: Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] BETT comments - lets be fair! Date: 18 January 2001 07:32

[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]

...

I'd like to take issue if I may, let's be fair!

...

...

good enough to share a corner with SuSE so I suppose we can say they support the concept! So where was Applix even if it does only seem to spell in Ameriglish; the only Corel Office was for 'doze, virtually nothing was web-based and many stands said, "the government don't specify it and none of the schools are asking for it."

That's the commercial world for you only supplying what people ask for! : :-) : Or maybe people only ask for something they know a supplier supplys, or suppliers only keep records of equiries of things they supply.

...

...

Often a lot of the Windows stuff is a pig to deploy on networks too. i.e. you get told things to the effect of "we don't know what needs changing in C:\WINDOWS to get the program to work, but it's *easy* to just run the install program on every machine".

Yep! you just run setup and off it goes. sometimes you need to restart

the

...

...

computer afterwards. Too easy by far. I suppose that you could write a

batch

...

...

file, as I did on our Novell server, and low, every machine that needed

the

...

...

program to be loaded got it, I only had to switch it on. Wow, that was

hard!

...

So how do you get a batch file to supply the user input which SETUP.EXE is now sat there waiting for? The basic assumption of Windows setup programs is that someone, who knows what they are doing, is sat in front of the machine...

...

...

(Let alone such stupidity as programs which need write access to files to be able to open them.)

That IS silly! :-)

It's a consequence of software producers only testing their software on stand alone machines. Remember that with commercial software,

especially

...

where there is some kind of "captive market", quality control isn't high on the list of priorities.

...

...

(IME with the latter catagory often the software vendor dosn't have much of a clue about how Windows works in the first place.)

Don't know what IME means but... I bet your wife makes sure that you have a nice crisp white shirt ready

to

...

I'm not married, so your bigoted analogy breaks anyway.

...

wear every morning and yet has no idea how the washing machine works,

what

...

...

chemicals are in the soap or what that triangle sign in the collar of

the

...

...

shirt really means. The workings SHOULD be transparent, that's

progress.

...

A better analogy would be a car (or for that matter washing machine) manufacture who didn't supply service manuals.

...

...

...

So, how about making a point of enquiring loudly if the stands are supporting open-source (they often haven't got a clue!) when some piece of useful software catches your eye? Becta was encouraging in their support for multi-platform approaches but Capita (SIMS/EMS) 1) didn't know what I was talking about and then 2) when someone did they don't expect to make any changes.

That's interesting. When did you ask them this? Since I spoke to them of Thursday complaining about their effectivly forcing the use of Windows NT for the next version of SIMS. The idea that the "S in "SQL" is "standard" appears to be beyond people... (Managed to get them to admit that their being a "Microsoft Solutions Provider" might render them less that impartial.)

They also ACTUALLY force one to use NT for mentor3 and capita are very

keen

...

...

on Fox Pro and have no idea what SQL is 'cus they don't use it! Also (by the way), Capita will not support 98 workstations but do

support

...

...

95! even though they're more stable, and tell customers all sorts of

scare

...

...

stories (we've never had any probs.)

okay that's enough ranting, off to hear my boy read now.

Oh, sorry, there was a point, LINUX and windows ARE different, but as

far as

...

...

non technical users are concerned, LINUX has miles to go before it is

easy

...

...

to use, it's moving fast, but still has a way to go.

So far as *SYSTEM ADMINISTRATORS* are concerned (which is what the

original

...

post was about) Windows has light years to go before it is as simple and straightforward as Linux.

Even the oft repeated claim about Windows being easier to use, is

suspect.

...

Since Windows allows (even expects) non technical users to perform system administration tasks. (As well as doing a great many things which baffle the same people who which it is supposedly "easy to use". e.g. forgetting about network printers at random, remembering old passwords afther they have been changed, spewing up CPU registers in hex, etc.) Whilst Windows might be a good choice for the average, end user

administered,

...

"home" machine. Put it on a network with a system administrator and it becomes less than ideal. Indeed abilities such as the easy end user

install

...

of software then become a liability.

-- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763

-- Gary Stainburn This email does not contain private or confidential material as it may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000

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/

This has been an interesting debate (?). I finally can't resist joining in with a few thoughts. I will start by admitting my personal bias - I am pro Open Source and anti-MS in general. I use Linux as my main OS both at work and at home, but I have to support WinXX for all my colleagues and 250 schools I work with. This debate has been about benefits for users and administrators/support staff. I think we need to think beyond 'one size fits all'. The users come in several types (in no particular order): 1) those who use a PC as a tool and which doesn't change from day to day; as long as it goes on working and does the job they don't care how it works. They would probably prefer that no new software was installed unless their job changes radically. 2) those like me who find the process of getting something working and knowing how it works more interesting than actually doing anything with a working PC - in my case my home PC keeps changing as I try various distros and ways of installing; I stick with one until it is working perfectly and then it is time to start a new partition. 3) 'home' users who use their PC's for a bit of all sorts but mostly for games and/or internet. They will probably want to keep trying new software from the latest 3D game to the web development software demo from a magazine cover CD. They will often be looking for hardware upgrades too. 4) education users (schools/colleges etc) where the PC will be shared between many users and must keep the various users separate and stop any one user from messing up the system for the others. In general the software required will be standard and required not to change for a period of time (usually an academic year but this could vary) Ideally there should be a wide range of to suit a range of educational objectives. 5) a set of users not usually catered for in school where the user can discover how to install, mess up and fix software - including the OS. This is a very important educational process but normally we are trying to suppress that sort of experimentation in school networks. 6) network administrators and support staff - they want an OS and software they can install once when the new machine arrives and not need to touch again until the hardware breaks or goes obsolete. My opinion of the right software for each of these: 1) Once they have been shown how to use it these users won't care and either Win or Lin will do, Win is more standard (so far) but Lin is more reliable. 2) People like me will never be satisfied, but at least Linux has brought back some of the fun from before PC's took over. 3) While winXX is everywhere and all the games are written for it first, ordinary home users will mostly need win. Most of the comments in this debate about Windows and ease of use were IMO aimed at this class of user 4) There have been a lot of attempts to make WinXX suit this sort of user, but they are fighting an uphill struggle ;-) A multi-user task really needs a multi-user OS. Some schools have moved to NT workstation on that principle (but then how much software is really written for Win9X) My opinion is that this is where a quality thin client setup would be appropriate. 5) these can and should be allowed a mixture. Of course they do not officially exist as a valid class of user in most schools. 6) From a support viewpoint all I can saw is that Win9X means trouble. Now you can all shout at me and tell where I am wrong. I will admit that I have over-simplified the situation a bit. ____________________________________ Giles Nunn - Network Manager Carms Schools ICT Development Centre Tel: +44 01239 710662 Fax: 710985 ____________________________________