On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:02:09 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:OUARBay$HHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>> Probably not on Debian actually but see this is what you are missing.
>> Beryl, Compiz and a couple of others are NOT finished products and the
>> community does NOT release them pretending that they are. I said, which
>> you and Dennis apparently cannot interpret, "Getting easier", I did not
>> say perfect...
>
> I think its you that doesn't understand.. Linux is unfinished and it
> probably will remain that way as there will always be a new windows manager
> in the wings.. shame they don't fix the simple things first. However they
> won't as the existing Linux users and developers can't grasp how hard it is
> for a newbie to install and use Linux. How do they expect Linux to actually
The thing is, it's *not* hard, even for a newbiew, to install and use
Linux. I don't know why this keeps being repeated, when it's so manifestly
not true.
If someone is putting Linux on a machine where they aren't worried about
losing the existing OS, nothing could be simpler. In most cases, put the
CD or DVD into the machine and reboot. HOw is that hard?
If there's aneed to partition first, then yes, that's alittle more
daunting, but that goes for Windows too.
> take over the desktop when they can't understand something so simple?
How is Linux any harder to use than Windows? In general usage, they are
virtually the same - move a mouse and click on menus or icons. Providing
all is set up correctly to start with, little or no recourse to the
command line should be required. Apps may be different, but they don
similar things in largely similar ways, and quite a few of the core FOSS
apps are available to Windows users anyway.
> Its not rocket science, its understanding your target users. If you look
> at the possible users M$ targets 100% while Linux might target 1-2%. Now
> if you look at the one laptop per child initiative they are targeting
> their users and are using "linux" howevr they have done a proper job and
> hidden all the cr@p that you get with most Linux distros.
Not sure what crap you're referring to.
>
>>> Fortunately the "advocates" here are not in charge of prioritising bug
>>> fixes. If so, we would all be tweaking the MBR and xorg.conf from now
>>> until eternity.
>>
>> I have had far worse challenges trying to get things to work under Vista.
>>
>
> Are they more difficult or do you just not know how?
Exactly. Linux is just the same. It's not 'difficult' to use, merely
unfamiliar. If you've been used to Windows, you might need to find your
way around in a different fashion, but it's no harder than Windows.
> People always find things the know easy, just ask a rocket scientist if its
> difficult (PS no it isn't).
> It would be a waste of time asking you what needs to change in Linux to make
> it more acceptable to new users, unfortunately it is people like you that
> will be asked and who will guide Linux in the wrong direction.
So, what do you consider the right direction to be? Bear in mind that most
Linux users and developers don't want to see Linux become another lazy
clone of Windows.
--
Kier