Edward W. Thompson added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...
>> Around the summer of 1995, I had this almost religious
>> awakening whilst trying to get some new thing to work that I
>> was spending more time beating the SW and HW into submission
>> after an update/upgrade than I was getting out as useful
>> work. Since I view a PC as a tool to do work and not a
>> technie toy, I simply stopped cold-turkey. So, I won't go to
>> Vista now or even this time next year, and it will be a LONG
>> time on Linux. But, that's my view. You're clearly entitled
>> to a different slant and we can discuss this stuff
>> rationally.
>>
>> But, I will get my nephew's take on this.
> snip
>
> If installing LINUX was an all or nothing decision I can
> understand the point you make but it isn't. Clearly Linux
> offers 'something' other than it is 'free' or there wouldn't
> be so many advocates. In my case I am interested to find out
> what Linux has to offer and have installed Ubuntu as a 'dual
> boot system' while I learn Ubuntu, to date it seems straight
> forward and I am beginning to understand why so many are
> 'converts' from the Windows environment.
When I was a kid and I'd ask my parents to do something they
really didn't want me to do, I'd often say "but, all the other
kids can do it, why can't I?" And, I'd hear "if the other kids
wanted to jump off the roof of a 10 story building, would you
want to also?" Good point!
I take nothing at all away from the people that have been
successful with Linux. And I do not make sport of those who've
tried, but unsuccessfully, to makee it work and can't. I just do
not know.
If you go back to my opening paragraph, the religious awakening
in 1995, prior to that, /I/ would probably have had my nephew
build me a dual-boot system and have him try to keep me in synch
as he found newer, more stable versions and solved various other
problems. Today, with health not at all what I like, I don't have
the stamina for an extended fight with my PC just to prove to
myself that Ubuntu is Okey, Dokey. Rather, I prefer to use my
free time - when not doing other things I enjoy, such as watching
cable news - in using my PC to perform useful work. In my case,
since my hobby is collecting car pictures, that has to be the
overriding consideration for my time.
> As for the rather silly debate over which is 'best' Windows or
> Linux, surely everyone recognizes most applications are
> compiled for Windows, why? Because Windows is installed on
> virtually all store bought machines and most users have to
> learn how to switch the machine on never mind making informed
> choices whether Linux might be a 'superior' OS. Further
> Microsoft spends a very considerable amount of money promoting
> their products both to end users and manufacturers whereas the
> advertising budget of Linux is zero. There are so many
> examples to show that you can sell anything if you spend
> sufficient money on promotion or the moguls of industry sees
> it is their financial advantage to promote one product over
> another. What is 'best' does not come into it.
I read someplace else tonight a couple of people arguing about
what motivates Microsoft. I didn't say anything, of course, but I
silently sided with the guy who said that "it's the money, MS
holds its OEMs hostage". So, yes, your logic is both correct and
compelling. e.g., I still use an older version of Paint Shop Pro,
v9 (don't like X or XI). AFAIK, Corel does not support Linux.
There is an old advertising/sales & marketing saying, Edward,
that says nobody gets it until everybody wants it.What that means
here is that relatively few or none of the major Windows
developing houses will start compiling for native Linux until
they perceive a large market. But, without software that is other
than Open Source, there will never be a large market, or so I've
been told. Put another way, this is a Catch-22.
> If I was a 'gamer', as many are, I would choose Windows over
> Linux as there are more games compiled for Linux, that doesn't
> make Windows a superior OS.
>
Edward, you won't get an argument out of me that Windows isn't a
superior O/S. But, let's talk pragmatism and realism for just a
minute, please. Roughly speaking, in the commercial arena, I'd
SWAG Apple Mac installed base in the under-30% range with Windows
having the rest. Note that I said commercial, Linux is not a
commerical product and will never be just its tech support,
apparently. So, if I were drawing a pie chart of the REAL usage
of O/S's in the total PC installed base, I'd have to have 3
slices, to include Linux. But, I do not know how large to make
their slice. I would strongly suspect, though, that whatever the
percentage of Linux is, it actually overlaps with the Windows
number, and will soon overlap with the Intel Macs.
For many reasons, I have never wanted a Mac. Lots of people like
them, apparently, lots more people don't but not because they are
bad PCs. But, if my intent is to use a computer solely to do
useful work - and it most definitely is - then I want to BUY the
dang thing from someplace that will support it, and BUY my SW and
HW from people that will support those things on the PC. I'm not
going to close with a cheap shot at Linux, but as best I can
ascertain, I cannot do the above on a Linux-only box. I WILL
close with the comment that I have enough of an open mind to
continue to monitor the discussions and learn what I can, and
may, MAY someday change.
Thanks for your observations and have a great week!
--
HP, aka Jerry