Linux for the masses? I think not.

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Luke Elso » Thu, 23 Apr 1998 04:00:00



There's one fact Linuxites often overlook. And this fact will prevent Linux
from beating Microsoft. The fact is: the average MS Windows user just isn't
that bright or computer literate. And Linux requires both.

Take one of my friends. When he decides to get rid of some software on his
Win95 system (he doesn't have much HD space - have pity on him - he bought a
Packard Bell) he doesn't use an uninstaller or even Add/Remove Programs. But
oh no. He runs a search for the name of the app in question and simply
deletes whatever comes up. When I lent him my copy of MS Office 97, he
decided that he didn't like it so he simply deleted the 'C:\program
files\microsoft' folder. Then he complained when he had lost his MS Works
clipart.

Another of my friends managed completely destroy a previously working
Windows NT installation by booting to Dos and giving his system a good clean
out. The items 'cleaned out' included his C:\winnt directory. Need I say
more?

If these people can't handle virtually idiot-proof (but not expert-proof) MS
Windows systems, do we really think that they could compile a new Slackware
kernel?

--
Luke Elson

Quake II: Space
ICQ: 10287333
If at first you don't succeed, give up. There's no point making a fool of
yourself.

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Dave Sraci » Thu, 23 Apr 1998 04:00:00


... and yes, folks, we have a winner for Troll of the Week award!!!

BTW, linux would have prevented both the problems you mentioned.  They use
standard user account, they can't delete system files, or applications in
/usr/local

And compiling a kernel is easier than configuring NT's networking.

-Dave

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Juergen Hein » Thu, 23 Apr 1998 04:00:00



>There's one fact Linuxites often overlook. And this fact will prevent Linux
>from beating Microsoft. The fact is: the average MS Windows user just isn't
>that bright or computer literate. And Linux requires both.

True ... but only if one assumes the typical PC will be with us forever and
I doubt that.

Thin clients are cheaper in the long run and how about a central server
somewhere in the cellar and just a flat screen in every room ? The average
MS Windows user does not even need a PC, he or she needs something to play
with, to read the mail and to get the work done.

A typical M$ PC is more than less a crutch. It strives to be able to do
everything, never a good idea.

It is just like with anything else. I do not know how a carburettor works
and I don't care either since I just want to drive and who ever works on
my Linux machine does not need to be interested in how it works too.

Bye, Juergen

--
\ Real name     : Juergen Heinzl     \       no flames      /

  \ Phone Private : +49 911-4501186    \                  /

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by ELVI » Thu, 23 Apr 1998 04:00:00


Quote:>There's one fact Linuxites often overlook. And this fact will prevent Linux
>from beating Microsoft. The fact is: the average MS Windows user just isn't
>that bright or computer literate. And Linux requires both.

Doesn't matter.  We need Windows users to keep the price of the hardware
down.  That is the only function they perform.
 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Patrick Wra » Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:00:00



>>There's one fact Linuxites often overlook. And this fact will prevent
Linux
>>from beating Microsoft. The fact is: the average MS Windows user just
isn't
>>that bright or computer literate. And Linux requires both.

>Doesn't matter.  We need Windows users to keep the price of the hardware
>down.  That is the only function they perform.

I hope both Windows and Linux prosper. Regardless of its shortcomings, there
are some pretty nifty applications available for Windows. Without going into
a long rave about Tex vs wysywyg word processors, I'd much rather type a
letter or report in MS Word. That's a personal preference. I like to use
Windows for the everyday office chores, and Linux for everything else. Suits
me fine. As long as Windows NT and Linux are around, I'll use them both.
 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Philipp Kaese » Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:00:00


heyo...

Quote:> If these people can't handle virtually idiot-proof (but not
> expert-proof) MS Windows systems, do we really think that
> they could compile a new Slackware kernel?

production kernels are stable enough to run for several
years more efficiently than any windows, so no need for
recompiling that stuff.

the actual problem is far earlier: how the heck should they
install a system when requiring to do more than just pressing
once the "okay" button?

cya
Philipp Kaeser
Furball / Fake That

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Steve La » Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:00:00



>... and yes, folks, we have a winner for Troll of the Week award!!!
>BTW, linux would have prevented both the problems you mentioned.  They use
>standard user account, they can't delete system files, or applications in
>/usr/local
>And compiling a kernel is easier than configuring NT's networking.

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    And yes, folks, that is the troll mentioned above.  Jeez.

--
             Steve C. Lamb             | Opinions expressed by me are not my
    http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus    | employer's.  They hired me for my
CC: from news not wanted or appreciated| skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Dana J. Laud » Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:00:00




> >... and yes, folks, we have a winner for Troll of the Week award!!!

> >BTW, linux would have prevented both the problems you mentioned.  They use
> >standard user account, they can't delete system files, or applications in
> >/usr/local

> >And compiling a kernel is easier than configuring NT's networking.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>     And yes, folks, that is the troll mentioned above.  Jeez.

Obviously you don't have a clue.  Let's setup a ISP, I'll run Linux andyou can
run NT.  We'll both have a budget of $100k for one year,
including billing software, and proxie server(s).  Plus say a PM3
with 48 Flex 56k modems. (not including incoming capital from
clients.)  ;-)

Dana

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by David M. Co » Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>>And compiling a kernel is easier than configuring NT's networking.
>    And yes, folks, that is the troll mentioned above.  Jeez.

I'm not familar with NT networking (however if it's flexible at all I'm sure
it has some complexity), but compiling a kernel on Linux is just a point and
click affair these days.

Dave Cook

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Steve La » Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>>    And yes, folks, that is the troll mentioned above.  Jeez.
>I'm not familar with NT networking (however if it's flexible at all I'm sure
>it has some complexity), but compiling a kernel on Linux is just a point and
>click affair these days.

    NT networking is a far cry easier than going through make config or make
menuconfig.  Without those two recompiling the kernel is kinda  moot point.

    Point and click?  What distro are you using?

--
             Steve C. Lamb             | Opinions expressed by me are not my
    http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus    | employer's.  They hired me for my
CC: from news not wanted or appreciated| skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Steve La » Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>> >BTW, linux would have prevented both the problems you mentioned.  They use
>> >standard user account, they can't delete system files, or applications in
>> >/usr/local
>> >And compiling a kernel is easier than configuring NT's networking.
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>     And yes, folks, that is the troll mentioned above.  Jeez.
>Obviously you don't have a clue.  Let's setup a ISP, I'll run Linux andyou
>can run NT.  We'll both have a budget of $100k for one year, including
>billing software, and proxie server(s).  Plus say a PM3 with 48 Flex 56k
>modems. (not including incoming capital from clients.) ;-)

    No, I do have a clue.  You said, "configuring NT's networking."  I run
NT at home, it took me about 2 minutes to set up the networking for my LAN.
You did not mention anything else.  Configuring NT's networking is not
harder than compiling a kernel, in fact, it is easier.

--
             Steve C. Lamb             | Opinions expressed by me are not my
    http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus    | employer's.  They hired me for my
CC: from news not wanted or appreciated| skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Uwe Bonne » Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:00:00



:>>    And yes, folks, that is the troll mentioned above.  Jeez.

:>I'm not familar with NT networking (however if it's flexible at all I'm sure
:>it has some complexity), but compiling a kernel on Linux is just a point and
:>click affair these days.

:     NT networking is a far cry easier than going through make config or make
: menuconfig.  Without those two recompiling the kernel is kinda  moot point.

:     Point and click?  What distro are you using?

Try "make xconfig" on X.

Bye
--

Institut fuer Kernphysik  Schlossgartenstrasse 9  64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Richard Stein » Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:00:00



spake unto us, saying:

Quote:>There's one fact Linuxites often overlook. And this fact will prevent
>Linux from beating Microsoft.

Why should "beating Microsoft" be the Linux communities goal?

It's already easy to do so in a number of specific contexts with Linux,
but Microsoft has what it takes to sell compies to folks who don't have
a clue about software.

Will the Linux community benefit if people without a clue are trying to
use it?  I'd rather see it make inroads into corporate serverspace, and
from there to corporate desktops in a limited fashion.  That will give
it leverage where it actually can shine functionally.

--

           OS/2 Warp 4 + Linux + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
                   The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Steve La » Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:00:00



>:     Point and click?  What distro are you using?
>Try "make xconfig" on X.

    And find out that portions of it don't configure properly.  The one time
I did use xconfig it failed to configure sound at all.  Even then it is not
a "point and click" interface to compiling the kernel.

--
             Steve C. Lamb             | Opinions expressed by me are not my
    http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus    | employer's.  They hired me for my
CC: from news not wanted or appreciated| skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

 
 
 

Linux for the masses? I think not.

Post by Steve La » Sat, 25 Apr 1998 04:00:00



>Will the Linux community benefit if people without a clue are trying to
>use it?  I'd rather see it make inroads into corporate serverspace, and
>from there to corporate desktops in a limited fashion.  That will give
>it leverage where it actually can shine functionally.

    Not to mentiont hat I agree with the original poster that Linux is *NOT*
for the masses.  The general masses do not want to know how to administer
their computer properly.  The general masses have trouble with an OS geared
for a single user; a multi-user OS is completely beyond their scope.

    In this thread someone pointed out the stupid things that Windows users
have done.  Someone else pointed out that Linux prevents that because the
people would be in a non-root user.  This is an incorrect assumption because
if there is only one person, to install they have to be root.  In fact, most
newbies run everything as root.  It only prevents those idiotic things from
happening when there is a proper administrator...

    No, Linux is not nor should it be "for the masses."  Anyone who thinks
that it can be wrestled into such a paradigm is completely missing the
fundimental differences of thought underlying the design processes behind
the OSs.  Wow... was that suit speak or what?

--
             Steve C. Lamb             | Opinions expressed by me are not my
    http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus    | employer's.  They hired me for my
CC: from news not wanted or appreciated| skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

 
 
 

1. Linux for the masses? I think not.

I think it's important to "beat" Microsoft in the sense of preserving
the freedom to run systems such as Linux.  There is a very real threat
to Linux from closed hardware standards, vendors who won't release
specs, etc.  And a threat to the net if closed, proprietary software
systems become a defacto standard, as is happening with, e.g., MS
Word.  Web sites that only offer Word documents already exist.  That's
bad.

Aside from that, I agree that Linux is not threatened by Microsoft the
way that Apple or Sun are.  Linux uses a different economic model. :-)

Followups to col.advocacy.
--


http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.

2. CSA

3. Sndmail flaw not serious? I think not!!!!!!!!!!

4. Wondering whether/how to get Linux. Please help! Thanx a lot!!

5. linux thinks that rpm is both installed and not installed

6. Quake on a 486? Yep!

7. Linux vs. Win95/98 (Not perhaps what you think)

8. IOCTL Sample

9. I thought Linux supported USB, but this seems not to be the case

10. 2.4.21: USB Mass Storage data integrity not assured?

11. Need to do a mass rename on files - and not go crazy

12. USB Mass Storage not working on Solaris 10

13. usb mass storage: device not claimed by any active driver