> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:48:02 +0000, Richard Revis
>>Many of the posts in here *ing about problems with Linux are rather
>>worrying. They seem to think that Linux is being pitched at average users
>>- when it really is not.
> You had better clue in the other 90 percent of COLA on this one :)
>>Sure, there are some companies pitching at the desktop, but they are not
>>the people who decide where linux goes and how it gets there. The core
>>developers write it _for them_ in the large part - they scratch their own
>>itches and then let everyone else share in their work. That is the whole
>>IMO it is a superb way to do business - there are bits of sheer brilliance
>>in the GNU system that are unequalled elsewhere. However, this raw
>>creativeness comes at a cost - things are very diverse in the GNU world,
>>and may be more complex than in a coordinated single project. This is not
>>a disadvantage but something superb which in many cases you life easier,
>>not harder, as apps are developed to meet a purpose not to fit into a
> Agreed again (and I am excessively quoting because I believe it is
> important what Richard is saying).
>>This means then that to take advantage of the technically superb GNU
>>utilities and operating systems you need to put in a little effort, a
>>little thought, you won't get handed everything on a plate. If this upsets
>>you then you can ignore it if you like, but I choose (as do many others)
>>to take full advantage of the great OS and applications, and hopefully
>>give something back where I develop solutions to scratch my itch.
> Agreed again.
>>If you don't like the way your dektop looks, fix it. If you don't like the
>>applications work, fix it. If your hardware isn't supported, fix it. None
>>of these things are beyond you, it just requires a modicum of thought and
>>patience, and I love that aspect of Linux.
> Agreed again.
> How can I object to a sensible, reasonable attitude towards Linux?
> I can't because in a nutshell Richard knows the market for Linux, points
> out it's advantages and focus's on improving Linux.
> Can't argue with that.
> I have said in the past and I still believe this to be true:
> 1. Put an average person in front of a properly configured Linux system
> and she can do just about anything a Windows or Mac user can do, whilst
> taking advantage of Linux's security.
This is precisely why I think that the initial market for Linux desktops is
corporate. In this situation Linux is precisely what they want. They can
quickly image a machine for new users. It's virus-resistant and stays the
way it was configured. It's remote-configurable from the word "go". The
very things that home users complain about are the things that many
companies look for.
This year you'll see companies deploying it on corporate desktops. During
the same year you'll see a development push to make it more palatable to
home consumers. But it won't be until the end of 2004 that you'll see it
begin to be widely adopted by the home market. That's still my prediction
and I'm sticking to it.
> 2. The problem arises when things need to be changed. When MS specific web
> sites don't work, files need to be transported to and from Windows users
> and when hardware needs to be upgraded.
> If it were a Linux world this would be a moot point, but reality states it
> is a Microsoft world and even the Mac users are pawns in the scheme of
> Like it or not, we all have to work with what we have and when what we
> have is 95 percent of desktop systems running Microsoft, we have a
> A big problem.
Yet not insurmountable. It just takes time and effort.
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst