<http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/06/25/1149234.shtml?tid=130&tid=2&tid=82&tid=94>

" A friend got a new laptop with Windows XP pre-installed. "Does this come
with an IRC program?" he asked. No, it doesn't. There are plenty of IRC
programs for Windows, but you need to download and install them yourself.
Word processing? Not included. Spreadsheet? Windows leaves you on your own
yet again. I swear, by the time you buy or download all the software it
takes to actually do something with Windows, you might as well install
Linux. It would take a lot less time. I don't know about you, but my time
is worth money, and if I need to do a whole bunch of software downloading
and installation to make my computer usable, we're talking huge TCO (Total
Cost of Ownership).

Because of antitrust concerns, Microsoft needs to be careful about what
kind of application software it ships with Windows. Microsoft reps
sometimes point to Linux distributions and ask why they can get away with
shipping stacks and stacks of applications without getting in trouble. The
answer to that one, of course, is that the Linux distributions give you a
choice. You aren't locked into one particular application. Most Linux
distributions include several choices for most program classifications;
even single-CD distros usually include several Web browsers and email
clients."


Choice is good ...

-- 
Rick

begin  <pan.2004.07.04.02.44.45.379386@none.com>,
	Rick <rick@none.com> writes:
>
> [snip] 
> 
> Choice is good ...

Especially for MS. What would they do if there weren't alternative
browsers to get them out of the sorry mess IE has put them in? There
again, as IE is an integral part of the OS, why would any sane person
continue to use windows?

Kind of ironic that IE may well turn out to be MS's achilles heel.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 04:55:08 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:

> begin  <pan.2004.07.04.02.44.45.379386@none.com>,
> 	Rick <rick@none.com> writes:
>>
>> [snip] 
>> 
>> Choice is good ...
> 
> Especially for MS. What would they do if there weren't alternative
> browsers to get them out of the sorry mess IE has put them in? There
> again, as IE is an integral part of the OS, why would any sane person
> continue to use windows?
> 
> Kind of ironic that IE may well turn out to be MS's achilles heel.

I'm just wondering... since Gates told the Feds IE is welded to the OS and
can't be removed... and now the Feds are saying don't use IE... are they
saying don't use window$ ...

-- 
Rick

Rick wrote:

>
<http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/06/25/1149234.shtml?tid=130&tid=2&tid=82&tid=94>
> 
> " A friend got a new laptop with Windows XP pre-installed. "Does this come
> with an IRC program?" he asked. No, it doesn't. There are plenty of IRC

Who cares?

-- 
w:4

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 03:04:47 +0000, init 3 wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> 
>>
> <http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/06/25/1149234.shtml?tid=130&tid=2&tid=82&tid=94>
>> 
>> " A friend got a new laptop with Windows XP pre-installed. "Does this come
>> with an IRC program?" he asked. No, it doesn't. There are plenty of IRC
> 
> Who cares?

People that read and then take the time to reply... oh, that's you.

-- 
Rick

Roy Culley wrote:

> why would any sane person continue to use windows?

Because the applications the person needs do not run on Linux?

-- 
Flood of Sins

Flood of Sins wrote:

> Roy Culley wrote:
> 
>> why would any sane person continue to use windows?
> 
> Because the applications the person needs do not run on Linux?
> 

All the applications I need run on Linux. 

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 15:27:41 +0000, Flood of Sins wrote:

> Roy Culley wrote:
> 
>> why would any sane person continue to use windows?
> 
> Because the applications the person needs do not run on Linux?

Unfortunately, this can still be true. And Wine does not solve everything.
-- 
Rick

begin  <pan.2004.07.04.02.57.51.884328@none.com>,
	Rick <rick@none.com> writes:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 04:55:08 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
> 
>> begin  <pan.2004.07.04.02.44.45.379386@none.com>,
>> 	Rick <rick@none.com> writes:
>>>
>>> [snip] 
>>> 
>>> Choice is good ...
>> 
>> Especially for MS. What would they do if there weren't alternative
>> browsers to get them out of the sorry mess IE has put them in? There
>> again, as IE is an integral part of the OS, why would any sane person
>> continue to use windows?
>> 
>> Kind of ironic that IE may well turn out to be MS's achilles heel.
> 
> I'm just wondering... since Gates told the Feds IE is welded to the
> OS and can't be removed... and now the Feds are saying don't use
> IE... are they saying don't use window$ ...

Not in so many words but the logical extrapolation would be yes.

begin  <cc97ld$1a5i$1@news.alt.net>,
	Flood of Sins <flood_of_sins@hush.com> writes:
> Roy Culley wrote:
> 
>> why would any sane person continue to use windows?
> 
> Because the applications the person needs do not run on Linux?

No doubt that applies to some but I'm sure it is a small number of
windows users in that position as a percentage of the total number of
windows users. Your average business user is more then well served by
Linux and OSS.

Flood of Sins wrote:

> Roy Culley wrote:
> 
>> why would any sane person continue to use windows?
> 
> Because the applications the person needs do not run on Linux?
> 

Being a professional computer user and network administrator, I can say that
except for some very specialized software, there is no reason to need to
use MS-Windows.

-- 
Donovan Hill
Canadian, Linux User, All around nice guy!

rgc@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) writes:

> begin  <cc97ld$1a5i$1@news.alt.net>,
> 	Flood of Sins <flood_of_sins@hush.com> writes:
>> Roy Culley wrote:
>> 
>>> why would any sane person continue to use windows?
>> 
>> Because the applications the person needs do not run on Linux?
>
> No doubt that applies to some but I'm sure it is a small number of
> windows users in that position as a percentage of the total number of
> windows users. Your average business user is more then well served by
> Linux and OSS.

I don't know if I'm just a traitor to the cause or something, but I
*don't* recommend Linux to all my friends and family.  I don't
recommend it to my parents, even though my father is a retired systems
administrator/programmer.  As far as I'm concerned, Linux is still an
OS for the tinkerers, those that want to learn a bit about their
computers and to configure things the way they want it.

I've recommended Linux to my brother (though I don't think he ever
installed it, but I may be wrong) and to my wife's cousin (ditto).
Both of them would likely enjoy it if they make it past the starting
hurdles.

I dislike Windows and I dislike the monopoly, but I don't expect that
everyone I know ought to change operating systems just because of my
preferences.  (I do expect them to sit through my harangues and rants
about Microsoft, which may be why my social calendar seems so wide
open lately.) 

I am concerned about security issues, especially with my parents'
machine.  I've tried to talk them into using a different email
program, but even that isn't so easy.  It is a larger investment in
their time than one may realize.
-- 
Jesse F. Hughes
"I thought it relevant to inform that I notified the FBI a couple of
months ago about some of the math issues I've brought up here."
  -- James S. Harris gives Special Agent Fox a new assignment.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 21:22:29 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> I don't know if I'm just a traitor to the cause or something, but I
> *don't* recommend Linux to all my friends and family.  I don't recommend
> it to my parents, even though my father is a retired systems
> administrator/programmer.  As far as I'm concerned, Linux is still an OS
> for the tinkerers, those that want to learn a bit about their computers
> and to configure things the way they want it.

you don't explain why you don't recommend it. oh, it has to do with
tinkering?

I'm in a similar boat but tinkering's not at all the issue. I sometimes
flirt with the idea of putting it on the machine I gave my 89 yr old aunt
but then I fear what would happen if she talks to one of her
computer-using oldster friends or goes to a computer class, and gets a tip
on how to do this or how to do that only it is only appropriate to Windows
XP. she would go into a tailspin of anxiety and confusion.

I guess you would call it a support issue.

speaking of which, I live 6 hrs away; I would love to set things up so
that when she dials into her isp, I get automatically alerted and could
ssh in and do a little maintenance work. it's a dream.

Felmon

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 19:45:19 -0400, felmon <noone@nowhere.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 21:22:29 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> I don't know if I'm just a traitor to the cause or something, but I
>> *don't* recommend Linux to all my friends and family.  

I do, unless they have a specific need for Windows (i.e. they want to
play a lot of games).  It is less work for me that way.  


> I sometimes flirt with the idea of putting it on the machine I gave my
> 89 yr old aunt but then I fear what would happen if she talks to one
> of her computer-using oldster friends or goes to a computer class, and
> gets a tip on how to do this or how to do that only it is only
> appropriate to Windows XP. she would go into a tailspin of anxiety and
> confusion.

Only, you know what?  She won't.  Chances are your aunt is a perfect
candidate for Linux.  She probably wants to do a few specific tasks and
does not care too much about being able to run the latest games or learn
about the latest secret incantation.

If they are regular people most of her friends barely know how to use
their computers either.  Set her up with KDE and put her most used
programs right on the desktop and she'll be all set.  Don't forget to
set up iptables.

When the subject of computers does come up it will be about how somebody
or other got the latest virus and they had to call their nephew over to
fix the computer yet again.  Your aunt will find this amusing.


> I guess you would call it a support issue.

Indeed.  If you give her Linux instead of Windows you'll have less
support to do and what you do have to do will be easier.


> speaking of which, I live 6 hrs away; I would love to set things up so
> that when she dials into her isp, I get automatically alerted and could
> ssh in and do a little maintenance work. it's a dream.

My 75-year-old mother lives 2000 miles away.  Three years ago her kids
gave her a laptop for her birthday so she could email and get on the web
and type her letters to non-wired friends a little easier.  I decided it
would have Linux so I would not be having to walk her through fixing
stuff all the time.  It has worked fine for her.  It does what she needs
it to do and it does not break.

She came for a visit a month ago and brought her computer so I could
upgrade it with a 2.6 kernel, KDE 3.2, etc.  She was quite tickled that
it actually ran faster than before.  After she got home she called with
a problem.  I told her to send me an email and then leave the computer
online.

I got the email, looked at the header to get her IP, and used ssh to
connect and fix the problem.  Rebooted the computer and called her back
to verify the fix.  No muss, no fuss, problem solved in ten minutes.

Mom recently mentioned that her friend down the street is getting a
Linux computer.  The friend's son got fed up with fixing her Windows
computer and so is building one with Linux.  She's looking forward to
having a reliable computer.


-- 
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| To Whom You Are Speaking
 -| http://www.haucks.org/

"felmon" <noone@nowhere.edu> writes:

> On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 21:22:29 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> I don't know if I'm just a traitor to the cause or something, but I
>> *don't* recommend Linux to all my friends and family.  I don't recommend
>> it to my parents, even though my father is a retired systems
>> administrator/programmer.  As far as I'm concerned, Linux is still an OS
>> for the tinkerers, those that want to learn a bit about their computers
>> and to configure things the way they want it.
>
> you don't explain why you don't recommend it. oh, it has to do with
> tinkering?

It requires a large investment for an average user to switch from MS
to Linux.  It requires a lot of learning to do in Linux what one is
used to doing in Windows.  These are people who don't want to switch
from one Windows email program to another because they would have to
learn the new program.

Maybe I'm behind the times, but I think that even young, active
computer users have a steep learning curve when they learn Linux.  I'm
a Slackware user, though, so it's possible I overestimate this curve
for those distros aimed at new users.

>
> I'm in a similar boat but tinkering's not at all the issue. I sometimes
> flirt with the idea of putting it on the machine I gave my 89 yr old aunt
> but then I fear what would happen if she talks to one of her
> computer-using oldster friends or goes to a computer class, and gets a tip
> on how to do this or how to do that only it is only appropriate to Windows
> XP. she would go into a tailspin of anxiety and confusion.
>
> I guess you would call it a support issue.
>
> speaking of which, I live 6 hrs away; I would love to set things up so
> that when she dials into her isp, I get automatically alerted and could
> ssh in and do a little maintenance work. it's a dream.

I live rather farther than six hours from my family (they're in
Oklahoma, I'm in the Netherlands).  I don't think I want to volunteer
to support their boxes, even if they use Linux.  It's too hard to
coordinate.

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes

"The sole cause of all human misery is the inability of people
to sit quietly in their rooms." -- Blaise Pascal

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> It requires a large investment for an average user to switch from MS
> to Linux.  It requires a lot of learning to do in Linux what one is
> used to doing in Windows.  These are people who don't want to switch
> from one Windows email program to another because they would have to
> learn the new program.
> 
> Maybe I'm behind the times, but I think that even young, active
> computer users have a steep learning curve when they learn Linux.  I'm
> a Slackware user, though, so it's possible I overestimate this curve
> for those distros aimed at new users.
> 

No, I think your assessment is pretty accurate.  Current Windows users have
had a LOT of time to get entrenched in the "Windows way of doing things". 
From the point of view of the day-to-day user, even Windows XP isn't all
that far removed from Windows 95, so they've basically been doing things
the same way for nine years.  There have been changes since Win95, but
certainly nothing compared to the nine-year period *before* Windows 95. 
Between 1986 and 1995, I used DOS 3.2, 3.3, 4.01, 5.0, 6.0, 6.22, and
Windows/386, Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.1.  Some of those upgrades meant
only small differences in how I worked with/on the OS, but others required
pretty significant changes.

Even among computer-literate Windows users (no oxymoron jokes, please),
there are some significant paradigm shifts when it comes to Linux.  I was
explaining to a friend of mine how in Linux, not only do you not address
drives by drive letters, but that the various subdirectories in the Linux
directory hierarchy can reside on different partitions or even on different
disks, all without the user having to be aware of that fact.  He had a hard
time wrapping his mind around that, since he's gotten so entrenched in the
"one partition equals one drive letter" way of thinking.

And for someone that's had nine years of installing programs via
self-installing compressed executables or using AUTORUN on the installation
CD's, even utilities like apt or YaST can seem daunting.

Sometimes I wish I could still see things through the eyes of a "typical"
desktop computer user, but I can't.  I don't think twice anymore about
compiling a program from the source code using a command-line compiler,
because that's how I had to do all of my programming assignments in college
(on a VAX 8800 mainframe, no less).  

But even if an average user manages to learn "download, configure, make,
make install", if that's ALL they learn, then they're no better than a
script kiddie or a tourist that reads foreign phrases from a travel
dictionary with no clue as to the syntax, vocabulary, or grammar of the
language.  Without additional knowledge and experimentation, the first time
something doesn't work as expected, they'll flounder like a fish out of
water.

I don't know *what* it will take for Linux to become a dominant force in the
desktop market, but it's going to require a significant change in either
the Linux distributions themselves or in the mindset of the typical
computer user.

Scott Gardner

Scott Gardner <gardners14@cox.net> writes:

> Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> It requires a large investment for an average user to switch from MS
>> to Linux.  It requires a lot of learning to do in Linux what one is
>> used to doing in Windows.  These are people who don't want to switch
>> from one Windows email program to another because they would have to
>> learn the new program.
>> 
>> Maybe I'm behind the times, but I think that even young, active
>> computer users have a steep learning curve when they learn Linux.  I'm
>> a Slackware user, though, so it's possible I overestimate this curve
>> for those distros aimed at new users.
>> 
>
> No, I think your assessment is pretty accurate.  Current Windows users have
> had a LOT of time to get entrenched in the "Windows way of doing things". 
> From the point of view of the day-to-day user, even Windows XP isn't all
> that far removed from Windows 95, so they've basically been doing things
> the same way for nine years.  There have been changes since Win95, but
> certainly nothing compared to the nine-year period *before* Windows 95. 
> Between 1986 and 1995, I used DOS 3.2, 3.3, 4.01, 5.0, 6.0, 6.22, and
> Windows/386, Windows 3.0, and Windows 3.1.  Some of those upgrades meant
> only small differences in how I worked with/on the OS, but others required
> pretty significant changes.
>
> Even among computer-literate Windows users (no oxymoron jokes, please),
> there are some significant paradigm shifts when it comes to Linux.  I was
> explaining to a friend of mine how in Linux, not only do you not address
> drives by drive letters, but that the various subdirectories in the Linux
> directory hierarchy can reside on different partitions or even on different
> disks, all without the user having to be aware of that fact.  He had a hard
> time wrapping his mind around that, since he's gotten so entrenched in the
> "one partition equals one drive letter" way of thinking.

As far as I recall, I think I preferred the Linux/Unix approach to
partitions just as soon as I understood it.


[...]

> But even if an average user manages to learn "download, configure, make,
> make install", if that's ALL they learn, then they're no better than a
> script kiddie or a tourist that reads foreign phrases from a travel
> dictionary with no clue as to the syntax, vocabulary, or grammar of the
> language.  Without additional knowledge and experimentation, the first time
> something doesn't work as expected, they'll flounder like a fish out of
> water.

In a way, that was me for years.  Back in the dark old days, I had to
compile almost everything I wanted to install.  When it didn't work, I
rarely understood why.  My only recourse was either contact the author
or give up.  (I guess I contacted a lot of authors back then.)

Now, I think things are easier for newbies.  Configure tells a user
fairly explicitly what's wrong before it goes wrong *most* times.  But
your point is still true.  Sometimes, a compilation doesn't go right
and a newbie that knows "configure, make, make install" still doesn't
know what to do then.

> I don't know *what* it will take for Linux to become a dominant force in the
> desktop market, but it's going to require a significant change in either
> the Linux distributions themselves or in the mindset of the typical
> computer user.

I've always been a bit ambivalent about the prospect of Linux's
dominance.  I don't want *my* distro to bend over backwards to court
Windows users.  I like it the way I like it.  If Lindows wants to
shoot for the Windows notion of user-friendly, well, I guess that's
fine so long as it doesn't change the course of GNU and Linux
generally.

-- 
"These mathematicians are worse than communists, as how do you explain
their behavior? I *am* the American Dream, fighting for what should be
mine, having to get past weak-minded academics who are fighting to
block my success. But I shall prevail!!!" -- James S. Harris

Bob Hauck <postmaster@localhost.localdomain> writes:


[...]

> My 75-year-old mother lives 2000 miles away.  Three years ago her kids
> gave her a laptop for her birthday so she could email and get on the web
> and type her letters to non-wired friends a little easier.  I decided it
> would have Linux so I would not be having to walk her through fixing
> stuff all the time.  It has worked fine for her.  It does what she needs
> it to do and it does not break.

[...]

That's a pretty nice success story, but I don't suppose I want to
volunteer maintaining my folks' computer overseas.  Also, they're
somewhat active with church groups that send attachments willy-nilly.
I really think that making that transition to Linux would be harder
for them than it sounds like it's been for your mother.

On the other hand, you're the one with hands-on experience in
switching an older relative to Linux.
-- 
Jesse Hughes

"You see 300 of something, anything, and you go `[Man], that's a lot of
stuff.'" -- Jim Bigler, quoted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Flood of Sins:

> Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> why would any sane person continue to use windows?
>
> Because the applications the person needs do not run on Linux?

Sometimes.  Mainly it is pure inertia -- it will be awhile yet before Linux is
a common alternative to Windoze for preloaded systems.

-- 
Free as in freedom
Power as in empowerment

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 13:48:06 +0200, Jesse F. Hughes
<jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

> Bob Hauck <postmaster@localhost.localdomain> writes:

> That's a pretty nice success story, but I don't suppose I want to
> volunteer maintaining my folks' computer overseas.

Yeah, the time difference could be a problem.


> On the other hand, you're the one with hands-on experience in
> switching an older relative to Linux.

Ah, but I didn't switch her and maybe that's a key thing.  She used DOS
back in the 80's when she worked as a bookkeeper, but never Windows.
Prior to the PC she had been using WebTV for web and email but her unit
had gone "unsupported".  We thought that a real computer would give her
a better screen and some extras like word processing that she wanted.

Basically, she had never used Windows, so the "unlearning curve" was not
the problem it might be for someone who had already been using Windows
or a Mac for a long time.


-- 
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| To Whom You Are Speaking
 -| http://www.haucks.org/

Bob Hauck <postmaster@localhost.localdomain> writes:

> Ah, but I didn't switch her and maybe that's a key thing.  She used
> DOS back in the 80's when she worked as a bookkeeper, but never
> Windows.  Prior to the PC she had been using WebTV for web and email
> but her unit had gone "unsupported".  We thought that a real
> computer would give her a better screen and some extras like word
> processing that she wanted.

I think that is a big difference, you're right.

My father worked on mainframes for much of his career, but was never a
Unix user (I think).  He worked on Windows machines for the last
decade or so.  My mother is used to Windows, too.  My father is
somewhat interested in the things I do with Linux, but not motivated
enough to install it this late in life.

> Basically, she had never used Windows, so the "unlearning curve" was
> not the problem it might be for someone who had already been using
> Windows or a Mac for a long time.

Agreed.

-- 
"It has been shown that no man can sit down to write without a very profound
design. Thus to authors in general trouble is spared. A novelist, for example,
need have no care of his moral. It is there -- that is to say, it is somewhere
-- and the moral and the critics can take care of themselves." --E.A. Poe

In article <7wVFc.6178$yR3.3236@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
Ralph  <noting@doing.com> wrote:
-Flood of Sins wrote:
-
-> Roy Culley wrote:
-> 
->> why would any sane person continue to use windows?
-> 
-> Because the applications the person needs do not run on Linux?
-> 
-
-All the applications I need run on Linux. 

I can say the same. However there isn't universality in a small sample. 
For example I have kids, and Linux certainly doesn't run all the games 
applications they would like to use. They are quite happy with some, Frozen
Bubble for example. However there are a bunch of educational and online games
that I've never gotten to run effectively under Linux.

A couple of friends of mine run private schools. The best of breed app for
managing such an enterprise is called ProCare. There isn't a Linux based
equivalent.

So there are arguments on both sides of the fence. While there are certainly
more Linux applications that are compatible with the activites of a typical
Windows User than many Windows users would care to admit. There are a few 
handfuls of niche applications that don't have a mapping.

This niche will represent the next challenge for Linux adoption after simply
getting the word out to the masses about alterntives. I've started the Open
Source Software for Windows campaign to get the word out. Firefox/Mozilla
instead of IE, Thunderbird instead of Outlook, OO.o instead of Office. I figure
once you get users used to alternative application, then flowing away from
Windows altogether is an easier proposition.
 
BAJ

Rick <rick@none.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.04.02.44.45.379386@none.com>...
> <http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/06/25/1149234.shtml?tid=130&tid=2&tid=82&tid=94>
> 
> " A friend got a new laptop with Windows XP pre-installed. "Does this come
> with an IRC program?" he asked. No, it doesn't. There are plenty of IRC
> programs for Windows, but you need to download and install them yourself.
> Word processing? Not included. Spreadsheet? Windows leaves you on your own
> yet again. I swear, by the time you buy or download all the software it
> takes to actually do something with Windows, you might as well install
> Linux. It would take a lot less time. I don't know about you, but my time
> is worth money, and if I need to do a whole bunch of software downloading
> and installation to make my computer usable, we're talking huge TCO (Total
> Cost of Ownership).
> 
> Because of antitrust concerns, Microsoft needs to be careful about what
> kind of application software it ships with Windows. Microsoft reps
> sometimes point to Linux distributions and ask why they can get away with
> shipping stacks and stacks of applications without getting in trouble. The
> answer to that one, of course, is that the Linux distributions give you a
> choice. You aren't locked into one particular application. Most Linux
> distributions include several choices for most program classifications;
> even single-CD distros usually include several Web browsers and email
> clients."
> 
> 
> Choice is good ...

Choice is great, that's why the world uses Windows and not Linux.


Peter Bilt
Windows XP User #1
Born in the USA!
God Bless America