--- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, Scott <scottro@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 02:23:08PM -0000, Darksyde wrote:
> >
> > P.S. And this is more for the benefit of newer newbies than I, FYI. Personal opinion, the whole "more difficult to use than Mac or Windows" thing is sooo blown out of proportion. IMHO, so many new distro's prove that Linux IS ready for the desktop, and there's certainly no lack of available software, not to mention the price of said software. I can't imagine having grown up with Linux and then switching to Windows or Mac; "I need a piece of software but I don't have $100-300 in spare cash right now." "Should I call Tech Support to find out why my screen goes blue every few weeks?" "Whaddya mean I have a virus? My computer's set up to get all available updates!" "This computer's only four years old. It came with XP but now I have to buy a new version of Windows because the old one is no longer supported?" lol
> >
>
> I'm going to play devil's advocate here, not to troll, though that's
> always fun of course, but just to make what I consider an 2 important
> points.
>
> One, I think that Linux users putting down Windows or Apple is
> reminiscent of a little dog barking at a big dog. I just don't see it
> serving a purpose anymore--the more restrained--if that's the proper
> word, we are, the better, especially, ironically, from an advocacy
> standpoint--telling someone, "What you use is BAD," implies they're
> foolish, and can quickly close their mind.
*Yeah, you're right of course, but it's still fun. OK, actually, I reserve Windows-knocking for Linux-friendly areas (mostly), but the fact is that I would love to be able to live without it completely. Some apps (like Netflix) require Win or Mac, and this isn't (totally) the fault of MS/Mac. I'm sure that if enough people spoke up, Netflix would at least consider a Linux version. Meanwhile, I do the right thing and purchase legal copies of XP to run in VirtualBox, though I've seen people in a local LUG offer Windows .iso's to anyone who's interested.
>
> Windows users will tell you (rightfully), that Windows has gotten far
> better with Blue screening and the like. Malware is often not an issue
> for those who are intelligent users, say, at the level, hopefully, of
> the average Linux user, interested enough in computers to follow techie
> type stuff. (They use Ubuntu in a VM to browse questionable sites.)
> :)
>
> As for having to buy a new version of Windows even though it's only 4
> years old, how long is an Ubuntu version supported? Fedora, which is
> admittedly extremely aggressive in this, only supports it for 18 months.
*Well yeah, this is true of course, but it doesn't cost a penny and it can be done in one-three hours, from download to burn to install, without leaving the comfort of your home. And this time frame can even include burning and testing a live distro to see if it recognizes your hardware.
>
> There are other Linux myths, so to speak, that I feel actually hurt
> advocacy--it's the old sales adage, promise less than you can deliver,
> deliver more than you promise.
>
> Install Linux, all your hardware will work.
>
> So, they install one. Hey, my wireless isn't working.
>
> Oh, that's the fault of the vendor for not opensourcing their specs.
>
> Errm, yeah, that's nice and all, but my wireless isn't working. This
> Linux is junk.
>
> Hopefully, my point is clear. We can't promise that everything will
> work perfectly, nor that programs will do everything your Windows/Mac
> programs will do, etc.
*True, and I did mention that, in a way. My point was that, for anyone who was intimidated by switching to Linux, or at least checking it out (PapaSmurf), that the *other* Linux myth was also untrue, even more so-- "Linux is a terribly complicated system that only geeks who write code for fun can use, and it has no applications outside of the computer room.
>
> Still, much of the original article mentiond by Roy, which I think I've
> snipped, is quite true. It has gotten much easier to use, works better
> with a great deal of hardware, etc. Ironically, a friend of mine
> decided to put Ubuntu on someone's laptop, because the owner of the
> laptop had lost the Dell driver disk, and he didn't feel like searching
> for the drivers for her--whereas Ubuntu worked out of the box for her.
> (Not to mention the malware---which was why it had to be reinstalled in
> the first place.) :)
*Ya know, I don't see any irony there as I've been in similar situations a couple of times myself. OK, ironic from public perception, but not surprising at all to anyone who has spent a little time distro-hopping.
Mark
>
> --
> Scott Robbins
*Final note: I have a tendency to drift off-topic and such but the point I was trying to make in my post is that the learning curve from Windows or Mac to Linux is not terribly steep, only slightly more so than the curve would be if someone started with Linux and then migrated to Windows. And if one done some research and chosen Open Source apps to use on their Windows (or Mac) machine such as Firefox, VLC, OpenOffice, etc, it's even less steep.
Mark (again)
No comments:
Post a Comment