Why Linux will win and Micro$oft will lose

[Brian Cluff]

> 1) Need to get rid off all the offshoots. For hackers, a variety of
> different styles and versions of an o.s. are great. However for someone who
> uses their computer to get email and surf the web 20 different types of the
> same thing only confuse and bore him. This is one of the big stumbling
> blocks for Linux. The first question most people ask about Linux is "What is
> the best type of Linux to use, red hat suse, caldera, ...". Sorry Linux,
> that really should not be the first big decision. At an absolute maximum,
> there should be about 3 types of Linux. One for the average user where
> everything happens automatically and only loads the basic multimedia type
> programs. The second for hackers who enjoy programming, and like to dabble
> in .conf files. The third for Server situations.

Having a variety of distros is a good thing as long as everyone can agree
on a standard way of doing things, and a standard place to put thing on
the file system.  Given that those things happen, and most of the distros
do seem to be converging on a standard way of doing things, I would prefer
to see distros geared towards different environment that they would be
running in like gameing, desktop useage, server (with possibly different
usages for the servers), power user... and then there will be variations
in different languages.  I'm betting that someone in china will make a
lot better chinese distro than someone in the US, but as long as they do
things in a standard way, they will be able to install any piece of
software without headaches.

> 2) Not everyone wants to be a programmer. There are several signatures I
> have seen that imply the world of computers will be perfected when everyone
> programs for fun. They also imply the average person would want to go into a
> .conf file and have to add some term or variable. I would hate to break it
> to everyone, but the average computer user does not care to do much more
> than open email or a web browser and download mp3's, talk to friends,  or
> download backgrounds. Right now in order to properly configure Linux, the
> user has to be familiar with how a programming language works. I personally
> have not been able to get anything to work on my machine without typing in
> info on a file that had an "if", "for" "else", or some other programming
> language type function.

a few years ago I would say that you had a good argument here, but these
days you take your latest distro and install it and your casual computer
user would be right at home since all the default software for viewing
e-mail and surfing the web, and even ripping mp3's is point and click.
Everyone that I see making the oposite argument is still using the
software from sevral years ago and hasn't bothered to look at the current
stuff.

> 3) Should not need to know what an HOW-TO is. I personally think this is the
>  absolute biggest stumbling block for Linux. The average computer user
> should not have to read through 10 HOW-TO's that reference 10 more HOW-TO's
> to get something simple like the internet going. No "average" computer user
> should even have to know what a HOW-TO is. If the program or task  the user
> is doing cannot do everything it is suppose to by itself then there should
> be a well written, logically organized, indexed help section. BTW, Man pages
> are just as bad as HOW-TO's. If my mother decided to buy and install Linux,
> she should not have to read a PPP HOW-TO  in order to get the dial up
> connection going. In fact, she should not even know that PPP exists. The
> most she should have to do is click a button that says something like "set
> up internet" and answer simple questions like " Are you using a dial up
> modem or DSL".  Hate to break it to everyone, but before Linux boots
> Microsoft of their high chair, The HOW-TO's have got to go.

this is the same arguement as #2 and the modern distros come with
software to easily setup all the basic things that the casual computer
user would want.  You'll find that everyone that moans about not being
able to setup things under linux these days are just confused because its
not exactly the same a windows,  but that is the point isn't it... it's
NOT the same a windows.  You would find that if you took someone that ONLY
knew linux and put them on windows for the first time they would be
equally confused as to how to set things up.  These days linux isn't hard
for a casual user.. it's just different.

> 4) Learn how to name programs. I should not have to do a web search to find
> out what a program does every time some cryptic letter scheme is brought up.
> For example, the discussion about setenv. Please tell me there could not
> have been a more descriptive name for that. Just looking at the letters does
> absolutely nothing for me. In order to under stand this I am sure I will
> have to read for several hours on the internet. (In all honesty I am unsure
> what it is now.). If my wife read an email that told here how to use setenv,
> her eyes would glaze over, she would get a headache, and I wouldn't get any
> bootie that night. I hope we all agree this is unacceptable.

I don't see your arguement here, are you trying to say that just because
every single little program isn't completely obvious as to what it does,
the OS as a whole is bad?  If you look at any OS there are tons of little
support programs and treasures to be found within the system.  setenv is
one of them, and most of the time they are ment for advanced users.... if
you need setenv you are an advanced user and you will most likely know
exactly what it does....  Also windows has the exact same command and it
does exactly the same thing.... in either case if your using it you are
doing something out of the casual user relm and it shouldn't be a point
against the OS as a whole just because there isn't a point and click way
of doing it.
There are a lot of things that, in my opinion, shouldn't be extremely easy
to do.  Server functions being one of them.  I personally think that if
you are afraid to get into your httpd.conf file you should be trying to
run a webserver, and the same thing can be said if just about every server
program there is.  It's Microsoft with there point and click interfaces
for server software that has cause the spread of viruses, large amounts of
DOS attacks, and general wastes of bandwidth causeing slowdowns on the
internat as a whole.  The casual server admin doesn't know that if you
check off box "A" without checking box "c" that you leave yourself wide
open for attacks.  These would be the same people that know that if they
do a "chmod -R 777 *" to their files it lets them get them without
troubles, but doesn't give a moments thought to the facts that it would at
very least give anyone access to all their files if not compromise the
system in even worse ways like setting those permissions on a suid
program.

The only real problem I see these days is standards, if we can all get
onto the same bandwagon there won't be any problems, and I see that is
exactly the way things are headed, there are now only 2 real desktop
environments in the running, KDE and GNOME, where there used to be just a
ton of window managers with a bunch on miscelanous hard to configure
programs bolted onto the display.

Try installing with nothing but defaults something current like mandrake
8.1 and just pretend your a casual user... you are only interested in
reading e-mail, browsing the web, composing a document in a word
processor... etc etc  I think you will find unless you do something that a
casual user wouldn't normally do, you are right at home on linux.

Brian Cluff