>>>Linux is not only not ready for prime time its not even ready for
>>>pay-per-view.

When speaking of the server this is patently false; when speaking of the
desktop, it is completely accurate, but with a few qualifications.  If
"prime time" means an ordinary end-user (your barber or your mom), then,
imho, no, linux is not ready for "prime time."

All of us know that 'end-users'(remember, your barber or your mom):

a) never want to leave the mouse.
b) want wizards to do everything for them.
c) don't want to read documentation for 2 hours to find out how to change
something. (I should amend that to "don't want to read documentation even
to save their own lives.")
d) want to use a computer for a specific task (email, web, MP3s) and don't
_want_ to know how or why the computer does what it does.
e) fear the command line
e) uh, the list is endless...

Is linux 'ready' for that? No.  The real question is _should_ linux be
made to accomodate the end-user in those ways. I think there is a segment
of the community that doesn't want linux ever to be "user friendly" _in
those ways_.

Now this is the part where someone says "X can be used in just the ways
you describe."  My only answer to that is "sit your barber in front of X
and see what happens."   

What I've stated above has nothing to do with Windows. (well, yes it
does ;) ).  I would not call Windows "user-friendly" either, but it all
depends on your definition of "user-friendly."  My definition of
user-friendly (and prob. yours) is much different from your barber's.  

My definition of user-friendly is "flexible, well-documented, with
everything under my direct control."

Your proverbial barber wants a black-box that does things _for_ him: he
wants a AOL.  He obviously doesn't want what's "best," he wants what'
s _easy_.  

And yes, part of the problem is that people have had Windows and nothing
else for so long that they want everything else to work in the same way
(interface-wise).

just my 2 cents...

todd


--