I think you all have made some very valid points in defense of open source.
I also see the validity in the original posters viewpoint. I was weened on
windows and found some of the way things work in linux to be irritating at
first. Personally it took me a month of experimenting with Mandrake 7.1
(that I bought)  and it never did run to give up and try some other flavors
of Linux.Then went back to Mandrake tried an ftp install which worked
perfectly the first time. I persevered with it in light of throwing my hands
up and walking away a number of times. I believe if you really are
interested in computers linux is the perfect O/S because of the incredble
capabilities contained within. linux is especially user friendly if you like
to program and want to customize your O/S to your own machine/preferences
try that with windows huh? Anyways Linux is an adventure to me and I'm
enjoying it.
----- Original Message -----
From: <linux@integertech.com>
To: <plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Why Open Source Sucks for the Consumer


>
>
> >>>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
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> Plug-discuss mailing list  -  Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss