Why linux is not ready for the desktop Was: Whats with X

On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 21:08, Rob Wultsch wrote:
> For most users out there if they lose they gui they will restart the
> machine. Most users do not want to learn to use any command line anything.
>
> My interest in Linux is based purely on the idea that IP and copyrights
> are not the way the world should work. Are the ideals of the people on
> this list that Linux should focus on being the best server os in the
> world or should linux be a gateway for the world to know free software?
>
-----
I'm coming in real late in this thread but I was away for a week -
seeing my new grandson ;-)

I think that someone who first learns on Windows has a stilted view of
software as they don't see any distinction between the various elements
- i.e. the OS and the user interface and then the various levels of
hardware, networking and the OSI itself.

Having started on an Apple ][ (prior to the ][+ ), upgrading the RAM,
expaning it to 80 columns and then migrating to CP/M, DOS, Macintosh,
Windows allowed me to see the progression of the underlying disk
operating system, the GUI, the network transport layers as they
developed.

Obviously there are a lot of appliances which run on linux which have no
need for a GUI and of course handheld devices etc for which storage is a
premium as well. From it's very inception, Linus envisioned the OS to be
small and modularized which clearly is the most important reason for it
taking hold.

Open source / free software issues are only a reason why some people use
Linux / BSD derivatives albeit a major reason. There are some simple
truths...The fastest word processor that I have ever used was WordStar
in CP/M. ALL GUI word processors cannot compete against the elegance and
effectiveness of that system. Regardless of the new bells and whistles
of the Office Suite that Microsoft sells...the feature set doesn't
improve and thus, the package has become a basic commodity which can be
equally filled by an open source alternative.

The command line is part of the awesome power of Linux but also the
ability to edit the config files directly is equally as large. Windows
does its best to obscure these details but the fact remains that much of
Windows configuration is done through the GUI editing of what ends up
being text based configuration files as well.

I'll give you the best real world example I can think of...

Last week, I had a customer whose computer with Win2K Professional
refused to start. Using their Win2K disk, I did the fast repair which
replaced their OS files, checked out boot.ini, went into the repair
console and ran FIXMBR & FIXBOOT and it still refused to boot. I had to
install the Win2K into another directory and reinstall all programs all
over again. If this were Linux, I am certain that I could have fixed it
without going through all that.

Craig