On Sunday 03 June 2001 11:56 am, you wrote:
> > ease of use is whats gonna make linux the desktop for so many.
> > it has to be easy to use for most of us. this is not to say it will
> > become less powerful. there will be always be the command line
> > and those big black hole that people call terminals :)
> >
> > i dont understand why some people seem to get upset that
> > linux is becoming easier and easier to use. i would like to
> > have a discussion with some that feel this way.
>
> I agree with what you're saying here. Ease of use doesn't necessarily
> mean less powerful. I think there was a time a while back when LinuxPPC
> put out a "Live" distro (similar to the SuSe evals we gave out this
> week) and many people complained that it didn't have everything (such as
> gcc and a bunch of other tools). But it was supposed to be easy to use.
> I also think the Easy to Use value proposition comes also from (ahem)
> the MacOS. People think it isn't powerful because it's all point and
> click. I don't think the Linux Community has quite figured out the ease
> of use issue. It's partly cultural, since many a hacker is so used to
> doing it all alone, with little or no help, or the kind you get from a
> mailing list. Why would you waste your time making it easy to use?
i understand your statements but linux is just not for hackers
anymore. what i dont understand is the complaining. if hackers
dont want to use the ease of use stuff they dont have to.
>
> Linux is still a "one size fits all" sort of a phenomenon. If everything
> that's expected to go with doesn't come with it, people get upset. (I
> think they are confused.) SuSe takes this to heart, because their full
> distro is 7 CD's! RedHat and Debian are much more reasonable with their
> default installs being smaller.
and lets dont forget Mandrake :)
>
> BTW, RedHat seems to be making headway against the "OSFA" phenomenon.
> It's being aimed squarely at the corporate market.
i would agree. i dont think the people at red hat have a clue
what to do for the desktop, they seem to have lots of answers
for business machines, servers, etc .
>
> > and i have a question, why do some people get upset with
> > the idea that some will make money on linux. if linux is to grow
> > then some people will want to buy some software. distros need
> > a little money to make the cd
> > s and keep their work going.
>
> Hmmm...Linux seems to have done quite well without any money.
linux has done quite well without any money. but people shouldnt
get upset if someone makes money with a piece of software.
ibm sells software. there are some games out there. linux needs
to include everybody. there are many that wish to work with others
designing linux for the future just because they want to. thats how
its been done. i hope this will continue.
I think
> people are really complaining about the loss of innocence that comes
> with growing up. It isn't just the "Hacker's Hobby" anymore. Money also
> has an influence separate from what is technically correct.
> ("Technically" I mean in the sense of the best solution) Money is also
> more simply a corrupting influence. Look at what's happened with
> Caldera. They got so big that they could buy SCO Unix! Their loyalty to
> Linux and Free Software has come into question and has caused Richard
> Stallman to publicly admonish them for abandoning Linux. (His opinion)
from what i have read caldera does seem to be abandoning linux.
they are the money people now kind of like corel was a while back.
let them do what they want, go where they want.
> Another problem people have with the money aspect is like so: "Why
> should I contribute time/energy/resources/money/code to a for-profit
> company?
without money, there would be no distros. i believe and i could be
wrong the distros are backed by somebody. if people complain
about why they should contribute they dont have to contribute. i actually
believe everybody that whines about this distro or that distro just
shouldnt have anything to do with them. they should get our their
terminals do their own thing. i just wish they would quit complaining
so much.
That would be like making a charitable contribution to M$."
no it wouldnt. i would never give a cent to microsoft. i have to admit
i have given a lot of dollars in the past. but making a contribution
to linux is not the same. there is something cool about linux that
microsoft has never had. when i first got win 3.1 and 95 and then
98 and then 98se i never realized how corrput gates is. its as
if he cant stop attempting to control. i think he's got some major
head problems, unfortunately he has a lot of money to be pushy.
i find it fascinating that redmond is so scared of linux. if they werent
they would stop whining about linux themselves. i also find it
interesing how the republican party is preaching everything for
business and nothing for anybody else.
> "It's somehow unfair that *my* work should help someone else make money.
> Where's my cut?"
what does it matter. if u wrote code and only 10 people used it that
would be success but if wrote code and it enable millions to go
forward that is ever more success.
There's more of course, but you get the idea.
i
>
> HTH
>
> Russell
>
> ____________________________________________________
> _its_ (no apostrophe) means "the thing that it owns"
> _it's_ (with apostrophe) means "it is"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:39:40 EDT