[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: I can't believe this

On 03/08/99 at 10:21:55, eferen1 wrote concerning "Re: I can't believe this":
> it.  Dos, Windows, Assembler, AppleDos, etc are all self -intuitive.  Linux
> is not.

Absolutely not.  Dos, Windows, etc. etc. are not self-intuitive.  They
each assume certain proficiencies, and someone who lacks them will have
just as difficult a time as someone who lacks the necessary
proficiencies in Linux.  Many people may *perceive* that a given OS is
"easier" in some respect, but every OS is difficult to use for someone
who does not know how.  

It just so happens that M$ has managed to define how an OS "should"
behave in the minds of many people.  Therefore, many of those people
assume that anything that behaves in those ways is "easy," and anything
that requires different learning is "hard."  Hence ZDNet's subscribers
might identify a Redhat/KDE system with "ease" and a Debian system with

There are a greater number of proficienies required for comfortable use
of a Linux system than there are for comfortable use of another system.
In that way, other systems may be less demanding of the user.  But I
haven't even used Windows 95/98 now for almost a year (yay!) and at this
point, I couldn't sit down and use a Windows box with the same level of
comfort and proficiency as in Linux.  Does that make Windows "hard?"  It
depends on your point of view.

I'll always remember this historical principle:  people are almost
always willing to give up their own freedom if it will buy security.  M$
has managed to make Windows appear to be "secure" (in the sense of
personal comfort) for many people, while the many unknowns of UNIX makes
UNIX appear relatively "insecure."  Perhaps UNIX, and Linux in
particular offer much greater freedom, but most people are unwilling to
buy that freedom with their own personal security.  Maybe this tradeoff
is all in our heads, but that's where the battle takes place.  That's
also why FUD tactics work so well.

Anyway, I'll cut it off there.

> Any other input?

See above :=)


> Ed
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Bonser <grep@shorelink.com>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 04:45
> Subject: I can't believe this
> >
> >http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/features/opensource/390823.html
> >
> >zdnet did a review of Debian. Included are such comments as:
> >
> >Debian GNU/Linux 2.0 ($38.95 direct) ...
> >...Windows users should steer clear of Debian.
> >
> >...The company says it will include a new application installer in Debian
> >GNU/Linux 2.1.
> >
> >Uhm, which "company" would this be?
> >
> >...Debian is distributed by Linux Press...
> >
> >Yeah, and a whole bunch of other people. Basicly the article's slant is
> >be afraid of Debian, be very afraid.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org <
> /dev/null
> >

Pastor Jesse Jacobsen <jjacobsen@jvlnet.com>
PGP public key at http://www.jvlnet.com/~jjacobsen/pgpkey.asc
or through the keyserver at keys.pgp.net.

Attachment: pgp8rraBkhEQr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: