Re: Back to Windows??

[Bud Rogers <budr@sirinet.net>]

On Monday 19 February 2001 06:43, Hans Verschoor and Jennie Kohsiek 
wrote:
> Bud,
>
> In your answer you are drifting away from what it is really about.
> Jan's point is that, and I agree fully with that, it is virtually
> impossible to configure and tune a Linux machine for a (relative)
> newbie. The fact that Microsoft has a dominant position, other
> installation techniques and a clear commercial goal is another
> subject i.m.o. , maybe also worthwhile to discuss but not in this
> thread.

Jan's question, as I read it, was "Why do I go to all this trouble to 
get Linux working when I could install Windows in an hour?"  

I completely sympathize with his frustration.  I have felt it too as we 
all have.  I think his question was sincere, and so was my answer.  We 
all have to make that choice as best we can.  But it's not fair to 
choose freedom and then ask "Why can 't this be as easy as Microsoft?"  

Microsoft has the benefit of proprietary documentation on lots of 
hardware because they are willing to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements 
with the manufacturers.  So they can make drivers that work out of the 
box.  Linux developers don't have that luxury.  They have to reverse 
engineer the drivers.  So, it takes longer and the drivers don't always 
work out of the box.  That is a consequence of choosing freedom over 
expedience.   

I think that is relevant to the discussion, but I don't want to start a 
protracted debate about this.  

-- 
Bud Rogers <budr@sirinet.net>   http://www.sirinet.net/~budr/zamm.html
    All things in moderation.  And not too much moderation either.