Re: [OT] Why does X need so much CPU power?
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:01:19AM +0300, Micha Feigin wrote:
> Second is the fact that most people just use the OS they get with their
> computer and are afraid to try and replace it. Plus, they already paid
> for the M$ license (even if forcefully/unknowingly) so why switch to a
> free one after you already paid for something. Same thing with macs/osX,
> where its even harder to get linux to work.
> Linux need to change its public image and start coming pre-installed.
You're aware that this has already started to happen, right? Lindows
are/were doing exactly this with cheap PCs sold by Wal-Mart in the US.
> There is also the problem of too much options. Unlike M$ where people
> exactly what program does a given job, on linux there are 10, and when
> there are so many its actually sometimes harder finding the right one
> for you or even finding what programs there are to do a given job.
> Too much choice can sometime be as much a liability as not enough (as
> much as I like the options).
My impression of Lindows has been that they're presenting single
applications for each niche, fixing this problem for their target
audience. I'm quite sure others will follow.
As far as Debian is concerned, we have our niche of providing maximal
choice and power and I think it's right that we stay there. Many of the
early contributors to and leaders of Debian wanted to make it something
that could work well as a base for more customized distributions, and
that seems to be succeeding quite nicely. To those who say that Debian
has too much flexibility and choice for Mr. Average, I say: that's OK.
Not everything has to cater for Mr. Average, and that still doesn't stop
us doing useful things one level back and catering for the people who
cater for Mr. Average.
> Don't take from this that I don't like linux. I think its much better
> then M$ and there are no alternatives for me for some of the things that
> it offer, but its exactly those things that make, at list for the
> moment, to be a non-option for the Joe-Public m$ user.
I think there's a lot of work to do before we're ready to replace the
major proprietary operating systems completely, but the situation is
improving year by year so I don't see any grounds for despair. The
balance is still swinging Microsoft's way, but is beginning to tip with
news of organizations like the city government of Munich and major banks
switching over, which erode the document format lock-in that Microsoft
Office has had for many years. Once organizations are no longer locked
in to what the organizations they deal with use, the balance can only
tip further.
In my opinion, it's only after that happens when we need to be ready for
home users. Office use leads this kind of thing, and is easier because
businesses can afford to hire sysadmins and provide basic training to
smooth over the wrinkles. Only after that happens on a large scale do
you start getting lots of office workers thinking "hey, I wonder if I
could use this to handle things at home?", and so on.
So I don't think it's necessary to prophesy doom because there are still
problems that would confuse those who aren't so technically literate.
We've got time to work on these, and it makes sense to be realistic
about our audience in the meantime so that we don't do a disservice to
those who are already interested and capable.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: