I hate to tell you guys, but all you "Check out
this distro!" peeps are just reinforcing my point, as BD hinted at:
Originally posted by BlackDove
See, this is exactly why I can't use Linux.
My point, once again, is this: I (and this "I" stands for many,
many people who would
like to switch) don't want to choose. I don't want to decide between the vast number of distros, researching each one's featureset, compatability, etc etc.
Like them or not, Microsoft got it (mostly) right with XP's flavors: Home, or Pro. That's what Linux needs to become to have a chance at mainstream acceptance.
Now whether that comes through one or two distros pulling so far ahead of the rest of the pack that it's not even funny, or through some magical merger between all the distros, I don't know. But the current situation simply reeks of
too much choice. And, let me reiterate for those of you who skimmed over this point before:
It doesn't matter if there's a distro that fits my needs or not: the fact that I have to choose among the dozens out there is the problem.
Originally posted by Descenterace
Re: Linux and gnubies:
It's not that Linux isn't yet as advanced as Windows. It's based on a totally different philosophy.
With Windows, the idea is that it just works. You don't have to know a damn thing about the hardware. However, the price you pay for this is usually about £150 for a new (bug-fixed?) version, and you're subject to Microsoft's whims.
With Linux, the idea is that you learn how to use your computer. Linux is a massive Swiss Army knife: you still have to know how to do things, but you're given tools to make it slightly more convenient. Occasionally, you have to fit a Windows-shaped peg into a round hole (ie. when installing some hardware), and a hammer won't work, so you need some of the more delicate tools for the job of subatomic restructuring.
For those who want Linux to be as easy to use as Windows: stick to Windows. Linux will never be that without compromising some basic principles.
Let's try this:
[q]It's not that Firefox isn't yet as advanced as IE. It's based on a totally different philosophy.
With IE, the idea is that it just
works. You don't have to know a damn thing about the web. However, the price you pay for this is usually about 15 new bug-fixes a month,
and you're subject to Microsoft's whims.
With Firefox, the idea is that you learn how to use the web. Firefox is a massive Swiss Army knife: you still have to know how to do things, but you're given tools to make it slightly more convenient. Occasionally, you have to fit a IE-shaped site into a round FF hole (ie. when visiting some online banking site), and a hammer won't work, so you need some of the more delicate tools for the job of subatomic restructuring.
For those who want Firefox to be as easy to use as IE: stick to IE. Firefox will never be that without compromising some basic principles. [/q]
Now, how does that sound? The Windows-to-IE conversion works beautifully, but the Linux-to-Firefox parts are somewhat inaccurate, wouldn't you say?
Now, why's that so? Both are open-source, both have masses of computer geeks adding, tweaking, and ootimizing things... why is Firefox such a big success, while Linux is - for most people, people like me - an utter failure?
I'll tell you why. When I install Firefox on some non-computer person's computer, it just works. There's no choice involved... that only comes if the person chooses to do so.
Now I realize that the comparison between a mere browser and the
software that runs your entire system is a bit unfair, but the point still stands. Firefox succeded because it's simple, a no-brainer. And if anyone is deluded into thinking that the majority of people who use computers have brains, well, think again.
