Another Example of why Linux Loses. Do the Samba b4 it does you.

[JDS]

No, not a few people. About 90% of desktop computer users.
This is the one thing that the Linux people overlook and the one thing that
will keep Linux from being enormously popular.

Most people that use computers want to do just that: Use it. They have no
desire to learn to be a geek or to learn how software works. They just want
to use it as they do any other appliance. Realizing this is what made
Windows great.
No commands to learn no compiling etc.

This is just an extension of the FUD.

I have personally witnessed many people, dozens, use Linux immediately
without ever needing to do anything other than pointy-clicky.

I don't understand why people can't grasp that. Linux is no longer hard to
use. Linux can *be* hard to use *if you want it to*. But you never ever
ever need to do anything other than point-n-click if you don't want to.
Period.

 

[Cynic]

That's fine when it's only an inert hunk of metal.
OTOH, a general purpose computer can be made to do dastardly
things behind your back when you're not paying attention.

A computer is more like a small child prone demonic
possession than a hammer or a screwdriver.

Also, no one tries to modify their hammer or screwdriver
or even toaster oven. You do that to a real appliance and your
warranty is suddenly null and void an the support drone from the
manufacturer won't want to have anything to do with you.

That's why we still have office copiers and fax machines and all sorts
of other things that a PC could do just as well with a few cheap
add-ons.

 

[Cynic]

That never stopped DOS.

It most certainly did. How many people had a DOS PC? How many people
used the Internet before graphical interfaces came along to hide all
the workings? How many people had one by the time Windows 3.1 was
released?

The success of Windows has never had anything to do with
any of it's real strengths or weaknesses.

The takeover of Xerox's GUI concept certainly did. Plus a good
marketing team. Plus the availability of cheaper & increasingly
powerful hardware.

...except other appliances are just that.

You don't have any expectation of modifying them.
They don't do nasty things behind your back if your
not careful. They don't do nasty things in front of
your back if you don't have a clue.

Quite. That's why you still find an office copier and an office fax
machine, even though a scanner, printer and modem could be added to a
PC and do those jobs just as well or better.

Compiling is actually brain dead trivial compared
to what you really need to know to be a responsible
driver on the information super-highway.

People don't want to be a "driver on the information super-highway".
They want to be a *passenger*. Make phone calls, write letters, send
emails, search for information, go shopping online.

Did you ever need to know how a uniselector worked before using a
telephone? Did you need to be familiar with the baudot code before
firing off a telex? Do you look up the stall speed and flap settings
for a 747 before you take a holiday trip?

 

[fjmd1a]

That's why we still have office copiers and fax machines and all sorts
of other things that a PC could do just as well with a few cheap
add-ons.

Cynic,

Perhaps you can explain why rants about linux v windows have started
being cross-posted to uk.legal? I cannot see what the relevance is.
Uk.legal is already intolerably noisy, is there any way of persuading
operating system evangelists not to post here too (and I am
cross-posting back for this very reason)?

Yes, I am sure there are interesting questions here, but not for us
please.

Francis

 

[JDS]

It most certainly did. How many people had a DOS PC? How many people
used the Internet before graphical interfaces came along to hide all
the workings? How many people had one by the time Windows 3.1 was
released?


The takeover of Xerox's GUI concept certainly did. Plus a good
marketing team. Plus the availability of cheaper & increasingly
powerful hardware.

ca. 1980s DOS PCs were *expensive*. I don't know if you recall, but north
of $2500 is a lot of money in 1989. Whereas today you can get a PC for
less than five hundred bucks. New!

A Mac II could cost almost five thousand dollars.

I mean, c'mon, you are missing some of the more realistic and more obvious
reasons why PCs were not in everyone's house in the '80s and early '90s.

 

[Cynic]

Cynic,

Perhaps you can explain why rants about linux v windows have started
being cross-posted to uk.legal?

No idea. It weren't me yer'oner, honest!

I cannot see what the relevance is.

Nor I.

Uk.legal is already intolerably noisy, is there any way of persuading
operating system evangelists not to post here too (and I am
cross-posting back for this very reason)?

Yes, I am sure there are interesting questions here, but not for us
please.

I understand your feelings, but as this (uk.legal) is an unmoderated
group and the Linux posts that I jumped into because they interest me
are confined to two threads, I figured that it would be easy for
yourself and others who are not interested in the topic to simply mark
the thread as "ignore" in your newsreader. Maybe my contributions
will cause the threads to last a day or two longer than they would
otherwise have done - but that is true whether I post to them from
uk.legal or took the trouble of subscribing to one of the other groups
and posting from there.

 

[Cynic]

ca. 1980s DOS PCs were *expensive*. I don't know if you recall, but north
of $2500 is a lot of money in 1989. Whereas today you can get a PC for
less than five hundred bucks. New!

A Mac II could cost almost five thousand dollars.

I mean, c'mon, you are missing some of the more realistic and more obvious
reasons why PCs were not in everyone's house in the '80s and early '90s.

I believe I mentioned the availability of cheap hardware as one of the
reasons. It was certainly a big reason, maybe the main one, but the
advent of the GUI was also a big factor.

 

[Linonut]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Cynic belched out this bit o' wisdom:

It most certainly did. How many people had a DOS PC? How many people
used the Internet before graphical interfaces came along to hide all
the workings? How many people had one by the time Windows 3.1 was
released?

Quite a bit, young-man-who-wants-us-to-think-he's-a-wise-oldster.

Quite. That's why you still find an office copier and an office fax
machine, even though a scanner, printer and modem could be added to a
PC and do those jobs just as well or better.

Better? No really. The only PC I've seen that could do the job is a
Xerox Document Centre, and that looks and works just like a copier.

Of course, copiers now have these GUI interfaces and
media-auto-detection features, just to make it harder to make a friggin'
copy.

I'm with Ambrose Bierce on this one, at least on the plucking part:

http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/c.html

CYNIC, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as
they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of
plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

The first part of that definition give our Cynic way too much credit.

 

[Linonut]

After takin' a swig o' grog, (e-mail address removed) belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Cynic,

Perhaps you can explain why rants about linux v windows have started
being cross-posted to uk.legal? I cannot see what the relevance is.
Uk.legal is already intolerably noisy, is there any way of persuading
operating system evangelists not to post here too (and I am
cross-posting back for this very reason)?

Some moron wants to have fun by injecting extra newsgroups.

And the repliers, including me, haven't been snipping the crossposts.

Sorry! Will do better!

 

[Guest]

After takin' a swig o' grog, (e-mail address removed) belched out this bit o'
wisdom:


Some moron wants to have fun by injecting extra newsgroups.

Right . It was flatfish, in his usual nymshifting frenzy

 

[Cynic]

Quite a bit, young-man-who-wants-us-to-think-he's-a-wise-oldster.

Hmmmm. I'd take a bet that I have a few years on you, whether you
measure it in life, programming time or time I've had an Internet
account (and I still have the same account).

 

[Linonut]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Cynic belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Hmmmm. I'd take a bet that I have a few years on you, whether you
measure it in life, programming time or time I've had an Internet
account (and I still have the same account).

I seriously doubt it, poster-who-thinks-Linux-ran-on-a-286.

I am cynical about you.

 

[Cynic]

I seriously doubt it, poster-who-thinks-Linux-ran-on-a-286.

I am cynical about you.

Think whatever you wish. Young-man-who-thinks-he-knows-it-all.

 

[P. Johnson]

And all catholics should be burnt at the stake too?

Come off it : I would guess a great majority of people use google to
access usenet from the workplace.

Maybe they should be working while they're at work. I use a news server
that recently dropped Google Groups posts and it made Usenet much more
usable at this site.

 

[P. Johnson]

Hadron Quark wrote:

And how do you filter catholics? Last time I looked there wasn't a
"X-Religion" header.

There is. Anything can be a header if it's preceeded by "X-". This is
fairly common in many protocols, SMTP also allows "X-" headers, as does
HTTP. Try viewing headers while browsing Slashdot.org if you want to see
Futurama quotes, Slashcode-based sites usually have a random quote by
Phillip Fry in the "X-Fry" header.

 

[Linonut]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Cynic belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Think whatever you wish. Young-man-who-thinks-he-knows-it-all.

You've blown twice now. First, about Linux-on-286.
Second, about my age.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

That's why we still have office copiers and fax machines and all sorts
of other things that a PC could do just as well with a few cheap
add-ons.

...not even close.

Good office copiers and fax machines are remarkably superior
to their "cobbled-together-with-a-PC" counterparts. They tend to be
bigger, better quality, have more and better features and have better
thought out controls that don't require using the PC, it's keyboard,
mouse & monitor as a crutch.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

It most certainly did. How many people had a DOS PC? How many people

Most people that had computers.

used the Internet before graphical interfaces came along to hide all
the workings? How many people had one by the time Windows 3.1 was
released?

The internet didn't come around until after all of that was
already in place. Although you could quite easily access all of that
if you wanted to way back in 1988.

The takeover of Xerox's GUI concept certainly did. Plus a good
marketing team. Plus the availability of cheaper & increasingly
powerful hardware.

Strangely enough, the Apple didn't need any of that. It
managed to do quite well in a mere 1M while DOS machines had
trouble managing well with as much as 8M and really needed 16M
or more.

The same was true of everyone else that tried at that
time including Atari and Commodore.

[deletia]

People don't want to be a "driver on the information super-highway".
They want to be a *passenger*. Make phone calls, write letters, send
emails, search for information, go shopping online.

Then they shouldn't try to "trick out" their ride.

Did you ever need to know how a uniselector worked before using a
telephone? Did you need to be familiar with the baudot code before
firing off a telex? Do you look up the stall speed and flap settings
for a 747 before you take a holiday trip?

Actually, a real 747 pilot is infact inspecting the plane to
make sure it is in basic working order. The same goes for a cessna
pilot. So your rant falls apart a bit there.

Things I expect to be appliances, I treat as such. I'm not
going to go and hack a Tivo and then whine to Tivo corp that their
PVR is broken.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

I believe I mentioned the availability of cheap hardware as one of the
reasons. It was certainly a big reason, maybe the main one, but the
advent of the GUI was also a big factor.

Hardware was plenty cheap in the late 80's. Macs and PC's weren't
but fortunately, the world was not limited to those two rather limited
options. At least with Macs you kinda got something for your money. The
VM on Mac II's was just the bee's knees at the time. The integrated LAN
stuff also seemed quite nifty.

A suitably simplified and cheap "PC" was available by 1988.

Even relatively cheap PC's were available by then but you'd
only be getting an 8088 and spending a grand for the privelege. That
was just for the crappy clones. Nevermind something reputable and
name brand.

 

[P. Johnson]

...not even close.

Good office copiers and fax machines are remarkably superior
to their "cobbled-together-with-a-PC" counterparts. They tend to be
bigger, better quality,

With higher capacity and able to do things like printing on both sides of
the page, collation, hole punch, staple, sort. Though with the proper
hardware, you can far-and-away exceed the all-in-one units with a "cobbled
together" solution. At this point, we're talking lithography systems you
usually only find in print shops and prohibitively expensive for
noncommercial use...

have more and better features and have better thought out controls that
don't require using the PC, it's keyboard, mouse & monitor as a crutch.

Eeeh, that's not quite true. Some multifunction copiers (and Kyocera's in
particular) are often much easier to use from the PC software than it is
from the firmware and the built-in touchscreen, especially if you have
fatter fingers than the chicklet-sized touchscreen "buttons" and/or have to
do any amount of text entry.