I love Microsoft

But what's wrong with the article is that in Linux you are not stuck with any one desktop environment and if you want to you can dump it alltogether and run in command line. Linux is not defined exclusivly by its distro. And anyone can produce and distribute their own distros.

Plus you can write your own or customize KDE, Gnome, ECT to your exact likeing. Not to mention that KDE http://www.kde.org/ is more of a RIP of OSX than of Windows. I then ask which distros has the author tried and under which desktop environments?? From the way his article is written I would say he may have booted Lindows or Xandros but that is it.

Furthermore he misses the point on why Windows is prefered in bussiness. The reason why Windows is prefered in Bussiness is becuase there is a notion that is eronously upheld by managers that almost evryone knows Winmdows. The plain fact is that even people who think they know Windows do not know Windows. I know for a fact that only 25% of the workforce can use 75% of the windows features and pass a Windows exam. If you have a Distro that looks enough like Windows so thewre isn't much if any retraining the managers will switch in a heartbeat becuase we are talking about saving cash anmd improving the Bottom Line. In most industries IS is overhead and in almost all industries with the exception of OS makers, the OS on anymachine likewise is Overhead. In order to improve the bottom line you cut overhead among other things. Liscensing 6.0 was one of the best incentives MS could have given companys to at least look at Linux if not outright switch.

It is also assumed that Linux distro makers can not match Windows feature for feature when in fact almost all Linux Distros even Lindows, excedes Windows Feature for Feature.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by johnie
But what's wrong with the article is that in Linux you are not stuck with any one desktop environment and if you want to you can dump it alltogether and run in command line. Linux is not defined exclusivly by its distro. And anyone can produce and distribute their own distros.

Plus you can write your own or customize KDE, Gnome, ECT to your exact likeing.

---

This still doesn't address the root of my argument - how often is the typical user going to overhaul their interface until they find one that they like? How often will they enter the command line, and how can you enforce consistency and ease of transition if everything is "customisable" without reccomended standards on a common usable interface?

You said yourself that a typical user doesn't inherently know how to use a machine. However, I'm sure it is a lot easier to interact with a graphical interface with memes associated with everyday tasks then it is to decode the cryptic command line - otherwise we'd all be programmers, ne?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RazoRmedia
the point is that I'm fed up with the constant *****ing and moaning about Microsoft. A company so big in a market so wide are bound to slip up here and there.

If I get more than 50 replies, I'll get NerdInside banned ;)

---

ooh. nerdles banned!? Can I vote twice? ;)

joking nerdles...

yeah, well... you know what Razor... normally I'd agree with you. But the recent slip up at MS has made me work over 117 hours to figure out what they did to change how my code in a project, a critical server application, stop working. Then I had to travel quickly to resolve the situation.

let's just say I'm not happy with MS at the moment.

but that will be the last time you hear me ***** about the current issue(s)...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CNO
This still doesn't address the root of my argument - how often is the typical user going to overhaul their interface until they find one that they like? How often will they enter the command line, and how can you enforce consistency and ease of transition if everything is "customisable" without reccomended standards on a common usable interface?

You said yourself that a typical user doesn't inherently know how to use a machine. However, I'm sure it is a lot easier to interact with a graphical interface with memes associated with everyday tasks then it is to decode the cryptic command line - otherwise we'd all be programmers, ne?

---

1. I think you are underestimating users. In pre windows and preMac times all users did have to use the command line more or less no mater if they were using an IBM with DOS, C64/128, or Apple II, etc and not all were programers. Typing something like ; mount -o remount,rw /mnt/hda1 is hardly programing (remounts a mounted HD in read write mode BTW). However it is FUD that Linux has no GUI as almost all modern distros do.

2. The command line exists in both OSX and in Windows XP. Likewise Windows, all versions, comes with either DOS or DOS emulation.

3. KDE and Gnome are both graphical repersentations and both use memes for everyday activities. Switching between them in most distros is as easy as choosing which one you want at boot. It is not hard. Most distros include both the KDE and Gnome http://www.gnome.org/ .

You also have the Window cloned distros in which the desktops look and behave almost exactly like Windows. The companies (Elf Linux,Xandros, Lycoris, Lindows- just off the top of my head) that makes these distros have made it so that migration is easy by doing this. I'd say probably 50% of users given one of these distros and not told would think they are still on Windows especially if you swipe some Icons so that they think they have IE and Outlook.

Again the Standard User Interface is pretty much a lame duck argument here as Windows XP is to the point that depending on which theme you choose it can drastically alter the desktop as much as Gnome or KDE.

Don't kid yourself, Windows is not consitant between versions and has had custominaztion dioulages ever since 98 that could alter the look and feel of graphic interface of the OS to the point where the casual user would not know they had a Windows Desktop- Also don't forget there is software which makes the Windows GUI behave much like the Mac GUI. What you could not do, well you could if you used PC GEOS to some degree, was dump the MS desktop all together and still run software developed for Windows.

This is like a religion war. No one will convert anyone else. So just forget it...

By the way, does this argument seem identical to every other one I've seen? No, actually. But it has most of the same points....

On point 1. This is like aruing that we should go back to horse-drawm buggies rather than drive cars. Things get easier for a reason. And computers weren't nearly as relavent in everyday use then (nor would they probably be if we hadn't progressed beyond a hobbyist's toy)

Point 2. I know the command line exists. But as of yet, I have never *had* to go into the command line on OSX, nor would I be able to find it unless I was looking for it.

Point 3. It may not be hard for you, but most users want to get something that works and lets them work. Sure you can skin the interfaces of oses like Windows, bit you will not change the fundamental core of the system - it will still run like Windows, with the same windows functionality. Just because you change something's appearance doesn't make it more usable - there's a thought process behind that. And much of Linux's desktop OS appears to just be visual shortcuts for command line features, not enhancements to functionality. The "it looks like" argument doesn't hold water - I can buy a knock off "ROL-X" watch on the street corner, but that doesn't make it a ROLEX, no matter how much they might look alike.

I can go on arguing this point by point, but we don't seem to be getting each other's point, so I'll let it rest here.

What's sick about it is that I use both...

There are still some things in which no software exists that is convient enough to use on Linux- playing DVDs comes to mind or making SWF although software exists to make basic SWFs with a GUI and software exists to go from SVG to SWF and you could do everything by code AKA freeMovie or Ming. Likewise there are some Linux apps which have no reasonably priced alternates in Windows (Sodi Podi) or the ports of them are not good enough to use (Gimp).

I strongly dislike having to have stuff that I do not want and possibly do not need being included in products such as the OS. EG; MS Movie Maker, WMP, IE, anthing with DRM, ECT. I know that these things are not Free and I have paid for developement of them by purchasing the Windows OS!!

So no, I do not Love MS. I find their behavior and attitude towards consumers both sickening, iresponsible, and incorrigible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CNO
On point 1. This is like aruing that we should go back to horse-drawm buggies rather than drive cars. Things get easier for a reason. And computers weren't nearly as relavent in everyday use then (nor would they probably be if we hadn't progressed beyond a hobbyist's toy)

Point 2. I know the command line exists. But as of yet, I have never *had* to go into the command line on OSX, nor would I be able to find it unless I was looking for it.

Point 3. It may not be hard for you, but most users want to get something that works and lets them work. Sure you can skin the interfaces of oses like Windows, bit you will not change the fundamental core of the system - it will still run like Windows, with the same windows functionality. Just because you change something's appearance doesn't make it more usable - there's a thought process behind that. And much of Linux's desktop OS appears to just be visual shortcuts for command line features, not enhancements to functionality. The "it looks like" argument doesn't hold water - I can buy a knock off "ROL-X" watch on the street corner, but that doesn't make it a ROLEX, no matter how much they might look alike.

I can go on arguing this point by point, but we don't seem to be getting each other's point, so I'll let it rest here.

---

1 & 2. The most common thing I have had to use the command line in Linux is to remount a drive that was mounted as read only. Most users will never have to do that. Most Linux distros are GUI.

3. Windows does not run like Windows. In Fact in XP you have to change it to classic mode to run like Windows 9X/2K. The same was true in 98, ME, ECT. You had to switch it to classic mode to run like 95, 98 Ect.

Furthermore you can disable things, some things are on by defualt (Like preview for folders) and others are not.

I'm saying that Windows XP and even to a degree 98 allows so much customization that the diffrence would be as great as the Gnome and KDE Desktop.

Have you ever used KDE extensivly? If you have then you would know that it is much much more than just visual shortcuts to the Command Line.

Have you ever tried Lycoris or Lindows? Xandros? They do just work and you don't have to think about much at all. In fact with Lindows this is its chief critism, other than it not including much software in the Distro and the price. Lindows Ignores security by running as Root the same as XP.

Finaly; MS become the most used Office product by being a "good enough" knock off of Lotus, WP, Ect. Office was never considered Best of breed of anything. So how did it come to be Number 1? Price.

The same arguments you are using here are the same arguments that Mac users had of Win 95.

This is why MS is scared of further Linux inroads especially into the Desktop. It has a much lower price than MS.