Linux Desktop
Stories like that one are nothing new. It does seem that not much changed since "Unix Haters Handbook".
Biggest point people miss when they whine "Linux/Unix is not for average Desktops," is of course that people never really work with OS directly. 99% of time we work with applications. 1% of time or even less than that we are faced with OS - mostly as splash boot up screen.
There is nothing particularly wrong with Linux. Powered up with applications, many users wouldn't even (bother to) notice what they work with - Windows or Linux. Have anybody worked under recent SUSE or RedHat or Ubuntu or Kubuntu? Or even plain installation of recent Debian?
OS doesn't exist from POV of user. People do not pay big buck for computer to have OS on it. That what most tech writers always forget about. There are people who "work, with computer" and people who "work with computer". Some take it as integral part of workspace - but for most it is extra they need to take additional care about. When people come to shop they ask "can I edit my photos?", "can I burn my video to VCD/DVD?". Last thing they would ask about "type/amount of RAM", "frequency of CPU/FSB". Feel the difference: "computer as tool" approach of normal users v. "computer as platform" of geeks.
Geeks do not think about computers as tool anymore. It is our living space. What author of aforementioned article really says is that Linux doesn't fit for his personal living space, for his personal living style. And comes to traditional conclusion "what doesn't fit to me - unfit for anybody". Subjective opinion like that is really nothing new.
posted by Ihar Filipau @ 10:20 AM
0 comments
