>> As an example at home my primary machine is a Macintosh, I know that my
>> Pentium running Linux is more stable, and runs a better OS. But I am far
>> more productive on my Macintosh, and the Applications that I want to run
> >are available on the Mac.
>Which IS what I meant at the beginning that started this whole little
>discussion! Linux is trying to compete with Windows 95 and MacOS, but is not
>designed around getting documents typed, and stuff like that, so the average
>user would be awfully unproductive, and the "power user" would spend years
>tweaking their shell script and recompiling the kernel to run vi perfectly,
>which can't even do fonts!
Actually it's because I'm a "Power Graphics User" that I got the Mac. The
Graphics apps on the Mac have had far more time to mature than on the PC or
UNIX (many of them actually date back more than ten years, i.e. the period
of computing we should be discussing), that is why I'm more productive. I
will say though that a Photoshop clone is now available for Linux, for
free, that really surprised me when a friend showed it to me the other day!
So Linux is fast catching up in even this area
The rest of what I do, I could do with Linux, and to a certain extent do
(some of it REQUIRES Linux). That's my point, the average user can get
everything they need from Linux, and not end up paying Microsoft a small
fortune.
There are several WYSIWYG Word Processors available for Linux, and all the
other programs that the "average" user needs. By using Linux the "average"
user could save hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Using Linux I was
able to produce documents that printed out that looked far nicer than
anything I've used on Windows or Macs with the exception of Adobe Pagemaker
or QuarkXpress.
Your arguments were initially true back in '92 and maybe '93, but since
then are totally false. I'm not saying Linux is for everyone, but it's
ease of use is increasing while Windows is decreasing.
Oh, and as a UNIX "power user" I tweak my scripts so I can go have fun and
let the computer run, knowing it will page me if there is something that
requires my attention.
Let's face it, every OS has it's advantages. With Windows95 it's the
number of programs available (don't mistake numbers for quality). With the
Mac, ease of use. With Linux, Power, and freely available. The Amiga is
just plain cool! The Atari ST provides a graphical OS in ROM so you don't
waste space storing it on disk.
The Apple IIe is actually a good computer for the "Average" user,
especially since your argument seems to be that all they need is word
processing. The IIe through IIgs give you good hardware at what is now a
very reasonable price, you can even use it for going online.
Many people still use Commodore 64's or TI-99/4A's and the ilk, even going
so far in some cases as to surf the web. The point here is, just because
YOU don't like something you shouldn't condemn it as being of no use to the
Average person. After all a lot of people using these old computers are
'average' people that either don't see the need for a better system because
it does what they want, or else they can't afford better. Still it would
appear you would condemn them because they don't fit your narrow view of
the 'average' user. Personally I'd say that the 'average user' is someone
that uses a computer to accomplish some task that they wish to do, and it's
up to them to decide how they will do it.
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh_at_ix.netcom.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh_at_holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| see
http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
| For the collecting of Classic Computers with info on them. |
| see
http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/museum.html |
Received on Sat Jan 03 1998 - 19:31:01 GMT