First of all, the quotation in your sig is, according to Sellam Ismail, among
many others, incorrectly attributed to Jefferson in your sig. It's a Ben
Franklin quote, IIRC.
more below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Schreiber" <als_at_thangorodrim.de>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor
> On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 10:44:38PM -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we disagree on this business regarding the popularity of
> > Windows. It's just the cheapest and easiest OS to get into if you know
what
> > the average user knows.
>
> Windows _cheap_? What world are you living in? Last time I checked,
> neither Windows nor most of the applications most people try to use on
> this OS were free - instead the necessary licenses amount to quite some
> money. I'm using all the software I need and I didn't pay a single cent
> in licensing fees for years - for the simple reason that the software as
> well as the operating systems I use are free (free UNIX systems and free
> software).
>
My own recollection in keeping UNIX alive for a year was salary of $100k for
three programmers, since I had to have someone on site 24/7 in order to keep
the thing breathing on a 4-station SUN system. That didn't include the
extreme cost of the hardware, software licenses, and applications, none of
which had price tags of fewer than 6 figures. I realize that was back in
"the old days" when a car cost less than $10k, and things have been improved
somewhat, but the bitter taste remains.
Which OS would you recommend for the typical business graduate of today?
Which OS could you recommend that takes <1 hour to install and permits the
user to take another 10 minutes to install the software that turns an
otherwise useless piece of hardware into a machine capble of manipulating data
in ways with which he/she's comfortable and and to which he/she's accustomed?
I see Windows for sale at <$100 at discount stores, and MSOFFICE at nominally
$200. Most users won't ever need more than that. This enables the user to
communicate and exchange meaningful data with nearly anyone who uses the same
OS and tools. It also enables the user to exchange that same data with users
of other OS' since the "others" are able to utilize those files the Windows
environment generates just because of their widespread use.
Even different releases of LINUX don't agree enough that one can confidently
sit at the console and bring about a particular process.
The average user wants to buy his computer, irrespective of cost, install the
software, irrespective of cost, and then start using it immediately. He
doesn't want to become a "compu-geek" which is what many of "us" are, but he
does want to be able to use his computer within an hour of bringing it home.
That's not realistic in the case of any other OS, AFAIK.
Put any 12-year-old you know in front of Windows, and they'll be able to do
"something." That's not to say therer aren't *nix-capable 12 year olds, but
I've seen colleagues with decades of computing experience look at the *NIX
prompt, unable to extract one iota of useful work.
I'd venture to say that if *NIX weren't an unfriendly, cryptic, and nearly
impenetrable OS to the "average" user, most of the folks who use it at home
wouldn't do that. Most of the *nix programmers/developers I know still use
Windows at home, though they have the ability to use *nix.
If you know of an OS I can put on my 80+ year-old mother's computer that will
enable her to do what she wants without reading a book or attending a class,
then I'd like to know about it.
> Regards,
> Alex.
> --
> Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not
> have, nor do they deserve, either one. -- Thomas Jefferson
>
>
Received on Mon May 06 2002 - 09:26:28 BST