On 5/30/2017 6:55 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Wayne Boatwright writes:



Oh, I have no problem with what others do. I do have a problem when
they tell me what I should. FWIW, between Microsoft and Apple, I
don't see a snowball's chance in hell of any other others ever
becoming conpetitive with those two behemoths, at least not in my
lifetime.

Mobile devices are taking over for most users, and Microsoft doesn't
really have anything to offer for mobile devices.

I'd also note that Free Software doesn't have to be "conpetitive" (sic)
in terms of unit sales to the mass market. As long as there are people
who like developing it and people who like to use it, it's automatically
a success.
Define the criteria carefully and everything is a success.
Desktop linux is extremely successful among those who use it.
I choose installed base as the metric. It's hard to call it a success
if you can't give it away.
I've installed desktop linux dozens of times over the years.
Do I count as two dozen users?
I've probably
got 5 disks I could plug in and run it instantly. I could do 90% of
what I do without incident. Problem is that
it takes about five minutes to miss something that I can do easily
with windows (and gave up after several serious efforts to implement
in linux) and swap out the disk.

You mentioned in another post that you prefer to use your computer
rather than fiddle with it. That's exactly why I use Linux. Years ago
I grew tired of all the problems that Windows has and decided to see if
I could do without it. I tried Apple's alternatives, but found them to
be much more expensive and rather restrictive.

You're free to use whatever software you want, but I'd suggest that an
investment in learning Linux could pay dividends in the long run. I find
that my hardware lasts longer with Linux because it consumes less
resources and I don't have to continually upgrade when my computer gets
slow.

I also don't have to switch to whatever Microsoft decides is their UI
flavor of the month. The desktop environment I use has been around for
many years and while it has evolved, it hasn't radically changed like
Windows has over and over.
I'd agree with the premise. Somewhere around windows 95 I decided to use
as little MS software as possible. I use a lot of software originally
designed for linux then ported to windows. Icons on the desktop for
virtually everything make the OS version mostly irrelevant.
One of my desktop linux gripes is that each version seems to arbitrarily
change the way users create shortcuts. Did the concept of drag and drop
get lost in the linux vortex?

It's not about the details of the user interface. You can learn to use
any interface. Problem is that it's not stable or self consistent.
And it's not worth the change if it provides no tangible benefit.
Windows users and linux users have very different views of tangible
benefits.
I tried to switch to open office back in the day. It worked all the time
in isolation. But there were issues with MSOffice compatibility.
And the user interface was so different that I spent most of my time
looking for the right menu. After a few weeks, I threw in the towel
and reinstalled an ancient version of MSOffice. Having MSOffice on
one machine and Open office on another was an operational disaster.
That's a big problem with people who have linux at home and windows
at work. It's an operational nightmare prone to error.

Underneath the GUI is a very capable command line environment that has a
long and rich history. I've been using it and learning more about it for
over 20 years, and will continue to do so.

You do so because you like doing so. Nothing wrong with having a hobby.
Go ahead, brag about your superiority. Your peeps will respect you.

Your television probably has a remote. But, there's a rich set of buttons
on the machine. How often do you walk over to the TV to change the
volume? There's likely a test mode that lets you do additional
things to bend the machine to your will. How often do you use that?
Cars have automatic transmissions because people like them.
Many people couldn't drive a technically superior 'stick' and could care
less.
I have a thermostat that keeps my house at whatever temperature I like.
I have a fireplace in case I want to do it the hard way. I'll let you
know if I ever do that...don't hold your breath. I buy food at the store
instead of growing it because it frees me to do other things I want.
If I actually wanted to cook something from scratch,
I'd have to find the manual, decide on which of the dozen alternative
recipes to try,
go to the repository to get ingredients, futz with the tools and
techniques, clean up the mess and keep trying different recipes
until I got something that met my desires.
Great plan for a chef. For me, not so much. I don't wanna be a chef.
I'd rather eat it than mess with cooking it.
Toilets flush so we don't have to carry
a bucket out to the street. Sure, we could do that, but technology
permits us to do better.



The things I've learned about Linux (and Unix) can also carry over to
other OSs like FreeBSD or even Mac OS X if I decide to use those.

You're saying that learning about Linux carries over to other linuxes.
Sure it does. Your learning prepares you to ferret out the differences
and conditions you to be OK with having to figure out the seemingly
random changes in each version/release.

One of the big reasons that desktop linux is not more
popular is the high barrier to entry. If linux developers wanted to,
they'd take down the "you're too stupid to use linux" sign and
pave a better path from the dominant OS to allow new users to
come. Let their knowledge of windows carry over to operating desktop
linux. I don't mean just adding an icon they can click to
surf the web. I mean letting them do all the functions they now enjoy.
Better program integration. Better integration with their peeps
who have not yet made the transition.

Desktop linux is antisocial. Operated in a vacuum, one might decide
that it offers everything they need and a hobby to fill their solitude.
Anyone who suggests that Desktop linux become more social with the
way the world works is berated, with prejudice. That's not the
way to win friends.

The tail will not wag the dog. Millions of linux users will not
change the attitude of Billions of windows users.
Take something as simple as Firefox. Somebody decided to put the
configuration function a different place in the menu structure.
Little things like that make the transition more difficult/annoying.
This
knowledge also can apply to the popular mobile devices, and the wide
array of devices that are making up the Internet of Things.

The chances are very good that you own multiple devices that use Linux
(or a Unix-like OS) and may not even know it.

YES, YES, YES!!! That's exactly the point. You shouldn't have to know
anything about the underlying OS to make it do what you want. If desktop
linux operated that way, current windows users could jump ship with ease.
Every other windows release has been a public relations nightmare.
People stick with it because there is no viable alternative.
Linux developers have ignored several opportunities to have a
major increase in user acceptance of desktop linux.

Linux, the OS, is plenty good.
Apps are mostly tolerable. From my perspective, many apps
are hobby projects presented as solutions. Somebody solved
the 80% of the problem that they needed and moved on.
So, we have dozens of apps solving different 80% of the problem.
A commercial app would likely have better coverage in ONE app.
Same thing is true of different distros. It's CHAOS.
Like the song says, "ninety-nine and a half won't do." 80%
is a non-starter.
Glue it together into A stable Desktop Computing Platform.
Round off the rough edges.
Add more GUI, that operates consistently.
QUIT FORKING IT INTO CHAOS!


My fund of knowledge
applies to those devices quite well. Does yours?
YES! You're not the only smart person on the planet.