On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 07:44:52AM -0400, Kevin Stokes wrote: > >PS - People take all their accumulated windows knowledge for > granted. Years and years and years of it, and then expect that > they can learn a new OS over night. Simply rediculous.< > > The truth is that I have *never* purchased or read a book on using the > Windows operating system. I've never had to go online and look for DOC, > with the exception of when Microsoft stuff crashes, in which case you can > use their knowledge base. I had never even used the Windows Help system > until my network didn't work. And then it was useful stuff. Their network > stuff for 95/98 is a mess, and doesn't work right. But the help file was > readable and gave you clear instructions on what you were supposed to do.
Yeah. Reminds me of that quote: Windows NT server can be administered by a moron, and it usually is. Their help system is useful -- for morons. Their KB is marginally useful... but usually is not worth subscription price (or did you mean that part of it which is available off the webpage -- when that works and if you register for their spam? I'll let you in on a secret: that is not their whole knowledge base). The idea that a clueless moron can successfully operate something as complex as digital computer without prior training is apple-mickeysoft brainwash. You need to learn. A lot. I suggest you visit your local bookstore. > Anyway, the purpose of my post was not to criticize Linux. The purpose > was to point out to people that Linux could have a much brighter future than > it does now. My point is for every page which is actually readable by a > newbie, there are 100 pages of stuff which is incomprehensible to him. A > zillion pages on how to do all kinds of exotic cool things, and hardly any > organized info on how to get Linux running with a GUI so you can run a > word-processor, internet browser, email, and and be able to get printouts. > And those pages which *are* suitable for newbies are mixed in with all the > expert stuff. That's not limited to Linux. In my uni they'd tell you about "man" but not about "man -k" -- you're supposed to do a "man man" and RTFM. > So I like Linux itself, and am pretty soured on Windows. But in my > opinion people who are devoted to Linux could improve the market share > dramatically by spending less time coming up with new kernels and versions > of everything, and more time looking at why people who try Linux turn away > after a short experiment. Who TF cares about market share? Wake up man, not all of us live in the pipe dream of merkin marketdroids. My desktop is the only "share of the market" that I care about. YMMV, HTH, HAND Dima -- E-mail dmaziuk at bmrb dot wisc dot edu (@work) or at crosswinds dot net (@home) http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu/descript/gpgkey.dmaziuk.ascii -- GnuPG 1.0.4 public key The wombat is a mixture of chalk and clay used for respiration. -- MegaHal
