> > The simple fact is unavoidable: Microsoft et. al. have *failed* in
> > their efforts at making computers "easy to use." Have a listen on
the
> > real tech support lines and I'm sure that you will be forced to
agree.
>
> I happen not to like Windows, but I'd have to say that my wife and
three
> daughters (all of whom have "been using computers for 15 years")
would be much
> more likely to succeed at installing hardware and drivers with
Windows than
> with Linux.
Yes, but no one is claiming that expertise is unnecessary for Linux.
But that is *exactly* what is claimed by Microsoft for its products,
and it is obviously false.
I'm not claiming that I'd stick the average computer newbie at the
Linux CLI before I'd stick them in Windows 98. I'm claiming that the
Windows world makes preposterous claims about its "success" in making
a "user friendly" environment.
> I maintain it's easier to go to a Windows box and do something
useful. OTOH
> it's easier to do lots of useful things with Linux, but it takes a
lot of
> learning, and prior experience with Windows & OS/2 isn't very
useful.
I happen to use both Windows and Linux. There is a difference between
saying "easy to use" and "easier to use." Microsoft represents their
software as the former. I also maintain that my grandmother (to use a
convenient example) would have been far less uncomfortable with a
keyboard and CLI, which is more like the typewriter world that she
knew, than with that mouse she couldn't figure out.
Anyway, the point remains: a significant degree of expertise is
necessary for doing anything reasonably complex on a computer, whether
it's Windows or *nix, Bill Gates' protestations notwithstanding.
Fred
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
