Should Being Competitive With Windows Matter For Linux?

An anonymous reader writes "Is Linux being held back by distributions bent on competing with Microsoft Windows? This article argues that it's a real possibility. Quoting: '... what was apparent early on during my Linux adoption was my motivation for making the switch in the first place — no longer wanting to use Windows. This is where I think the confusion begins for most new Linux adopters. As we make the switch, we must fight the inherent urge to automatically begin comparing the new desktop experience to our previous experiences with Windows. It's a completely different set of circumstances, folks. ... The fact that one platform can support a specific device while the other platform cannot (and so on) doesn't really solve the problem of getting said device working. You can see where this dysfunction of thought can become a big problem, fast."

Comments

Windows is the only place left for Linux to expand

[gman003]

Linux has a 90% share in supercomputers, a 50% share in servers (+/- 10%), and a pretty good share of cell phones and other mobiles, if you include Android and other semi-proprietary systems. The only place to expand into it the desktop, where the market share is at most 5%. So, why not?

linux

[wizardforce]

can be anything we want it to be. It is, after all, open source and can be modified to suit many different purposes. Should Linux compete directly with Windows? That's a stupid question. Linux should do what the user wants and if that happens to put it on a collision course with Windows then so be it.

Re:False dichotomy

[jmorris42]

It isn't just the distros. It is the desktop environments and all the plumbing underneath trying to shovel in the Fail as fast as they can.

Remove manual configuration. Remove features in general. Allow people who openly hate the UNIX Way to redesign core subsystems, losing important things like network transparency and human readable/understandable settings. Microsoft is ditching the registry because in the end users hated so much they finally had to listen to them while we are still chasing those taillights.

Linux is everywhere.

[codepunk]

There is hardly a soul on this planet who's life is not touched by linux in some fashion every single day. Windows has another chunk taken out of it every day it is death by a thousand cuts. If things continue on the path they currently are nearly everyone is going to be running around with linux in their pocket and soon. I saw a guy today with a droid in one hand and a kindle in the other, now that brought a smile to my face.

Uhhh... Well... Ya

[Sycraft-fu]

If the objective is to be a desktop OS that everyone can use then yes you are defacto competing with Windows. That doesn't mean doing everything just like Windows does but it does mean competing.

Also if you want to compete EFFECTIVELY it does mean trying to do the things that Windows can do. That doesn't mean looking or acting precisely the same, but it means being able to handle the same kinds of tasks with the same (or better yet less) effort.

Remember that to most people computers are tools. They have various things they want to accomplish with them, and they want the tool to be easy and helpful in doing that. As such, to win them over you need to be able to accomplish their tasks, and to do so with a minimum of fuss.

Expecting people to be willing to troubleshoot and learn more about Linux is complete bullshit. It is effectively being lazy, it is saying "We can't make our shit work right or be easy to use, so we expect you to pick up the slack and learn to deal with it." That is NOT an acceptable solution, because the response from people will be "Fuck you, I'm not using it then." They don't want to become experts in computers, they just want to use them to accomplish whatever it is they are after.

It is no coincidence that as computers have gotten easier to use, more people use them. Back when computers were first invented not only were they expensive, but you practically needed an advanced degree to operate them. You had to program them in raw machine code, every program was something newly created, you had to solve electrical problems, etc, etc. There were just few people that could deal with that. As things got successively easier, more friendly, the world of computing was opened to more people.

Now it is fine to feel Linux shouldn't go the desktop route, that it should be a server/embedded OS and desktop use should be primarily incidental. However if you want it to flourish in the desktop market then that means it does have to compete with Windows and it does have to get easy to use. "Recompile your kernel," are words that must utterly vanish from any normal kind of support, source code is something a user can't be aware of needing, the command line should be for experts only, and so on.

To try and think otherwise is not only arrogant, but myopic. You only have to look at the world to realize the vast complexities of things out there, and how much we must all specialize. To decide that computers are the one special thing that everyone should want to become interested and expert in is silly.

Re:Uhhh... Well... Ya

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Also if you want to compete EFFECTIVELY it does mean trying to do the things that Windows can do.

"The things Windows can do" are things that pretty much every OS+UI been able to do for damn near twenty years. There's nothing magical there, and yes, obviously any desktop OS needs to be able to do those things. The problem is that a lot of people working on Linux distros and software seem to have the idea that "competing effectively" means copying, rather than trying to find a better way to do things.

Look, nobody will ever be as good (or bad) at being Microsoft as Microsoft is. Try to make your UI look like Windows, or your word processor look like Word, and you're not going to fool anyone. Most users aren't going to be impressed at what a great job you've done reverse-engineering Microsoft's crappy standards. They're just going to say, "Why should I go with a knockoff when the original comes free* with my computer?" Chasing anyone's tail, in any industry, is usually a losing proposition. Chasing the tail of a lame, half-blind, diarrhetic horse just means you don't get anywhere very fast and end up covered in shit.

*Yeah, I know. From a marketing perspective, the "Windows tax" makes no difference at all to the vast majority of computer buyers. Deal with it.

End users hate the registry?

[Petersko]

Who are these mythical registry-hating end users? Nobody in my family has ever run regedit. If I asked my mom to tell me what the registry is she'd tell me that's where she renews her license.

Normal end users don't hate the registry. Half-wits who think they're power users and screw things up tweaking shit are usually the ones that hate the registry.

Re:End users hate the registry?

[gman003]

People who care about security hate it too. As does anyone trying to fully uninstall an uncooperative program. Things can stay hidden there essentially forever.

Besides, it's a bunch of settings that is completely unorganized, does not exist as a single file anywhere on the hard drive, and is essentially hidden from normal users. It should be hated on principle.

Re:End users hate the registry?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) In theory. In practice, it's a fucking chaotic mess.
2) No it doesn't. User and system hives live in different files, and then there are a few other hives that are also mounted separately.
3) It's the ABILITY to clear those settings that is the problem. Users don't necessarily need to be exposed to every last setting, but they SHOULD have the ability to wipe all settings related to an application. With the registry, this is nigh impossible.

Re:End users hate the registry?

[Entropius]

3) all settings files SHOULD be hidden from normal users, be it the registry files, config files or whatever other settings files, if a NORMAL user has need of these to be exposed then the developers have FAILED.

Wrong, or at least I hope to the powers that be that this is wrong.

It is FAR EASIER to open a config file (with comments if it's complicated) and change what I need than to dig through a maze of tabs and menus looking for the magic option I want.

Re:End users hate the registry?

[0123456]

1) Yes in theory its an organized system. A centralized repository rather than a distributed clusterfuck of files. In theory replacing the registry with config files is no better IF the developer chooses to put settings in random files all over your disk.

Ah, I still have fond memories of the day some time in the 90s that NT ran scandisk after a reboot, and then put up a message along the lines of 'Ooops, I just deleted your registry. Guess you're fucked, mate'.

And in the traditional unix world there were no 'settings in random files all over your disk'; system-wide files went in /etc and user-specific config in $HOME, all in nice text files that could easily be read, modified and backed up. The registry is an utter abomination in comparison (and the Gnome's registry turds are little better).

Re:End users hate the registry?

[hairyfeet]

You ever hear of "last known good configuration"? That is a control set. For more info see here. Second, why in the hell would you tell ANYONE to type out a registry key anyway? That is classic "Open up Bash and type" thinking and is no more useful in Windows than trying to teach CMD to someone running OSX. Instead you say "your problem is x? here, let me send you a reg key." they run it, and voila! problem solved. I have run into a nasty bug with certain chipsets and the Windows "No Device" found under sound. How long does it take me to fix? About 30 seconds. They run the "Winsndsrvr" key I send them, reboot, and they are good to go. A hell of a lot easier than telling anyone to type anything, and a hell of a lot less likely they'll fuck something up. BTW if anyone has trouble with the "No device" sound bug under XP, just email me and I'll send you the key,works on 2K and 2K3 as well.

As for documentation you can bitch at MSFT about a lot of things, but lack of docs ain't one of them. Go to the MSFT KB site and type in "registry" and you'll find everything from overviews to in depth articles written by Mark Russinovich, pretty much THE guy when it comes to Windows internals. I don't know how many times when I was struggling with Linux I was told dismissively to RTFM only to find TFM was a TODO later.

But ultimately that is the nice thing about today: You have an abundance of choice. Don't like Windows? There is the *BSD, Unix, Haiku, a bazillion flavors of Linux, OSX, etc. Never before have we had so many choices to choose from without having to throw away our hardware and start over. But whether you like it or not the registry works and it works quite well, and combined with GPOs and AD it makes controlling 50 or 5000 desktops from a central location so simple I could teach my 15 year old to run an AD server inside of a month. Since you mentioned Gconf I can assume you are a Linux guy and I've noticed they rarely like anything that isn't done their way, just see all the screams at replacing XServer with Wayland as an example. If a pile of txt files works for you, hey I'm damned glad for ya. But we Windows admins actually find the reg quite useful, and the users frankly never see it, just as they never see the CLI.

Re:End users hate the registry?

[MightyMartian]

Which is why so much effort was put into the CLI tools in Windows Server 2008.

At the end of the day a GUI is fundamentally limited by the presentation logic, which tends towards a sort of middle ground, and when you have to make configuration changes that go beyond those basic assumptions (as well made as they may be by Microsoft's developers) you suddenly find the utility of the GUI rapidly diminishing.

The fact of the matter is that MS has been in the server game almost 20 years and it's only in the last three or four that it has recognized just how important easy scriptability (and I don't find VB/JScript with WMI extensions easy by any rational standard) of OS fundamentals is. Up until a few years ago writing a Windows batch file to do something basic like add a formatted system date to a directory name was an eye-poppingly difficult task, whereas in *nix with sh and its descendants trivially easy.

The fact is that Microsoft's long-standing presumption that a well-written GUI was the be-all and end-all of server administration was completely false, and forced an entire generation of people who had to administer to do some wildly complicated things, and their *nix counterparts just looked on in disbelief at the sheer awkwardness of the Windows platform once you hit the C:\ prompt.

Re:End users hate the registry?

[Bert64]

If your going to send someone a registry file, you could equivalently send them a shell script for OSX or Linux. On the other hand, its not always possible to send someone files (eg your providing support over the phone and the user cant get online)...

As for documentation, unix configuration files typically have examples and documentation within the files themselves... The registry offers no such equivalent, quite often having some documentation right there is extremely useful and saves you a lot of time... Quite often when trying to fix something you may not be able to access the internet, so online documentation isn't terribly useful.

The registry doesn't facilitate controlling thousands of boxes centrally, there is no reason that text based configuration files could not be deployed in a similar.

I could teach my 15 year old to run an AD server inside of a month.

This is the biggest problem, it may be very simple to manage an AD server in a basic fashion, but the end result is usually horrendously insecure. I have conducted thousands of pentests, and without exception whenever we have tested an active directory domain we have managed to get domain admin privileges (starting with just an ethernet port). You don't want people with only a month worth of experience running your network, you want people with years of experience and a high skill level otherwise you're going to have constant problems.

You have an abundance of choice.

If only that were true, MS has worked very hard to ensure that there are various things locking people in to windows... There are plenty of people for whom choice doesn't exist. My biggest problem with microsoft is that they try to force you to use their products in this way. If we truly had choice, like we do in virtually all other markets, we would all be far better off.

Re:End users hate the registry?

[Bert64]

A GUI is like public transport

Anyone can use it, and it will take you to the most common of destinations during normal hours with the minimum of fuss and hassle. On the other hand, you might be forced to take a slow inefficient route, might have to travel at specific times, might have to wait around for the next train/bus and some places just aren’t reachable using public transport at all.

A CLI is like a car

A car will take you anywhere you want to go and at any time, but you have to know how to drive and you have to navigate the route yourself.

Having scripts which are an extension of the same CLI you use for general system management is a huge plus, if your typing the same commands on a day to day basis then writing scripts becomes extremely simple (at the most basic level you can just copy+paste a series of commands you use), far easier than having to use a dedicated scripting language that doesn't relate to anything else.

Most things can be accomplished on a modern unix system without using the CLI, however there are very important reasons why people providing assistance recommend the CLI...
If you're providing support via a website, having commands which can be cut+pasted is much easier than trying to explain a gui (following an explanation takes longer than pasting a command, and descriptions of gui elements are open to interpretation and may even be visible if the user has a different theme).
Similarly, support over the phone is FAR easier via the CLI, assuming the person your talking to can read and write all they need to do is type what you tell them, and read back the response to you.

This doesn't mean that there isn't a gui based alternative to perform the same operation, its just that the (usually technically competent) people providing assistance to others realise that the cli is the best method of getting the job done.

Nobody needs to compete with Windows for customers

[mr_mischief]

Competing with Windows for customers ranges somewhere between silly and stupid. If you want more Linux on the desktop, you need to court developers and software vendors.

Linux works great as an OS. It has penetrated servers well because the server software (both new and inherited from other Unixes) is great. It has penetrated the embedded market largely because new apps were written for it and the new devices. It has penetrated embedded markets because they write everything they need anyway, except the kernel and maybe the C libraries give them a head start.

What you need to break into the desktop market with established applications from established application providers is applications as good or better. If you give gamers the chance to install games from EA, Valve, Blizzard, Bioware, and id on launch day, they will come. If you get Photoshop or some absolutely full-featured replacement for it on Linux, you'll get many of those users from Windows or Mac. If you get a true replacement for Peachtree and Quickbooks, you'll get more small businesses using Linux as their accounting desktops.

People who seem to understand network effects when it comes to social networking sites, instant messengers, P2P, etc. seem to forget all about them when it comes to desktop platforms. The more classes of application in which your platform is the leading installation target for the best apps, the more valuable your platform is. Linux has this for servers, embedded devices, and to some degree mobiles. If you want it to be a major desktop player, it needs this for desktops, too.

Personally, I use Linux on the desktop far more than Windows and I have for years. I still need some Windows or Mac systems around for the applications I just can't run well on Linux. I say "Windows or Mac" because most of the applications I can't run on Linux properly have versions for both of those platforms.

Linux doesn't even need to take developers from Windows to become much bigger on the desktop. It could become a third platform for companies supporting Win and OS X. It could become a second platform for companies doing Win or Mac. It could even replace OS X as the second platform for some software companies that do windows and Mac now. Adobe comes to mind, as they are practically at war with Apple right now anyway.

Why not?

[Petersko]

"The only place to expand into it the desktop, where the market share is at most 5%. So, why not?"

Because it requires linux development to embrace the following:

- Interface design that specifically and completely bars programmers from participating
- Abandonment of 99% of the distros
- Acceptance of proprietary drivers when offered (normal people don't give a damn about open source philosophy)
- Provision of real, available, phone-based technical support
- Real, complete documentation

I have seen someone mocked for buying one package when some pinhead thought another would be more appropriate for the application. It was something like, "Well, what did you expect picking that? It's like you wanted to fail." Most people here have seen PLENTY of derision of new users.

Why not? Because a lot of the community is poison for end users. That's why not.

Consolidate, standardize, and corporatize. Staff and support. Advertise. Court developers. In other words, build a better Microsoft.

Or, remain "pure", disjointed, and niche on the desktop. Rule the world from the server. Personally I think linux should abandon the desktop. By the time they get there, technology will have made the point moot.

Re:Why not?

[Nursie]

Wait, so a distro should do things your way, and everyone else should shut up shop?

I think you'll find that's the beauty of open source, everyone can do it the way they want to. If you can persuade people that your way is the best way then some may join you.

Abandoning 99% of the distros would piss off a large portion of users. Why abandon any of them? If you come up with the perfect interface (TM) then they can all ship it, if it's right for them?

Or are you trying on that old argument that the very concept of a distro is confusing to people who just want the linux on their computers?

Well good luck with that.

Re:Why not?

[Nursie]

"This is exactly what's wrong."

No, it's exactly what's right. Linux is not ever going to have a "one-true distro", no matter how much you demand it.

If that means that 'ordinary' people aren't going to use it then I can't say it bothers me, not in the slightest.

Hell, 'normal' people aren't even going to install a new OS on their computer, ever. In a lot of ways that makes this discussion completely irrelevant as the people who need to be persuaded are manufacturers and distributors, not users. If the likes of Dell started to offer something like Ubuntu as a Windows alternative across a decent proportion of its range (instead of offering only a few, generally pretty poor machines) then that would help adoption I suppose.

But as I say, it's kind of irrelevant. Desktop linux is awesome for my needs and somehow development has struggled on and improved for 15 or so years.

So what if it's not the year of the linux desktop?

Re:Why not?

[gman003]

- Interface design that specifically and completely bars programmers from participating

Uh, what? If the GUI is just a fancy, specialized program for editing the various dotfiles and stuff crammed in /etc, then it does no harm to the person who actually likes messing around with baretext config files.

- Abandonment of 99% of the distros

Why abandon them? Call Ubuntu "Linux Home", Debian "Linux Professional", and "[favorite distro here]" "Linux Ultimate". There's no need to eliminate pro-friendly distros - that's the beauty of it. You just make a new one that caters to the beginners, and let it take care of that market. The Roadrunner doesn't run the same distro as the Droid, to put it poetically.

- Acceptance of proprietary drivers when offered (normal people don't give a damn about open source philosophy)

I believe in open-source, not because it is ethically mandated, but because it produces better results. As such, I expect that, eventually, open-source drivers will be better than the proprietary ones, at which point the natural choice would be to use them. Whether the manufacturers choose to assist the open-source team is up to them.

- Provision of real, available, phone-based technical support

I fail to see how this is a negative. At the very least, we get a scapegoat to point the boss at while we go fix the actual problem.

- Real, complete documentation

Again, how the hell is that a bad thing? I have NEVER heard someone say, "This is great and all, but I really wish the documentation was shoddy, incomplete and half written in Spanish." I mean, look at OpenBSD - plenty of detailed man pages, yet it's a very pro-oriented OS.

I have seen someone mocked for buying one package when some pinhead thought another would be more appropriate for the application. It was something like, "Well, what did you expect picking that? It's like you wanted to fail." Most people here have seen PLENTY of derision of new users.

Open-source is actually quite newb-friendly. I, being a fool, started my open-source experience with OpenBSD. I couldn't figure out how to mount my USB drive - a quick email, and I got a kind response from Theo de Raadt, the "benevolent dictator" of OpenBSD, telling me what I needed to do. Despite the Weird Al song, it is completely impossible to phone Bill Gates up at home and make him do your tech support.

Why not? Because a lot of the community is poison for end users. That's why not.

You see it as poison, I see it as potential. There's things you can learn from closed-source people. Game developers know quite a lot about squeezing performance out of hardware - that would be beneficial. Windows application developers are used to following a standardized interface - that would be nice, as well. There is always something to be learned from everyone.

Consolidate, standardize, and corporatize. Staff and support. Advertise. Court developers. In other words, build a better Microsoft.

I see nothing wrong with being a better Microsoft. Arguably, Linux is the Microsoft of the open-source world - you can't get anywhere with your project unless it runs on Linux, it's squeezed out a good chunk of the other open-source OSes, and it's pretty much mandatory for open-source admins to know Linux.

Or, remain "pure", disjointed, and niche on the desktop. Rule the world from the server. Personally I think linux should abandon the desktop. By the time they get there, technology will have made the point moot.

If we don't spread Linux to the desktop, we'll be supporting Windows clients until we do spread Linux to the desktop. Is that really what you want?

Re:Why not?

[wvmarle]

Because we are comparing Windows to Linux:

- Provision of real, available, phone-based technical support

And who is to do this? Can you call Microsoft to get help with your problems, without being IT head of a big company having big contracts? I have never heard of anyone being able to do so. Support always comes from the community: friends, family, and even the shop they bought the computer from. But not from the maker.

- Real, complete documentation

Admittedly I have never really dived into Windows documentation, but the "trouble shooting" wizards have never been helpful for me.

And if you're thinking of documentation of applications... I bet it's as bad for Windows as it is for Linux as it's the developer (person or company) that has to make it!

Re:Why not?

[Pentium100]

Uh, what? If the GUI is just a fancy, specialized program for editing the various dotfiles and stuff crammed in /etc, then it does no harm to the person who actually likes messing around with baretext config files.

Programmers usually make bad GUI designers.

Usually, the interface should depend on what type of user it is targeted at. If the intended user is a professional, the interface should allow him to customize the program as much as possible. If the intended user is a regular user, the interface should be simpler and more explained. Compare a tape deck made for studio use and one made for home use. The studio one has much more functions and capabilities that a professional can use, but they would just confuse home users. The home user usually would not care about bias, eq, tape tension and stuff like that, they would just want to put on the tape and play/record it.

Another example would be the BIOS setup - what does "Gate A20 - Slow|Fast" mean and why would I ever want to set it to slow? But that setup is intended for those who know what they are doing and not a regular user.

Programmers make interfaces for themselves and other programmers, which means that they suck for regular users.

I believe in open-source, not because it is ethically mandated, but because it produces better results. As such, I expect that, eventually, open-source drivers will be better than the proprietary ones, at which point the natural choice would be to use them.

And if/when the open source drivers are created and are better than the proprietary drivers, I'll use them. For now it boils down to "use proprietary drivers" or "not use the device".

I, as a non-programmer do not care about openness of the source, since I would not be able to modify and recompile the driver even i the source was available. I can get the same result if I modified the binary using a hex editor - that is - a no longer working program. I don't care if the source is open, closed or the company makes electricity by burning penguins - if the end product is good and I like the price I'll use it.

Linux is not a Windows replacement

[houghi]

Why do people keep thinking that Linux a a cheap, or free or open or whatever replacement of Windows. It isn't.
And you can't copy Windows. That would mean that you have to wait till Windows does something.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Linux should go its own way and if that takes down Windows, it is a nice plus. Competing with Windows should not be a direction, bceause that will be a fight that you can only loose.

Re:Nobody needs to compete with Windows for custom

[jmorris42]

> Competing with Windows for customers ranges somewhere between silly and stupid. If
> you want more Linux on the desktop, you need to court developers and software vendors.

Nope. If you want more users you need preloads. 90% of people would never survive a Windows install if it didn't come preloaded by an OEM who did all the twiddling to have the hardware mostly work out of the box. Anaconda actually does a better job compared to the Windows installer as far as leaving you a working machine when it finishes. Doesn't matter because end users can't use either one and refuse to even consider the possibility.

And that isn't a matter of techinical excellence, software availability or anything competition can address. It all about illegal monopolistic action. Microsoft signs consent decree after consent decree and over a decade after their first one you still can't buy a desktop PC without Windows proloaded except for a couple of bland Dell N series machines that are usually priced higher than the same machine preloaded with Windows.

The netbook revolution almost opened up the market but Microsoft just dumped XP into the hole until they could convince the manufactures to kill em off in favor of small notebooks running Win7. Go ahead, try to find a small flash drive based cheap netbook. All you find is three pounders with hard drives, crappy battery life and screens just a smidge smaller than a small notebook... and all running WIndows.

Re:It's not windows and it's not competition

[jmorris42]

> A Mac and PC user could switch computers and withing a few minutes either person
> could get done what they were intending to get done. Not so with Linux.

Yes so with Linux. I admin a lab in a public library. We give em Linux with NFS mounted home directories and none of the locked down bullcrap Windows every other library in the State offers. They figure it out pretty quick. Hint: people who depend on the lab PCs in a public library aren't UNIX geeks. Hell, it wasn't too many years ago a fair chunk of them couldn't even hold the mouse right. But not long after they get comfortable logging in/out and using the rat they manage to figure out Mozilla/Firefox, OO.o and the usual application suite. Yea we have had our share of USB pen drive issues from time to time.... of course the other libraries in the State running the Gates Foundation's library model keep the USB ports disabled entirely. Same with CD burning, it works stable these days, didn't used to be the case especially if we bought too far down the CD burner food chain. Again, the other sites disconnect the optical drives unless they need to load new software. After all, gotta 'prevent' the spread of malware. Windows IS malware.

Re:False dichotomy

[jmorris42]

> Do the Linux guys WANT to step up and compete with OSX and
> Windows or not?

I have been seeing this word used all evening. I do not think it means what you think it means. I think the word you are looking for is copy.

We DO compete. At this point the Linux desktop, warts GConf and all, works at least as well as Windows and if you don't happen to agree 100% with Steve's Vision of the Way it works better than Apple's offerings.

> The world has spoken, and editing configs and CLI is a giant DO NOT WANT.

If the price for marketshare is to design a system for idiots then I don't want those users. I'm NOT an idiot and a system designed for idiots would slow me down. Seriously. Do me a favor. Get a VM up and running and install something that by virtue of what it IS must be complicated. Say Squid for example.

Now I want you to use your favorite text editor (hint, a CLI is not required if you are on the local machine) on /etc/squid.conf. See how it is almost complete in and of itself, practically making external documentation excessive. Detailed documentation right there beside the configuration items which need to be adjusted. And it is a plain text file so you can put it into a content management system to track changes, especially handy if multiple people will be making changes. And as a text file it is about as simple to edit it from ten thousand miles away as from the system console.

So tell me, how would you improve upon that method of managing Squid? Would this be the best way to manage Firefox? No. And Firefox on Linux is configured in almost exactly the same way as it us on Win/Mac because for Firefox that is the easiest way.

> They want hand holding, in short thinking should NEVER be required..

And this is the great divide. What are computers? Interractive televisions for the mindless or levers for the minds of humans? One paradigm probably can't be extended to perfectly cover both use cases.

Re:If Linux wants to have broader adoption...

[RocketRabbit]

What?

Why the fuck would Linux clone one of the weakest parts Windows? Are fucking high on crack?