No offense, but if your schools are actually hiring people like this, it's time you wrote a letter to the school board. If nothing else, take your child to a private school or just enroll him/her in another school altogether. Public schools are funded with your tax dollars. You can bet you have a say in how they're run.
In any case, your "somebody should speak up about this" comment seems better directed towards yourself than to any of us. They held quite a lengthy public comment period where you were more than welcome to voice your opinion.
Funny how people always have things to say after the fact, but nobody is willing to give a rat's ass about stuff like this while it's in the planning stages (when it counts). THIS is what's wrong with our government today, not "idiot" or "evil" politicians.
This is precisely the difference between a true "hacker" and your every-day IRC script/packet kiddie.
A real hacker tinkers with stuff to see how it works. A real hacker gets his pleasure watching something he hacked up run on an obscure piece of hardware.
Packet kiddies are the children that spend their time on IRC, downloading l33t exploits of the month, running their spl01T scanZ on machines, packeting their "enemies", defacing web sites, and only in very rare cases are these kids able to code anything useful on their own (aside from simple Tcl for their eggdrop botnet).
The hackers examine and "hack up" software and hardware for their own education and pride. Packet kiddies do it so they can get recognition (either among their fellow l33t IRC peers, by telling "hacker stories" at school so people think they're cool, or by trying to do something they hope will get them in the newspaper).
Packet kiddies don't know squat about electronics, and I doubt will ever have a desire to learn about it (it's too hard for most script kiddies, who tend to be pretty lazy/undisciplined). Those that do take the plunge tend to easily be the more mature of both worlds. (There are exceptions, sadly.)
I'm fully aware of what Lynx is capable of (I've recently discovered w3m, which is much better, in fact).
Unfortunately, you only attacked one point I was making for IE. The remaining points (superior CSS and XML rendering abilities) obviously still stand.
The day that Lynx renders graphics, CSS, does XML and does it faster than IE in a more standards-compliant fashion will be the day I use Lynx for my daily work.
Yes, but installing the operating system would be just as difficult with windows as with Linux.
The operating system is already installed on the PC. The only work involved would be to dump it and install Linux. That alone should be a factor in making the decision to switch. It's already there, and it works as-is.
And, is it a good or a bad thing that things install easily? What happens when "some malicious user" makes a CD which auoinstalls a nice little virus? Grandpa things "Hmm.. whats on this CD" puts it in the CD-drive.. and wham.
As another poster mentioned, this is pretty far-fetched. People don't go around breaking into homes and putting trojan CD's on elderly folks' desks.
Yargh. NO! If its something I really HATE its trojans and autorun functions. I've been cleaning some hundred dmsetup / netbus infections the last year (maybe thousands).
This is psychological, and any halfway-decent virus scanner would detect these attempts regardless.
Again, I have never in my life had a computer virus or have been "backdoored" by any form of trojan. Just tell grampa to take heed to the warnings about unverified software that IE spits up. Again, background virus scanners work wonders in these situations as well.
You call that stable? I don't have problems with my computers except hardware trouble.
So what? My personal best is about 130 days with my Linux system (currently at only 49 days). "Grandpa" is going to be turning his PC off when he's done using it for the evening. Uptime doesn't mean squat in this instance.
The background virus-scanner needs to be updated.
Not all good coders are part of the OpenSource gang. My virus scanner updates its data files automatically over the 'Net at pre-arranged intervals.
Furthermore, what if old grandpa decided that "chatrooms" (irc..) is a nice thing, and what does good old grandpa do when some chick send him a "video of herself"(in reality, 17 year old male playing around with netbus)? Well, of course - he opens the damn thing.
We can come up with all sorts of hypotheticals here that would leave grandpa's PC vulnerable REGARDLESS of the operating system.
They could just as easily DCC him some script or program, have him/exec it which installs a back door of some sort (granted, it will likely only be under his user, unless it makes use of a root exploit straight away).
You think Linux isn't vulnerable to tricks like this? It's not a virus, no, but it can be just as unpleasant.
In case you haven't figured it out, Linux provides no tangible benefit under this situation to using Windows. If grampa never wants to learn or expand anything further about his operating system, there is virtually no gain either way for him. There is a loss, however, in administration time on your part.
It all boils down to "techie pride". Lots of people just HAVE to install Linux everywhere because they think it's cool. You're blinding yourselves to the pro's and con's of Linux and refusing to acknowledge acceptable alternatives.
In my opinion, this makes for *poor* Linux advocacy. If we keep advocating Linux for unsuitable tasks, people will begin to notice this and it will leave them with a bad taste in their mouth. Promote Linux where it will excel.
A look at two troubleshooting efforts with identical problems, and two solutions:
"Hi, whenever I start up Program X the window appears for a split second and then disappears. I have no idea what's wrong."
(troubleshooter gets client to console view, elapsed time: 1 minute)
"OK, it says slash-u-s-r-slash-b-i-n-slash-p-r-o-g-r-a-m-dash-x segmentation fault."
(troubleshooter, properly suspecting a library incompatibility (introduced when the system ran your nifty scripted behind-the-scenes auto-RPM upgrade), runs through program-X dependencies, walks client through listing library versions, through some miracle discovers a newly upgraded library is currently incompatible with the latest version of program-X, walks client through re-installation of libsomelib.so, elapsed time, including download: 45 minutes)
"Nope, didn't work. It did the same thing again."
(you remember to have them run/sbin/ldconfig, elapsed time: 45 seconds)
"Ah nifty! Thanks!"
Now for the alternative
"Hi, yah, when I click on Program X I get a window that says something about a general protection fault. It happened after I installed Program Y."
"OK, take the Program X CD, put it in the drive, and re-install it."
(elapsed time: 3 minutes)
"Ah, OK, great, it seems to be working now."
Things may seem perfectly logical to YOU, but your average computer novice will disagree. With the current desktops, everything is abstracted to simple, easy to learn objects, each with its own functions. Contrast that with the current state of Linux. For someone that "knows" computers, sure, Linux is going to be logical in places, once you learn the basics. The problem is that learning the basics under Linux takes considerably more time and effort than learning the basics under Windows.
Once you know the basics in Windows, it's very easy to start branching out and learning other aspects of your system. With Linux, the learning curve remains high and undaunting.
I also don't really understand why you would WANT a company to be prohibited from using the software like this. If a company were fixing a bug or something that caused the work to fail to operate in their environment, sure, I can see how that bug fix would be valuable for everyone else. But there are times when a company needs to take a relatively unfinished GPL'd work and adapt it for use in their proprietary environment (even if temporarily), such as making it use a proprietary database. Such code changes are useless to other people, except perhaps to get a look at some of the company's NDA'd internal protocols, for example. If a company is legally forbidden from adapting GPL'd works like this, it severely limits the usefulness of GPL'd software in corporate environments. The GPL "community" isn't harmed by the failure to release the changes, as the changes are specific to the company in question and useless elsewhere.
They changed their terms when it came time to release a public beta. As far as I know, their "alpha" testing group was still considered part of the "internal" group and still subject to their NDA.
I guess it's possible I missed something.
You can't diminish the legal force of the license agreement by wishing it away.
Perhaps you can comment on this section of the GPL and how it would apply to GPL'ed code used internally:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Nowhere does this section anull the user's license to copy or modify the GPL'ed software for their "own" use. It simply prohibits distribution.
Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't explicitely say what constitutes as "distribution," whether it be a company's conscious act of releasing a work or making the program available in/usr/bin for users of a particular system. It does say this: Each licensee is addressed as "you". There is no mention that the licensee must be a natural person. If a person downloads a GPL'ed program while at work, they are acting for the Company, thus the Company is the one that downloaded it. Thus, to me, internal distribution does not qualify as distribution under the terms of the GPL, as the application remains in the posession of the same entity at all times.
As you may or may not be aware, when legal ambiguities arise in contracts, they are automatically interpreted against the contract.
But as I have mentioned elsewhere, if there is a user who is nervous about using a computer, and there is someone else who can handle the system administration, linux can be ideal.
But at the same time, you're *forcing* yourself into the role of this Someone Else for the rest of their life. What happens when you're away? There sure as hell isn't going to be anybody else around that can tell them how to fix the symlink they just deleted.
Eventually, people are going to want to expand their horizons a little bit and learn how to *use* the operating system they have on their PC. When that time comes, they're going to wish they had an easier-to-learn operating system like Windows to tinker with.
It started off with 2 points and someone considered the comment insightful.
The point of my post wasn't a "me too!" post but, rather, it was a suggestion that the original poster express his argument without resorting to insults.
I could care less what sort of score it made. If a moderator feels it's overrated, it's their perogative to change it.
You, however, are not a moderator, and, in fact, aren't even a user. Your opinion is doubly meaningless to me.
Right, but as far as I know, the "digital" connections, like your analog voice calls, are considered virtual digital circuits. An ISDN "path" is opened between your end and the destination end. Resources are allocated by the phone company to accomodate that path. With a full packet-switched network, there is no virtual circuit. The "connection" only exists in the endpoint devices. Everything else is just raw data packets that get shuffled to their respective destinations.
ANY INDIVIDUAL who has the binary or source has full rights to distribute it anywhere he or she likes, warez groups, the front page of Slashdot, sky's the limit
At the same time, they would be disclosing previously proprietary code, likely violating an NDA. Sure, they'd be exercising their "legal" right per the GPL, but they'd be breaking contract (and perhaps law, depending on the nature of the modifications) by doing so.
Additionally, can coder X at Microsoft be legally forced to give the source code to coder Y at Microsoft merely because the item in question happens to be based on GPL'd code?
If the GPL forbids this sort of thing, this has got to be a bad thing. Companies would then be almost totally unable to customize GPL'd programs for use with proprietary (and likely secret) systems. Some code might include proprietary algorithms or things they don't necessarily want the public to have. If things are as you say, it would be impossible for them to do this legally. This can't be good.
And what about that whole Corel mess a while back? Everyone jumped on the GPL gun then, and Corel was able to (understandably and legally, as far as I know) justify their position by saying the software wasn't being released to the general public. Why is this such a bad thing?
Windows and Linux are not the only operating systems in existence out there. I personally do not find Linux to be the best solution for this task, and Windows is only marginally better.
1. The requirement for "Linux skills" is precisely why Linux is a bad choice here. One should not need to have "skills" to work with an operating system.
2. Can we avoid calling people names? If you have a point, come out and present it, but don't disrespect people because you have nothing valuable to offer to the discussion. Typical AC.
Generally, you want people to learn about their computer and how to do simple administrative tasks on it. This isn't a problem if you want to lock yourself into a "sysadmin" role for the rest of their life, but for those of us that want to set them up with something they can use, be comfortable with and *learn*, Linux is not the solution here.
How is this any better than Windows? Spend a moment to strip down the Start menu or the icons on their desktop and you've got a system that's just as easy to use as your hypothetical WM setup, with just as nice of a "button gui that goves over the windows."
What if you're in class? On a plane? On vacation? At work? Having dinner?
There are reasons people are paid to answer tech support questions. If you want to be the typical masochistic Linux user and be everyone's "sysadmin" instead of the guy that installed their PC, that's your decision, but it's a decision you're going to have to live with for the entire time they're using Linux, as it's doubtful they'll find anybody else who can or is willing to answer their questions when you can't.
Why would this be easier? You could spend an equivalent amount of time setting up a decent Start Menu or a few desktop icons for his use and he wouldn't have to do any more learning than under Linux.
In fact, as most all Windows apps have a consistent GUI, I imagine it'd be *easier* to learn Windows apps simply because that's all that would be left to learn: the apps.
Win9x is presumably already installed on "Grampa"'s system. Is it more trouble for you to replace his operating system with one you've spent a few hours customizing for his tasks, or is it harder to go into the control panels and enable the "one-click" activation?
I think we're straying away from the major point against.
Sure, you *can* do all of this nifty automation and scripting for Linux, but do you really need to? Is it really worth all of that effort for such a small gain on grampa's part? Chances are, the differences he's going to notice between learning a stock Windows system (or one minimally configured to remove unnecessary icons from the desktop or start menu) and your souped-up-AC-ified-mega-scripted Linux system are going to be negligible. Plus, with the OS he has on board, he has an OEM he can call if you're not around to answer the question (and, likely a CD to re-install the OS back to its original factory defaults).
don't want to have to drive a half an hour, just to fix an icon or something.
That's why you tell them, "check out the manual and the help pages and see if you can figure it out." Do you honestly think they'll be able to figure out a symlink issue under Linux before they'd figure out a similar problem under Windows? Please...
If you really want your friends to think of you as their "sysadmin" instead of "the guy that set up my PC," that's up to you. I personally set up machines so that the people using them are free to customize them as they need and can learn, break and fix things on their own. What people are proposing here for Linux make that impossible (or at least very difficult, especially considering the learning curve for Linux administration).
But the idea of sticking with whatever OS comes with it is probably a mistake, since the machine probably came with MS Windows.
It has a lot to do with the time-cost of making the change.
If you have 6 hours to blow replacing his operating system with a basic function Linux, or 3-4 *days* as some people are suggesting to spend time doing a major stripped-down-custom-configured Linux system for him, that's fine.
I can't possibly imagine any additional productivity he would gain from your insistence upon Linux than over Windows or Macintosh that would even remotely outweigh the time you invested setting that system up.
So if there's no appreciable productivity gain for him, it's simply "techie pride" that's forcing you to force Linux upon him, not any desire at all on your part to give him a "better" system. I think that was what he was trying to say. Basing an operating system decision upon what you think is "cool" and the amount of flexibility that operating system gives *you* is not good way to make a decision. Use what's best for the task, where best != what you like most.
There is a difference between expressing pride and trying to use something for tasks for which it's not yet suitable.
Windows is already there. Windows works as-is. It's trivial to buy software and get it installed. It's almost as trivial downloading Setup.EXE from the web and installing programs from the Internet. These fundamental tasks are nearly impossible under Linux without you there helping.
I too have nothing against Linux. In fact, I'm *usually* the one out there advocating for Linux instead of Windows or Macintosh, but there ARE tasks where Linux is not suitable, and I believe this is one of them.
A lot of you are refusing to acknowledge other operating systems as feasible alternatives for a task when it's precisely the opposite mentality that opened yourself up to using Linux in the first place. Use what's most efficient for the task.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but if your schools are actually hiring people like this, it's time you wrote a letter to the school board. If nothing else, take your child to a private school or just enroll him/her in another school altogether. Public schools are funded with your tax dollars. You can bet you have a say in how they're run.
In any case, your "somebody should speak up about this" comment seems better directed towards yourself than to any of us. They held quite a lengthy public comment period where you were more than welcome to voice your opinion.
Funny how people always have things to say after the fact, but nobody is willing to give a rat's ass about stuff like this while it's in the planning stages (when it counts). THIS is what's wrong with our government today, not "idiot" or "evil" politicians.
This is precisely the difference between a true "hacker" and your every-day IRC script/packet kiddie.
A real hacker tinkers with stuff to see how it works. A real hacker gets his pleasure watching something he hacked up run on an obscure piece of hardware.
Packet kiddies are the children that spend their time on IRC, downloading l33t exploits of the month, running their spl01T scanZ on machines, packeting their "enemies", defacing web sites, and only in very rare cases are these kids able to code anything useful on their own (aside from simple Tcl for their eggdrop botnet).
The hackers examine and "hack up" software and hardware for their own education and pride. Packet kiddies do it so they can get recognition (either among their fellow l33t IRC peers, by telling "hacker stories" at school so people think they're cool, or by trying to do something they hope will get them in the newspaper).
Packet kiddies don't know squat about electronics, and I doubt will ever have a desire to learn about it (it's too hard for most script kiddies, who tend to be pretty lazy/undisciplined). Those that do take the plunge tend to easily be the more mature of both worlds. (There are exceptions, sadly.)
Oh, please.
I'm fully aware of what Lynx is capable of (I've recently discovered w3m, which is much better, in fact).
Unfortunately, you only attacked one point I was making for IE. The remaining points (superior CSS and XML rendering abilities) obviously still stand.
The day that Lynx renders graphics, CSS, does XML and does it faster than IE in a more standards-compliant fashion will be the day I use Lynx for my daily work.
That's not going to happen any time soon.
Yes, but installing the operating system would be just as difficult with windows as with Linux.
/exec it which installs a back door of some sort (granted, it will likely only be under his user, unless it makes use of a root exploit straight away).
The operating system is already installed on the PC. The only work involved would be to dump it and install Linux. That alone should be a factor in making the decision to switch. It's already there, and it works as-is.
And, is it a good or a bad thing that things install easily? What happens when "some malicious user" makes a CD which auoinstalls a nice little virus? Grandpa things "Hmm.. whats on this CD" puts it in the CD-drive.. and wham.
As another poster mentioned, this is pretty far-fetched. People don't go around breaking into homes and putting trojan CD's on elderly folks' desks.
Yargh. NO! If its something I really HATE its trojans and autorun functions. I've been cleaning some hundred dmsetup / netbus infections the last year (maybe thousands).
This is psychological, and any halfway-decent virus scanner would detect these attempts regardless.
Again, I have never in my life had a computer virus or have been "backdoored" by any form of trojan. Just tell grampa to take heed to the warnings about unverified software that IE spits up. Again, background virus scanners work wonders in these situations as well.
You call that stable? I don't have problems with my computers except hardware trouble.
So what? My personal best is about 130 days with my Linux system (currently at only 49 days). "Grandpa" is going to be turning his PC off when he's done using it for the evening. Uptime doesn't mean squat in this instance.
The background virus-scanner needs to be updated.
Not all good coders are part of the OpenSource gang. My virus scanner updates its data files automatically over the 'Net at pre-arranged intervals.
Furthermore, what if old grandpa decided that "chatrooms" (irc..) is a nice thing, and what does good old grandpa do when some chick send him a "video of herself"(in reality, 17 year old male playing around with netbus)? Well, of course - he opens the damn thing.
We can come up with all sorts of hypotheticals here that would leave grandpa's PC vulnerable REGARDLESS of the operating system.
They could just as easily DCC him some script or program, have him
You think Linux isn't vulnerable to tricks like this? It's not a virus, no, but it can be just as unpleasant.
In case you haven't figured it out, Linux provides no tangible benefit under this situation to using Windows. If grampa never wants to learn or expand anything further about his operating system, there is virtually no gain either way for him. There is a loss, however, in administration time on your part.
It all boils down to "techie pride". Lots of people just HAVE to install Linux everywhere because they think it's cool. You're blinding yourselves to the pro's and con's of Linux and refusing to acknowledge acceptable alternatives.
In my opinion, this makes for *poor* Linux advocacy. If we keep advocating Linux for unsuitable tasks, people will begin to notice this and it will leave them with a bad taste in their mouth. Promote Linux where it will excel.
Now for the alternative
Things may seem perfectly logical to YOU, but your average computer novice will disagree. With the current desktops, everything is abstracted to simple, easy to learn objects, each with its own functions. Contrast that with the current state of Linux. For someone that "knows" computers, sure, Linux is going to be logical in places, once you learn the basics. The problem is that learning the basics under Linux takes considerably more time and effort than learning the basics under Windows.
Once you know the basics in Windows, it's very easy to start branching out and learning other aspects of your system. With Linux, the learning curve remains high and undaunting.
I also don't really understand why you would WANT a company to be prohibited from using the software like this. If a company were fixing a bug or something that caused the work to fail to operate in their environment, sure, I can see how that bug fix would be valuable for everyone else. But there are times when a company needs to take a relatively unfinished GPL'd work and adapt it for use in their proprietary environment (even if temporarily), such as making it use a proprietary database. Such code changes are useless to other people, except perhaps to get a look at some of the company's NDA'd internal protocols, for example. If a company is legally forbidden from adapting GPL'd works like this, it severely limits the usefulness of GPL'd software in corporate environments. The GPL "community" isn't harmed by the failure to release the changes, as the changes are specific to the company in question and useless elsewhere.
They changed their terms when it came time to release a public beta. As far as I know, their "alpha" testing group was still considered part of the "internal" group and still subject to their NDA.
I guess it's possible I missed something.
You can't diminish the legal force of the license agreement by wishing it away.
Perhaps you can comment on this section of the GPL and how it would apply to GPL'ed code used internally:
Nowhere does this section anull the user's license to copy or modify the GPL'ed software for their "own" use. It simply prohibits distribution.Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't explicitely say what constitutes as "distribution," whether it be a company's conscious act of releasing a work or making the program available in /usr/bin for users of a particular system. It does say this: Each licensee is addressed as "you". There is no mention that the licensee must be a natural person. If a person downloads a GPL'ed program while at work, they are acting for the Company, thus the Company is the one that downloaded it. Thus, to me, internal distribution does not qualify as distribution under the terms of the GPL, as the application remains in the posession of the same entity at all times.
As you may or may not be aware, when legal ambiguities arise in contracts, they are automatically interpreted against the contract.
But as I have mentioned elsewhere, if there is a user who is nervous about using a computer, and there is someone else who can handle the system administration, linux can be ideal.
But at the same time, you're *forcing* yourself into the role of this Someone Else for the rest of their life. What happens when you're away? There sure as hell isn't going to be anybody else around that can tell them how to fix the symlink they just deleted.
Eventually, people are going to want to expand their horizons a little bit and learn how to *use* the operating system they have on their PC. When that time comes, they're going to wish they had an easier-to-learn operating system like Windows to tinker with.
It started off with 2 points and someone considered the comment insightful.
The point of my post wasn't a "me too!" post but, rather, it was a suggestion that the original poster express his argument without resorting to insults.
I could care less what sort of score it made. If a moderator feels it's overrated, it's their perogative to change it.
You, however, are not a moderator, and, in fact, aren't even a user. Your opinion is doubly meaningless to me.
Right, but as far as I know, the "digital" connections, like your analog voice calls, are considered virtual digital circuits. An ISDN "path" is opened between your end and the destination end. Resources are allocated by the phone company to accomodate that path. With a full packet-switched network, there is no virtual circuit. The "connection" only exists in the endpoint devices. Everything else is just raw data packets that get shuffled to their respective destinations.
Or is that not what you were objecting to?
Ah, gotcha. I didn't realize they were separated.
ANY INDIVIDUAL who has the binary or source has full rights to distribute it anywhere he or she likes, warez groups, the front page of Slashdot, sky's the limit
At the same time, they would be disclosing previously proprietary code, likely violating an NDA. Sure, they'd be exercising their "legal" right per the GPL, but they'd be breaking contract (and perhaps law, depending on the nature of the modifications) by doing so.
Additionally, can coder X at Microsoft be legally forced to give the source code to coder Y at Microsoft merely because the item in question happens to be based on GPL'd code?
If the GPL forbids this sort of thing, this has got to be a bad thing. Companies would then be almost totally unable to customize GPL'd programs for use with proprietary (and likely secret) systems. Some code might include proprietary algorithms or things they don't necessarily want the public to have. If things are as you say, it would be impossible for them to do this legally. This can't be good.
And what about that whole Corel mess a while back? Everyone jumped on the GPL gun then, and Corel was able to (understandably and legally, as far as I know) justify their position by saying the software wasn't being released to the general public. Why is this such a bad thing?
I hadn't seen this mentioned yet, but it would be an excellent addition to the Windows/Linux/(MacOS/BeOS) debate.
So don't use Windows!
Windows and Linux are not the only operating systems in existence out there. I personally do not find Linux to be the best solution for this task, and Windows is only marginally better.
1. The requirement for "Linux skills" is precisely why Linux is a bad choice here. One should not need to have "skills" to work with an operating system.
2. Can we avoid calling people names? If you have a point, come out and present it, but don't disrespect people because you have nothing valuable to offer to the discussion. Typical AC.
Generally, you want people to learn about their computer and how to do simple administrative tasks on it. This isn't a problem if you want to lock yourself into a "sysadmin" role for the rest of their life, but for those of us that want to set them up with something they can use, be comfortable with and *learn*, Linux is not the solution here.
How is this any better than Windows? Spend a moment to strip down the Start menu or the icons on their desktop and you've got a system that's just as easy to use as your hypothetical WM setup, with just as nice of a "button gui that goves over the windows."
...and when you're not available?
What if you're in class? On a plane? On vacation? At work? Having dinner?
There are reasons people are paid to answer tech support questions. If you want to be the typical masochistic Linux user and be everyone's "sysadmin" instead of the guy that installed their PC, that's your decision, but it's a decision you're going to have to live with for the entire time they're using Linux, as it's doubtful they'll find anybody else who can or is willing to answer their questions when you can't.
Can't you people ever have a real discussion on here without calling people that disagree with you a "moron" or "idiot" or "asshole"?
I'm thinking it's time to raise my score threshold to 1...
Why would this be easier? You could spend an equivalent amount of time setting up a decent Start Menu or a few desktop icons for his use and he wouldn't have to do any more learning than under Linux.
In fact, as most all Windows apps have a consistent GUI, I imagine it'd be *easier* to learn Windows apps simply because that's all that would be left to learn: the apps.
Trouble?
Win9x is presumably already installed on "Grampa"'s system. Is it more trouble for you to replace his operating system with one you've spent a few hours customizing for his tasks, or is it harder to go into the control panels and enable the "one-click" activation?
You need to look at the big picture here.
I think we're straying away from the major point against.
Sure, you *can* do all of this nifty automation and scripting for Linux, but do you really need to? Is it really worth all of that effort for such a small gain on grampa's part? Chances are, the differences he's going to notice between learning a stock Windows system (or one minimally configured to remove unnecessary icons from the desktop or start menu) and your souped-up-AC-ified-mega-scripted Linux system are going to be negligible. Plus, with the OS he has on board, he has an OEM he can call if you're not around to answer the question (and, likely a CD to re-install the OS back to its original factory defaults).
don't want to have to drive a half an hour, just to fix an icon or something.
That's why you tell them, "check out the manual and the help pages and see if you can figure it out." Do you honestly think they'll be able to figure out a symlink issue under Linux before they'd figure out a similar problem under Windows? Please...
If you really want your friends to think of you as their "sysadmin" instead of "the guy that set up my PC," that's up to you. I personally set up machines so that the people using them are free to customize them as they need and can learn, break and fix things on their own. What people are proposing here for Linux make that impossible (or at least very difficult, especially considering the learning curve for Linux administration).
But the idea of sticking with whatever OS comes with it is probably a mistake, since the machine probably came with MS Windows.
It has a lot to do with the time-cost of making the change.
If you have 6 hours to blow replacing his operating system with a basic function Linux, or 3-4 *days* as some people are suggesting to spend time doing a major stripped-down-custom-configured Linux system for him, that's fine.
I can't possibly imagine any additional productivity he would gain from your insistence upon Linux than over Windows or Macintosh that would even remotely outweigh the time you invested setting that system up.
So if there's no appreciable productivity gain for him, it's simply "techie pride" that's forcing you to force Linux upon him, not any desire at all on your part to give him a "better" system. I think that was what he was trying to say. Basing an operating system decision upon what you think is "cool" and the amount of flexibility that operating system gives *you* is not good way to make a decision. Use what's best for the task, where best != what you like most.
There is a difference between expressing pride and trying to use something for tasks for which it's not yet suitable.
Windows is already there. Windows works as-is. It's trivial to buy software and get it installed. It's almost as trivial downloading Setup.EXE from the web and installing programs from the Internet. These fundamental tasks are nearly impossible under Linux without you there helping.
I too have nothing against Linux. In fact, I'm *usually* the one out there advocating for Linux instead of Windows or Macintosh, but there ARE tasks where Linux is not suitable, and I believe this is one of them.
A lot of you are refusing to acknowledge other operating systems as feasible alternatives for a task when it's precisely the opposite mentality that opened yourself up to using Linux in the first place. Use what's most efficient for the task.