Richard Stallman is now less than pleased that he has to work in the Gates Building, as well as having some other problems with his new office in general.
Sure, it's a worthy cause;) , but creating a whole building just to do it? I mean, really, he can be set off by the simplest misuse of a pet phrase or so. Those MIT/MS guys just like to make things more complex and expensive than they really need to be.
I'm one of those would would love to use Linux, and have tried a number of times to switch, but always wound up back on Win2K. Here's my list:
* Configuration of simple functionality (e.g. mounting my windows partitions) should never require me to open some obscure file in super-user mode (something the GUI editors included with distros can't easily do), spend hours looking up syntax and options for a particular configuration, then another few hours debugging. On MS, those first two parts are done through point-and-click, so you only spend the hours debugging. Still frustrating, but much faster. The different assumption is: "do what needs to be done to get it working for the user" rather than: "get the user to set it up so it's what we want".
* I should never have to re-build the kernal (or another piece of software) just to install a driver for my graphics tablet. Installing 5 unrelated and hard-to-configure packages to achieve the same isn't much better. Installers should come with the dependencies ready-to-go in the package and should install what's missing automatically. The kernal architecture should support plugging in new drivers without needing to re-build.
* I use about 12 programs daily, another 100 or so I use frequently, and a few more I use infrequently, but really need when I need them. That's a lot of inertia when setting up some of them (such as the TV tuner and recorder) are going to take days each (remembering that I'm a Linux newbie). I'm willing to try to convert, but I can't dedicate months just to the task of setting up and configuring a computer.
I'm willing to spend the money on the IBM voice-dictation for Linux, and a decent 3D modeller to let me do the switch, but not until the platform itself is something I can use.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm one of those would would love to use Linux, and have tried a number of times to switch, but always wound up back on Win2K. Here's my list:
* Configuration of simple functionality (e.g. mounting my windows partitions) should never require me to open some obscure file in super-user mode (something the GUI editors included with distros can't easily do), spend hours looking up syntax and options for a particular configuration, then another few hours debugging. On MS, those first two parts are done through point-and-click, so you only spend the hours debugging. Still frustrating, but much faster. The different assumption is: "do what needs to be done to get it working for the user" rather than: "get the user to set it up so it's what we want".
* I should never have to re-build the kernal (or another piece of software) just to install a driver for my graphics tablet. Installing 5 unrelated and hard-to-configure packages to achieve the same isn't much better. Installers should come with the dependencies ready-to-go in the package and should install what's missing automatically. The kernal architecture should support plugging in new drivers without needing to re-build.
* I use about 12 programs daily, another 100 or so I use frequently, and a few more I use infrequently, but really need when I need them. That's a lot of inertia when setting up some of them (such as the TV tuner and recorder) are going to take days each (remembering that I'm a Linux newbie). I'm willing to try to convert, but I can't dedicate months just to the task of setting up and configuring a computer.
I'm willing to spend the money on the IBM voice-dictation for Linux, and a decent 3D modeller to let me do the switch, but not until the platform itself is something I can use.