I agree with you completely! I am not an expert, but I occasionally check out the discussions on Slashdot.
I was attracted to Linux not because of the command line but because it provided an open alternative to Microsoft. I've used Microsoft products for a long time (Word, PowerPoint, FrontPage, etc.), but I don't like the corporate morality in place at Microsoft, and I don't like the direction the company is headed. And while I have not yet gotten comfortable enough with it to make Linux my full time OS of choice, I am hopeful of getting there - even before I ever do much with CLI.
As a relative "newbie" with regard to Linux, I am offended by those who suggest that people like me who don't want to learn (or don't always have the time to learn) CLI should stick to Windows and Macs. The implicit argument is that only those "in the know" are entitled to freedom of choice.
Such attitudes will do more than Microsoft ever could to keep people from trying and adopting Linux. In my opinion, that would be a shame.
"They don't do "grammar" checking per say (i.e., they don't cite passive voice or subject-verb agreement) but this is rather simple stuff that you should catch anyways."
First, passive voice is not always bad. As a former business writing instructor, I know that there are times when a writer needs to use passive voice; for instance, when the person performing the action is unknown, or when the author wishes to avoid assessing blame.
Second, passive voice and subject-verb agreement are not "rather simple stuff that you should catch anyways," especially if you are a non-native speaker of the language. From a former academic who reguarly came in contact with non-native English speakers to one who presumably would have come in contact with similar people, I would say you should know better than to simplify language issues in such a manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Odd. I just looked at the site and, at least on the machine I checked out, no operating system was an option and was, in fact, the default option.
I agree with you completely! I am not an expert, but I occasionally check out the discussions on Slashdot.
I was attracted to Linux not because of the command line but because it provided an open alternative to Microsoft. I've used Microsoft products for a long time (Word, PowerPoint, FrontPage, etc.), but I don't like the corporate morality in place at Microsoft, and I don't like the direction the company is headed. And while I have not yet gotten comfortable enough with it to make Linux my full time OS of choice, I am hopeful of getting there - even before I ever do much with CLI.
As a relative "newbie" with regard to Linux, I am offended by those who suggest that people like me who don't want to learn (or don't always have the time to learn) CLI should stick to Windows and Macs. The implicit argument is that only those "in the know" are entitled to freedom of choice.
Such attitudes will do more than Microsoft ever could to keep people from trying and adopting Linux. In my opinion, that would be a shame.
"They don't do "grammar" checking per say (i.e., they don't cite passive voice or subject-verb agreement) but this is rather simple stuff that you should catch anyways."
First, passive voice is not always bad. As a former business writing instructor, I know that there are times when a writer needs to use passive voice; for instance, when the person performing the action is unknown, or when the author wishes to avoid assessing blame.
Second, passive voice and subject-verb agreement are not "rather simple stuff that you should catch anyways," especially if you are a non-native speaker of the language. From a former academic who reguarly came in contact with non-native English speakers to one who presumably would have come in contact with similar people, I would say you should know better than to simplify language issues in such a manner.