" Understand the source perspective before you draw opinions. Understand the source perspective before you draw opinions. "
Can you say "argumentum ad hominem"?
From the side of logical debaters, the source is very much irrelevant. It is perfectly possible for a CEO of a company threatened by Linux to have a valid argument against Linux. In fact, not only is it possible, it is likely or else they would be embracing Linux.
"It's easy to retort GreenHills FUD by saying all changes will be baselined and a change control board will review any updates (easy enough huh)."
Checking every line of code in an open source system for intentionally placed bugs that are designed to be hard to find? Most companies have trouble find unintentional bugs in their software.
I'm as big of a fan of Linux as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I think OSS is the solution to every case.
I don't even get how this could be related to the Firefox recommendation. If MS were pissed about that, why sell it off? Wouldn't it make more sense to just fire the guy who wrote it and take more control over the magazine?
Hey, I woke up with a hangover this morning. Think that could have been caused by your lightning? My stupid doctor tells me its because I was drinking last night, what does he know?
Plenty has been written about the supposed privacy itrusions of gmail, it has since been cast aside when people realized those privacy fears were foolish at best.
Considering all the fighting that went on between Native American tribes before Westerners even arrived, they remain a problem. Sorry, you guys have to leave as well.
In order to have an America free of human violence, the continent must be void of human life period.
I know for the last two, we had hundreds of nerds camping out in front of movie theaters to get it. The first because they loved the first 3 movies and the second because they were all convinced that the phantom menace was a abnormally. But after two crappy movies (3 if you count Return of the Jedi, though that wasn't nearly as bad), does anyone really want to see the third? Does anyone really think Lucas will be able to recover?
Well first of all, there is of course the fact that while a small minority of Saudis and Muslims are willing to murder thousands of American citizens, that doesn't mean every one of them is. Thus to judge the entire group based on the actions a few would, by definition, be prejudice.
But lets forget that and go with your theory, shall we? Any ethnic group from which hateful mass murderers have come from must leave now. Lets see...
Arabs, as you noted, are already out.
Hispanics include some drug dealers who are willing to kill innocent civilians; goodbye
Asians, well you guys bombed Pearl Harbor. Sorry.
Blacks, some black supremest groups (Black Panthers, Nation of Islam) have come out of you guys.
Caucasians, well we seem to be in the clear. Oh wait, I forgot about Tim McVeigh and friends, Ted Kaczynski, Manson, Hinckly, Neo-Nazis, PETA, the KKK, Jefferey Dalmer, those Columbine kids, Hannibal Lector (ok, he's not real), guys flying Confederate flags, Oswald, Howard Dean (you know he's thinking it)... Uh, guess we had better find a new home fast.
As for the rest of you, I'm sure I can find someone of your ethnicity who hated America. So you might as well go ahead and leave as well.
Well, the US is now uninhabited and thus safe from terrorism. But maybe we should rethink your plan.
That doesn't in any way mean that the GPL will be overruled in the US. Just because we don't do everything Europe does doesn't mean we never do the same thing.
"This has never been true of Windows. While Windows has come installed on machines since 95, any long-time user is quite familiar with reinstalling the OS. This was a practical necessity for Win95/98 on most machines every six months or so."
No they don't. Most inexperienced users don't reinstall their OS each time it crashes. Maybe they should and as a result they have a computer that never works right, but they don't.
"Most kids nowadays know how to use computers long before they hit middle school. In case you haven't been paying attention."
Yes, I know. That was my point. Those kids were not the inexperienced users we were talking about.
"In a public middle school."
Where in the middle did you find them? Did you walk in to an English class while the teacher wasn't looking? Was it a computer class? Or some sort of after school program?
"I do think I mentioned that I taught middle school students; I guess you missed 'reading comprehension' while you were cruising through the educational system."
Fuck you. Go back and read your post. You made no mention whatsoever of a middle school. You just said "11 year old kids", which would put them in either 5th or 6th grade. In most districts that is elementary school. And just because they were school age does not mean they were in school, there are other things kids do you know.
"Oh, poor babies! Woe is them! Okay, since you apparently have more than enough time to go to inane work-sponsored 'conferences' and 'workshops' (not to mention endless rounds of 'sensitivity training'), as well as to spend endless hours watching mindless 'reality TV' while you drool on yourself - but you have no time whatsoever to learn Linux"
See, this is the high and mighty pompous attitude we need to purge from the Linux community if we ever want Linux to be adopted by the mainstream public. As it is now, arrogant jackasses like you just turn them off (kind of like that tech support guy from those old SNL skits).
Like it or not, people in the real world have things to do other than play with a computer. Play outside, read a book, play sports, hang out with friends, let alone the fact that most people have work specific to their own profession that they have to concentrate on. What if a chef made fun of someone who makes prepared dinners instead of dinners from scratch? Or a gym trainer making fun of someone who doesn't work out for 4 hours each day? Or an English professor laughing at someone who never finished Anna Karenina? Would you fall in any of those categories?
"even though you'll certainly make the time to learn whatever new version of Windows MS pimps to you"
No, generally speaking most people don't take time to learn everything about Windows either. But since Windows is aimed at inexperienced users, they are still able to make basic usage of it.
Ted Turner is right wing? Compared to who, Michael Moore?
Just because someone is from the south doesn't mean they are conservative. In reality Turner is quite liberal.
And even if your analysis were entirely correct, I can find people on both sides of the aisle who agree on numerous stupid things. Politics isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.
Listening to a bunch of/.ers claim that Linux is just as easy to use as Windows is almost as bad as listening to multi-millionaire politicians like Kerry and Edwards talk about how they know what its like to be in lower-class America.
"At this point there are only three reasons why Windows is considered easier than Linux:"
Oh, I can think of a lot more than 3.
Case sensitivity. Sounds small, but for most people the word myfiles is the same as MyFiles.
Being told they don't have permissions to change something that they need to change and that they have use a command called 'su' in order to do it. In Windows an Administrator can do pretty much whatever he wants.
File names. Which is easier to understand, "C:\Program Files" or "/usr/local/bin".
Which is easier, running InstallShield to install a program, or making and compiling a program from a tarball (and don't give me any crap about RPMs making this simple, if you use Linux much at all sooner or later you will have to compile something yourself.
I could go on and on if I had an inexperienced user by me. I haven't even touched difficulties using applications (Word vs OOo, paint vs gimp, etc). Your claim that the only reason Windows is easier for inexperienced users is because people are used to it is just laughable.
" Suse 9.0 installs easier and cleaner than Win2000 or WinXP; anyone who can install Windows can install Suse Linux."
Inexperienced users had better not have to install an operating system period. It should be already set up for them.
"I taught a bunch of 11-year-old kids how to install and use Linux two years running, despite the fact that they didn't know what a 'Linux' was when they started and were thorough Windows junkies up until that point."
They were "Windows junkies"? In other words, they were familiar with computers before you showed them Linux? But yet they were able to switch to a new OS? Hmm, I think you just proved my point.
Out of curiosity, where did you find these kids? Off the street, or were they interested in learning more about computers? And what do you mean by "taught a bunch of 11-year olds"? Did you stop by and give them a pointer or two for their brave new world in Linux? Or did they recieve a formal computer class? If it was the latter, most non-geeks in this world do not have time to take formal classes for every new technology they use. They need to be able to just use it out of the box.
"For these folks Windows will always be the OS of choice - not for ease of use, but simply because they refuse to try anything different."
What version are they using? Windows 3.1? If they refused change as much as you claim they do, they would never upgrade.
"did you explain it to her?
i hear many complaints of users' ignorance, but how will they know unless they are told?"
I tried, yes, but it didn't stick. And I can't spend my entire life sitting by my mom's side teaching her how to use a computer. I don't even live in the same town anymore.
"things in computing don't typically have simple parallels to everyday things (other than computers:) )."
But see thats the thing. Windows makes an attempt to have real world examples of everything it does. Its designed to be easy to use.
No, its not because they are lazy or unmotivated or because just don't try. Linux is not an easy operating system for an inexperienced user to use.
"heck, when i first booted mandrake, i didn't know what to do with a tarball or how to use the command line."
Please. Equating not knowing what a tarball is with being a computer newbie is just being a jackass. Most intermediate users don't know what a tarball is and have never used a command line. That doesn't make them idiots. If you are running your own webserver, you are not part of the population we are talking about and thus your experience is irrelevant to the conversation.
My mom (who has been using computers for some time so she is more experienced that those we are talking about) still gets confused and wonders what happened to the Internet if she clicks on the IE icon and gets a page other than www.msn.com. She would be utterly confused on a system like Linux.
Business look at a lot more than just the price tag down at BestBuy when determining how much something costs. They have to look at the entire TCO. The amount of money you spend buying the actual software is far from the only consideration they have to consider.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Linux is not currently an operating system for inexperienced computer users. It generally requires some knowledge as to how computers work. If you have that knowledge, sure it is easy to use. But most people in the world do not have that knowledge.
"Once people use windows, they believe for some reason that they will be unable to switch."
I would say most Linux users these days once used Windows as their primary OS but were then able to switch. Sure, the less technically inclinded portion of the population will not be able to do that, but I wouldn't recommend that they start out on Linux in the first place.
Legal issues aside, most of us do not use Linux because it is cheaper, we use it because it is a superior operating system. Hell I already have the Windows OS that came with my PC (so it might as well be free for me as well). The fallacy that people only use Linux because they are cheap unemployed hackers is just that, a fallacy.
"Macs actually account for a larger market share than Linux boxes"
Desktops or total (including servers)?
The issue invovled PCs at a technical college, so I assume they train students for jobs that will require more than opening up Word or checking their email.
Well my university has over a thousand Macs arranged in a super computer cluster. I guess that counts as a few. Our math department also has a building off campus full of Macs where they send all the freshman to take proctored exams, though no one likes going down there.
But the fact is, how common are Macs in todays world? They have a loyal following sure, but in the workplace I do not believe they are near as common as Windows or Unix/Linux boxes. A university or college is an educational institution designed to teach their students skills that can be applied to the real world. Thus it would be more beneficial for them to use machines that will be used in the workspace. Not to sound like flamebait, but the real problem thus isn't that they are ignoring the Mac minority, but that they are ignoring the fact that Unix/Linux machines are in wide use in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
So you admit you are labeling this propaganda without even considering what he said? That is the very essence of an ad hominem fallacy.
How did they get through the extensive background checks that are given in order to work on sensitive government software?
Can you say "argumentum ad hominem"?
From the side of logical debaters, the source is very much irrelevant. It is perfectly possible for a CEO of a company threatened by Linux to have a valid argument against Linux. In fact, not only is it possible, it is likely or else they would be embracing Linux.
"It's easy to retort GreenHills FUD by saying all changes will be baselined and a change control board will review any updates (easy enough huh)."
Checking every line of code in an open source system for intentionally placed bugs that are designed to be hard to find? Most companies have trouble find unintentional bugs in their software.
I'm as big of a fan of Linux as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I think OSS is the solution to every case.
Man, I'm having flashbacks of the late 90s...
Hey, I woke up with a hangover this morning. Think that could have been caused by your lightning? My stupid doctor tells me its because I was drinking last night, what does he know?
I'm curious, would everyone be happier if they gave out free Brittney Spears CDs?
Plenty has been written about the supposed privacy itrusions of gmail, it has since been cast aside when people realized those privacy fears were foolish at best.
In order to have an America free of human violence, the continent must be void of human life period.
I know for the last two, we had hundreds of nerds camping out in front of movie theaters to get it. The first because they loved the first 3 movies and the second because they were all convinced that the phantom menace was a abnormally. But after two crappy movies (3 if you count Return of the Jedi, though that wasn't nearly as bad), does anyone really want to see the third? Does anyone really think Lucas will be able to recover?
But lets forget that and go with your theory, shall we? Any ethnic group from which hateful mass murderers have come from must leave now. Lets see...
-
Arabs, as you noted, are already out.
-
Hispanics include some drug dealers who are willing to kill innocent civilians; goodbye
-
Asians, well you guys bombed Pearl Harbor. Sorry.
-
Blacks, some black supremest groups (Black Panthers, Nation of Islam) have come out of you guys.
-
Caucasians, well we seem to be in the clear. Oh wait, I forgot about Tim McVeigh and friends, Ted Kaczynski, Manson, Hinckly, Neo-Nazis, PETA, the KKK, Jefferey Dalmer, those Columbine kids, Hannibal Lector (ok, he's not real), guys flying Confederate flags, Oswald, Howard Dean (you know he's thinking it)... Uh, guess we had better find a new home fast.
As for the rest of you, I'm sure I can find someone of your ethnicity who hated America. So you might as well go ahead and leave as well.Well, the US is now uninhabited and thus safe from terrorism. But maybe we should rethink your plan.
That doesn't in any way mean that the GPL will be overruled in the US. Just because we don't do everything Europe does doesn't mean we never do the same thing.
No they don't. Most inexperienced users don't reinstall their OS each time it crashes. Maybe they should and as a result they have a computer that never works right, but they don't.
"Most kids nowadays know how to use computers long before they hit middle school. In case you haven't been paying attention."
Yes, I know. That was my point. Those kids were not the inexperienced users we were talking about.
"In a public middle school."
Where in the middle did you find them? Did you walk in to an English class while the teacher wasn't looking? Was it a computer class? Or some sort of after school program?
"I do think I mentioned that I taught middle school students; I guess you missed 'reading comprehension' while you were cruising through the educational system."
Fuck you. Go back and read your post. You made no mention whatsoever of a middle school. You just said "11 year old kids", which would put them in either 5th or 6th grade. In most districts that is elementary school. And just because they were school age does not mean they were in school, there are other things kids do you know.
"Oh, poor babies! Woe is them! Okay, since you apparently have more than enough time to go to inane work-sponsored 'conferences' and 'workshops' (not to mention endless rounds of 'sensitivity training'), as well as to spend endless hours watching mindless 'reality TV' while you drool on yourself - but you have no time whatsoever to learn Linux"
See, this is the high and mighty pompous attitude we need to purge from the Linux community if we ever want Linux to be adopted by the mainstream public. As it is now, arrogant jackasses like you just turn them off (kind of like that tech support guy from those old SNL skits).
Like it or not, people in the real world have things to do other than play with a computer. Play outside, read a book, play sports, hang out with friends, let alone the fact that most people have work specific to their own profession that they have to concentrate on. What if a chef made fun of someone who makes prepared dinners instead of dinners from scratch? Or a gym trainer making fun of someone who doesn't work out for 4 hours each day? Or an English professor laughing at someone who never finished Anna Karenina? Would you fall in any of those categories?
"even though you'll certainly make the time to learn whatever new version of Windows MS pimps to you"
No, generally speaking most people don't take time to learn everything about Windows either. But since Windows is aimed at inexperienced users, they are still able to make basic usage of it.
Now we have the Internet. Now independent online magazines and weblogs are becoming a more and more important source of news.
Just because someone is from the south doesn't mean they are conservative. In reality Turner is quite liberal.
And even if your analysis were entirely correct, I can find people on both sides of the aisle who agree on numerous stupid things. Politics isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.
"At this point there are only three reasons why Windows is considered easier than Linux:"
Oh, I can think of a lot more than 3.
-
Case sensitivity. Sounds small, but for most people the word myfiles is the same as MyFiles.
-
Being told they don't have permissions to change something that they need to change and that they have use a command called 'su' in order to do it. In Windows an Administrator can do pretty much whatever he wants.
-
File names. Which is easier to understand, "C:\Program Files" or "/usr/local/bin".
-
Which is easier, running InstallShield to install a program, or making and compiling a program from a tarball (and don't give me any crap about RPMs making this simple, if you use Linux much at all sooner or later you will have to compile something yourself.
I could go on and on if I had an inexperienced user by me. I haven't even touched difficulties using applications (Word vs OOo, paint vs gimp, etc). Your claim that the only reason Windows is easier for inexperienced users is because people are used to it is just laughable.Inexperienced users had better not have to install an operating system period. It should be already set up for them.
"I taught a bunch of 11-year-old kids how to install and use Linux two years running, despite the fact that they didn't know what a 'Linux' was when they started and were thorough Windows junkies up until that point."
They were "Windows junkies"? In other words, they were familiar with computers before you showed them Linux? But yet they were able to switch to a new OS? Hmm, I think you just proved my point.
Out of curiosity, where did you find these kids? Off the street, or were they interested in learning more about computers? And what do you mean by "taught a bunch of 11-year olds"? Did you stop by and give them a pointer or two for their brave new world in Linux? Or did they recieve a formal computer class? If it was the latter, most non-geeks in this world do not have time to take formal classes for every new technology they use. They need to be able to just use it out of the box.
"For these folks Windows will always be the OS of choice - not for ease of use, but simply because they refuse to try anything different."
What version are they using? Windows 3.1? If they refused change as much as you claim they do, they would never upgrade.
I tried, yes, but it didn't stick. And I can't spend my entire life sitting by my mom's side teaching her how to use a computer. I don't even live in the same town anymore.
"things in computing don't typically have simple parallels to everyday things (other than computers :) )."
But see thats the thing. Windows makes an attempt to have real world examples of everything it does. Its designed to be easy to use.
No, its not because they are lazy or unmotivated or because just don't try. Linux is not an easy operating system for an inexperienced user to use.
"heck, when i first booted mandrake, i didn't know what to do with a tarball or how to use the command line."
Please. Equating not knowing what a tarball is with being a computer newbie is just being a jackass. Most intermediate users don't know what a tarball is and have never used a command line. That doesn't make them idiots. If you are running your own webserver, you are not part of the population we are talking about and thus your experience is irrelevant to the conversation.
My mom (who has been using computers for some time so she is more experienced that those we are talking about) still gets confused and wonders what happened to the Internet if she clicks on the IE icon and gets a page other than www.msn.com. She would be utterly confused on a system like Linux.
Business look at a lot more than just the price tag down at BestBuy when determining how much something costs. They have to look at the entire TCO. The amount of money you spend buying the actual software is far from the only consideration they have to consider.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Linux is not currently an operating system for inexperienced computer users. It generally requires some knowledge as to how computers work. If you have that knowledge, sure it is easy to use. But most people in the world do not have that knowledge.
For starters, how many times have Windows users had to restart their computers in order to install a critical security patch in the last year?
I would say most Linux users these days once used Windows as their primary OS but were then able to switch. Sure, the less technically inclinded portion of the population will not be able to do that, but I wouldn't recommend that they start out on Linux in the first place.
Legal issues aside, most of us do not use Linux because it is cheaper, we use it because it is a superior operating system. Hell I already have the Windows OS that came with my PC (so it might as well be free for me as well). The fallacy that people only use Linux because they are cheap unemployed hackers is just that, a fallacy.
Desktops or total (including servers)?
The issue invovled PCs at a technical college, so I assume they train students for jobs that will require more than opening up Word or checking their email.
But the fact is, how common are Macs in todays world? They have a loyal following sure, but in the workplace I do not believe they are near as common as Windows or Unix/Linux boxes. A university or college is an educational institution designed to teach their students skills that can be applied to the real world. Thus it would be more beneficial for them to use machines that will be used in the workspace. Not to sound like flamebait, but the real problem thus isn't that they are ignoring the Mac minority, but that they are ignoring the fact that Unix/Linux machines are in wide use in the real world.