One, if that's a point-by-point rebuttal, it's an extremely poor one (since he didn't cover all the points). It seems much more likely that he was quoting for reference.
Two, there's nothing wrong with making a point-by-point rebuttal of an argument. It may not be the most elegant way to make a counter-argument, but it's certainly not as frowned upon as you seem to be implying.
Lastly, please grow up. Piecemeal responses may impress no one, but vicious and petty comments like yours only serve to lower everyone's opinion of you. Find somewhere positive to vent your anger, please.
I think you're missing the thrust of my point. I don't have any gripe with WINE, as compatibility layers are a good thing. In fact, WINE can come in handy in a number of different situations. My gripe is a little more subtle - marketing Linux as a Windows emulation platform (which it can do, but not very well) when it has competing software that is both free and superior. There is nothing wrong with -having- a Windows compatibility layer, but saying "And you won't even have to get rid of your proprietary, buggy software - and we'll even make it feel the same!" is just plain silly. If you want it to look and feel like Windows and use ut Windows apps instead of their free/open source alternatives - um, excuse me for being obvious but...use Windows. It works better for that.
The lack of savvy Linux users out there to help people get set up and give them some minimal training is indeed an issue in furthering the spread of Linux and other open-source operating systems. Also, there is no proof, per se, that mimicking Windows is a mistake. You are also correct in saying that I would argue that is is, though.
My first set of experiences with Linux were with "user friendly" distributions. Mandrake 9.2 comes to mind. Not only did the (albeit minimal) Windows-mimicking not impress me, it turned me off. It turned me off because I wasn't looking for something that acted like Windows (poorly) and was just as full of bugs and flaky behaviour as Windows itself. If I wanted poor UI design and bugs, I could stay with Windows (without losing the software I was accustomed to).
Debian, however, impressed me a lot. It didn't
try to be Windows (out of the box - I'm not trying to start a distro flame war, and I'm not ignorant, so please spare us all the trouble) and it had a reasonably simple installation. It took a bit of tweaking to get it right for my hardware, and that is an issue that (as mentioned) does need work. Debian was what ultimately convinced me to switch to Linux. I had a similar experience with FreeBSD, although I ultimately decided that I liked the feel of Debian a bit better.
My point is that a clean and clearly superior operating system speaks for itself. Several of my friends have now switched to Linux simply from my offhanded comments and observing me using it. They're not techno-geeks by any stretch either, but once they see that it isn't as scary as it sounds (FUD), they're willing to give it a good solid try.
I clearly don't have the solution to the "Linux isn't popular enough" problem. Ideally, we'd put a core of Linux geeks in the center of every village and let it spread by grassroots, but that isn't going to happen. Instead, I think the best solution we have at the moment is to get better "out of the box" support without trying to win over the "I want a poor Windows clone" crowd. Ubuntu, by all accounts, fares farely well out of the box. This, I think, will be more of a win for the Linux community than any amount of Windows envy.
The idea that making Linux more compatible with Windows will make it "more ready for the desktop" is just plain wrongheaded.
Linux as it stands is more than ready for the desktop. I use Debian on my desktop at home, and have never needed to boot into Windows to get anything done. Neither has my far-from-technophile wife. I actually find Debian to be much more user friendly than Windows and have been able to show several nontechnical people how to use it without problems (once it is set up and installed).
Sure, people might miss the ability to play their favorite first-person-shooter, and openoffice.org or the gnome office tools might take a little getting used to for a Windows user, but this is a minor (and passing) inconvenience.
The general feeling I get that making Linux act like Windows will make it ready for the desktop just makes me scratch my head in wonder. Are you all idiots? Linux is better than Windows. That's the whole point. Why try to make it act like an inferior system? Why even bother switching to Linux at all if you're just going to turn it into a poorly behaving Windows wannabe?
Slashdot Mirror
One, if that's a point-by-point rebuttal, it's an extremely poor one (since he didn't cover all the points). It seems much more likely that he was quoting for reference. Two, there's nothing wrong with making a point-by-point rebuttal of an argument. It may not be the most elegant way to make a counter-argument, but it's certainly not as frowned upon as you seem to be implying. Lastly, please grow up. Piecemeal responses may impress no one, but vicious and petty comments like yours only serve to lower everyone's opinion of you. Find somewhere positive to vent your anger, please.
I think you're missing the thrust of my point. I don't have any gripe with WINE, as compatibility layers are a good thing. In fact, WINE can come in handy in a number of different situations. My gripe is a little more subtle - marketing Linux as a Windows emulation platform (which it can do, but not very well) when it has competing software that is both free and superior. There is nothing wrong with -having- a Windows compatibility layer, but saying "And you won't even have to get rid of your proprietary, buggy software - and we'll even make it feel the same!" is just plain silly. If you want it to look and feel like Windows and use ut Windows apps instead of their free/open source alternatives - um, excuse me for being obvious but...use Windows. It works better for that.
The lack of savvy Linux users out there to help people get set up and give them some minimal training is indeed an issue in furthering the spread of Linux and other open-source operating systems. Also, there is no proof, per se, that mimicking Windows is a mistake. You are also correct in saying that I would argue that is is, though.
My first set of experiences with Linux were with "user friendly" distributions. Mandrake 9.2 comes to mind. Not only did the (albeit minimal) Windows-mimicking not impress me, it turned me off. It turned me off because I wasn't looking for something that acted like Windows (poorly) and was just as full of bugs and flaky behaviour as Windows itself. If I wanted poor UI design and bugs, I could stay with Windows (without losing the software I was accustomed to).
Debian, however, impressed me a lot. It didn't try to be Windows (out of the box - I'm not trying to start a distro flame war, and I'm not ignorant, so please spare us all the trouble) and it had a reasonably simple installation. It took a bit of tweaking to get it right for my hardware, and that is an issue that (as mentioned) does need work. Debian was what ultimately convinced me to switch to Linux. I had a similar experience with FreeBSD, although I ultimately decided that I liked the feel of Debian a bit better.
My point is that a clean and clearly superior operating system speaks for itself. Several of my friends have now switched to Linux simply from my offhanded comments and observing me using it. They're not techno-geeks by any stretch either, but once they see that it isn't as scary as it sounds (FUD), they're willing to give it a good solid try.
I clearly don't have the solution to the "Linux isn't popular enough" problem. Ideally, we'd put a core of Linux geeks in the center of every village and let it spread by grassroots, but that isn't going to happen. Instead, I think the best solution we have at the moment is to get better "out of the box" support without trying to win over the "I want a poor Windows clone" crowd. Ubuntu, by all accounts, fares farely well out of the box. This, I think, will be more of a win for the Linux community than any amount of Windows envy.
The idea that making Linux more compatible with Windows will make it "more ready for the desktop" is just plain wrongheaded. Linux as it stands is more than ready for the desktop. I use Debian on my desktop at home, and have never needed to boot into Windows to get anything done. Neither has my far-from-technophile wife. I actually find Debian to be much more user friendly than Windows and have been able to show several nontechnical people how to use it without problems (once it is set up and installed). Sure, people might miss the ability to play their favorite first-person-shooter, and openoffice.org or the gnome office tools might take a little getting used to for a Windows user, but this is a minor (and passing) inconvenience. The general feeling I get that making Linux act like Windows will make it ready for the desktop just makes me scratch my head in wonder. Are you all idiots? Linux is better than Windows. That's the whole point. Why try to make it act like an inferior system? Why even bother switching to Linux at all if you're just going to turn it into a poorly behaving Windows wannabe?