So an argument which only applies to corporate America -- that is, to a huge portion of the computers that exist in the US -- is an outdated argument?
Where I faulted IE in the past was when they were dictating de facto web standards. I don't care what they do in a corporate environment. In fact, I understand the need for the integration that IE offers in a corporate environment because I've developed and deployed in such environments.
Yeah, remember the whole OOXML debacle? The fact that the format can be read, and that we know it's supposed to be "SpacedLikeWordPerfect3.5.1" or whatever, is not the end of the story. It means we still have to pick up a copy of that specific version of Word, or WordPerfect, or Works, or whatever, and reverse engineer that.
So what do you propose MS do? Open their document format up? Who even knows how possible this is, given possible outside licensing issues and such. The fact remains, however, that word supports open formats. It's not as if they can force people to use them.
Again: This is a solved problem.
How do I know? Because Adobe solved it. Id Software solved it. Epic Games solved it. 2DBoy solved it. Autodesk solved it.
Just because they solved it does not by any means make it ideal. Look at the success of Xbox 360 vs PS3. I believe it to be a good analogue. PS3: technically superior, more open, better media capability. Xbox 360: easier to develop for. The latter trumps all. Plenty of game devs have "solved" developing for PS3. That doesn't mean they don't despise it. And the PS3 suffers because of it.
That makes sense. It's also a different argument -- "no use" is quite different than "no marketability". Lisp is pretty hard to market, but those who use it seem to find quite a lot of utility.
IE is shipped out of the box, and some websites are IE-only. That is finally shifting, recently.
With the exception of company intranets, this has been a non-issue for years. Stop clinging to outdated arguments.
You might argue that OpenOffice isn't better, but right now, it simply doesn't have a chance, when so much development time is spent reverse engineering old Windows formats.
Do you think that simply because you make the assertion that "so much development time is spent reverse engineering old Windows formats" everyone will accept that as truth? Are you blowing smoke, or can you actually produce evidence that proves this statement? OOO has been able to read Word files for YEARS. They just can't render them consistently. Even if this were a non-issue, Word and the Office suite still blows OOO away.
I would think a developer would care about being able to completely customize their environment, in pretty much any way they want.
This isn't about the developers environment. It's about the target environment, which with Linux, you never know exactly what the target is. This is not so much a problem with OSS, but we're talking ISV's developing CSS. Now if you think that Desktop Linux can ever achieve real success without CSS, then you're sorely mistaken.
And yet, somehow, most of the commercial programs which have been released haven't broken because of that.
Then why does Opera have to release a new installation package for each Ubuntu release?
In fact, in one breath, you whine that developers are forced to use "hard-to-learn and outdated technology", and in the other, you whine that backwards compatibility is broken. Which is it?
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are you implying that these are mutually exclusive??
On the other hand, most OS X programs at least require Tiger, if not Leopard. New OS X releases frequently break tons of apps.
Yeah, and OS X will remain a niche consumer OS for this reason.
With how coherent the rest of your comment is, I don't know if I'd call it "crappy" or not, but it certainly works on Windows [tinyurl.com]. If this particular whine is about Cocoa not being portable, well, neither is Win32, unless you're counting Wine -- yet, surprisingly, it's possible to write portable apps in C, even C++.
Ok, we'll play by your rules. Yes, you can technically use objective-c on Windows and Linux. My point is that Objective-C only makes you marketable in the OS X/iPhone world, whereas Java, C, C++, Python, ruby are entirely agnostic. Even.NET has more value in the Linux world than objective-c does anywhere else.
Do you have a situation where you can demonstrate that the network transparency of X is a bottleneck?
I'm trying to dig up a PDF I read on the subject a while back. Part of the problem is that since it was meant to run over a network the protocol is asynchronous by nature. This introduces all sorts of possible weirdness that is completely unnecessary. There are clearly issues with the driver model since Nvidia is the only vendor that managed to release a driver with full acceleration by bypassing x.org's own facilities.
If Linux is not Unix, why does it still carry around all this cruft? Desktop Linux starts with a new display manager.
Exactly. Gnome is fundamentally broken because GTK is antiquated. I for one applaud KDE for having the balls to break everything for the sake of advancement. If a few other key components of the Linux desktop would do the same (x.org comes to mind, do away with the client/server paradigm,among many other things...), Desktop Linux might actually be somewhere in 3-4 years.
If you have those, you can force anything on your customers.
Lock-in, huh? Examples? Can't say IE, because Firefox is available elsewhere. Can't say Microsoft Office, simply because there is nothing better out there. Microsoft is the most widely used OS because "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS." Steve Ballmer is a crazy chair throwing fuck, but at least he gets that. Linux doesn't care about developers -- In fact using hard-to-learn and outdated technology is a badge of honor in their world. There is also the fact developing for Linux is a pain in the ass since there is no standard development stack. Or distribution. Or... anything. Sure, freedom is great. It also sucks ass. And yes, backwards compatibility matters, a lot. An ISV makes a program, they don't want it breaking with every cleverly named alliteration release of your operating system.
And, in Apples case, you're made to learn a crappy language that has absolutely no use outside Mac OS and Iphone development. BTW - Thats Lock-in.
I've used eclipse and Visual Studio both, professionally. Visual Studio blows eclipse away, and C# blows Java away. I gotta admit though, I use Visual Studio with the resharper plugin, which is developed by JetBrains, which adds a lot of functionality of IntelliJ IDEA (Java IDE), which blows eclipse away. Either way, just thinking about eclipse makes me shudder.
Here is my personal experience -- My Windows games, with all the settings maxed out, perform better (can be even 20fps difference) running under Wine/Crossover+x.org+Linux than natively under Windows. The only issue graphically is fonts, and that's caused by patent issues.
The assumption you're making here is that this is because of X. It could very well be the handling of DirectX calls to less expensive OpenGL equivalents at the expense of graphical quality. This is just a thought, and I would be interested in seeing the graphical differences of native vs wine/crossover/x.org/linux.
The idea that the display manager alone would result in a 20fps increase (especially considering X11 doesn't seem particularly suited for such a task) seems a bit outlandish to me.
Maybe you have encountered zealots before and now you think there's one hiding behind every corner, as though they have traumatized you in some way.
I did have to laugh at this. Slashdot is a traumatizing place if your goal is reasonable and objective discussion. Part of my fun here is pointing out the ironies in peoples arguments.
So now that you've made the mistake, you feel committed to it no matter how useless that is.
This is something I pride myself in not being. I (try to) let my thoughts and views on anything everything evolve as time goes on. As far as arguing against points you never made? Yes, I was. Perhaps because I'm arguing against the FOSS, or more appropriately RMS mindset, not necessarily you in particular. But I do admit that I made assertions about you and your viewpoint that weren't necessarily true. So for that, I'm sorry.
Now, back to the issue at hand. It is important for people to understand the differences and incompatibility of GPL vs Ms-PL. On the other hand, it is also important to understand why this is necessary from Microsoft's perspective. Lets not rain on their parade -- It is a step in the right direction.
In reality, people like you are a dime a dozen. You think you know the first thing about me, including what I believe, how I am motivated and why I might say what I say.
What you say defines the perception of your character. You appear no different than most people on slashdot, seemingly intelligent yet pigeon-holed by an ideology that cripples your ability see the world (specifically the technology industry) in an objective manner. All things corporate and CSS are inherently bad (specifically Microsoft), while all things GPL and FOSS are inherently good. This is not true. Both have led to innovations. There is *nothing* wrong with owning sole rights to your source code and profiting from your hard work. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either ideology.
Your assertion that Microsoft's OSS intentions are simply a ploy because they don't use the GPL are ridiculous and short-sighted. Microsoft is, after all, a business and as such using a license that essentially offers their competitors the ability to freely use their code, while Microsoft would not be able to incorporate others' GPL code into their own products, would be an entirely counter-productive business practice. Now, before you go make the argument that, "Yes, Microsoft could use GPL'd code if they just GPL'd their own code," let's assess the absurdity of such a statement. Besides issues regarding other licensed source code in their products, it would require them to adopt an entirely different business model, which not only would be far less profitable, but the process alone would incur massive costs. The bottom line is that YES, Microsoft could use GPL if they were to change their ideology, just the same as GPL software could use MS OSS if they were to change their ideology. My problem, in particular with your argument, is where do you get off saying that the GPL is a holy standard that others must adhere to?
The simple fact is that Microsoft has the same access to GPLed code as anyone else does, and there is absolutely no reason why it should be otherwise. If their ideology prevents them from taking advantage of that fact, then that is nobody's problem but their own, and they are free to write their own code.
EXACTLY. That's my point! See, here's the problem -- Microsoft isn't the one complaining that they can't use GPL code. It's the GPL folks complaining that they can't use MS OSS code. Why? Because of idealogical differences.
So just like you say, GPL folks have the same access to Microsoft's open code as everyone else. Their ideology prevents them from taking advantage of that fact.
Ok -- So what you're saying is that Microsoft should change its entire business model to cater to the GPL folks. See, what you're suggesting is asinine.
demonizing me and calling me "zealot" and other names because I dared to make observations and support them with reason
Sorry, your long winded response isn't going to convince me otherwise. The article and summary simply stated that Microsoft had released open-source software, which they did. You're an evangelist of a particular open source license that has all sorts of religion behind it, preaching down other licenses that don't align themselves with your principles. To say that nobody will find this useful is ridiculous. Sure, your "community" might not have any use for it. What is it with your community and their sense of entitlement?
The first choice is to ignore it and avoid using it, because I would certainly expect Microsoft to vigorously pursue anyone who violates their license.
Yeah, and what would happen if MS was found using GPL'd code in their software?
So Microsoft can't use GPL code, and you're totally cool with that. But as soon as GPL'd code can't incorporate MS OSS, it's some sort crime against humanity? Do you realize how stupid this is?
Microsoft is a business. GPL'd software is their competitor. If they want to start releasing OSS software, why would they release code that their competitor could use freely, while they couldn't touch their competitors code. Do you see the stupidity in your complaint? I think it's great that Microsoft is joining the open source game, and I sure as hell don't blame them for being smart about it.
IE8 passes the Acid 2 test which is a huge milestone for compliance. No non-beta browsers currently pass Acid 3, so IE8 is catching up. Safari 4, Chrome 2 and Opera 10 do pass, so IE still has a lot of work to do.
Yes, it does adhere to standards. Does that mean a page that looks one way in firefox will look the same in IE8? No, for the same reason it won't look the same in Opera or Safari/Chrome -- No renderer is rendering standard compliant html exactly the same.
Of course, that won't stop people from crying foul against MS, even though they really have turned things around with IE8.
There is a huge difference in consumer and enterprise support. The point being, if you own an enterprise license they bend over backward for you. The same with paid support for OSS. Point being, either way you're paying for it.
Check boxes and text boxes replace manual editing of config files. I have no beef with that. It's not as if manually editing an apache config is going to make you proficient in scripting for automation. Windows provides that functionality in PowerShell, it's not their fault people don't know how to use it.
I totally understand what you're saying about the "Windows Admin" type. I guess I don't blame Microsoft for making their systems accessible enough for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to technically "administer" a system. But even in the Linux world, there are people who know just enough to be dangerous.
people seem to think throwing money at proprietary software will magically solve their problems, and that they will go away for ever.
Do you know why SERIOUS businesses "throw" money at proprietary software? Because one of the first clauses in any OSS license states that the software comes with NO WARRANTY, meaning that if it fucks your shit up, no one can be held accountable. There is also the fact that there is no contractual obligation to continue support for the software. Oh, sure, "It's open source, you can fix everything yourself!" This is one of my favorite idealistic arguments of FOSS proponents that doesn't take into account the man hours that would be required not only to learn and understand the code base, but then to make the required modifications. So, your safest option is to purchase a support contract, which of course means that you're "throwing" money at FOSS. At this point, there is no real inherent benefit to using FOSS, and your choice in software is going to be based on it's quality and technical merits.
potentially turn FOSS into an almost "Windows Admin" type of system
I don't understand this, and maybe I'm taking it out of context, but are you saying it would be bad for Linux to become more user-friendly to configure? Why is it that FOSS users see the difficulty in administering and maintaining their systems as a badge of honor? I've maintained BSD and Linux servers, as well as Windows servers. I certainly do not view myself as "weak" because I prefer an easy to use GUI to administer a system.
This is slashdot, the same website that looks down on people who don't want to switch from Windows to linux, become proficient with the command line or learn console editors like vim and emacs. Yet these same crybabies then go on to say that it will take them 6 months to adjust to a glorified text box.
Slashdot Mirror
I was once addicted to willpower.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance.
So an argument which only applies to corporate America -- that is, to a huge portion of the computers that exist in the US -- is an outdated argument?
Where I faulted IE in the past was when they were dictating de facto web standards. I don't care what they do in a corporate environment. In fact, I understand the need for the integration that IE offers in a corporate environment because I've developed and deployed in such environments.
Yeah, remember the whole OOXML debacle? The fact that the format can be read, and that we know it's supposed to be "SpacedLikeWordPerfect3.5.1" or whatever, is not the end of the story. It means we still have to pick up a copy of that specific version of Word, or WordPerfect, or Works, or whatever, and reverse engineer that.
So what do you propose MS do? Open their document format up? Who even knows how possible this is, given possible outside licensing issues and such. The fact remains, however, that word supports open formats. It's not as if they can force people to use them.
Again: This is a solved problem. How do I know? Because Adobe solved it. Id Software solved it. Epic Games solved it. 2DBoy solved it. Autodesk solved it.
Just because they solved it does not by any means make it ideal. Look at the success of Xbox 360 vs PS3. I believe it to be a good analogue. PS3: technically superior, more open, better media capability. Xbox 360: easier to develop for. The latter trumps all. Plenty of game devs have "solved" developing for PS3. That doesn't mean they don't despise it. And the PS3 suffers because of it.
That makes sense. It's also a different argument -- "no use" is quite different than "no marketability". Lisp is pretty hard to market, but those who use it seem to find quite a lot of utility.
Granted.
IE is shipped out of the box, and some websites are IE-only. That is finally shifting, recently.
With the exception of company intranets, this has been a non-issue for years. Stop clinging to outdated arguments.
You might argue that OpenOffice isn't better, but right now, it simply doesn't have a chance, when so much development time is spent reverse engineering old Windows formats.
Do you think that simply because you make the assertion that "so much development time is spent reverse engineering old Windows formats" everyone will accept that as truth? Are you blowing smoke, or can you actually produce evidence that proves this statement? OOO has been able to read Word files for YEARS. They just can't render them consistently. Even if this were a non-issue, Word and the Office suite still blows OOO away.
I would think a developer would care about being able to completely customize their environment, in pretty much any way they want.
This isn't about the developers environment. It's about the target environment, which with Linux, you never know exactly what the target is. This is not so much a problem with OSS, but we're talking ISV's developing CSS. Now if you think that Desktop Linux can ever achieve real success without CSS, then you're sorely mistaken.
And yet, somehow, most of the commercial programs which have been released haven't broken because of that.
Then why does Opera have to release a new installation package for each Ubuntu release?
In fact, in one breath, you whine that developers are forced to use "hard-to-learn and outdated technology", and in the other, you whine that backwards compatibility is broken. Which is it?
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are you implying that these are mutually exclusive??
On the other hand, most OS X programs at least require Tiger, if not Leopard. New OS X releases frequently break tons of apps.
Yeah, and OS X will remain a niche consumer OS for this reason.
With how coherent the rest of your comment is, I don't know if I'd call it "crappy" or not, but it certainly works on Windows [tinyurl.com]. If this particular whine is about Cocoa not being portable, well, neither is Win32, unless you're counting Wine -- yet, surprisingly, it's possible to write portable apps in C, even C++.
Ok, we'll play by your rules. Yes, you can technically use objective-c on Windows and Linux. My point is that Objective-C only makes you marketable in the OS X/iPhone world, whereas Java, C, C++, Python, ruby are entirely agnostic. Even .NET has more value in the Linux world than objective-c does anywhere else.
Was that coherent enough for you?
Do you have a situation where you can demonstrate that the network transparency of X is a bottleneck?
I'm trying to dig up a PDF I read on the subject a while back. Part of the problem is that since it was meant to run over a network the protocol is asynchronous by nature. This introduces all sorts of possible weirdness that is completely unnecessary. There are clearly issues with the driver model since Nvidia is the only vendor that managed to release a driver with full acceleration by bypassing x.org's own facilities.
If Linux is not Unix, why does it still carry around all this cruft? Desktop Linux starts with a new display manager.
GTK simply isn't good
Exactly. Gnome is fundamentally broken because GTK is antiquated. I for one applaud KDE for having the balls to break everything for the sake of advancement. If a few other key components of the Linux desktop would do the same (x.org comes to mind, do away with the client/server paradigm,among many other things...), Desktop Linux might actually be somewhere in 3-4 years.
If you have those, you can force anything on your customers.
Lock-in, huh? Examples? Can't say IE, because Firefox is available elsewhere. Can't say Microsoft Office, simply because there is nothing better out there. Microsoft is the most widely used OS because "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS." Steve Ballmer is a crazy chair throwing fuck, but at least he gets that. Linux doesn't care about developers -- In fact using hard-to-learn and outdated technology is a badge of honor in their world. There is also the fact developing for Linux is a pain in the ass since there is no standard development stack. Or distribution. Or... anything. Sure, freedom is great. It also sucks ass. And yes, backwards compatibility matters, a lot. An ISV makes a program, they don't want it breaking with every cleverly named alliteration release of your operating system.
And, in Apples case, you're made to learn a crappy language that has absolutely no use outside Mac OS and Iphone development. BTW - Thats Lock-in.
Kinda like they "accidentally" leaked the beta. Looks like Microsoft is finally catching onto this whole marketing thing.
I've used eclipse and Visual Studio both, professionally. Visual Studio blows eclipse away, and C# blows Java away. I gotta admit though, I use Visual Studio with the resharper plugin, which is developed by JetBrains, which adds a lot of functionality of IntelliJ IDEA (Java IDE), which blows eclipse away. Either way, just thinking about eclipse makes me shudder.
to run Vista. Finally h/w is catching up!!
I have never heard such an assertion before! Your wit is only exceeded by your originality!
Here is my personal experience -- My Windows games, with all the settings maxed out, perform better (can be even 20fps difference) running under Wine/Crossover+x.org+Linux than natively under Windows. The only issue graphically is fonts, and that's caused by patent issues.
The assumption you're making here is that this is because of X. It could very well be the handling of DirectX calls to less expensive OpenGL equivalents at the expense of graphical quality. This is just a thought, and I would be interested in seeing the graphical differences of native vs wine/crossover/x.org/linux.
The idea that the display manager alone would result in a 20fps increase (especially considering X11 doesn't seem particularly suited for such a task) seems a bit outlandish to me.
Maybe you have encountered zealots before and now you think there's one hiding behind every corner, as though they have traumatized you in some way.
I did have to laugh at this. Slashdot is a traumatizing place if your goal is reasonable and objective discussion. Part of my fun here is pointing out the ironies in peoples arguments.
So now that you've made the mistake, you feel committed to it no matter how useless that is.
This is something I pride myself in not being. I (try to) let my thoughts and views on anything everything evolve as time goes on. As far as arguing against points you never made? Yes, I was. Perhaps because I'm arguing against the FOSS, or more appropriately RMS mindset, not necessarily you in particular. But I do admit that I made assertions about you and your viewpoint that weren't necessarily true. So for that, I'm sorry.
Now, back to the issue at hand. It is important for people to understand the differences and incompatibility of GPL vs Ms-PL. On the other hand, it is also important to understand why this is necessary from Microsoft's perspective. Lets not rain on their parade -- It is a step in the right direction.
In reality, people like you are a dime a dozen. You think you know the first thing about me, including what I believe, how I am motivated and why I might say what I say.
What you say defines the perception of your character. You appear no different than most people on slashdot, seemingly intelligent yet pigeon-holed by an ideology that cripples your ability see the world (specifically the technology industry) in an objective manner. All things corporate and CSS are inherently bad (specifically Microsoft), while all things GPL and FOSS are inherently good. This is not true. Both have led to innovations. There is *nothing* wrong with owning sole rights to your source code and profiting from your hard work. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either ideology.
Your assertion that Microsoft's OSS intentions are simply a ploy because they don't use the GPL are ridiculous and short-sighted. Microsoft is, after all, a business and as such using a license that essentially offers their competitors the ability to freely use their code, while Microsoft would not be able to incorporate others' GPL code into their own products, would be an entirely counter-productive business practice. Now, before you go make the argument that, "Yes, Microsoft could use GPL'd code if they just GPL'd their own code," let's assess the absurdity of such a statement. Besides issues regarding other licensed source code in their products, it would require them to adopt an entirely different business model, which not only would be far less profitable, but the process alone would incur massive costs. The bottom line is that YES, Microsoft could use GPL if they were to change their ideology, just the same as GPL software could use MS OSS if they were to change their ideology. My problem, in particular with your argument, is where do you get off saying that the GPL is a holy standard that others must adhere to?
The simple fact is that Microsoft has the same access to GPLed code as anyone else does, and there is absolutely no reason why it should be otherwise. If their ideology prevents them from taking advantage of that fact, then that is nobody's problem but their own, and they are free to write their own code.
EXACTLY. That's my point! See, here's the problem -- Microsoft isn't the one complaining that they can't use GPL code. It's the GPL folks complaining that they can't use MS OSS code. Why? Because of idealogical differences.
So just like you say, GPL folks have the same access to Microsoft's open code as everyone else. Their ideology prevents them from taking advantage of that fact.
Ok -- So what you're saying is that Microsoft should change its entire business model to cater to the GPL folks. See, what you're suggesting is asinine.
demonizing me and calling me "zealot" and other names because I dared to make observations and support them with reason
Sorry, your long winded response isn't going to convince me otherwise. The article and summary simply stated that Microsoft had released open-source software, which they did. You're an evangelist of a particular open source license that has all sorts of religion behind it, preaching down other licenses that don't align themselves with your principles. To say that nobody will find this useful is ridiculous. Sure, your "community" might not have any use for it. What is it with your community and their sense of entitlement?
The first choice is to ignore it and avoid using it, because I would certainly expect Microsoft to vigorously pursue anyone who violates their license.
Yeah, and what would happen if MS was found using GPL'd code in their software?
So Microsoft can't use GPL code, and you're totally cool with that. But as soon as GPL'd code can't incorporate MS OSS, it's some sort crime against humanity? Do you realize how stupid this is?
Microsoft is a business. GPL'd software is their competitor. If they want to start releasing OSS software, why would they release code that their competitor could use freely, while they couldn't touch their competitors code. Do you see the stupidity in your complaint? I think it's great that Microsoft is joining the open source game, and I sure as hell don't blame them for being smart about it.
So the question is, how much better is IE8?
IE8 passes the Acid 2 test which is a huge milestone for compliance. No non-beta browsers currently pass Acid 3, so IE8 is catching up. Safari 4, Chrome 2 and Opera 10 do pass, so IE still has a lot of work to do.
Yes, it does adhere to standards. Does that mean a page that looks one way in firefox will look the same in IE8? No, for the same reason it won't look the same in Opera or Safari/Chrome -- No renderer is rendering standard compliant html exactly the same.
Of course, that won't stop people from crying foul against MS, even though they really have turned things around with IE8.
Sounds like your typical Apple shill.
There is a huge difference in consumer and enterprise support. The point being, if you own an enterprise license they bend over backward for you. The same with paid support for OSS. Point being, either way you're paying for it.
Check boxes and text boxes replace manual editing of config files. I have no beef with that. It's not as if manually editing an apache config is going to make you proficient in scripting for automation. Windows provides that functionality in PowerShell, it's not their fault people don't know how to use it.
I totally understand what you're saying about the "Windows Admin" type. I guess I don't blame Microsoft for making their systems accessible enough for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to technically "administer" a system. But even in the Linux world, there are people who know just enough to be dangerous.
people seem to think throwing money at proprietary software will magically solve their problems, and that they will go away for ever.
Do you know why SERIOUS businesses "throw" money at proprietary software? Because one of the first clauses in any OSS license states that the software comes with NO WARRANTY, meaning that if it fucks your shit up, no one can be held accountable. There is also the fact that there is no contractual obligation to continue support for the software. Oh, sure, "It's open source, you can fix everything yourself!" This is one of my favorite idealistic arguments of FOSS proponents that doesn't take into account the man hours that would be required not only to learn and understand the code base, but then to make the required modifications. So, your safest option is to purchase a support contract, which of course means that you're "throwing" money at FOSS. At this point, there is no real inherent benefit to using FOSS, and your choice in software is going to be based on it's quality and technical merits.
potentially turn FOSS into an almost "Windows Admin" type of system
I don't understand this, and maybe I'm taking it out of context, but are you saying it would be bad for Linux to become more user-friendly to configure? Why is it that FOSS users see the difficulty in administering and maintaining their systems as a badge of honor? I've maintained BSD and Linux servers, as well as Windows servers. I certainly do not view myself as "weak" because I prefer an easy to use GUI to administer a system.
This is slashdot, the same website that looks down on people who don't want to switch from Windows to linux, become proficient with the command line or learn console editors like vim and emacs. Yet these same crybabies then go on to say that it will take them 6 months to adjust to a glorified text box.
I love slashdot because I love the irony.