From: Neklan_Brozensky@mindlink.bc.ca (Neklan Brozensky) Subject: Re: Packaging Linux Date: 26 Nov 1992 02:18:04 GMT
> Drew Eckhardt writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <1992Nov20.233536.28788@colorado.edu>
> Posted: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:35:3
>
> Org. : University of Colorado at Boulder
> >>In article <17612@mindlink.bc.ca> Neklan_Brozensky@mindlink.bc.ca
> > (Neklan Brozensky) writes:
> >>
> >>>BTW I'm a new linux user, and like the original poster of this thread, I
> >>>agree that A simple prepackaged Xwindow linux could really make some
> noise on
> >>>the desktop, but *only* when it has DOS compatibility.
>
> Joe User won't port code, contribute fixes or source, and will annoy
> real Linux users with his whining about there not being a "real" editor,
> about Linux being difficult because it isn't dos, etc.
>
> So do we care if Joe User uses Linux?
>
> Linux works wonderfully for people who want a 386 unix that runs on
> a wide variety of hardware, uses a minimal amount of resources,
> has many Whizzy Features(tm) (ie, /proc, unified user memory pool / buffer
> cache, VFS layer, etc). On top of all that, you get full source and
> its free.
Maybe you don't care if 'Joe User' uses Linux... But the original topic of
this thread was packaging linux in such a way that it increases it's
atractiveness.
On the other hand, it appears that you would like to keep linux as a
hobbiest's OS. That is ok if that is what people want. Although in that case
I'm a bit puzzled why people arn't content in the packaging at present.
But when I hear people in this group spouting off about how linux can
challenge for a *real* share of the desktop market... How people want to
start running commercial apps on it /etc... that doesn't sound like a obscure
hobbist's OS.
And my point was that to be accepted as more than a hacker's OS requires DOS
emmulation. If IBM couldn't get acceptance on the desktop for OS/2 untill it
had a decent DOS emulation no other OS (linux included) has a chance untill
it does the same.
BTW: with dos emulation, you don't have PC weenies on your case about 'bad
editors' because they still get to run their own!
Neklan