From: kfogel@mark1.cs.oberlin.edu (Karl Fogel) Subject: Re: [ADV] Marketing Linux Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:05:42 GMT
In article <KETIL.92Oct5192229@spurv.ii.uib.no> ketil@spurv.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde) writes:
In article <KFOGEL.92Oct3205017@eniac.cs.oberlin.edu> kfogel@eniac.cs.oberlin.edu (Karl Fogel) writes:
> No doubt. I like the way microsoft makes the idea of having a graphical
> operating system that runs on a variety of platforms. Sounds like
> they're trying to re-invent X-Windows... except without a powerful
> command line interface. Dragging icons around is nice, but its not an
> effecient way to get things done.
This is just IMHO, but I think the sad fact is that as
inefficient as we may feel Windows and the soon-to-be-crowned Window
NT are, most users would find Unix difficult to learn and risky to use
("What, rm * will PERMANENTLY delete everything? Ugh!"). Frankly, to
most people, Windows or Mac OS are as good as it gets in GUIs these
[...]
saying is that people tend to stick with what they know unless there's a
compelling reason to change -- and there isn't here, since people
can get done what they need to get done in DOS. They don't know how
ugly their OS is on the inside, or that there's something wrong with
having to copy all the files in a directory and then delete them just to
move the directory somewhere else, and they don't care. Only a very few
will get excited about fee Unix. I agree that we should do what we can
to reach those few, but let's not expect everyone to come running...
How about money as a reason? And I'mnot talking of just the OS. In a
recent magazine (don't remember which, but I think it was a local one)
there was a comparision of setting up a fairly typical LAN with either
the ms-dos, novell, etc, or Unix software. With the nescessary
hardware and software, for systems administration and work.
The unix system was markably cheaper than the more MSdos one, and at
least in *my* opinion (surprise!) a lot cleaner.
But I agree, people will find it hard to migrate from the familiar
environment of ms-dos. Perhaps we could put together DOS-emulating
startup files? (Yuk!)
--
= Ketil Malde In real life: ketil@ii.uib.no =
=========== (all quotes end here) ===========================
I would hope that people would see the light, but if you compare
the amount of upkeep a Linux system needs with the amount DOS (or NT)
will need, it's understandable why people would feel safer with the com-
mercial product. I don't think Linux will ever be an easy operating system,
because the kinds of things that have to be done to it in order to make it
easy and safe to use are the kinds of things none of us want to write,
because we're all already comfortable with Unix. Now, in a commercial
product, people are writing things they don't want to write because they
are being paid for it. But in free software, who's gonna take the time
to make a DOS-like bash extension to make new users more comfortable?
I've got more exciting things to do, as I suspect is true for most of
us :-)
This thread is more than idle talk... I'd love to see some
way to get Linux (and free software in general) accepted as much as
it should be, but what Linux offers is not what the majority of PC
owners are looking for. Maybe when 1.0 is out some interest can be
drummed up about making it friendlier for the uninitiated (i.e., the
DOS/NT-bound masses). I guess I'd work on a project like that (uggh,
restrictive shells and all)...