ease of use debate

[Marvin Bellamy]

In-line comments...

Jonathan Hutchins wrote:

>I think it's unlikely that anyone will ever make money, or so much as break
>even, trying to beat Microsoft at it's own game.  Trying to do a "dumbed
>down" prepackaged, preconfigured, smooth, simple, easy desktop "for dummies"
>is their strength.  Why waste effort trying to imitate what they do best?
>
Because they SUCK!  M$ is a greedy, immoral organization and their 
"innovations" are driven by short-term profits, not improving their 
product.  Linux doesn't have to turn into M$, just make itself more 
easily  configurable/installable.  I would love to be able to 
*confidently* approach my boss with Linux as an alternative OS.  OT, I 
think I've got them convinced to use Linux/PostgreSQL instead of a much 
more expensive Win2000/SQLServer solution for our back-end.  I've seen 
some amazing stuff out of the Linux community, I'm still in awe that you 
can download a free OS that is equivalent to M$/Mac's.  If those guys 
thought it was a priority, I think they'd blow anything else away.

>
>I sincerely doubt that the Open Source development community has the
>discipline to refine, smooth, and polish software until it's as slick as the
>stuff from Redmond.
>
I'm going to tell Bill you said that :)

>
>Where our strengths lie are in power, intelligence, and flexibility - areas
>where Microsoft consistently looses.
>
>Let's play to our strengths, and not wallow in the mud with Bill.
>
Then, Linux should surrender the mainstream desktop market to M$ since 
they can do it better?  There's a lot of bitching about Win* products, 
never have I heard capitulation.  I think I'm whining about this point 
because I perceive Linux to be so close to overtaking Windows...