Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 18:15:17 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> To: "Paul Robinson" <paul@akita.co.uk>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: A breath of fresh air.. Message-ID: <000b01c17f42$c23ab140$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <0112071641320B.01380@stinky.akitanet.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The author of the article is obviously laboring under some serious misconceptions. Most of what he writes seems to be an apology for Linux being different from Windows, and he spends most of his time trying to prove how closely Linux can approach the look and feel and ergonomy of Windows. He seems to overlook the fact that he is effectively negating the whole utility of Linux; after all, if you want something that looks and works like Windows, your best bet is to install Windows, not an imitation. He also says: "More and more, people get Linux from a commercial distribution packager, install it (often with help from members of a local Linux Users Group), and don't tamper with the kernel or other "underlying" system processes at all." In other words, buy Linux just as you buy Windows, and become dependent on a Linux packager instead of Microsoft. What's to be gained by this? You're in the same rut either way. You are still beholden to a commercial vendor, you are still paying money for your software, and you are still dead in the water if something goes wrong, since you never bothered to figure out how anything behind the pretty package actually works. If you want a commercial, turnkey desktop package, buy Windows--or, if you can't stand Microsoft, buy a Mac. This article is further evidence that a lot of Linux users are quite clueless. I don't know exactly what motivates them to toss all the strengths of UNIX aside and spend their time reinventing the wheel, but it seems pretty pointless. Do people really hate Microsoft so much that they are willing to increase their own work and inconvenience by orders of magnitude just to have whatever Microsoft provides in every detail except the name? Robin goes on further to say: "None of these advances in Linux usability have much to with "classic" command line Linux, but so it goes. The ever-improving GUI (Graphical User Interface) is the future of desktop computing, no matter what operating system is running behind the user's monitor." Seems Robin has forgotten that UNIX is a server operating system. A GUI may be the future of the desktop (actually, that future is already here under Windows, which he seems to ignore), but why must the desktop be the future of Linux, or of any other version of UNIX? It's kind of like buying a high-performance racing car, and then trying to prove that it can haul sand and manure just as well as any pick-up truck. But if your purpose is to haul sand and manure, why not just buy the pick-up? My concern is that Robin and others like him (or her--not sure if it's a he or she) are going to kill off UNIX by trying to make it work as a desktop--where it will never come anywhere close to Windows, in all likelihood--while ignoring its obvious superiority as a server. Just because some of the Linux kiddies have never _seen_ a server doesn't mean that servers aren't important, too. I don't think that Hotmail and EverQuest servers are running Windows 98. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000b01c17f42$c23ab140$0a00000a>