Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 12:00:06 -0400 From: Stuart Krivis <ipswitch@kleenex.apk.net> To: FreeBSD Advocacy <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: ExBSD Message-ID: <8072844.990964800@[192.168.1.60]> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010523093020.017d3fb8@mail.threespace.com> References: <014301c0e249$debd93f0$0300a8c0@oracle> <4.3.2.7.2.20010523093020.017d3fb8@mail.threespace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:41 AM -0400 Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com> wrote: > At 07:24 AM 5/23/2001, you wrote: >> I'd say that unix is best used by the "average"' person in an >> environment where there is at least one person who knows unix well. >> >> Hmmm... that's true of Windows and MacOS also. So much for the >> user-friendly approach. > > > Even if this is true, I can probably find a dozen people who know Windows > well before I ran into one person who knew UNIX well. And then I'd have > to ask whether he was using my particular brand of UNIX. Unix is unix. Once someone learns one well, it's quite easy to figure out another one. The vast majority of things will transfer right over. I'm sure I can find a dozen people who "know"' Windows before finding one skilled Unix admin. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that those Windows admins generally can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. As a Unix admin, I am constantly having to diagnose problems for Windows admins who can't figure it out. Their overall lack of knowledge is frightening. As an example, 99% of the Windows admins I have run across think that pinging a mailserver is the way to tell if it is working or not. They have no idea that you can telnet to port 25 and see what's happening or not happening. You might then reply that they know Exchange and that SMTP, POP, and IMAP are not native to Exchange, so that's why they don't know them. Well, I hear about Exchange a lot too. When it stops working, they call for help. If it's really broken, they just re-install. > > My opinion/experience is that Windows is much easier to use than UNIX for > most desktop tasks, and things like the "Internet Connection Sharing > Wizard" make setting up DHCP servers much easier than editing routing > tables and config files in /etc. I don't think Windows offers as much Most of Windows networking is badly broken. Ease of use? Windows isn't easy to use. What you are seeing is the large number of people who already have some small amount of experience with some flavor of Windows, so they have a head start. > flexibility/power/stability as UNIX, but for lots of common tasks it's > "good enough." I believe that the ease of use factor and the easy to > use, easy on the eyes user interface is one of the big reasons why > Windows will continue to prevail on the desktop. And the application > availability can't be beaten. Good enough? Yes, Windows is quite mediocre, so I guess that fits the definition of "good enough." How about using something that is actually "good," instead of just "good enough?" Easy on the eyes? Yuck. I am not a fan of the Windows look. But that's just m opinion. Do you actually have any proof that Windows is easier to use or easier on the eyes? I didn't think so. Prevailing on the desktop? Most people don't have much choice. They didn't evaluate all the options and decide that Windows is best for them. Application availability? How many spreadsheets do I need? How many of the large number of Windows apps actually differ from each other in significant ways? How many of them are actually any good? How much time is wasted because you must reboot constantly when you're installing or removing a Windows app? It makes evaluating apps a real chore. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8072844.990964800>