We get what we deserve.

[JSimmons]

Originally posted by janet loves bill
people who ONLY care about eye-candy are retards who should not use Linux in the first place!

This is the Important thing, Security!
Linux just works, and Whinedows just Crashes--

We all have fun bashing Windows, but mindless ranting just to be cool like everyone else is more than just absurd. Get over it already. Windows can have just as long of an uptime as Linux if it's configured correctly and maintained prudently. The really ironic part of that statement is that it's also true for the great and mighty Linux. I have several Windows and Linux boxes, and NONE of them crash.

If you bork up the install or use root for your day-to-day existance, you're just as vulnerable as any other machine out there, and just as stupid as the "typical" Windows user.

As to the real topic of this message, I like eye-candy, and I'm certainly not a "retard". I simply have better things to do with my computing time than to dick around with the command line.

[JSimmons]

Originally posted by Icarus
Plus Linux doesn't suffer from "OS Decay" so you can use the same install for a couple years and it will run just as well as it did on the install day

That statement falls neatly under the category of an urban legend - I recently built a new system that had been running the same install of Windows 2000 for over 2-1/2 years. It was running just as well as it did when I first installed it. I've never run XP, but since XP is nothing more than Win2K with lame attempts at DRM and a school-girl interface, I suspect it's "decay" is simlar to Win2k - non-existant in the hands of a moderately aware user.

Caveat: That statement was true about Win95, and even Win98, but not nearly so much for Win98.

[JSimmons]

Originally posted by Parcival
I guess I don't quite agree on this one. MS got so strong because people got to know computers running MS software at work, so they bought them for their homes, too. I think one shouldn't underestimate the role of business computing as a gatekeeper for home computing.

Also, the idea behind Windows is a reasonably consistent interface. With few exceptions, evry Windows program has a standard selection of menu options (their core business logic requirements notwithstanding). Familiarity was bred in the office and fostered at home - Windows succeded. Linux is going to have to do the same thing to succeed in the home market (where eye-candy is certainly an important factor).

Your typical home user (and even your typical office worker) just wants it to work. They don't care about commandlines, kernel compiles, or application dependencies. They want to download a program, install it, and then start using it.

For office workers, they don't want to have to wait for the IT department to come up and fix something. They just want their terminals to allow them to do their job in a timely manner.

Linux is almost there, but not quite. Their biggest battle is with people who run Windows games that don't want to futz around with Wine, Transgaming, or even dual-booting.

My dad's wife does absolutely nothing but email, web, Excel, Word, and a few simple games on MSN. If there is just one of those things she won't be able to do painlessly on Linux, she won't switch. Welcome to the real world of your "typical" Windows user.

[Icarus]

Originally posted by JSimmons
Caveat: That statement was true about Win95, and even Win98, but not nearly so much for Win98.

I meant to add that, it's mostly been fixed since 2000

A lot of current slow down problems are not due to bad OS design (exactly) but spyware and adware can take a new system down to a crawl very quickly

Urban Legends are not always false when there is some truth to them

Windows has made a lot of progress in stability and most of the BOSDs people see these days are because of bad drivers (which the user doesn't know the first place to look to fix) or incorrectly installed or poorly written software (not MS software, but from the amature coder that got his VS+++++.NET software from kazaa )