[H-GEN] LINUX GAZETTE ARTICLE

[Frank Brand]

The following is (IMHO) a well reasoned and interesting article cut from
the Aug. 1998 edition of the Linux Gazette. I thought it was interesting


From: Antony Chesser, antonyc3 at integritas.com 
Subject: The Other Side of the Story 

In the article, Installing Microsoft & Linux, by Manish P. Pagey, we
were treated to a (possibly justified) diatribe about the difficulties
in integrating Linux and Win95. However, to have a more balanced view,
one might also note the following: 

I like Linux thus far. But I never mistake what I like with that is
simpler for the average person out there to use. Linux is as user
friendly as a hurled brick. Installing Linux puts you at a $ or # prompt
with no clue of where to go afterwards. I'm a Novell CNE with many years
experience working with PCs and networks, so I'm not daunted by a
non-intuitive prompt. And I already had a WIN95 machine set up so I
could access the net, download the truly excellent Linux Journal online,
and get support on how to install RPMs, etc. Had that not been the case,
however, I'd have been hard pressed to iron our the wrinkles in my
install, or to know which files to edit, or programs to run, to do basic
configuration. By comparison, win95 starts off in the gui mode, allowing
for rather intuitive productivity immediately. And yes, I agree...it IS
less stable. But crashing once a week (and I don't, by the way... I
applied the service pack to it, and I am very stable) is still far
better than not being able to even find out how to connect to the net. 

When Linux finishes installing, you're left with a # prompt. When WIN95
finishes installing, you've a fairly intuitive GUI that allows you to
quickly and easily install and run programs, connect to the net, and
**apply updates without re-compiling the kernel**. 

So is win95 better than Linux? Nope. But neither is it inferior. Each
tool for the right job. If someone wants to set up their own PC and get
working quickly, the average person without experience in EITHER of the
OS's will have an easier time with win95. The trade off for that is that
yes, it IS less stable in the long run, and yes, you DO have to pay for
it. But considering that for the novice, the alternative is a PC that
he/she cannot use, the answer seems clear that one should get the more
easily installed and usable system. And that is not yet Linux. 

I believe firmly that it one day WILL be. Many of the Linux Accolytes
have decried the attempt to enhance the functionality and ease of use
for Linux as the equivalent of "Starting down the Dark path of the
Force." (shrug) A bit melodramatic, if you ask me. Consider this... that
if we don't make it more user friendly, it will STAY a tiny share of the
home and small business market, which in turn means less software
written for it, and less call for us to support it for a living. Which,
given all it's virtues, seems a shame, doesn't it? 

Let's keep the tight, elegant kernel that is Linux, and add ease of use
to it. If we do this, then like IBM's iron fisted dominance of the PC
market that faded, so too will Microsoft be "The Giant That Was."
However, if we insist on keeping Linux the OS that commands a religious
like fervor with a select few, and keeping it un-usable for the vast
majority of home and small business users, we'll continue to watch Mr.
Gates... the richest man in the world... sell upgrades to a kludgy OS
for more money than ANY current version of Linux gets. And we'll hear
his laughter. 

Antony Chessor 

-- 
Frank Brand
E-mail: fbrand at uq.net.au
Homepage: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzfbrand