🚀 go-pugleaf

Tony Langdon wrote:

>  mu> I hate it when people say this. :( Why can't Linux be an OS that
>  mu> competes with Windows, providing users with a choice? For that it must
>  mu> be more user friendly. :-)
>
> Well, if someone wants to write the wizards, it could be (though there's
> already some X tools to simplify administration.  My experience with
> GUIs is that the commandline and script is still more precise for
> anything more than a "basic" configuration (I wish NT had better support
> for commandline/script configuration).

Some folks have written wizards (ever tried ezppp?)  However, "user-friendly"
means different things to different people.  For me, Linux is more
user-friendly than Win95, because Linux allows me almost unlimited ability to
change the configuration and try new things.  This is the same reason I always
liked PCs with Windows better than Macs -- damn the crashes and all, but at
least you could always open up a DOS window and look around in the system a
bit.  The first time I sat down at a Mac and learned that you couldn't do this,
I felt trapped.  I often feel similarly trapped by plug-and-play under Win95 --
why should I have to go to war with my registry just to make my system the way
I want, instead of the way Bill thinks is best for all?  My girlfriend the Mac
lover compares PC people and Mac people to "stick-shift" and "automatic
transmission" types.  More control.  To extend this analogy, Linux people are
stick-shift people who dream of a fast, smooth, elegant custom engine.  For
those types, Win95 is about as "user-friendly" as a car with 1200cc's, 3-speed
automatic, and the hood welded shut.