🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 7 May 1997 16:10:51 +1000, Luke Burton <hagus@goulburn.net.au> wrote:

>It's written for average computer users, and takes an unfair swipe at it.
>What it failed to say is that Linux is *not* an operating system for
>average users. He took Linux, you could say, out of context.
>
>It's the OS from hell for newbies who don't know what a compiler is ;) But
>then again, what are these people dabling in Linux for in the first place?
>And, define "advanced user". An advanced user would undoubtably be one who
>could program in some popular language and solve all their day to day
>problems. Linux isn't written for these advanced users, only for people who
>have a job to be done that can be done with an affordable, powerful, well
>supported unix clone.

Yet Linuxers constantly disparage Microsoft, and try to promote the Linux
OS to naive users.  I keep on picking up three ideas about Linux.  However,
they seem very contradictory.  Either:

o Linux is a viable replacement for Microsoft Windows, and it's great for
everyone...

o Linux is an OS for mission critical commercial applications, but is no
good for dumb people.

o Linux is an OS for hacking, education or research, no good for dumb people,
commercial programmers, or marketroids.

Any of these can be true, but not all at once.

Personally, I think Linux should aspire to be all three.  If Linux should,
as certain people keep on claiming, attempt to be a real threat to
commercial software monopolies, it must move into the mainstream, and that
means expanding its focus beyond just the traditional Unix applications.

-- 

Jason Stokes: j.stokes @ bohm.anu.edu.au