🚀 go-pugleaf

In <5kp8h0$js6$1@clarion.carno.net.au> j.stokes@OUT-DAMNED-SPAM.bohm.anu.edu.au (Jason Stokes) writes:

>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.

There are really two halves to each of the above: (a) what Linux can do
and (b) what sort of user is Linux suited for.

I'd say (a) Linux can do all of the above. Hacking, education, research,
mission-critical commercial applications ... no problems. Viable replacement
for Microsoft Windows - maybe; naturally there are some proprietary apps
for which there isn't a Linux equivalent, but on the other hand there are
many uses for Linux which are impossible under Windows.

For the second half (b) ... I don't see much difference in the complexity
of the two systems, except for the obvious fact that Linux works and
Windows doesn't. Windows installation is real easy - and so is Linux,
so long as it's installed on decent hardware. Post Windows installation
though it's a continuous round of "try to make application X coexist
with application Y" and "The registry's corrupt, reinstall Windows". I'm
generalising, but IMHO the ugly bits of Windows are no less so than the
ugly bits of Linux and there are plenty of Windows applications which fail to
work for obscure reasons. I'm an ISP and it means I get to help a lot
of Windows and Mac users who have some problem connecting to or using the
Internet. If Windows were such a dream application execution environment
for end-users I think there wouldn't be any such problems. Reality differs.

Nick.
-- 
Kralizec / Zeta Microcomputer Software  Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9837-1397
P.O. Box 177, Riverstone NSW 2765       http://www.kralizec.net.au/