🚀 go-pugleaf

OK - I think I should define my terms here.  When I say "It should be simple so 
simple people can use it"  what I really mean is "make it simple so _I_ can use 
it, without worrying about (for example) a dozen different command line 
switches."  I may be intelligent, but when work gets tough, I get the natural 
compulsion of my ancestors to start dragging things around.
  
That's what I like about OS/2 - drag'n'drop functionality.  If you want a new 
folder, you simply open up the templates folder and drag the folder template to 
wherever you want the new folder to go.  The Mac OS of course, has had these 
principle for a long time, but it is starting to show its age in technical areas.

This thread started out debating the benefits of LINUX.  None of the fancy GUI's 
such as NeXTstep are available for this particular strain of UNIX.  Therefore the 
ease of use touted by the makers of such shells is irrelevant when talking about 
LINUX.

Note that "ease of use" doesn't just include run-time use and troubleshooting, 
but also installation, maintenance, software updates, ease of networking 
facilities etc.  For OS/2, most installs are one button jobs (well, mine was. 
Almost.)  Now will anyone claim that installing/maintaining UNIX has the same 
ease?  I don't even want to _think_ about the LINUX install procedure!

I doubt the "average punter" wants nor can afford to call in a qualified sysadmin 
every time he needs to handle some bizarre maintenance problem.  Errors I can 
handle, crashes I can take, but install and networking problems, I hate.

Maybe the various strains of UNIX have improved over the years, but I doubt LINUX 
has.


--
Jason Stokes
j.stokes@student.anu.edu.au

o  "OS/2...Opens up Windows, shuts up Gates."