Subj : Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?
To   : comp.os.linux
From : Mxsmanic
Date : Mon Feb 28 2005 12:23 am

chris writes:

> Unfortunately, if you want any useful applications, you have to install
> them.

I recall applications being preinstalled, but it has been a long time
since I last used a Mac.

> Unfortunately, if you want any useful applications, you have to install
> them.

Not so.  Often a selection of useful applications is preinstalled as
well.

> Wrong.  I installed Win NT4 on to a 1GHz PIII this afternoon - 41 minutes
> and five reboots.

So your 2-hour figure was a dramatic exaggeration.

> Installed Mandrake 10.1 on to the above hardware (after Windoze
> crashed twice in 20 minutes) in 31 minutes, including Open Office, Kontact,
> and a few development tools.  Worked 100% STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!

It didn't for me.

> You really are clueless.  Perhaps you've never actually installed
> Windoze at all.

I've installed Windows hundreds of times.

> You've never actually installed Windoze then, have you?

See above.

> As claimed by Microsoft. 

And as reflected in the statistics on my own Web site.  About 95% of
incoming visitors are running Windows.

> Bill Gates will actually tell you that Windows is an "operating system"!  

And he'll be right.

> No.  I can't actually recall seeing ANY MS-based boxes in my last visit -
> except for the blue screen crashed ones at the British Airways check-in in
> Singapore.

I can't recall seeing any Linux boxes at all; therefore they must not
exist.

> Not any more.

Windows is more user-friendly than just about any OS except the Mac.  It
certainly beats Linux and UNIX by a wide margin.

> Maybe, but that's changing.

It's not changing enough to make a difference.  There aren't going to be
a quarter-million applications available on Linux any time soon.

> Because you're looking at the data supplied by vested interests.

Whereas you have special access to data that is completely unbiased?

> MS will give you all the "data" you could ever want!

Data from MS is not objective.

> Because they've been "bought" by Microsoft.

No, because Microsoft software is already widely used, and Microsoft
operating systems are the most widely supported by third-party
developers.

> A good example: the British Health Service system - supposed to be in every
> Doctor's office, and connected to a country-wide database.  The client
> computers "run" XP, with a crappy "bespoke" client application on top.  The
> servers "run" Server 2003.  The operating system level crashes of the
> servers and the client machines make it utterly unusable.

The applications are poorly written.

> What else would you want to base a project on?

Applications relevant to the goal of the project, which is rarely
limited to typing letters or filling in spreadsheets.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

.