Desktop Linux (fwd)

[Michael Costolo]

--- Derek Martin <invalid at pizzashack.org> wrote:
> Yeah, that's exactly my point: it's not convincing at all.  

I think that perhaps you misunderstand.

> Mozilla is
> an application that looks and acts enough like its MS counterpart to
> be passed off as IE to the uninitiated.  OO is another.  Evolution
> makes 3.  XMMS is 4.  Maybe, maybe gnucalc passes as a fifth, though I
> don't think so.  Beyond that though, you'll be hard pressed to find
> look-and-work-alike replacements for Windows software (barring actual
> Linux ports, and even then)...  So, in essentially all other cases,
> people who want to use what they're used to will not be satisfied with
> a Linux replacement.  Last time I checked, Windows had a lot more than
> 4 titles which had no Linux port...

Agreed.  But I'm not of the opinion that it needs to be a lookalike.  To the
contrary, I've said before I think it is function over form (within reason, of
course.  I'm not suggesting that, for example, command-line interfaces offerring
similar functionality will suffice.).  That these particular library users used Open
Office without difficulty (or complaint) reinforces my belief that it isn't
necessary to have an actual Linux port of MS Office provided that the alternative
does what the users need it to do.  Now perhaps there is some credibility to the
argument that since they *thought* it was MS Word they were more likely to accept
it.  But even so, if it didn't perform its function well, it would have been
unacceptable.  

To say that you won't use Linux because, for example, you can't run Quicken only
means that Linux probably isn't for you then.  So GnuCash doesn't have *all* the
features of Quicken.  That probably won't stop you from using it effectively.  I
would fathom a guess that Quicken is probably suffering from feature bloat by now
anyway.  And I personally don't want it to make my coffee in the morning.  Now will
that convince someone to drop Windows/Quicken?  Doubtful.  But if someone is fed up
with Windows and wants an alternative, Linux can offer a solution that still allows
you them to do what they need to do with their PC. 

The argument for the busines is different and I am in full agreement.  But Linux
will never be all things for all people.  And who would want it to?  Linux is a very
good solution to a particular set of problems.  If you don't have one of those
problems where Linux is a good solution, it will be extraordinarily difficult to
convince you to switch and you'll have a terrible experience.  So why bother?  

=====
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it"
-George Bernard Shaw

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools