[CS-FSLUG] NI: Self defeating desktop Linux strategies

[Don Parris]

On 8/31/05, David Aikema <daikema at gmail.com> wrote:
> What's the problem with dual-boot setups.  Even if just Linux is
> installed on the machine the capabilities that provide support for
> dual-booting are useful.  (As well, I suspect that a lot of people had
> their first exposure to Linux through a dual-boot setup).
>

I ran in dual-boot mode until last November.  I haven't missed Windows
yet.  I'm not knocking the dual-boot aspect.  I don't have a problem
with folks dual-booting while they find their way around the new
environment.  Some things, like *NIX filesystems, are definitely
confusing.  So I can understand a gradula migration.
 
> Not everything that Windows does is intrinsically bad ... the idea is
> to be similar where similar is good, and to be different where
> different would make it better.
> 

That makes sense.  When Red Hat developed a Microsoft-styled
installation routine (circa 7.2) they were attempting to make the
installation routine look similar to Microsoft's for the sake of
admins who would be installing their distro.  However, I was trying to
get away from Microsoft's approach, generally speaking, and preferred
the different-looking routine of Red Hat 5.1/5.2.  It's as if the
different look and feel made me feel like I was making real changes.

> That, and one of the major things that I like about open source is
> choice, and the ability to "scratch an itch" (ie. if you want it, then
> you can implement it).  Hence, I wouldn't put a lot of weight in his
> argument.  You might be able to force such changes in an organization
> that you control (perhaps with a lot of griping), but on a larger
> scale I just don't see this functioning.
> 
> David
> 

His argument does seem to be a bit off-base, but I agree that we
shouldn't try to imitate Microsoft's every feature.  That would be
ridiculous.

Don
-- 
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
"Hey man, whatever pickles your list!"