Re: [TCLUG:10777] RE: StarOffice - changed to an anti-anti-NT rant

[Brent Metzler <debian@pluto.twistedpair.net>]

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Ryberg, Nicholas wrote:

> I _like_ Linux.  It's faster than hell when it works, but there is still a
> considerable learning curve for using it.  

Maybe in it's basic, common, form.  NT would be hard to use too, if you
just got a ton of modules that you were free to do whatever you want with.

It's sort of like buying a PC.  You can buy the parts and put it together,
or buy it from Dell.  Which is easier?  The point here is that if you
aren't interested in the parts, you don't need the learning curve.

Compare Apples to apples.  If I need to hand-put together custom hardware,
I'm not going to be talking to Dell.  And I won't be getting NT either, if
I need an OS that I can customise.

When you compare NT to Linux, you need to compare NT with a Linux
distribution that provides similar functionality. You can't really compare
Red Hat to NT, because as you pointed out, they are very different with
regards toward functionality.  

Instead, compare something like NetMax (www.netmax.com) as being the
equivelant to NT. 

> When you make it more user
> friendly with KDE/Gnome/whatever, it turns any machine (except, perhaps, a
> dual P3 500) into sludge.

You started out this post by disagreeing about the performance of NT.  I
don't mind people disagreeing about their experience, but I *really* hate
when in the same post they make the same groundless complaint that they
were complaining of.

I have a Pentium 233 with 128 meg ram and I use Gnome and enlightenment
with *no* performance problems.  This is while doing compu-intensive
stuff like compiling Mozilla, and running staroffice. The only way you
could have the performance you claim on a Dual P3 500 is if you only had 8
meg ram, which I doubt is the case :)

> I'm tired of the endless rants on how awful MS products are.  Speaking from
> a strictly user's point of view, Linux in all of its various configurations
> has a long, long way to go before it's as useful and easy to learn as
> Windows.  

Don't forget that people who say MS products are awful (like me) are
reporting their own experiences.  Except of course, the script kiddies on
/. :)  Okay, you might have had a different experience, and you are
certainly welcome to it, but that is only *your* experience.

Anyways, speaking from a strictly users point of view, I disagree.  Users
tend to have a few limited applications that they use a PC for.  Perhaps
Word Processing, data entry, surfing the web, presentations, email.  These
are all very basic applications.  A word processer allows you to create
documents.  Really not a lot more then that, even with Office 2000.  And
as long as users can create documents, they'll be happy.  Take Wordperfect
for example.  It is no different for users on Linux as it is on Windows.
Tell me where Linux has a long, long way to go yet.    

Easy to learn is other story.  I think that's a big joke.  I worked on a
contract a year ago upgrading desktops from Win3.1 to NT.  You'd think I
could just give them NT and they'd be able to use it immediately, right?
Oh, the horror!  The users had to go to a class to "learn" NT.  (This is
the start menu, all your apps will be under here.  We use Word, you start
it by clicking here.  Here's how to change your password.  This is how you
log out)  I could have taught them how to do the exact same things in
Gnome in not more time.  Clearly NT has no advantage over Linux in
usability.  Usually, when people say that NT is easier to learn then Linux
it's because they *already* know NT, and not Linux.  I presume that a user
how knew Linux would find learning NT just as difficult.

> Sure, MS is the big, bad bully of the PC Software play yard, but
> it's spent a lot more time/money on making the products work the way the
> users want them to, and not just the way the developers would like them to
> work (forgive my fractured grammar).

Pick either Gnome or KDE and tell me what works the way the developers
want but not end-users.  I'm sure there are some, but I can find NT users
who would like NT working differently too.  The point is, I think that the
Linux developers are developing for the end-user too, just as much as MS
is.  It's just that Gnome and KDE have accomplished, in a lot less time,
and a lot less $$'s, what MS has in the viewpoint of the end-user.

> One thing that the Linux distributions have all seemed to pick up on is the
> requirement for large, multi-disk installation sets.  That makes downloading
> a new distribution or update unthinkable for your average 56K user.  

EH??  Not sure I understand your point here.  It was really painful
downloading NT on a 56k line too, even though it only comes on one CD.
Didn't I hear that O2K comes of 4 CD's and how many will W2K come on?

> Ok - I'll step down from my soap box.

-Brent