Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 02, 2004 03:03 AM
Those who ignore history ARE doomed to repeat its worst parts.
While this respondent makes some good points, their overall message: "If you want to serve the ends of power and flexibility, you cannot also serve the end of ignorant users" is crap.
One obvious example coming from real life which refutes this is the evolution of the modern day automobile.
(Oh no, the reader cries- not another car analogy!)
Yup - Look at how much easier it is to use a modern car compared to the early models. Also how much more powerful they are, and safer, and bigger payloads etc... ad nauseum.
Now I'm not saying your mini-van is the same thing as a dump truck (Just as a PC is not a mainframe) but the general purpose automobile is a technological wonder that is very easy to operate with a minimum of training. A general purpose PC can and should be designed the same way.
(Yes you have to have a license to operate on on public roads but the license is there to give you permission to drive. You don't need a license to be ABLE to drive, as those of us who started driving cars at 10 (off road only) know quite well.) for those that think off road doesn't count - well canyon trails, pear orchards and backwoods trails are all more challenging to navigate than regular on-road driving. Especially when racing....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Even Aunt Tilly isn't intimidated by driving a car which has more computers in it than your house does (maybe - depends on whose house<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) ).
If General Motors and Hyundai can simultaneously meet the goals of power, flexibility and serving the needs of "ignorant" end users, then we must be able to ido the same for PC's as well.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
RE: The Linux identity crisis
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 02, 2004 03:03 AMWhile this respondent makes some good points, their overall message: "If you want to serve the ends of power and flexibility, you cannot also serve the end of ignorant users" is crap.
One obvious example coming from real life which refutes this is the evolution of the modern day automobile.
(Oh no, the reader cries- not another car analogy!)
Yup - Look at how much easier it is to use a modern car compared to the early models. Also how much more powerful they are, and safer, and bigger payloads etc... ad nauseum.
Now I'm not saying your mini-van is the same thing as a dump truck (Just as a PC is not a mainframe) but the general purpose automobile is a technological wonder that is very easy to operate with a minimum of training. A general purpose PC can and should be designed the same way.
(Yes you have to have a license to operate on on public roads but the license is there to give you permission to drive. You don't need a license to be ABLE to drive, as those of us who started driving cars at 10 (off road only) know quite well.) for those that think off road doesn't count - well canyon trails, pear orchards and backwoods trails are all more challenging to navigate than regular on-road driving. Especially when racing....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Even Aunt Tilly isn't intimidated by driving a car which has more computers in it than your house does (maybe - depends on whose house<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) ).
If General Motors and Hyundai can simultaneously meet the goals of power, flexibility and serving the needs of "ignorant" end users, then we must be able to ido the same for PC's as well.
#