Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 86.166.44.173]
on May 18, 2008 05:56 PM
Frankly, as soon as your theoretical definition of "ready for the desktop" is "perfect", then the rest of the post becomes irrelevant. Whatever the point you are trying to make, it flies in the face of reality where we know things are never perfect. If you can't be bothered using terms of reference that allow for intelligent discussion, don't waste your time posting on the subject.
Further, to turn it around and state the question is where the OS is ready for your desktop, you only reinforce the self-centred thinking that completely misses the rather obvious point of the original phrase i.e. is it suitable for easy adoption by the typical computer user? It is a simple concept. The fact that a simple question does not have a simple answer does not mean that you should attempt to re-define the question by employing simplistic black-and-white straw men. That's just an easy excuse to avoid having to think outside your comfort zone.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
It's time to retire "ready for the desktop"
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 86.166.44.173] on May 18, 2008 05:56 PMFurther, to turn it around and state the question is where the OS is ready for your desktop, you only reinforce the self-centred thinking that completely misses the rather obvious point of the original phrase i.e. is it suitable for easy adoption by the typical computer user? It is a simple concept. The fact that a simple question does not have a simple answer does not mean that you should attempt to re-define the question by employing simplistic black-and-white straw men. That's just an easy excuse to avoid having to think outside your comfort zone.
#