

Is Linux Really Ready for Simple Users? - rms
http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7702650846.html

======
Tichy
What is a simple user? The article was too long for me...

I have put my mother on Ubuntu and it works great. Most things are a lot
easier easy than with Windows, and most importantly, security updates take
care of themselves, too. Under windows it is just big mess. Usually
applications come with their own updater software, which is ugly and spyware-
ish by itself, and also very unreliable.

~~~
rms
Right now my grandfather is using Ubuntu with iGoogle. All he does is go and
look at his stocks and the news, but it works really well for him for that.
Every now and then he googles something. He uses a trackball because we
couldn't afford a big touchscreen and mice are extremely hard to use once you
get beyond a certain age (which my experience shows to be curved around 70).

In other words -- my 90 year old grandfather is successfully using the
internet through a dynamic home page and a command prompt.

------
derefr
The unix philosophy is that there are users, and there are sysadmins, and the
sysadmins take care of the users' computers. The Windows philosophy, on the
other hand, is basically that every user should be a half-competent sysadmin
in their own right.

Windows has never been, is not, and never will be, for "simple users." It is
for power-users, and those with power-users in their support networks. Unix
was designed for "simple users" from day one, but under the simple rule that
there be someone else around whose only task is to take care of the system.

I've always wondered why computer repair shops don't offer a service where
they continue on as root of any repaired computers....

~~~
rms
They should, but there isn't a platform for them to do so. I've thought a lot
about this problem but would prefer not to discuss it in public forums. So
anyone that would like to discuss, please email me.

------
run4yourlives
Hell No. Seriously, No way.

What I really don't understand is why the linux community even cares about the
"Simple User".

~~~
rms
People should care about such users because computing isn't just for elitist
assholes.

~~~
run4yourlives
True enough. What I meant to say is why does the group of elitist assholes
that is the majority of linux backers care to have their OS accepted by people
they obviously have little regard for?

~~~
create_account
I use linux, but I would never call someone an "elitist asshole".

~~~
run4yourlives
I'm not specifically saying that, (I was just using the parent comment's
words) but let's be honest: the linux community as a whole is not exactly
welcoming to the non-power user.

There's really nothing wrong with this. That's my point. Why does the
community get all out of shape about being ready for the "average user"? Linux
wasn't built for them, it isn't used by them, and it won't ever be good enough
compared to OS'es that focus exclusively on them - i.e. Mac and windows.

~~~
rms
>it won't ever be good enough compared to OS'es that focus exclusively on them

I disagree. In the long term, open source is going to win. Maybe it won't be
in three years, but in ten years I expect Ubuntu/Linux to be solidly better
for every single user. The unlimited time of smart people working for free
eventually adds up to something really amazing.

~~~
run4yourlives
I can't see that happening for the same reason that enterprise software will
never die: people equate quality with cost, rightly or wrongly.

OSX is essentially BSD++ with a massive price tag associated with it. You
could put the exact same OS out as open source and it would remain in the
realm of the power-user/hobbyist.

~~~
rms
Perhaps it won't happen in ten years. But I'd be willing to wager that it will
happen in 75 years. In the real long term, for products like desktop
environments that aren't niche products, open source can't lose.

~~~
run4yourlives
In 75 years I'd be more willing to bet that the notion of a "desktop OS" will
be irrelevant. :-)

