OT: OS/2, Linux and Windows (was Re: TZ)

[Steve Lamb]

Tuesday, March 21, 2000, 3:07:17 PM, Trevor wrote:
> Steve, come on now, let's all use the same language here. I'm sure
> you will concede that the COMMON usage of the term "user friendly",
> when applied to modern computers, is "easier for a non-technical
> person to use". What you are referring to is probably more properly
> referred to as "more efficient" or "more powerful" and you may be
> right, Linux may be both those things, when compared to OS/2.

    No.  I define it as exactly a non-technical person would define it.  The
ability to get my work done on the machine.  I find Windows extremely user
unfriendly because I can't get my work done.  Furthermore, even taking your
example, there are studies of primary school children being able to work with
Linux easier than Windows because its interface and internal logic is more
consistent.

> And, for the non-technical person, I suggest that GUI *does* = user
> friendly and CLI *does* = user-unfriendly.

    It only appears that way.  Work tech support sometime.  I have had people
wonder what a RMB is.  Just because the interface is different doesn't make it
easier to use or understand.

> Wouldn't it be nicer to have an open-source OS/2 *and* an open-source Linux
> around?

    Pipe dream.  If it were come to pass a lot of what would go into it would
hardly resemble OS/2.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------