On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Nikhil Joshi wrote:
That's the point I want to make. Even a 3 year old can use Windows. Now there may be a sarcastic argument that windows is meant for a 3
A three year old can also use linux. My cousin used to use my linux system when she was four. She used to play simple games and do drawings then. Using a well set up system is easy for anyone. My sister and my dad both use linux at home. Neither of them are `into' computers, and are only part time users of the computer.
Can we convince an average guy who is buying a new PC to install *only* Linux ? Certainly not. Almost everybody is comfortable with
You cannot expect the average guy to install anything. I've met guys who are above average on the techie front. At least, they work with computers everyday, but aren't geeks. Almost all are afraid to install windows. These are the same guys who have no problem opening the system and removing CDROM and Harddisks. They are just afraid of doing something wrong while installing windows.
Like I said before, there is no problem using a well set up system. Setting up a system well is the problem.
stability,the customizations offered et al.He asked me just one question : Can I play all those groovy games on it? I gave up.
One answer. Yes. Most game companies have ported their games to linux. The reasoning is simple. The best gamers are in fact geeks, and not windows users who's sole purpose of owning a computer is to play games. Don't argue with this statistic, it has been found to be true; I don't know where or when.
I think this is harsh remark. Microsoft releases beta versions of Windows for testing and also has patches in the form of updates.
They are called service packs. Windows releases the software for testing, but only to selected users. Also, without the source code, one can only find buggy behaviour, but not the bugs themselves (black box testing). White box testing however requires the source. With the source, testers could audit the code, and find bugs before they show up on screen.
Also I think no programmer can claim that his new software is bug free. Even Linux has bugs and I agree that they are repaired sooner
The above is precisely the reason why. I think it is logical to say that for all the programmers on earth, all the software bugs have been seen before. Most programmers will remember common bugs, and notice them immediately when they see them in code. Executing the code may not even be necessary for such bugs. To quote Linus' law, `given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow'.
I mean most of the people ( I don't know but I think around 75%) use Microsoft Windows on their PC. Now they certainly aren't insane to shell out money for a buggy software which hangs now and then and
No, they are not insane, they are just sheep. Humans, like sheep tend to herd. If everyone else is doing it, then so should we. Many people don't even know that alternatives exist. In fact, for 98% of that 75%, a computer is a tv that shows a windows logo when you push the big round button.
Philip