Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!207.17.190.11!news.diac.com!news From: sitaram@diac.delete.com (Sitaram Chamarty) Newsgroups: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux or FreeBSD (or something else?) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 22:59:08 GMT Organization: none Lines: 56 Message-ID: <33482725.774320915@news.diac.com> References: <slrn5kaf5t.11r.c_chaos@chaosnet.wahnapitae.on.ca> <01bc4136$20f68ec0$78c5a9c6@win95> <3345FD90.4A3@kashmir.net> <3347ce19.0@news.intercenter.net> Reply-To: sitaram@diac.delete.com NNTP-Posting-Host: p191.ts1.diac.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.os.linux:19887 comp.os.linux.misc:168334 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38599 Ron Bickers <rbickers@gemini-new.intercenter.net> wrote: >In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Zep <zep@kashmir.net> wrote: >: Jason Ish wrote: >: > Take a minute here and think about the 'average computer user.' MS has [snip] >: Yes, but you're making it sound like that's a good thing! Maybe people [snip] >How many of our mothers know how a car works under the hood? How many care >how it works? How many don't deserve to drive a car because they don't >know how it works? I have 2 points: (1) The analogy isn't (IMHO) a very good one. The features in a given car are limited - you can only do so many things with a car. You can drive it, park it, listen to music, and a few other things. And even though cars are getting more complex, it's still a basic set, with some bells and whistles (like cruise control, auto this-that-or-other, and so on...) In that situation, it really doesn't matter if you know how the insides work. Knowing that may help you fix it if there's a problem, but usually doesn't help you USE the features better (no flames - I believe there are some exceptions). OTOH, computers, with the right software, are virtually unlimited in their uses. This extra facility imposes a certain need to know more about what's going on under the hood. Saying that that need doesn't exist is being unfair to the $$s you spent on the machine, at the very least. Knowing the innards can be delegated (I wouldn't expect everyone who uses a computer to *have* to know how to recompile the kernel - heck I'm not sure if I can do it!) - but someone who knows must be available to organise, optimise, setup, etc. Pretending that that is not necessary (as MS does with their O/Ss) will get you the look of being "easy to use", but won't get you "bang for the buck" for your hardware. (2) The current trend with MS software keeps reminding me of a phrase that is the title of one of the mini-sketched in SNL (or is it Mad TV? I forget). "Reduced Expectations". This is what has happened to people. I know people who no longer find it odd that their PC crashes more often than I'd be happy with. To them, it's "oh well, everyone knows Windows 95 crashes once in a while, and rebooting fixes the problem, so what's the big deal? Gives me time to go get some coffee!". Sitaram. ------------------------------------- Sitaram Chamarty delete the word "delete" from the domain name - as I'm sure you've guessed - to get my email address