|
The problem with the "test-drive" described here is a problem that I see very often with Windows users: they look for the ways that Linux is like Windows. This is the wrong approach, as the shift to Linux is not simply a shift to an alternate / cheaper / stabler / more secure Windows (though all of that might be a valuable by-product).
Linux takes a different approach to 1) how a user interacts with the computer; 2) what is available to perform those interactions. The way one interacts is different because there is the mysterious and legendary command line. (If you are tempted to say, "Oh, like DOS", please re-read the first paragraph). Most of the software out there amounts to a front end for commands and editing config files. This leads to choices.
For example, xcdroast, k3b, gcombust, gnome toaster all use the same underlying commands (cdrecord, cdparanoia, etc.) They are snappy, easy-to-use front ends.
This leads (quickly) to point 2: the availability of options is both overwhelming and exciting -- and consequently relies on user responsibility. You need to be willing to educate yourself. For example, if I want to type a letter, I can use a text-style editor like the venerable vi, or emacs, or gedit, or kedit, or jed, etc. Or I can use a snazzy WYSIWYG like Abiword, KOffice, OpenOffice, etc. Or I can use a text processor like TEX or LaTEX. Or I can convert to pdf. And so on. My choice depends on both my purposes and on how well I have educated myself.
This is in stark contrast to the Windows world. You have Word. You write a letter, a book, a message, everything in Word. Seriously: does anyone really think that Word is the best for all of those purposes?
This is a simple example among many possible examples. The point is that the shift from Windows to Linux is paradigmatic. It is paradigmatic insofar as the significant unit one evaluates is one's purposes, not availability, price, etc.
If this approach does not sit well with you, then imagine why Linux users do not flock to Microsoft products -- at least none that I know. I think that it is due to these deep differences, especially that ambition, not availability or stability, is the biggest limitation on a Linux machine.
|
The kernel that Mr. Torvald's created, the original architect, has come a long way in the last decade. With the assistance of hundreds of gifted coders, system administrators, and a multitude of others the little hobbyist kernel has gone professional. Kudos to everyone involved.
I have heard it said, "A system administrator's first principle is to simplyfy things. If a solution makes things more complicated then something has gone very wrong". There are some very un-simpified things regarding the "Redmond platform".
It is true the a paradigm shift just don't happen. I am often reminded of the allegory of Plato's cave. Most user's experience are at the desktop level and revolve around a core set of applications: a text, spreadsheet, or presentation processor, an e-mail client, a graphics image manipulation program, a CD-DVD ripper-burner, an audio tool, maybe a game or two, possibly a scheduler or project manager, and an Internet browser. Most of life's work can be saved onto one or more CD-Rs.
I, personally, am not trying to woo anyone away from the "Redmond platform". To come to the realization that I "do not need the Redmond platform" is an individual choice based upon personal experience. Some people are entrenched into their own learned behaviors and cognitive dissonance.
Maybe, as they grow in their computing experiences with the "Redmond platform" and the cost of "renting" it over time. They will calculate the cost of their rental. The myth of their not being enough application or drivers in Linux is old and out dated one.
Time, money and experiece will win out in time.