Re: Talk to your frTalk your friend into switching to Linux(Re:)

[Josh.McKee@cbns.com (Joshua T. McKee)]

In article <6ka755$9pl$1@winter.news.erols.com>, clee2@envirolink.org
(Chris Lee) wrote:

> In article <Josh.McKee-2405981314070001@pm3a6.rmac.net>, Josh.McKee@cbns.com 
> says...

> >Why is this such a hard concept to understand...I used Word, Excel, etc.
> >as examples of the *types* of software that need to be written/ported/what
> >have you to Linux.  I was hoping that those in the conversation were
> >intelligent to figure out that the programs didn't have to be the exact
> >same ones, but ones that were similar in nature.  Apparently I gave to
> >much credit instead of spelling it out like I would need to for children.
> 
> No, you just can't deal with the fact that maybe most people who are 
> interestedin or are switching over to Linux have no real need for software 
> like Word, Excel,etc.  Most of the people I know really don't use software 
> like Word and Excel for anything on a daily basis.


I can deal with it quite well.  We're not talking about what *I* want. 
We're talking about what the *market* wants.  The people moving over to
Linux may very well not need these kinds of applications, and that's
fine.  But if Linux ever wants to over take Windows and be a viable
alternative (after all, that's what started this thread, that Linux is a
viable alternative to Windows) it is going to have to get these kinds of
programs.  Like it or not...I'm not saying this because I want it to be
so...I'm saying it because it has to be this way.

As I said before...if this is the mentality that Linux advocates are going
to hold, then Linux is going to never be more than a niche OS.  And that's
too bad as I think unix is great.

> >Also, like it or not, if Linux is to compete with Windows/Mac, it has to
> >get these types of programs.  Like it or not, Word, Excel, etc al. are
> >important programs to have for a lot of users.  You may not agree with
> >this, and if so, then you and others that hold this mentality are the
> >biggest reason why Linux isn't a competitor to Windows.  I'm no Windows
> >fan, but I can see why Bill Gates focuses on features of
> >function...because features are what is selling Windows...it certainly
> >isn't quality.
> 
> Quite frankly Linux is better off without this kind of bloated GUI software. 
> If thiskind of crapware was ported over to Linux, you can bet it would be 
> written in such a fashion to require the use of 300mhz pent II's just like 
> MickySoft has done with their software products.  


It may be better off from a technical stand point, but it will not be
better off from a marketing stand point.  Some mentioned that Linux was a
viable alternative OS to Windows.  Without this kind of software, Linux
will never become more than a niche OS.

 
> No thank you very much. If you have a need for this kind of garbage, stick 
> to Windows software.


That is exactly my point...people *will* stick with Microsoft's OS and
software.  Thus, Linux will never become more than a niche OS.

Josh