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

[gmgraves@slip.net (George Graves)]

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...
> >
> >In article <6k9iue$nbo$1@winter.news.erols.com>, clee2@envirolink.org
> >(Chris Lee) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Josh.McKee-2405981013230001@pm3a12.rmac.net>, 
> >> Josh.McKee@cbns.com says...
> >
> >> >I know where to look, if I wanted to look.  But things such as you've
> >> >posted are not of much interest to me.  Where are the big name titles?  
> I
> >> >can assure you one thing, if Microsoft were to release Office for Linux, 
> I
> >> >would hear about it.  Perhaps I am ignorant of Linux software...so I'm
> >> >asking, please point me to the big name software instead of sticky 
> notes,
> >> >ftp clients, etc.  Like it or not, if Linux is ever going to compete 
> with
> >> >Windows it is going to need more than the what the Linux advocates have
> >> >provided me.  I'm telling you, if Linux had this software, I would 
> welcome
> >> >it with open arms.  As it is, the only thing I would use Linux for right
> >> >now is the "backend" type processing that unix is known for.  
> >> >The facts are facts...hopefully you can show me that I'm wrong (I'd love
> >> >to be), or that they will change soon.
> >> 
> >> I wouldn't buy Office for Linux, why on earth would I be stupid enough to 
> >> waste my money on software that wouldn't be compatable with everything 
> else 
> >> I was using under Linux?
> >
> >
> >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.

OK, then just WHAT do they use Linux for? They don't do image editing, 
because a good Photoshop-like program isn't available (don't come back
with GIMP either, it not only doesn't have th power of PS, but in its
present iterations, it isn't even stable. You can't do Mechanical or
electronic CAD because there aren't any AutoCAD-like apps available.
You can't do technical illustration, no Illustrator-like apps, can't do 
non-linear video editing, no apps. So far, it looks as if youy are saying 
that Linux users don't do anything but "play" with their computers. 
Hardly a compelling reason to switch.
> 
> The fact that there really doesn't seem to be much of a demand for the kinds 
> of software you claim there is a need for says a lot about the percieved 
> value of this kind of software, doesn't it? After all, most of the movement 
> towards Linux nowdays comes from the Windows world itself.
> 
> >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. 

That's irrelevant. Without so-called productivity apps, one can't do ANY
work with the OS, which sorta makes it useless. 
> 
> No thank you very much. If you have a need for this kind of garbage, stick 
> to Windows software.

Then suppose you tell us exactly what Linux is good for? You've gone on
at some length telling us what Linux users DON'T DO with their computers, 
how about a clue as to what they actually CAN DO with them?

George Graves