Re: tlug: diald (was: mouse fixed; now what about email)

[Manuel Chakravarty <chak@example.com>]

"Jonathan Byrne - 3Web" <jq@example.com> wrote,

> -----Original Message-----
> 差出人 : Manuel Chakravarty <chak@example.com>
> 
> >Windoze may be plug-and-play for your kids at home with one
> >PPP dialup connection and your private printer, but for
> >anything more than a toy network it seems to be a joke...
> >and for anything more than a toy network you'll anyway need
> >an expert at least for setting up and maintaining the
> >network infrastructure -- that is were I agree with
> >Karl-Max.
> 
> Like you don't need at least as much of an expert to do the same thing under
> Linux or any other Unix?  You know perfectly well that you do, so that
> argument is a complete non-starter.

You got me wrong.  I am not saying it is easier on Linux for a
newbie.  I am saying that when it comes to a *serious
network*, Windoze is a pain, but Linux works fine (although,
you have to involve an expert).  And as Karl-Max pointed
out, serious networking is difficult and that won't change for
a while, I am quite sure.  (I mean, even M$ doesn't seem to
manage to set up something serious with their software if
you consider HotMail.)

>   My original argument was that using
> Windows 95 or a Mac, a beginner with not much knowledge, but some
> instructions from their ISP, can usually get online quickly and easily for a
> basic dial-up connection.  Can they do this on a Linux machine?  The general
> answer is "no" (this looks like it's a lot easier on TurboLinux, but I
> haven't actually tried it, so I can't comment).

My critique was that you use this argument to judge about
the networking qualities of an OS, and I am saying, this
argument is not relevant because newbies usually don't use
serious networks (and if they would, Windoze wouldn't help
them a bit).

In other words, the user interface of Linux might have some
way to go, but they got the difficult stuff right.  Windoze
got some glitter that makes easy tasks easy for the
untrained, but better don't try to use it in a more
complicated networking environment (even if you are an
expert, you won't get happy).

> The writing is on the wall. Linux isn't just a hacker's OS
> anymore.  Those days are over.

Great.  I am happy about this.  It gives me hope that Linux
lives for a long time, which makes life easier for me.

> We don't tell them they should be able to repair the hardware on their
> computer if something breaks.  They call a professional tech, and that's
> fine.  We don't say people should be able to do heavy engine work or
> suspension system repairs on their car as a condition of being allowed to
> have a drivers license (I can, and I used to really enjoy that stuff, but I
> would never make that a condition for anyone to drive).  Likewise, we
> shouldn't be telling people they need expert/professional knowledge or they
> just shouldn't have a computer.

Right, but we also shouldn't forget about the computer
professionals.  You don't help them with some user interface
glitter etc, for many of these people it is important to get
at the innards of the software and to have highly complex
tools that allow them to to do their job faster and better.
For these people, the Unix philosophy of `it is possible,
you just have to find out how' is much better than
plug'n'play.

> But making computers easy to use is
> just The Right Thing.  Not just for home users/SOHO users, but for big
> businesses who need productivity.  When an employee (or IS staff member
> called in to help) is spending her time doing stuff to her computer to make
> it work right, she isn't doing her regular work, and the computer isn't
> performing it's function as a tool for that work. Flogging the system just
> to make it work is not the goal (unless you're a computer hobbyist who does
> it for fun, which is one reason why we're running Linux), nor is becoming a
> computer expert whether you want to or not.

But 

  ease of use for simple tasks/configurations/networks

                            =/=

  ease of use for difficult tasks/configurations/networks

Windoze/Mac may be easy to use for simple tasks, but they
are a pain for most difficult tasks.  Linux is the other way 
around.  I think, Linux can evolve to make simple tasks
easier, I doubt that Win/Mac can evolve to cover difficult
tasks equally well.  

In other words, the problems with Linux are largely of a
cosmetic nature, but with Win/Mac you have serious
conceptual problems.

> An ideal system is one that let's you hack it as much as you
> want if you care to, but also doesn't require you to hack it
> if you don't want to, at least for the basic functions that
> you would need a computer to do every day.  Linux will,
> IMO,come to fulfill that dual ideal better than anything
> else currently available.  Right now, you can hack it all
> you want.  Not having to if you don't want to is being
> worked on and is making great progress :-)

This seems to be the conclusion, we both can agree upon :-)

Manuel


--------------------------------------------------------------
Next TLUG Meeting: 13 June Sat, Tokyo Station Yaesu gate 12:30
Featuring Stone and Turnbull on .rpm and .deb packages
Next Nomikai: 17 July, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
After June 13, the next meeting is 8 August at Tokyo Station
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp