Everybody here seems to imply that graphical interfaces are superior to command line. I love CLI, though you could argue that I'm not an average user -- and I am not, indeed.

But then, who is an average user? Someone who somehow got to a Windows PC and learned their way around the parts they need. These parts are most likely all graphical, so it's no wonder this average user gets used to graphics and scared of the CLI.

Anyway, I just want to share an article with you. It's an anecdotal story, but I think it's good food for thought relevant to this discussion.

Quote:Original post by greenhybrid
Will you still say:

Quote:phantom
No, this [configurability] is not a Good Thing(tm).

(besides, usually the IT professional configures stuff, if any, not the user, and typically, not even linux-users will flip the package manager or other software every now and then once they have found what best adapts to their needs)?

Who is this IT professional? and where can I find this guy? Sorry, but I watch MTV, E!, and VH1 everyday, I don't see this Linux IT guy on my TV screen.

How do you expect the user not configure his Linux if you market Linux as configurable?

Quote:
To get this on-topic: Africas population is reaching the billion (though not all of them are poor, actually I know quite some names of SA's demoscene), and there's not only Africa who could need a bit of computation power. So there is the potential of Linux getting "dangerous" to Windows, though* it is not driven primarily by commercial interests.

THAT right there is what is wrong with the entire Linux population mentality. "Getting dangerous" to Windows. "Beat" Windows. It's like a monkey reaching for the moon. Linux is not freaking Windows. Stop trying to be one, grow a bone, and come up with a plan to actually be different. You can't beat Windows if you try to be Windows.

Linux needs a good businessman to back up their technology -- like Bill Clinton or Steve Jobs -- but sadly all good businessmen want to be paid, which is against the whole GPL and Free thing. Linux community has been driven by geeks and nerds who thinks that their technology is far superior than Windows. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, it is the fact that nobody is good enough to market Linux beyond the Nerd Superdome and to actually step into the market populated by average Joes and Janes.

Quote:Original post by Tha_HoodRat
The 'killer feature' for regular users is no spyware/viruses.

Enter Vista, UAC and IE in sandbox mode.

Quote:
Believe it or not some of them would not run windows updates because

Quote: it restarts my computer when I want to work

Vista also lets you defer restart in batches of 4h, automatically updates things behind the scene and automatically updates on shut down.

Quote:Original post by alnite
Sorry, but I watch MTV, E!, and VH1 everyday

I understand.

Quote:I don't see this Linux IT guy on my TV screen.

I see. A pity.

Quote:
Who is this IT professional? and where can I find this guy?

Usually not on your TV.

But I give you a hint: He might be the one packing together the next Computer Highlight for Wal-Mart (or for the german watchers: Aldi, Media Markt, etc.) with Windows pre-installed. He might also be the guy my grandma pays when I am currently not available.

Quote:
THAT right there is what is wrong with the entire Linux population mentality. "Getting dangerous" to Windows.

Oh, sorry. Please let me repeat myself:

Quote:"dangerous"

Quote:Original post by greenhybrid
blah blah blah, Africa

Have you ever been to Africa?

Quote:Original post by Tha_HoodRat
The 'killer feature' for regular users is no spyware/viruses.

Code Red. Nimda.

Linux is generally virus free because it's an irrelevant target. If it became a significant presence in the market, its abundance of legitimate security vulnerabilities would become as much of a liability as Windows'.

Because it hinders people getting used to the system. If every application in windows followed different conventions for appearance, layout and common functionality, the software would be harder to use.

Quote:Original post by Oluseyi

Quote:Original post by greenhybrid
blah blah blah, Africa

Have you ever been to Africa?

Not in this life. Why?

Quote:Original post by Dave
Because it hinders people getting used to the system. If every application in windows followed different conventions for appearance, layout and common functionality, the software would be harder to use.

I admit on your conventions argument, and it's exactly that why there are two Major Desktops with standard software each (like with Windows/Office/Visual Studio, KDE/KOffice/KDevelop, and so forth; a plus for software like Code::Blocks or Open-Office). Users can stay with that software. And like someone here already pointed out, Microsoft hisself breaks his own rules every few years w.r.t. Look+Feel (one of the reasons why I switched to alternatives), and isn't it Microsoft who permanently wants to push his own standards, like that unnecessary gigantic OOXML, or his own Dialect of HTML?

Be honest, have you never been in the situation where you look for an alternative to your software? (I hear, e.g., Notepad++ has a good reputation along windows-users)

Btw, synaptic is a gui-frontend for debian-archives, YaST is for rpm-archives. A distribution generally sticks to deb or rpm. Package-Managing is transparent to the user, he usually only double-clicks a software-description, presses 'fire', et voila, its gonna be installed.