Online article: "Microsoft funds African PCs amid open source debate"

[Eric Dunbar]

5, Joao Inacio <jcinacio at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/05, Eric Dunbar <eric.dunbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/6/05, Michael Shigorin <mike at osdn.org.ua> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 10:57:50PM -0400, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > > > Windows 95 runs quite comfortably on a P I/166 64 MB RAM 1 GB
> > > > HD with IE 5.5 and Office 97
> > >
> > > I was running Linux 2.2, XFree86 3.3.6 and KDE 1.1.2 on K6/166
>
> Err... have you tried breezy?
>
> well i won't say much except it's *extremely* usable...

Yep, and I must agree, that _relative_ to earlier versions it is quite
usable, but change in the Linux world is evolutionary,not
revolutionary so we're not likely to see major changes _fast_.

> i still have some gripes and moans once in a while, but i manage to do
> most of what i do in windows almost as easily, and some things are
> even easyer and/or faster; i even managed to get webpages in firefox
> to render 99.9% as they do on windows :)
>
> not to mention all the power i have controling linux (i can 'fiddle' a
> bit in windows, but it doesnt compare) to suit my needs if i want to.

Of course, you're a "fiddler". Most people who use computers aren't.
They're limited to the basics of internet and word processing and the
occasional game. The beauty of the commercial OS is that it offers
relatively straight forward troubleshooting. No need to head off to an
obscure wiki, fire up a hyper-intimidating terminal and enter archaic
commands to a CLUI (and, that, my friends, is Linux troubleshooting in
a nutshell).

> things i miss:
>  - windows games
>  - speedy boot, more responsive ui (not system)
>  - some apps?
>  - windows games

> i am sure that configuring a linux system is still not for everyone,
> but *using* linux is just a matter of... getting used to?

Linux is certainly at the point where it *could* meet most users'
short-term needs, but, unfortunately there aren't really any distros
dumb enough not to require an experts touch to keep them running for
years on end! Especially, since they must offer the ability to allow a
user to regularly download and install the latest version of an app
from _anyone_.

A Windows 98 user can still often install the latest version of an app
an expect it to work. Try taking an app from Ubuntu 5.10 and install
it on 4.10. Chances are it won't work.

If you're willing to live only within OSS then Linux may be adequate
for some people, but, by-and-large it is just "not there yet".

I also think it would be DANGEROUS for the Linux community to claim
that Linux "is ready for prime time use". Since are used to Mac OS X
and Windows XP they know the meaning of stable, are spoiled with
_easy_ software installation and have limited trouble-shooting
requirements. Linux doesn't fully offer those three yet (1), and if
you're going to make claims which cannot be backed up, then you'll get
negative backlash (2).

(1) I don't consider a software repository _easy_ installation since
it's limited to OSS packages.
(2) I think the fact that there's buzz but no massive stampede
supports my assessment of the software's _current_ state of affairs.
However, Linux is on the "cusp" of being a _real_ contender for
Joe-blow user and it is only a matter of time before it gets there.

Linux does _not_ have to play catch up to Mac OS X or Windows XP (both
OSes are, after all, not remarkably different from Mac System 1984, an
operating system 21 years old... take a Mac user from 1984, stick them
on Mac OS X or Windows XP and they'd say, "wow", it looks sort-of
pretty but it's not overly different from what I'm used to).

<ta da> What Linux will do in the not-too-distant future (1-3 years,
depending on distro and uptake by 3rd party developers) is offer a
family of operating systems that:
- offer STABLE, POLISHED and BUG-FREE open source alternatives to
closed source apps, most notably web browser, and office app(3);
- has _third party_, CLOSED source developers providing "free" ($$$)
or shareware apps that are now only seen on Mac OS X or Windows XP;
- offers an EASY upgrade path to newer versions of a distro (e.g.
Ubuntu's Synaptic, but _without_ the need to fiddle with repositories
(4))

(3) OpenOffice.org is quite impressive, BUT it's not polished or bug-free!
(4) Granted, Apple has clear boundaries between different versions of
its Unix OS, but, part (much) of that is commercial self-interest
since Apple now derives a significant revenue stream from its OS
sales.

My view of this matter is that of a technophile. I've been watching
computers since I was "knee high to a grasshopper" and have seen
"great ideas" come, be seen and fade, or, occasionally (like the web
(including *nix), digital photography, USB, DVDs) veni, vidi, vici. I
just don't see Linux as ready yet. Computer-literates that I know (who
aren't afraid of experimentation) are _not_ using Linux yet. They see
a real use for it in the realm of servers and obscure programs (it has
an expansive collection of scientific utilities after all), but, _not_
on their desktops. Windows XP does everything they need and then some.

What I wish I could get a sense for is where Microsoft will go with
Linux. It's inevitable that MS will have to start interacting with
Linux. They could safely ignore Mac OS (X) because it was on an
unsupported hardware platform, but Linux runs on their bread and
butter.

Oh, what interesting times in which we live. Microsoft becomes the
largest PPC-supporting software company. Apple moves to i86. What's
next? The sky fall in.

Anyway, I think we're only just seeing the tip of the iceberg. All
three major OSes will soon be running (predominately) on one platform:
i86 and x86. Things are about to heat up and we, the users will be the
winners (I will not cause us consumers since there is no exchange of
$$$ or goods when we use Linux).

Eric.