Re: gnome win32 (+my 2cents worth)

["Morsha Estormaen" <morsha powerslave org>]

David Alan Gilbert Once wrote:

>While I definitly agree, there are at least two benefits two having a Win32
>port:
>
>  1) You can use Gnome on machines at work etc if you can't install Linux
on
>     them; and then continue using the same environment at home.
>
>  2) Free software under windows can be used as the first place to pull
users
>     into free software; once they realise free software is good they won't
>     be scared about going to a free OS.


    To be honest, why would you want a bunch of uneducated people who have
problems even double-clicking and thinking for themselves following the
"Microsoft way" to try an OS as seemingly complex as *BSD or Linux?
    People--in general--are slow to think for themselves and take upon their
freedoms, however when their freedoms are taken, they are quick to complain
about it when it's too late.
    I'm not saying that a Win32 port is a bad idea, I'm just saying, we've
got the attention of the market. People are taking a close look at UNiX
again--it's NEVER been for the layman--and I'd honestly rather not ever have
it for the layman.
    I've noticed a rather disturbing trend in the last year or so on my
FreeBSD, RedHat, and Livingston Portmaster User mailing lists. More and more
new users are installing these Free OS's expecting them to be the "Be all
and end all" of operating systems, and doing the same as they do with their
traditional point and click Operating systems, registering a complaint
before they fix the problem that lies in their inability or unwillingness to
think for themselves and read the documentation that comes along with their
software.
    Take a good look back in the early 80's. The Apple Macintosh came out
breaking the mold of traditional PC's, and did some AMAZING things to the
market: built in networking via Appletalk (no spams about the protocol, it's
not an issue), a mouse standard, an (at the time) ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL
interface (again, we're talking 1982ish). That very Macintosh even still
influences the way even we Unix*X users use our computers. If that were not
the case then why even bother with GNOME?
    Linux is help breaking a new mold. Good software doesn't necessarily
have to cost an arm and a leg. Though I'm a FreeBSD nut for traditional
reasons, I see--and use--the reasons why Linux may have what it takes to
become an advanced users OS--it already is, but it still lacks good
commercial support.
    If it were in my power, I would also suggest any vendors that do develop
for Linux to go that extra few feet and make the minor modifications to
compile for other Great OS's, such as (but not limited to) FreeBSD, Open
BSD, BSDi, and even Solaris. Netscape is a prime example of this, if you're
going to build for one unix, why not build for (almost) all? The libraries
are almost identical all the way across the board, if you compile a static
binary, you're bound to run it.
    One of the secrets to Microsoft's success is that if you purchase a
Windows program, you're going to be able to run it on any Windows machine
(assuming you have the system requirements)--more so now than ever before.
If you can have an OS that can guarantee that, then you're bound to have a
following of 'not programmers' but not idiots.
    I'm just saying that the media has put Linux's name out, now's it time
to put quality software out there so that GNU software isn't all beta,
alpha, and/or inherently broken or lacking features. Once you get a
reputation for quality--whether it be true or propoganda--and people start
using the OS, it'll build up momentum.

    On a final note:
        Remember, you can't make Linux easy to use without opening up MAJOR
security holes.