mintero wrote: I said to a developer: "there is no superuser mode entry to edit system files".
He laughed: "no, that is not a probleme. The user has just to hit: sudo gedit filename"
He was a good developer but not a good marketer. For 21 century's modern and ordinary people the terminal is archaeology.
That's were you are wrong. Typical Windows "point and click" mind set. But even if: here on openSUSE 10.2 I have a menu entry saying "Open FileManager in super user mode". I don't know if that menu entry is present in Mint, Ubuntu, etc. or if it isn't. But it's there on some distros. So you can have your point and click stuff as super user if you want to. But you don't get the point: Starting GUI programs such as a File Manager as "root" is *dangerous*
... UNIX-like operating systems are not babysitting you. You are supposed to know what you do. So if by accident you do a drag & drop as "root" it's bye bye Kansas for your system.Using the terminal commands is safer! And more powerful too!
This has nothing to do with "archaelogogy".
mintero wrote: For me, the terminal should be used only for diagnostic purposes.
Maybe you'd be better off with an Apple computer and Mac OS X? Or even Winoze Vi$ta? Nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to use Linux, you know
Au contraire, it is!
mintero wrote: Linux is not intuitive.
mintero wrote: Tell a newbie ordinary user to install a linux distro and complete it with what is needed for his/her home use needs without reading manuals and posting to forums for help.
And this proves what? Nothing.
You can do the same experiment with Windows. Most users wouldn't know frak about how to install Windows if it wasn't already (by misuse of Microsoft's monopoly) pre-installed for them.
The only OS a real noob can hope to successfully install without knowing anything seems to be Mac OS X.
mintero wrote: It will be the hell for them with apps without GUI or menu entry, technical language, multicomponent apps, securing the system, editing system files, partitions and mountpoints etc
It takes much time to learn how to manage this system well. So, while it is a good OS, it is not very attractive for the ordinary user.
Not true. It's just a matter of picking the right distro which should come with some sane defaults.
mintero wrote: Some may disagree with me
mintero wrote: but i prefer to see the reality face to face. Windows wins about 95% for home use and linux about 1%. OK, Windows comes pre-installed, but who prevents you from installing linux if you like it?
Nobody. And that's why those figures you quote are to be taken "cum grano salis". Nobody can really know how many of those systems that originally had Windows pre-installed get formatted again to make room for Linux.
HP just recently reported that they made an astonishing profit of 25 million dollars by supporting the free Debian distribution. Now there is food for thought ...
mintero wrote: I have being doing my little survey because i am interested as investor. My conclusions for the present are frustrating.
You have to free yourself from your current mindset of thinking. That's your
problem, not the problem of the "Linuxians"
mintero wrote: Linuxians live in their dreamland.
Aren't we all entitled to our dreams?
It doesn't have to.
mintero wrote: Without a rigorous marketing strategy I dont see how linux can become a popular OS with the ambition to be one day a standard.
Contrary to what some believe the goal of Linux is not to overtake the world or to become a "popular OS". People don't use it out of this motivation. They use it because they like it, because it is free, because it works, because it doesn't tell them what they can do and what they can't do. The rest will come all alone by itself. Or maybe it won't. It does not matter.
If you want to invest in Linux because you hope to become rich one day it is you
who lives in dreamland, not us
mintero wrote: Its superiority is proven in the server market where it beats Windows. Unfortunately the home users are not network admins.The solution is a simple, intuitive out-of-the-box edition.
With "intuitive" you mean "dumbed down"? Well, there is Linspire
, there is Xandros
, and some others. Did the "intuitiveness" of those distros help them become popular? No, it didn't. My theory: People are fed up with dumbed down operating systems. What people want is something like SUSE or Ubuntu or Fedora: Easy to get in but with all the options open. That's why dumbed down distros will never become popular.
Linux is not WIndows.
Repeat after me. Repeat it 1000 times. People finding Windows too dumbed down will switch to Linux or one of the BSD's. People finding Linux "too hard" ought to stay on Windows. People unwilling to let go of their obsolete Windoze and DOS knowledge should not switch to Linux. With a mindset like that Linux will never be what they want. Maybe they should try Apple and Mac OS instead?
mintero wrote: If I find a distro that my grand-mother is able to understand and manage, I will believe that this situation can really change.
Don't underestimate your grandmother